Bells
Staff member
I would suggest you re-read what I said before you once again misrepresent it and misrepresent what it is I did say.Bells, I seriously don’t believe you want to kill babies, but from a conservative interpretation of my perspective, the policy that you advocate could be interpreted as leading to that outcome.
Sorry to break this to you, but consciousness and when the brain has developed enough to feel pain, for example, is hardly open for debate.I understand the need for protecting the health of pregnant women, but I also believe that a once a fetus reaches a distinct level of consciousness, it deserves some consideration in regards to its right to live. Where exactly that point occurs during pregnancy is open for debate. It could be as early as 22 weeks, or conceivably postnatal. My argument errs on the early side, and unfortunately would complicate the desires of a woman to terminate late. In any case I don’t think women should be required to unreasonably sacrifice their health to save a fetus. Ideally, unwanted pregnancies would be prevented, negating their associated medical and social costs.
I would strongly recommend you read up on foetal development and pay particular attention to the development of the thalamus (which doesn't really come into play until after 28 weeks).
Unless of course you think a anencephalic foetus is conscious, declaring it from as early as 22 weeks would entail the same level of consciousness. Even those born from 27 weeks run a higher risk of severe developmental abnormalities and other issues. Having seen a baby born in front of me at 25 weeks, it was a horrific experience and not one I would ever wish to relive, nor will I ever forget what it looked like. She sadly died a few days later. Thankfully, she was unable to feel any pain, or more to the point, she was unaware or incapable of recognising it as pain, since her neural development was at 27 weeks and so, she was not exactly conscious. But for her parents, it was a harrowing experience to have to watch her go through it.
Your 22 weeks point is interesting. I say it is interesting because with the case of Marlise Munoz, she was at 23 weeks when her life support system was turned off, yet you praised the sanity of that decision and event.
Reality, and by reality, we only have to look at the nightmare developing in some South American countries, has taught us that making abortion illegal results in women dying. Even in some cases in America, where a sick woman was precipitated towards her death sooner, because the hospital went against her doctor's recommendation and without her consent, removed the baby from her body at 26 weeks, which resulted in the baby dying within 2 hours and the surgery was so much for her, that she died a few days later.
I read an article a while ago, where a doctor was talking about women who were near death and who were pregnant. And the belief is that if she is carrying a viable foetus, then if she dies or goes into cardiac arrest and if after 4 minutes, they are unable to revive her, then they will cut the baby out and in some cases, in issues where it is a heart condition, it may actually help the mother. But in any event, the underlying premise of the article was that while she remains alive, she is the priority, but if she dies, then they do get the baby out. I think I may have even linked it in this thread.
At any rate, women don't abort for no reason when they are that deep in their pregnancy. Nor do those women disregard the foetus. I linked enough articles to support that.
Instead of you poring over their reasons and applying your personal values and judgement about whether you believe they are valid or not, can I suggest that you.. to put it bluntly, mind your own business? What may not be classified as valid to you is obviously valid enough for her to elect to go through with the procedure.I believe I acknowledged the fact that women don’t their kicks from abortions.
Circumstances in life lead to multitudes of unwanted outcomes; some are more avoidable than others. At least in modern societies getting pregnant should be in the avoidable category, but unfortunately social conditioning hasn’t yet achieved that goal, and until it does there will be a need to deal with the undesirable consequences of pregnancy at all stages. I ‘m fully aware that there are women with legitimate medical need for late termination, but there are also some who don’t. I wish there was better documentation on the late term cases so we could better understand the issue.
Once again, I am not going to apply anything to things that are so extreme, that they are unreal and unrealistic and exist solely in your imagination, nor will I take it seriously.I used an extreme interpretation of Tiassa’s dry foot policy, that personhood begins at umbilical severance. I then used an extreme example to expose the implication of that stance. I considered the obvious point to be, would a reversal of condition result in a reversal of rights. I was somewhat amazed that it wasn’t understood as intended. Whether out of misunderstanding, or ideological posturing from both our sides, the whole discussion seemed to stray in various pointless directions early on.
Until you have proof of such events, please do not make generalised comments based solely on what you think may be likely. There is no evidence for it. Quite the contrary.Like I mentioned earlier, I wish there was more documentation of these late term cases so we could effectively analyze the reality of it all. The medical reality is that some late term abortion procedures essentially mirror delivery procedures, with the difference being the mortality of the fetus. We both know that the Dr. Gosnell’s of the industry might be inclined to accommodate such late term desperation. We also both know that pregnant women will kill their babies at birth, and I would think it likely that somewhere along the line that doctors may have assisted. I never said or expected that you personally condone such action, but did imply that an extreme interpretation of your dry foot policy could legitimize it.
And once again, why a woman aborts is her business, not yours.
Last edited: