Embryology and abortion

[LovingItAll]

I'm a first year med student. We've been studying some embryo.

I'll admit up front, I'm pro-life, anti-death.

So - my question to everyone who's taken some embryo: In all your studies thus far, have your thoughts/opinions on the abortion issue changed or been reinforced?

For me - it's been reinforced. That's a human being in there, and my embryo book is full of facts proving it - from having a unique DNA sequence different from the mother (making it not merely part of the mother's body, not merely "tissue") and has easily recognizable human body parts, etc.

How is destroying that unique human life not murder?

How is destroying that unique human life any different than killing that same human life a mere 9 months further along in its development? Outside the uterus its ok, but inside the uterus its ok?

Yes, I know, this is a political hot button - but this isn't the dinner table.... and it need not degrade into a debate on abortion. I'm more interested in knowing how, if at all, your study of embryo has affected your position on the issue.

Anyone?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Street Philosopher]

I ignored most of embryo so naturally it didn't have much effect on my views. I doubt it would strongly affect many people one way or the other, although it's possible that a few might change.

I could see how seeing it would confirm your view, but then again I could see how it could also confirm the other view. I mean, sometimes it just looked "not human", having pharyngeal slits and looking like a reptile sometimes. I dunno

 

[doc05]

This is not an appropriate forum for discussing political views.

 

[LukeWhite]

Originally posted by doc05
This is not an appropriate forum for discussing political views.

And by political views, do you mean those on which people disagree, or those subject to legislation? Either way, that excludes pretty much everything except the "Will I get in to med school with my unique situation?" threads. Heaven help us.

Personally, I think the most informed opinions on abortion are medical rather than political, religious, or personal. Those other classifications should follow from the medical facts.

Loving--I've gotten the same benefit as you out of embryology: it's very clear that humanity begins well before birth.

My father's a neonatologist, and I take a particular interest in the youngest age at which babies can still be viable. We're capable now of saving babies born so prematurely that if they hadn't been born, they could have been legally aborted. That's criminally paradoxical.

As my embryology professor said: We're essentially extrauterine embryos for our first year of life. There's certainly a reasonable line before which abortion isn't a clear moral wrong, but it's most definitely not birth.

On the flip side, embryology has lent some nuance to my views also. I'd have trouble criticizing anyone who aborted before the point at which twinning becomes impossible, and I think that if abortion can possibly be a force for good, it's in ending the development of anencephalic children.

 

[MichiMO]

For me, embryology has not changed how I feel about abortion...but maybe it has reinforced it a bit or at least clarified my argument a bit.

I am pro-choice, however, not because I think that a baby doesn't become a baby until it is born or something like that. Personally, abortion is something I could never do. I would feel that I had killed a life force within me. I am pro-choice because I don't believe that the government should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. I am pro-choice because I think the implications of banning abortion would be more devastating than the current situation. I am also pro-choice because no matter how much I may say it is wrong and that I could never do it, I just don't know how I would feel if faced with that situation and I would at least want the choice.

As far as how embryology has reinforced my view that abortion should be legal...embryology shows you how entirely dependant that fetal human life is on another sorce. Before 25 weeks, the lungs do not produce surflactant and the baby simply could not live. The mother is life support for the infant. There are many situation with ill individuals on life support when we say it is okay to remove life support. Is this murder? Most would say no. That person could not live without the machines. Is it murder to have an abortion? I would say no. The baby could not live without life support...in this case, the mother. The next important question is whether we, as a society, have the right to force mothers to be physical life support for an unwanted child? I would say we do not have any more right in this matter than we have to insist that brain-dead patients be kept on life support. These decisions must be based on a person's view of what life is...when it begins...when it ends.

Unfortunetly the lines are not black and white...if it were people would not be debating on issues such as abortion or euthinasia. While pro-life people may say abortion is CLEARLY wrong, the very existance of a debate negates this argument. We do not debate that it is wrong to walk up to someone in the grocery store and shoot them with a gun. We do not debate that is wrong to steal your neighbor's car. These seem to fall into some sort of universal morality where we all instinctively know right from wrong. Abortion obviously does not.

So, while some bits of embryology may provide some sort of confirmation of my before-held view...I am sure many would hear the same thing and think just the opposite. I am sure many of you reading this saw huge flaws in my logic.

So, my question is, if there can be such a difference of opinion given the same set of facts, should we be legislating it? I think the better way to promote life would be to create a world in which women did not feel so desperate that when faced with an unexpected pregnancy they felt abortion was their only way out. Make a world in which women do not feel the need for an abortion because there are structures to support them when they choose life.

 

[LukeWhite]

Michi,

The currently accepted age of viability is actually 22 weeks. There's a small but signficant survival rate at 21 weeks, and some anecdotal evidence of survival at 20 weeks. They're doing wonderful things with artificial surfactant these days.

We could extend the life support argument you make pretty far. Children can't really live without that dependency you classify as life support until they're perhaps five or six (and their odds wouldn't be all too good then, either). If we decide that it's permissible to end any life that's dependent on another, we'll be back in the days of tying-baby-daughters-in-bags-and-throwing-them-in-the-river before you can say "medieval."

I'm not sure I buy the argument that the existence of a debate means that something isn't clear. People debate all sorts of crazy things. Some still try to justify slavery through Bible verses, and the flat-earth society's alive and well. If you argue that something's immune to legislation just because it's open to debate, you won't have too many laws left. Slavery is an excellent example of something with QUITE a clear right and wrong that was nevertheless debated rather earnestly by quite a few people back in the day.

On another note, re. the name, are you from Michigan? I'm from southwestern MI and also in Arizona at the moment, up in Glendale at AZCOM.

 

[Purifyer]

Originally posted by LovingItAll
I'm a first year med student. We've been studying some embryo.

I'll admit up front, I'm pro-life, anti-death.

So - my question to everyone who's taken some embryo: In all your studies thus far, have your thoughts/opinions on the abortion issue changed or been reinforced?

For me - it's been reinforced. That's a human being in there, and my embryo book is full of facts proving it - from having a unique DNA sequence different from the mother (making it not merely part of the mother's body, not merely "tissue") and has easily recognizable human body parts, etc.

How is destroying that unique human life not murder?

How is destroying that unique human life any different than killing that same human life a mere 9 months further along in its development? Outside the uterus its ok, but inside the uterus its ok?

The question is; what is human. Transgenic cows now have human DNA included in their genomes. Does this mean that to kill a cow is murder? I don't believe so.

You speak of having a unique DNA sequence as if it singles out a group of cells as an individual human being; what of cancer? By your logic these have just as much of a right to survive as the host tissue.What of mosaic somatic mutations? Are groups of tissues with a unique DNA sequence therefore individuals?

Therefore in my opinion, DNA is not the defining characteristic of what it is to be human.

Easily recognisable body parts? All chordate animals have extremely similar embryos until ... [someone fill in the blank ] a long time into pregnancy. Does this mean to kill a cat, because it's embryo at 4 weeks had a head, limbs and tail.. is murder? I don't believe so.

What part of an embryo makes it a 'unique human life'? What part of any human? What is the difference between a blastocyst and an infant?

To me the answer is relatively simple. Sentience. I believe the ability to be aware, to truly understand, is the only thing that seperates us from other animals.

This great divide, also seperates us from an embryo. You would be hard pushed to convince me that an embryo that hasn't even formed a neural crest is aware of its' surroundings. You would convince me just as little that a 5 month foetus with a clear histological paucity of frontal lobe connections is at all aware either, at least in any sense remotely human.

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by Purifyer
The question is; what is human. Transgenic cows now have human DNA included in their genomes. Does this mean that to kill a cow is murder? I don't believe so.

You speak of having a unique DNA sequence as if it singles out a group of cells as an individual human being; what of cancer? By your logic these have just as much of a right to survive as the host tissue.What of mosaic somatic mutations? Are groups of tissues with a unique DNA sequence therefore individuals?

Therefore in my opinion, DNA is not the defining characteristic of what it is to be human.

Excellent.

Easily recognisable body parts? All chordate animals have extremely similar embryos until ... [someone fill in the blank ] a long time into pregnancy. Does this mean to kill a cat, because it's embryo at 4 weeks had a head, limbs and tail.. is murder? I don't believe so.

Excellent.

What part of an embryo makes it a 'unique human life'? What part of any human? What is the difference between a blastocyst and an infant?

To me the answer is relatively simple. Sentience. I believe the ability to be aware, to truly understand, is the only thing that seperates us from other animals.

Yes.

This great divide, also seperates us from an embryo. You would be hard pushed to convince me that an embryo that hasn't even formed a neural crest is aware of its' surroundings. You would convince me just as little that a 5 month foetus with a clear histological paucity of frontal lobe connections is at all aware either, at least in any sense remotely human.

Yes.


(I've typed so much on previous abortion threads, that now this is all I will allow myself.)

 

[Street Philosopher]

Well then let's sail senile grandma down the river because she's not aware of herself anymore and is not human.

The real fact is that there is no such thing as an essence of a human being. We are evolved from other animals and there is not much that is essentially different from them. We are modification/variations upon the theme of life and it should not be surprising that we have difficulty distinguishing ourselves from other animals. This is why attempts at giving humans more rights than animals is usually on shaky footing.

Even if we were to allow that there are a few essential differences, we would still have to question whether these essential differences MATTER. For example, it could be the case that humans are the only species with opposable thumbs (I don't even know if that's true anymore). But then we'd have to ask, is having an opposable thumb really important in our value of life? Again, like senile grandma sailing down the river, we'd have to then sail armless Joe down with her.

I think people are obsessed with reason. We'd like to think that we make decisions based on principles and our reason. But think about how much of your daily life is guided by reason, and how much is guided by custom/habit/sensibility. Once we realize that abortion cannot be argued simply on rational grounds, we will be able to realize that our views are strongly influenced by habit and culture, and our reason is subject to them such that we rationalize rather than act rationally.

If senile grandma reminds us a lot of smart & snappy grandma, we're gonna value her life. If armless Joe resembles other people, we're gonna value her life. If Ernie the Embryo looks like a human to one person, they're gonna value its life, but if to another person it looks like a reptile, it's not going to be valued as much.

We like to think that reason checks our feelings/emotions/customs but it's usually the other way around.

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
Well then let's sail senile grandma down the river because she's not aware of herself anymore and is not human.

Different situation. It is known that Grandma at one time had a neural network that supported a sentient being. Currently, she is unable to express that sentience, but one could argue that the framework might still exist for an internal experience.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by sacrament
Different situation. It is known that Grandma at one time had a neural network that supported a sentient being. Currently, she is unable to express that sentience, but one could argue that the framework might still exist for an internal experience.

But you're basing justification on ignorance. That's skirting the question... what if she was no longer sentient?

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
But you're basing justification on ignorance. That's skirting the question... what if she was no longer sentient?

If we could somehow know that she was no longer sentient, and was simply a biological shell, then I would see no moral dilemma. In the most important sense, she is already dead.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Fair enough. Clarifying is good enough for me. I'm not gonna attempt to change any viewpoints

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
Fair enough. Clarifying is good enough for me. I'm not gonna attempt to change any viewpoints

And I love you for it. Even if you don't know anything about South Africa.

 

[mfleur]

We can argue right v wrong until we are all blue in the face. However, I suggest we discuss the practicality of the situation.

Here is why abortion should be legal:

Population control

People should not have babies because they "accidently" get pregnant. In fact, pro-lifers should practice what they preach and adopt orphaned and abused children.

Abortions will happen even if they are made illegal-Complications from botched, illegal procedures-nuf said!!!

If my daughter(when I have her sometime far in the future) finds it necessary to have an abortion, I would like for her to have a safe and legal option.

I believe that it is obvious that I am pro-choice but whether that would be the right choice for me I do not know. Fortunately I have not had to make that decision.

Question, would any of you as pro-life doctors not provide abortion as an option to your patients(info only not procedure)?

 

[LukeWhite]

Fleur,

Regarding your question:

I will not provide abortion as an option to my patients (either the procedure itself or information) except in the case of a pregnancy with no possibility of viability (anencephaly, etc.) If a patient brings it up, I will do as much as I possibly can to convince the patient of why abortion is both wrong and needless, and will help develop a plan by which the pregnancy can be brought successfully to term and the child successfully raised. Takes a little more work than an RU-486 prescription, but then again, it does save a life.

 

[Elysium]

So you're going to use your status as a physician to influence your patients to have a child that they do not want? That's the most egotistical paternalistic thing I have heard on these forums in a while. It is not your responsibility as a physician to skew your patients behaviour to mirror your own morality or to not desciminate accurate information about abortion, adoption, and keeping the child. Having a child is an enormous responsibility that a lot of people are unable to contend with. I worked at Planned Parenthood for 2 years and consulted with countless teens about ALL their options. Not just abortion and not just having the child. But I will say that a 14 year old has no goddamned business having a baby and every child is NOT a wanted child. There are countless, countless examples of young women who simply do not have the emotional and economic resources to have a child. When are all you pro-lifers going to take on the responsibility of taking care of all these "wanted" children? And I'm sure you'll give your psuedo-moralistic self a big pat on the back when you've convinced a 15 year old to bring another child she can't afford into this world. Well, good for you, doc. You've really made a difference.

PS: I'll be counseling my patients on ALL the options and giving out that RU 486 rx if that is the informed decision of my patient. That's the kind of doctor I'm going to be. I trust my patients to make the right choice for them.

 

[zer0el]

how can you draw the line of being human at being sentient? a one month old baby is not really sentient. he may be aware of his surroundings, but he's not aware that he's aware. there's a clear difference. his feelings and emotions have no significance to him. and yet, i'm sure we would agree that terminating the life of a one month old infant is murder.

the way i see it is that fetuses have the potential to become an adult if nurtured correctly. just as an infant has the same potential. yes, a fetus may not be fully developed physically, but neither is an infant. but both have the potential to do develop. i find it impossible to see how a fetus is not human but an infant is. both are underdeveloped, both are extremely dependent, and both are not sentient.

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by zer0el
how can you draw the line of being human at being sentient?

Because that is what actually makes you "human." DNA, structural features and a developed physiology are also present in dogs. When you change those to human DNA, human structural features, and human physiology, is anything morally altered? It is our awareness and inner life that makes us human.

and yet, i'm sure we would agree that terminating the life of a one month old infant is murder.

I don't know. It's certainly becoming questionable and I would find it to be extremely morally problematic. While I feel safe in assuming that sentience cannot occur prior to birth, I don't think you can safely estimate when it arises afterwards. This is why I think "birth" is an excellent place to draw the line. Not because anything magical occurs at that moment, but because it is a discrete point in time safely before one can expect sentience.

(Why am I doing this? I told myself: no more abortion debates. I promise not to read this thread again. )

 

[mfleur]

A friend of mine is an OB/GYN PGY1. A while ago there was a woman who came into the hospital to have an abortion because of massive fetal defects(I don't know exactly what they were). All of the other people on her team were Catholic, according to her, and were unwilling to deal with this woman at all. I think that these resident should be flogged and I'm personally volunteering to do it. Talk about ignoring the best interests of your patient. I would love it if people would get off of their go# dam# pedestals and do their jobs...

That being said, abortion is a legal option...those of you who plan to change people's minds for them should be ashamed of yourselves.

For those of you who think that that abortion should be illegal, explain to me exactly how the heck that would work!

 

[12R34Y]

I will also NOT refer my patients to abortionists or provide them with info on how to have one. I'm glad to hear others on this board who will not enable this atrocity.

the catholic OB's should be applauded for sticking to what is RIGHT over what is legal.

I wish more people practiced medicine like this. I know most people at my med school are pro-life and agree with my views.

FINALLY! the representatives that were voted into office by the american people have approved a BAN ON Partial birth abortions!!

it is truly a great day.

later

 

[DrMom]

Originally posted by sacrament

(Why am I doing this? I told myself: no more abortion debates. I promise not to read this thread again. )

they just draw you in like a bug to a bug zapper

 

[mfleur]

Originally posted by 12R34Y
I will also NOT refer my patients to abortionists or provide them with info on how to have one. I'm glad to hear others on this board who will not enable this atrocity.

the catholic OB's should be applauded for sticking to what is RIGHT over what is legal.

I wish more people practiced medicine like this. I know most people at my med school are pro-life and agree with my views.

FINALLY! the representatives that were voted into office by the american people have approved a BAN ON Partial birth abortions!!

it is truly a great day.

later

Bad, Bad doctor...

Where do you go to med school that most students are pro-life? And how many orphaned and abused children have you adopted? We'd love to see pics!

 

[LukeWhite]

Wow. Quite a lot of hostility.

Setting aside the issue of whether pro-lifers are right or not, I'm curious as to how those attacking our choice to discourage parents from abortion think we should act given our beliefs.

f I believe that there's no fundamental difference in humanity between an embryo at three months and a three month old baby, and moreover, I believe that this isn't some personal code of morality but rather a self-evident medical truth, how could I possibly be expected to condone an act that seems to me an unambiguous homicide?

Those who say that abortion is legal, and so I should present it as an option, are missing the point completely. Legality is no arbiter of morality, as I'm sure those throwing their hands up over the new ban on partial-birth abortions would agree. Would you have me do something I consider objectively immoral?

Frankly, I'm also a little astonished that the pro-lifers are being criticized for hypocrisy in not helping children after they're born. As best as I can tell, there haven't been any messages outlining what we have and haven't done. Might be best not to paint with so broad a brush.

But along those lines, I'd be interested in a study asking a few thousand people who grew up in underprivileged backgrounds whether they wish they'd never been born. I suspect most probably want to stick around. Talk about making decisions for people.

And, on a personal note, since someone mentioned fifteen-year-olds and pregnancies with such surety, I am in fact part of a family that more or less adopted not only the child of a woman pregnant at fifteen, but also the woman herself. I can guarantee you that none of us, least of all the child, would have been better off had he been aborted, as some would clearly counsel. The fact of the matter is that people prefer life to death, and with good reason. Even when it's bad, it's better than the alternative.

 

[12R34Y]

I go to the University of Kansas medical school.

We have a VERY VERY active pro-life student group on campus and a non-existent at best pro-choice group.

during orientation week they had sign up sheets for every student group and the pro-choice table.......maybe 2 or 3 students signed up.

Many many faculty are also pro-life and serve as faculty advisors.

Why would you offer an option that is harmful and damaging to both the baby and your patient. Emotionally devastating, physically painful and fraught with potential fertility problems and later issues (scar tissue etc..) .

Doesn't sound like a good patient advocate to me.

Last year we brought the JUSTICE FOR ALL presentation to campus and everyone was "disgusted, disturbed, shocked etc..."

at the fact that people would show pictures of aborted fetuses..........why are all of the pro-choicers so shocked. you support it..........watching openheart surgery doesn't seem to bother students.......why would watching this seemingly no big deal abortion bother anyone. Can't believe you can support something and be repulsed by it at the same time.

odd huh?

later

 

[mfleur]

You're all right, you should not do something that you feel is truly wrong...My question though, what happens when abortion is illegal? How do we deal with whatever the outcome might be?

And consider this, abortion has been around so long that Hippocrates put a clause about it in the Hippocratic oath.

Also consider this, Whoopi Goldberg gave herself an abortion with a coathanger in a park bathroom when she was 13. Wonder what would have happened if she'd had a doctor advocated for her.

 

[Goofyone]

I agree mostly with Sacrament, et. al.

Functioning frontal lobes are the essence of a human. An embryo with DNA is no more a human being than is one cell from my skin containing all 46 chromosomes.

I think abortion is probably wrong in most situations, and I wouldn't do it if it were up to me, but smart people disagree. I wouldn't force my beliefs on my patients, or on anyone else. That's why I think that pro-choice should be the legal standard.

By the way, a little food-for-thought for all you bible thumpers: You believe that God gives people free-choice, yet you try to take that away from others. Do you know better than God? Not to mention, and think hard on this one, that without choice morality really has no meaning, does it?

I think that withholding information from your patients and not presenting them with abortion as a choice is being a ****ty doctor.

As much as you may hate it, it's not only up to you what treatment your patients get.

I think our job is to find the root of our patients' suffering, and act as a translator between the scientific world and the patient, so that THEY can make an informed choice about what options they want to pursue. By withholding information, you aren't doing your job, IMO.

Unless you are trying to play God, that is.

 

[LukeWhite]

I think it's odd that religion is being brought into this. For one, the thread starter clearly intended the question to be medical. I'm always bewildered by those who argue that this is a religious issue. I suppose it's useful to call it such, since it's then easier to say that it's an arbitrary choice that should be left up to individuals.

And if it were a religious issue, I'd have no problem with it. It's religious, though, only insofar as it deals with the belief that there are universal rights and wrongs. I personally know pro-life atheists, which would seem to toss the religion argument right out the window.

It seems strictly a medical and basic moral issue to me. My opinions on the matter are informed by evidence, not dogma.

As for the question of what we do when abortion becomes illegal (as I'm convinced it eventually will, just as slavery did), easy. It'll give me more time to work with patients on maternal health and lifestyle, social services, etc., instead of spending it trying to convince them that abortion is a poor alternative.

A last point to consider: Despite what many pro-lifers say, it's pretty universally recognized in medicine that abortion is nearly always safer than giving birth. Should we allow abortion throughout all nine months of gestation because of this? Should we allow doctors to kill a child before performing the C-section to avoid any nasty maternal complications that might arise from trying to keep the baby alive?

It sounds awfully hideous to me, but I don't see how someone advocating the "right to choose" could argue against this, since it would always be a matter of protecting the health of the mother. I'd be interested to hear a hard-and-fast opinion of what the legal, not personal, standard should be.

 

[sacrament]

NO.... MUST....... RESIST!!!!


FOR THE SAKE OF MY OWN SANITY!


Maybe drinking a bottle of wine will help.

 

[DrMom]

Originally posted by sacrament
NO.... MUST....... RESIST!!!!


FOR THE SAKE OF MY OWN SANITY!


Maybe drinking a bottle of wine will help.

the compulsion to be here must be really strong!

 

[mfleur]

I'm still thinking population control...

 

[Darth Vader]

Originally posted by mfleur
I'm still thinking population control...

Yeah, I agree, there are too many people in this world. I'd be for mandatory sterilization more then I'd be for a very liberal abortion policy though (ie abortion as a birth control method, as it is predominatly used for today). Most women who choose to have abortions have multiple abortions, it's not a "oh, that was a one night mistake"; it's more of a "oh I'm pregnant again, time for another abortion". Maybe I'm just jaded working in an inner city though.

 

[mfleur]

I am also a big fan of temporary sterilization. Then this forum would not even need to exist. We could all get along and live peacefully...well, maybe I am getting ahead of myself.

 

[LukeWhite]

I've got no problem with temporary sterilization. The problem with that, of course, is that even voluntary temporary sterilization is met with charges of racism. It's certainly available now, but generally only to people who can pay for it themselves or have the insurance to do it for them, for exactly this reason.

It certainly would be a good compromise. I'd endorse a government program offering free and temporary sterilization to anybody who wanted it.

As far as population control goes, it's not a very compelling argument. Even setting aside the moral issues of controlling population by killing babies, population is simply not a problem in the industrialized world. Most European nations have a birth rate below replacement level; the US population continues to grow primarily through immigration.

Moreover, population control isn't the absolute good it always seems to be branded as. A child born in an industrialized country especially produces far more than he or she consumes over a lifetime. This is true even for people who do nothing but work at a McDonald's their whole lives--their work frees up time of those who are employed in more skilled labor, and so on up the chain.

Economists more or less settled this debate long ago; I'm not sure why it's such a cause celebre. The scientists and economists who have in the past predicted apocalypse due to population growth have repeatedly been proven wrong from Malthus on. It's off topic, but anyone interested in the ramifications of population growth and technology on the world in general and especially the environment should check out Bjorn Lomborg's _The Skeptical Environmentalist_. He does a good job of laying out the argument on a purely evidentiary level.

 

[GoodMonkey]

Originally posted by sacrament
NO.... MUST....... RESIST!!!!


FOR THE SAKE OF MY OWN SANITY!


Maybe drinking a bottle of wine will help.

*g$ passes the bottle to sac as she resists the urge to pontificate as well*

 

[dermatome S5]

the way i see it is that fetuses have the potential to become an adult if nurtured correctly. just as an infant has the same potential. yes, a fetus may not be fully developed physically, but neither is an infant. but both have the potential to do develop. i find it impossible to see how a fetus is not human but an infant is. both are underdeveloped, both are extremely dependent, and both are not sentient

Bad argument. Sperm and an egg have all the potential in the world. I can see it now, "Condoms banned, Baby Holocaust Prevented".

 

[MichiMO]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
Michi,

The currently accepted age of viability is actually 22 weeks. There's a small but signficant survival rate at 21 weeks, and some anecdotal evidence of survival at 20 weeks. They're doing wonderful things with artificial surfactant these days.

We could extend the life support argument you make pretty far. Children can't really live without that dependency you classify as life support until they're perhaps five or six (and their odds wouldn't be all too good then, either). If we decide that it's permissible to end any life that's dependent on another, we'll be back in the days of tying-baby-daughters-in-bags-and-throwing-them-in-the-river before you can say "medieval."

I'm not sure I buy the argument that the existence of a debate means that something isn't clear. People debate all sorts of crazy things. Some still try to justify slavery through Bible verses, and the flat-earth society's alive and well. If you argue that something's immune to legislation just because it's open to debate, you won't have too many laws left. Slavery is an excellent example of something with QUITE a clear right and wrong that was nevertheless debated rather earnestly by quite a few people back in the day.

On another note, re. the name, are you from Michigan? I'm from southwestern MI and also in Arizona at the moment, up in Glendale at AZCOM.

You just proved my point...that when it comes to this issue, two people can look at the very same piece of information and come to a completely different opinion on what it signifies. You see, I read dependancy different than you do. By dependancy, I mean that the embryo would not survive without the very physical connection to one specific person...the mother. It is completely within the mother's body and I would say this gives the mother the right to decide whether or not it stays there...it is at this point part of her body. This is not the case after the baby is born. However, I could completely see why someone would disagree with my logic.

As for the 22 weeks vs. 25 weeks, it really doesn't bother me in that the majority of abortions take place around the 2-3 month range, way before the fetus could ever be viable.

As for the presence of a debate not negating clarity of a moral issue, the examples you brought up are examples where the debate is being waged by a very small, often extremist, minority. The abortion debate is pretty much split down the centre in this country...in my opinion at least, this shows that there is not a clear right or wrong answer when it comes to abortion. Personally, I can come up with good arguments on both sides.

Oh, I am not from MI...I was born in AZ. Though, I did get to experience some of your weather living in Montreal for the last 4 years...you must be enjoying the sun. I know I am! Time to defrost.

 

[banannie]

I think that it's completely outrageous and f&*%ed up that there are med students, future physicians, who don't believe in giving their patients access to commonly accepted medical procedures!
If you want a career where you can advance your own moral, political, or religious agenda, without regard to WHAT YOUR PATIENT WANTS, then please, please do not go into medicine!!!
The paternalistic model of medicine, where "doctor knows best" is no longer valid. You really need to get a clue about what it means to be patient centered. You have the right to believe that, personally, abortion is an "atrocity". But you are obligated, as a physician, to at least inform your patients of options, and refer them to someone who can perform what is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

 

[monkeyarms]

Abortion is legal. Patients have a right to autonomy. Agree with it or not all physicians should be absolutely required to counsel their patients on all available options and provide the resources required to recieve the treatment THEY CHOOSE, even if it is just a phone number. A physician should not make a decision for a patient because of a moral standard. If you do this you are a bad doctor, plain and simple. If it is fair game for a doc in Kansas to completely ignore the desires of a pregnant patient, is it OK for me to not treat a seizing drug addict in my ER because I don't think he should snort coke? Or refuse to administer steroids to a guy who broke his neck in an accident because I think he shouldn't drive so fast? Bottom line is it's not my call. A physician is a patient resource for knowledge first, a capable technician second, and in cases where he or she is invited to be so, a source of judgement. (of course if a patient is deemed incapable of making a judgement this changes)

 

[mzamir_01]

there was a huge documentary on the Religion and Abortion the other day on BBC. may be not many here watch BBC but it was a real eye opener. girls who were pregnated by their own fathers were forced to go thru gestation and have the baby just because there was no concept of abortion.

we had a very lengthy discussion on this very topic and all concluded that there was a very fine line btw pro-life and pro-choice and in the end it all depended on the situation.

 

[LukeWhite]

Funny how freedom of choice becomes so much less important when it might interfere with the ability to have an abortion.

There's quite a shortage of abortionists throughout the country. Some would argue that it's because most physicians find abortion at the least distasteful and more often than not reprehensible. Not many people go into medicine in order to take lives they consider fully human.

So since we have this shortage, and since the supposed right to an abortion seems more important than the right of physicians to practice according to their conscience (a right, by the way, that's been around in law and medical ethics far longer than legalized abortion), maybe we should require physicians to learn abortion techniques?

They're already doing this now in New York: OB/GYN residents must learn abortion procedures unless they have religious objections. Lots of med students are unhappy with the law because they have philosophical, not religious objections. In other words, doctors are being forced to practice against their conscience.

No, you say, we're not asking you to practice against your conscience. We just want you to provide alternatives! Alternatives are good, right? Well, no, not when my medical opinion is that the alternative will destroy one life and irredeemably damage another.

I'm amazed by how otherwise subtle and intelligent people can become so illogical when they're arguing that physicians should be obligated to facilitate abortion. This dogma of unfettered choice is a sham. Perhaps I should go over in detail with my patients the many herbal supplements available to treat their cancer in addition to the chemotherapy? I can keep a stack of the homeopath's business cards in my drawer, and give one to the guy with pneumonia. Or perhaps stock those vials of mercury to treat malaise. I have to; it's a commonly accepted treatment! Nevermind; that was back during the civil war, what when half the country thought slavery was dandy. It's so hard to keep up.

Or perhaps when I diagnose the exotic and highly infectious tropical disease, I can tell the patient, "You know, my personal belief is that it would be harmful for you to continue mingling with people while this is still active, but you know, your right to choose comes first. You do whatever you like, and I of course won't tell the CDC--this is a decision between you and your doctor, not the meddling government."

 

[12R34Y]

My favorite Ad Hominem used already on this thread is the adoption one.

Whoopi Goldberg used this tactic when she suggested that abortion rights advocates would take pro-lifers more seriously if they were willing to adopt babies slated for abortion.

What this ad hominem argument is really saying is, "If you won't adopt my babies, don't tell me I can't kill them."

That of course makes as much sense as forbidding me from intervening when I see my neighbor sexually abusing a child unless I am willing to adopt that child!

This is just one of the many tactics pro abortion folks use to distract from the real issue of ABORTION.

One of the VERY common argument used by pro abortion folks is the Rape/Incest card.
It is generally used as an emotional appeal designed to deflect serious consideration of the pro-life platform........Rape/incest serve as the hard-case "what-ifs" pro abortionists are classic for bring to debates. "how can you deny a hurting girl safe medical care and the freedom from the terror of rape or incest by forcing her to maintain a pregnancy resulting from the cruel and criminal invasion of her body?"

One study in the american journal of obstetrics and gynecology during the period of Roe V. Wade stated that as low as .6 percent of all rapes lead to pregnancy.

As philospher Francis Beckwith wrote "To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate them in rare instances, such as when one's spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital."

If we had legislation restricting abortion for all reasons OTHER THAN rape/incest , we would save the vast majority of the 1.8 million aborted babies per YEAR!

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
Funny how freedom of choice becomes so much less important when it might interfere with the ability to have an abortion.

There's quite a shortage of abortionists throughout the country. Some would argue that it's because most physicians find abortion at the least distasteful and more often than not reprehensible. Not many people go into medicine in order to take lives they consider fully human.

I would be very surprised if the attitude profile (re: abortion) of physicians was significantly different from the attitude profile of the general public. That is, I would expect the population of physicians to be roughly split down the middle on this issue. This article on mifepristone appears to reference a survey that shows 4 in 10 physicians as being opposed. That sounds about right.

http://www.kff.org/content/2002/3268/Mife_Survey_Snapshot.pdf

and

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=7074

There a number of reasons why we have a shortage of "abortionists." This is a very interesting abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8274871&dopt=Abstract

 

[Goofyone]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
Funny how freedom of choice becomes so much less important when it might interfere with the ability to have an abortion.

There's quite a shortage of abortionists throughout the country. Some would argue that it's because most physicians find abortion at the least distasteful and more often than not reprehensible. Not many people go into medicine in order to take lives they consider fully human.

So since we have this shortage, and since the supposed right to an abortion seems more important than the right of physicians to practice according to their conscience (a right, by the way, that's been around in law and medical ethics far longer than legalized abortion), maybe we should require physicians to learn abortion techniques?

They're already doing this now in New York: OB/GYN residents must learn abortion procedures unless they have religious objections. Lots of med students are unhappy with the law because they have philosophical, not religious objections. In other words, doctors are being forced to practice against their conscience.

No, you say, we're not asking you to practice against your conscience. We just want you to provide alternatives! Alternatives are good, right? Well, no, not when my medical opinion is that the alternative will destroy one life and irredeemably damage another.

I'm amazed by how otherwise subtle and intelligent people can become so illogical when they're arguing that physicians should be obligated to facilitate abortion. This dogma of unfettered choice is a sham. Perhaps I should go over in detail with my patients the many herbal supplements available to treat their cancer in addition to the chemotherapy? I can keep a stack of the homeopath's business cards in my drawer, and give one to the guy with pneumonia. Or perhaps stock those vials of mercury to treat malaise. I have to; it's a commonly accepted treatment! Nevermind; that was back during the civil war, what when half the country thought slavery was dandy. It's so hard to keep up.

Or perhaps when I diagnose the exotic and highly infectious tropical disease, I can tell the patient, "You know, my personal belief is that it would be harmful for you to continue mingling with people while this is still active, but you know, your right to choose comes first. You do whatever you like, and I of course won't tell the CDC--this is a decision between you and your doctor, not the meddling government."

Luke, you make a good point here. The point that I took away is that it's hard to separate a doctor's professional opinion from his personal ones.

It's fine to tell your patients your opinions, but don't expect them to follow it. It's their choice, not yours.

Since homeopathic 'medicine' (little vials of EtOH, really) and mercury aren't standard medical treatments, I won't be suggesting them. But if a patient asks, I would explain to them why I don't think they would help them or be in their best interest, but I can't stop them if that's what they want to pursue. I'm a doctor, not a chaperone. Same with your hypothetical of the infectious disease guy. You can't stop people with AIDS from screw!ng if they want to. You can only tell them what you think, and hope that they follow the advice.

I would do the same thing for abortion. We may think it's bad for the patient and of course it's fine to tell them that opinion. But then, it's just our opinion. We shouldn't just pretend that abortion doesn't exist and refuse to talk to patients about it because we don't want to "facilitate it."

Maybe if we explained to them why it may be a bad choice for them (based on what you said above, but not just because we think it's immoral) then they would be less likely to pursue that option.

 

[12R34Y]

I agree with many things you say goofyone.......but, by me telling them about all of the negatives of abortion and telling them "in my medical opinion" how bad it is for them, the baby and their future reproductive capability, super high risk of breast CA in post-abortion women etc.... then obviously point them in the direction of safe houses, adoption agencies, counselors etc....

Why would I then go give her a number or a name of a physician who performs abortions? That is facilitating it and I will not do that nor do many other physicians in the world. I would simply say I cannot help you get an abortion, but I will be more than happy to help you in any other way.

There is a large family practice group here in KC that has around 40 physicians and they WILL NOT refer to abortionists......

People on this board think that by becoming a doctor you have to throw out all of your beliefs and morals etc......it is a job NOT something that you abandoned all that you believe in for.

later

 

[lattimer13]

i believe last week was the aniversary for Roe vs. Wade. one of the clubs at our school put on a lunch with a viewing of a documentary detailing the lives of physicians who performed abortions illegally prior to Roe v Wade.

i don't know if many of you realize what it was like in our country prior to the ruling that legalized abortions. pregnant women were dying all over the country as a result of themselves or someone else without medical training ATTEMPTING to perform abortions. as a result many women died unnecessarily from the trauma, infection, etc. imagine if our country was like that today. hey, wait a second, some idiots in washington are on their way to making it like that again.

point is, it't not the decision of the doctor, medical student, politician, family member, friend, pastor, rabbi, etc. it's the decision of the pregnant woman. only she can be the one to make the final decision. that's why i think its bull$hit that the government, religious organizations, and everybody else chimes in on this thinking they can tell the woman what is right and what's wrong. you like being told how to live your life?

i try to base my decisions about something on how i would feel if i was in the same situation. that's why i've always been pro-choice.

it's sad to see some of these responses from future physicians. i feel very priviledged to know that i'll someday be taking care of people in need of medical attention. and i feel that a physician is not only someone who diagnoses and heals, but also is an advocate for his/her patient. and an advocate puts aside his/her views and guides and helps the patient come to their own informed decision without undue influence, whatever it may be.

 

[12R34Y]

refer to my post at the top of the page. pro choice use the same arguments ALL the time. All of these back street abortions.

Obviously this Pro abortion film is going to spout pro abortion things like All of these women who were dying of botched abortions. Not true. just propaganda.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former leader of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).......when confronted abou the ridiculous claim of 5,000-10,000 women died per year due to illegal abortions said

"I confess I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too.....But in the morality of the revolution, it was a useful figure".

He wrote this in his 1979 book (long after Roe v. wade called ABORTING AMERICA. p. 193.

The U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics............1972 the year prior to Roe v Wade the actual number of women who died from illegal abortions in 1972 was 39!!!!!!!!!!

These same old arguments and numbers still circulate around the pro abortion movement , but as you can see they are usually just propaganda and can be easily disassembled sometimes by one of their own........ex. bernard nathanson from NARAL.

anything else?

later

 

[....]

Sorry but I have some laundrey running and need to kill some time. Gotta pick on you...

Originally posted by lattimer13


i don't know if many of you realize what it was like in our country prior to the ruling that legalized abortions. pregnant women were dying all over the country as a result of themselves or someone else without medical training ATTEMPTING to perform abortions. as a result many women died unnecessarily from the trauma, infection, etc. imagine if our country was like that today. hey, wait a second, some idiots in washington are on their way to making it like that again.

The likelyhood of harm befalliing somone who breaks a law is not reason for changing the law.
If heroin and crack were legal then there would never be any deaths associated with poor or tained product, it would be regulated and have standardized dosages, minimising chaces of OD. Therfore legalizing drugs is the moral thing to do?
(presonally i belive that we should but not simply for poor reasons like those)
If prostituation was legal we could regulate it and have licensed hookers which would be suject to frequent testing. So legalize it SIMPLY for that reason?

point is, it't not the decision of the doctor, medical student, politician, family member, friend, pastor, rabbi, etc. it's the decision of the pregnant woman. only she can be the one to make the final decision. that's why i think its bull$hit that the government, religious organizations, and everybody else chimes in on this thinking they can tell the woman what is right and what's wrong. you like being told how to live your life?

First of, YES WE CALL TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE.
If there is good reason. Its called making laws. Dont rape! Dont Steal! Dont Drive through a child crossing zone drunk!
These are not LIFE CHOICES! This is not what having FREEDOM is about. Maybe abortion is differnet, but if it is ok, it is not ok simply because people can choose what they want to choose.

But lets say you could! Lets say if you want to kill someone you could. Does that mean that I I belive it is wrong that i can do it FOR you and then say "But I didnt choose to do it, they did"
Heck no. That like the Nazi soldier saying, its not my fault my boss ordered me to tourture people. We are responsible for what WE do. And a doctor who does something against his conscience will not be comforted by saying "I didnt make the decision, she did"

i try to base my decisions about something on how i would feel if i was in the same situation. that's why i've always been pro-choice.

You mean you wouldnt have the strength of charachter to take responsibility for your baby? Maybe i wouldnt either but i would at least hate myself for it, you dont even seem to mind.

it's sad to see some of these responses from future physicians. i feel that a physician is not only someone who diagnoses and heals, but also is an advocate for his/her patient. and an advocate puts aside his/her views and guides and helps the patient come to their own informed decision without undue influence, whatever it may be.

Simply crap. Lawers defending people they KNOW are guilty. Priests covering up the sins of their peers. Assasins claiming that they decided to kill no one and if they hadnt done it somone else would have. You quote philosophy but have no concept of moral agency.
All of those people i described would love you use your line "Its not my decision, i did nothing wrong. If somthing bad was done I was merely a tool. I decided nothing."
PESONAL RESPONSIBILITY, think about it.

Im not sayihng abotion is wrong, by the way. Im saying that if someone thinks it is, there is no weasling out of that and convincing oneself that they can still preform them beacuse its not their decision.

Also, if abortion IS wrong, than forbiding it is no differnt that foriding many other acts which no one thinks about as an afront to liberty. Murder is not what freedom is about. (again im not saying it IS murder)

 

[mfleur]

Who came up with this pro-abortion crap...know anyone who is pro-abortion. Maybe if I got one for fun Qmonth then I would be pro-abortion.

Always such an inflammatory topic and its I don't think any of us will be swayed(except for that Jane Roe).

Question, do you think that abortion will be made illegal at some point? And do you think that it will matter with the advent of chemical abortions?

 

[LukeWhite]

Goofy, mFleur,

I'll consolidate replies to both your latest posts.

I do believe that most elective abortion, except for the very earliest stages of pregnancy, will become illegal, most likely in the near future. I think that your grandchildren will be horrified that a four-month-old fetus could be aborted with few restrictions back in the day.

I'm confident of this because abortion isn't an arbitrary moral issue. If I were an orthodox Jewish doctor, I wouldn't recommend to my patients that they refrain from eating dairy with their meat. If I were a Catholic doctor, I wouldn't recommend that they attend Mass once a week. However, whatever the faith, I would do everything in my power to convince patients that abortion is a poor option: Opposition to abortion comes from moral principles universal to humanity, not from religious quirks.

It was easy to legalize abortion: the right to privacy and free choice was already enjoying a renaissance, and it was set up against essentially nonexistent science. Neonatology didn't become a viable specialty until the late 70s at the earliest.

But with the technology we have both to preserve life at an incredibly young age (again, there' sa significant survival rate well before the third trimester) and to image life, the choice is a bit starker. It's not between an abstract right and an abstract fetus anymore; it's between an abstract right and something, whatever it is, that sucks its thumb before the second trimester and smiles long before birth.

Personally, I think that's why pro-life sentiment repeatedly polls so much higher than it used to. Moreover, the general trend is the same as it's been for most practices that were ultimately discredited: at first people favor it, then as it gains a human face they express a personal opposition to it but allow for the right of others to practice it, and finally the evidence becomes so overwhelming that they can't allow the contradiction any longer.

Two thousand years ago, the people in the neighboring country weren't considered human; two hundred years ago, people from Africa were considered to be exactly 3/5 of a human. Twenty years ago, a fetus was legally ruled human in thirds. America's shown a constant and welcome willingness to expand, not limit, the notion of what it means to be human, though, and there's every reason to believe that trend will continue.