Advancement in Medical Science and its Effect on Choice
MassiveDelta
Posts: 3,271 Member
Im only posting this because a few people messaged me after it got deleted asking me to bring it here.
Ive edited it for this forum.
Medical Science and Technology grows leaps and bounds every year. People are living longer. Lives are being saved. Diseases and Maladies are getting cured and we are finding ways to combat and extend deadly diseases and slow them down.
As these advances take place most of them at the end of our life, Medical advances also take place at the beginning.
I didn't find actual medical data but im sure it would be more accurate and it would be lower then what was here. It really doesn't need to be accurate to make the logical assumption that Medical science will continue to advance. http://voices.yahoo.com/when-age-viability-fetus-7678400.html
The Argument from the Pro-Choice crowd has been two things primarily. 1) Its not a life because its not Viable 2) Its the womans choice because its her body (assuming the fetus has no rights). Please correct me if there is other Primary reasons.
I think the real question and heart of this matter comes down to one thing and one thing only.
Is the Pregnancy a Viable living human being?
Because, I think we can all agree that the law of most societies is Murder is a bad thing. Using the above link and a few others 24 weeks seems to be the cut off of what would be considered a Viable living Human baby. It would have a very high chance of living assuming it was healthy. It was only a short time ago that babies born at 30 weeks rarely survived. So already we can see progress in fetal mortality.
So the question then becomes this.... As Medical Technology advances and Babies are able to live earlier and earlier. What will be the argument for "choice" by women and prochoice groups? Eventually it will be proven that a child can survive outside the womb in under 20, less then 12, or eventually 5 weeks. What will women do when a viable human baby at 5 weeks can survive? Proceed with the termination? Do women even care? Has mainstream media and the ProChoice groups educated women so hard and heavily that they no longer even care what it maybe growing inside them, only that its their body and they get final say.
How will women claim they have a right to terminate a life? Does it then become...one persons right to one thing supersedes another persons right? If so a woman's right to terminate is greater than the child's right to life?
You all are much smarter then me I'm sure I'm missing something. I don't have a ton of free time anymore so Ill only be back occasionally to respond.
Ive edited it for this forum.
Medical Science and Technology grows leaps and bounds every year. People are living longer. Lives are being saved. Diseases and Maladies are getting cured and we are finding ways to combat and extend deadly diseases and slow them down.
As these advances take place most of them at the end of our life, Medical advances also take place at the beginning.
I didn't find actual medical data but im sure it would be more accurate and it would be lower then what was here. It really doesn't need to be accurate to make the logical assumption that Medical science will continue to advance. http://voices.yahoo.com/when-age-viability-fetus-7678400.html
The Argument from the Pro-Choice crowd has been two things primarily. 1) Its not a life because its not Viable 2) Its the womans choice because its her body (assuming the fetus has no rights). Please correct me if there is other Primary reasons.
I think the real question and heart of this matter comes down to one thing and one thing only.
Is the Pregnancy a Viable living human being?
Because, I think we can all agree that the law of most societies is Murder is a bad thing. Using the above link and a few others 24 weeks seems to be the cut off of what would be considered a Viable living Human baby. It would have a very high chance of living assuming it was healthy. It was only a short time ago that babies born at 30 weeks rarely survived. So already we can see progress in fetal mortality.
So the question then becomes this.... As Medical Technology advances and Babies are able to live earlier and earlier. What will be the argument for "choice" by women and prochoice groups? Eventually it will be proven that a child can survive outside the womb in under 20, less then 12, or eventually 5 weeks. What will women do when a viable human baby at 5 weeks can survive? Proceed with the termination? Do women even care? Has mainstream media and the ProChoice groups educated women so hard and heavily that they no longer even care what it maybe growing inside them, only that its their body and they get final say.
How will women claim they have a right to terminate a life? Does it then become...one persons right to one thing supersedes another persons right? If so a woman's right to terminate is greater than the child's right to life?
You all are much smarter then me I'm sure I'm missing something. I don't have a ton of free time anymore so Ill only be back occasionally to respond.
0
Replies
-
It sounds to me like you are trying to make the argument that it is all a question of life. You aren't trying to usurp a women's authority over her own body you are just wanting to make sure we do all we can to foster life. Right?
I want to know if you would be in favor of a law to make organ donation compulsory? In fact we wouldn't even have to wait until someone dies. If someone needs an organ or they will die and we can find someone that would be compatible we could just skip right past the part where we ask their consent and just take the organ so long as taking the organ would not kill the donor.
This would result in more people being alive so it must be the right course of action.0 -
HMmm how can I put this nicely... Science is years away from making it viable for a embryo to live outszide the body at 5 weeks.... And at 5 weeks thats what the baby is an embryo not a fully formed fetus..... At 5 weeks your embryo looks like a small dot .. the only way I could see that working is if they started using test tube to keep the embryo alive... Then people who are prochoice and want an abortion can have the baby removed and placed in an artifical womb .... A five week old embryo has no way to live outside the body.
At 12 weeks the babies intestines are just moving into its abdominal cavity and the eye are just moving to the front of his /her head. THe babies brain is just staring development at this point and the fetus is only 2 inches long ( smaller then your pinkie) and ways half an ounce... Again the only way an fetus that small could survive would be in an artifical womb.
At 20 weeks the baby weighs 10 ounces and is about the legnth of a bananna . The digestive track is working but not the lungs....... THe baby is unable to breath and if born at this point a child it has 0% chance of survival........ So again they would need an artifiacal womb......
By definition a baby under 23-24 weeks has no chance of survival outside the body which techniqually makes it a parasite( and yes I have 2 kids) Before someone jumps down my throat the definition of a parasite is something that is completely dependent on the host body for everything ,so an embryo is a parasite(just a really cute and hopefully happy one)
While a fetus cannot survive outside the mothers body then the choice is still the mothers.... I doubt anyone these days agrees with late term pregnancy abortions .0 -
as soon as you don't need a uterus that's in a woman, or grow your own uterus, you get to have a say in what happens in a uterus. until then, what happens in a uterus is not your business.0
-
In order to debate this you have to define life.
Is "life" achieved when neurons start firing in the brain? Maybe when the baby can start to feel? Heart beat? Self sufficiency? Or the possibility of surviving with major medical intervention? Conception?
The truth is nobody knows when "life" begins. And since it can't be known it is a belief. Currently the legally accepted belief is not conception.
Your belief does not supersede any other person's belief.
Getting or not getting an abortion is a highly personal decision, during which each person must evaluate what this means for them, their beliefs, and their future. You and your belief have no place in the decision.0 -
It might be difficult to define exactly when life begins exactly but I know it does not make any sense to define life as beginning prior to the existence of a brain. In the absence of a brain you definitely do not have a person. That is true regardless of the age of the person. If I were to lose my arm or my leg then I would be hurt and you can say would be change but I would still be me. If my brain ceased to function then I would be for all intents and purposes dead.
When doctors pronounce death what they are looking for is brain death and that is why you are allowed to pronounce a person dead even when you are not a doctor is the victim has been decapitated. If anyone tries to argue for the existence of a mind in the absence of a brain then are speaking french to me because there aren't any examples of that happening in reality.
TLDR= No Brain No Person.0 -
OK, lets say medical science can remove an embryo from a woman's body at 5 weeks. That means the woman can put it up for adoption at 5 weeks. That means all the medical bills now fall on the government until it is born. That means taxpayers will pay for it's medical costs for approximately 35 weeks. That means the Tea Party, the pro-fetus people, and a large portion of the entire Republican party will petition to have its funding cut off thereby aborting it themselves.0
