While searching around the blogosphere, I noticed that there were multiple blogs whose posts included headlines like "2009 Study Confirms Abortion-Breast Cancer Link," "Abortion and Breast Cancer Link Confirmed," and "Study: Abortion Leads to Breast Cancer." After seeing these headlines, I assumed that there had been a study published recently in which a statistical correlation between abortion and breast cancer was found. However, after actually reading these blogs, it seems that these assertions that there is an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link, along with my assumption about these titles, can easily be dismissed.
The first reason why I doubt the validity of those headlines is that the general consensus within the scientific community is that while there have been well-designed studies failing to demonstrate the ABC link, there hasn't been sufficient evidence in support of the hypothesis. (For a longer, more nuanced explanation, as told by the American Cancer Society, click here.) Although the current knowledge of the scientific community is by no means above criticism and questioning, the current research regarding this hypothesis furthers the amount of evidence that needs to be supplied by proponents of the ABC link. After all, it's one thing to show correlation, but it's even tougher to show correlation when others have shown that there is none.
The main reason why I don't think this particular assertion regarding the existence of an ABC link should be taken seriously is the content of the study cited. The study in question is entitled Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years. (You have to pay to read the article, but abstract is free.) Read through the abstract, and summarize it in your own head. What does this study appear to be measuring? If your answer included the word "abortion", try reading it again, because it's pretty clear that this study was focused on the relation between oral contraceptive use and being diagnosed with cancer.
So why has this article been used as support for the existence of an ABC link? I'll let LifeNews.com, a pro-life news agency, explain:
When it comes to the abortion link, the study did not produce any new results but it cited the Daling studies from 1994 and 1996that showed between a 20 and 50 percent increased breast cancer risk for women having abortions compare to those who carried their pregnancies to term.
(Note: I added the links to the Daling, et al. articles.)
Really, this is the smoking gun? The article in question involved a prominent researcher from the National Cancer Institute, so perhaps her acknowledgement of a couple of papers from a single source may legitimize them somewhat, but that probably doesn't void all of the studies proposing an alternate perspective. Then again, perhaps we should look at the context in which the citations were used. Let's look at what else Lifenews.com has to say about this revelation:
As Dr. Joel Brind, a prominent breast cancer researcher, says, "what was striking was the way in which the finding of a significant ABC link was characterized."
"Specifically, abortion appears in the data table which lists the associations found for 'known and suspected risk factors,'" he explains. "In the text, the effect of the significant risk factors, including induced abortion, were described as 'consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women.'"
Call me crazy, but listing abortion in a category that includes "suspected risk factors" doesn't even seem to prove that the authors of the article are sure that abortion can increase one's risk of breast cancer. All it seems to suggest is that abortion is being looked at as being a possible factor.
With this in mind, allow me to summarize this entire incident, keeping in mind that my only sources were the abstracts of the articles themselves and pro-life blogs: A journal article was written, by among others, a prominent member of the National Cancer Institute 9 months ago. The paper, which does not actually include any research related to abortions, cites a paper suggesting an ABC link as proof that abortion might possibly be associated with breast cancer. Therefore the National Cancer Institute is guilty of covering up a vast conspiracy that researchers have been aware the abortions cause cancer.
How can you argue with that logic?
But even if it were the case that abortion was proven to somehow increase one's susceptibility toward getting breast cancer, how much would that really change the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate? Now, don't get me wrong; I do believe it's worthwhile to know for sure whether or not there is an ABC link. After all, anyone undergoing any medical procedure should be as informed as possible about her potential risks. That being said, I don't think it would make any difference on the issue of whether or not the procedure should be considered legal and/or ethical.
One of the most used arguments in defense of the pro-choice position is the idea of bodily sovereignty, the belief that every person has a right to control one's own body. So, even if the ABC link were definitively shown to exist, that probably wouldn't convert many people to the pro-life side simply because the same idea suggests that a woman has the right to use her bodily sovereignty to decide for herself whether or not she's willing to increase her risk of getting sick in the future in order to exercise a choice she otherwise favors. There's nothing wrong with doing a little cost-benefit analysis and deciding on one's own what's best for oneself.
So, there you have it: According to pro-lifers, abortion is bad because of questionable scientific evidence of a phenomenon that doesn't really do much to counter the the pro-choice stance.
Add that to the fact that there is no reputable study showing that abortion does increase the risk of breast cancer. It's not even a "the ACS is pro-abortion omg" thing - the antis have nothing to put up against it. I seem to remember talking about this a while ago in the comments of some other site - every study that they cite is fatally flawed, by a too-small sample size, by failure to use blinds properly, or by not controlling for extremely relevant factors. (At least, I think I was having this conversation about the ABC link. It could have been about something else ultimately irrelevant to the debate but about which they are also wrong and unscientific.)
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. I've used a whole bunch of journal-specific search engines to see if there is any veracity to this ABC link and I've found two patterns: The ones in favor of the ABC link have smaller sample sizes and are more likely to be based on interviews than medical records. (Interviews are more prone to bias because women with cancer are more likely to be willing to admit that they had an abortion, in hopes of helping gather information about cancer.)
ReplyDeleteSounds familiar to me.
ReplyDeleteOh wait, no, it was about "post-abortion syndrome"! What a surprise, more science fail.
ReplyDeleteHey, first of all- I saw your link on Feministe so hi, I'm here from the self-promotion Sunday!
ReplyDeleteAnyway.
From what I remember of undergraduate biology (which isn't much, considering I only graduated six months ago), IF there is any genuine link between abortion and breast cancer, it'd be something like:
Carrying a fetus to term (and probably breastfeeding) reduces your risk of breast cancer compared to a childless woman. If you get pregnant but miscarry or choose to terminate, your risk returns to the same level as that of a childless woman.
So yeah, if there is a link, it's being twisted to suit the pro-life bullshit. I don't know what's worse, out-and-out lies or the potential for genuine science to be misrepresented by people who clearly don't understand it.
Which also means, of course, that there's another "ABC link" - Abstinence causes breast cancer!!!1!one!!
ReplyDeleteThis is ally with my response to your rape analogy which you were so keen to hear (warning: graphic and triggering and unnecessary, but since you think it is necessary to understand my position I will respond).
ReplyDeleteIf a woman consents to sex, and then changes her mind during the act, it does not become rape at the point when she changes her mind, it becomes rape when the perpetrator finds out she has changed her mind and fails to remove himself, so there will be a period of seconds in which she is having non-consensual sex but she is not being raped. There are many many situations in life where the practicalities of the situation means you can't just change your mind and have your bodily autonomy back *immediately*. You can't take a job flying into space get up there and decide you want to go back. You can't donate an organ and then ask for it back. It might be physically possible to take back your body having gotten pregnant,but it involves destroying a life to do so. So what you are effectively saying is that having the freedom to have sex without the risk of the natural consequence, is more important than the sanctity of human life. I just don't think anyone's pure pleasure is so important that it can trump the value of human life.
Do you think men should be able to have sex and then go "You'll have to have that aborted, I want my sperm back"? I suspect you don't, because it means his choice about what happens to his sperm affects the bodily autonomy of the woman. Just as allowing a woman to take back her body can only be achieved by violating the body of an embryo.
If a woman consents to sex, and then changes her mind during the act, it does not become rape at the point when she changes her mind, it becomes rape when the perpetrator finds out she has changed her mind and fails to remove himself, so there will be a period of seconds in which she is having non-consensual sex but she is not being raped.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that if the embryo knew it was not welcome, abortion would be okay?
More to the point, whether or not it's (legally) rape varies based on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions, including my home state of New York, have it so that awareness of a lack of consent is determined based on a reasonable person standard, not whether the defendant specifically knew. Unless you think women just lie there staring blankly - which, having talked to you, would actually not surprise me - it's easy to tell when a partner is not consenting.
(Also, the analogy was about a woman who has already had sex with a man being thus forced to have sex with him again, not continuously. After all, she gave up her autonomy by choosing to have sex. Care to respond?)
As for your other analogies: Are you seriously comparing being in a place you don't want to be to having a foreign organism colonizing your body?
You can't have a donated organ back because it's not yours once it's in someone else. (Are you suggesting that when a woman is pregnant, she has donated her uterus to an embryo? Because then you'll have to explain why it's not okay for her to remove someone else's organ from her own body.)
So what you are effectively saying is that having the freedom to have sex without the risk of the natural consequence, is more important than the sanctity of human life.
No, I'm saying that bodily autonomy is more important than human life, which we as a society already recognize to be the case. That's why we don't force blood donation or organ donation, even though many lives could be saved. Hell, in the US and UK at least, the system is opt-in, so that if you haven't explicitly given your consent, your organs can't be used even when you're dead. Yes, corpses have more rights than pregnant women.
Do you think men should be able to have sex and then go "You'll have to have that aborted, I want my sperm back"? I suspect you don't, because it means his choice about what happens to his sperm affects the bodily autonomy of the woman.
You are correct - I do not think a man should be able to do that. Firstly, because the sperm has left his body and is out of his control, and secondly because it would involve a greater violation of rights.
Just as allowing a woman to take back her body can only be achieved by violating the body of an embryo.
As we've already acknowledged, no one has the right to use anyone's body without their consent. I am perfectly in favor of the embryo's right to life, as long as it does so outside the body of anyone who does not want it there.
If it was possible for the embryo to ask whether or not it was welcome before it was conceived and to hedge it's bets on whether it would get aborted if it did so, then yes I would support abortion.
ReplyDeleteThe only way the analogy would be comparable is if after having sex with a woman a man would die if he didn't have sex with her for a period of months, and the man would have to be ignorant of that risk, and unable to control whether he had sex, whilst the woman was aware of it and could control whether sex happened (we can assume in all cases, the man wanted the sex, as we can assume that the embryo wants to exist.) If that were the case, then yes I would say that if a woman had sex once she would have an obligation to continue doing so until the man would no longer die from lack of it. The reason that is not the case in the ordinary course of sex, is because the analogy between the two things makes no sense.
I think there is more involved in space travel than being in a place you don't want to be, including unforeseen risks to life and health and demeaning living conditions, as well as environmental conditions that make moving around difficult. It's not the best analogy I grant you:there are few things that are analogous to pregnancy, but given your analogy with rape I think it's a bit rich as a criticism.
No I don't think she has given the uterus to the baby: I think she has put herself in a position where she is estopped from forcibly evicting it by co-creating something that can't exist outside of it. She remains the owner of the uterus, but she must allow the use of it since she created a life that can't exist independently of it.
Let's assume you are a nurse. A casualty is in an ambulance and there is a shortage of blood, there is a choice of hospitals and the ambulance rings around for who is most likely to be able to save the casualty.You offer to give your blood, as it has been recently tested and you are the right blood type, so the ambulance comes straight to the hospital. Do you then have the right to refuse the blood that you've promised, causing the patient certain death?
What about a situation in which the mother is happy to have a baby until she finds out it's gender, or that it has a disability, or even its sexuality? Up and till that point her body could be used, now she wants it back.
I'd also be interested to know what you think of abortion when the baby is viable. Presumeably, that the baby should be induced and then given life support just as a wanted baby would be?
If it was possible for the embryo to ask whether or not it was welcome before it was conceived and to hedge it's bets on whether it would get aborted if it did so, then yes I would support abortion.
ReplyDeleteSo, once again, it's not about protecting life, just about making sure that people who are guilty get punished.
[other analogy stuff]
See the bottom of this comment.
we can assume in all cases, the man wanted the sex, as we can assume that the embryo wants to exist.
We can't actually assume that, as the embryo has no cognitive processes that could possibly be called "wants." If you're going to pretend that it has, you must also acknowledge the rhetorical possibility that it is aware that it is acting as a parasite.
Let's assume you are a nurse. A casualty is in an ambulance and there is a shortage of blood, there is a choice of hospitals and the ambulance rings around for who is most likely to be able to save the casualty.You offer to give your blood, as it has been recently tested and you are the right blood type, so the ambulance comes straight to the hospital. Do you then have the right to refuse the blood that you've promised, causing the patient certain death?
Interestingly, there's actually been a court case about it. The court found that the defendant cannot be compelled to donate his blood.
In any case: What do you suppose should happen in that scenario if the nurse changes her mind? Should she be prosecuted for murder if she doesn't give blood? Or what other crime? Would it be a civil suit instead? Or would they just strap her down and stick a needle in her arm?
(This is also all assuming that there's a correlation in the analogy to the consent part. The nurse obviously consents to the transfusion and then withdraws consent, while someone with an unwanted pregnancy probably hasn't consented to the pregnancy.)
What about a situation in which the mother is happy to have a baby until she finds out it's gender, or that it has a disability, or even its sexuality? Up and till that point her body could be used, now she wants it back.
Yup.
I'd also be interested to know what you think of abortion when the baby is viable. Presumeably, that the baby should be induced and then given life support just as a wanted baby would be?
Yup. And to pretend that that's not what happens is to repeat anti-choice lies, though it's not as if you haven't shown willingness to do that.
Do return to the organ and blood donor analogy, though. Thousands of lives could be saved each and every year if we just made people donate a kidney, or a liver lobe, or their blood. Why do you want thousands of (living, breathing) people (with friends and families who care about them and about whom they care) to die, when to let them live is consistent with your expressed worldview of life trumping bodily autonomy and it supposedly not just being about punishing people for having sex?
Actually, for me the point of saving life is not because life in and of itself is necessarily worth anything, but because an individual should be the only person to decide when his/her life is worth anything.
ReplyDeleteIt is not about life trumping autonomy but about the autonomy of one individual trumping the autonomy of another.
The reason for the rape exception is because the aim is to maximise the autonomy of the individuals involved. In the rape scenario a pregnancy has occurred in which neither of the interested parties have exercised any autonomy, so we have to directly decide whether the woman's autonomy trumps the autonomy of the baby. This is so regardless of the impact or lack of impact the rape has had on her life, or the impact or lack of impact continuing the pregnancy would have on her life.
In the situation where a woman has chosen to have sex,she has chosen to risk the possibility of creating a life that is necessarily dependent upon her. The foetus, by contrast, has had no opportunity to choose to exist in that form or not. In the case you described where the foetus does have a choice to exist in that form or not, both parties have exercised a choice, the mother knowing she risked pregnancy to get sex,and the foetus knowing it risked death to exist in a particular form. That becomes the same situation as situation 1 where neither had exercised any autonomy; we decide whether to give additional autonomy to the foetus or to the mother, and balance those interests, in our case coming down in favour of the mother.
I think it would be wrong to assume for the purpose of the analogy that the man is raped, and I don't think that is necessary for the argument to hold water. Even if the man consents, the woman would not be able to revoke her consent (morally) when she exercised her autonomy knowing it would kill him if she withdrew consent and he was unaware of that fact.
Back to the donation analogy. While drawing on legal reasoning can often be useful the law is often based on what will pass muster politically, not on what's right.
I think there are a number of scenarios which should have different legal outcomes:
A. the situation where the patient would die unless she gave the blood, regardless of whether she promised to do so. In that scenario, she should have no legal obligation to give the blood. There should not be a general legal obligation to save lives.
B. the situation where the patient would have survived if he/she went to another hospital, but changed his position (or had his position changed by whoever was making it) to go to that one as a result of her promise because it was more convenient for whatever reason. In this case she should have a legal obligation to give the blood- it is too late for her to withdraw consent, because someone has relied on her promise and failure to do so should result in one of two outcomes
1. If she did not do that with the intention of causing the person to die,she should get a manslaughter charge.
2.If she did do that with the intention of causing the person to die, she should get a murder charge
The death in that situation is caused not by her refusal to give blood but by her giving consent an then withdrawing it. In some circumstances you have to be able to expect people to exercise their autonomy in a way which is final and cannot be revoked, and I don't think that is inconsistent with having a belief in autonomy.
Also why do you keep describing people as living and breathing? A foetus is living and what the fuck is morally relevant about breathing? Do I stop being human if I hold my breath? For the sake of intellectual integrity at least write "thousands of thinking, feeling people".
"The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which regulates methods of abortion, has also mounted its own investigation.
ReplyDeleteIts guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered."- From the times.
That doesn't sound like supporting the right to live so long as its outside the body of someone who doesn't want it. That sounds like killing.
The reason for the rape exception is because the aim is to maximise the autonomy of the individuals involved. In the rape scenario a pregnancy has occurred in which neither of the interested parties have exercised any autonomy, so we have to directly decide whether the woman's autonomy trumps the autonomy of the baby. This is so regardless of the impact or lack of impact the rape has had on her life, or the impact or lack of impact continuing the pregnancy would have on her life.
ReplyDeleteIn the situation where a woman has chosen to have sex,she has chosen to risk the possibility of creating a life that is necessarily dependent upon her.
So tell me, talking of rape, how much risk does a woman have to knowingly incur before she's no longer allowed to have an abortion? I don't think women are responsible for rape, but I fully believe that you would be - why is a woman who uses birth control and condoms more at fault than someone who, say, gets drunk and snogs a known rapist?
[nurse analogy]
Since you seem to have ignored my question about consent, and it is an extremely important difference between the two scenarios, I'll expand the analogy: what if the nurse takes a form and starts to fill it out (name, etc.) while she is deciding, but hasn't signed it yet? And the hospital/ambulance takes this as a binding agreement even though she hasn't agreed to anything?
Also why do you keep describing people as living and breathing? A foetus is living and what the fuck is morally relevant about breathing? Do I stop being human if I hold my breath? For the sake of intellectual integrity at least write "thousands of thinking, feeling people".
I'm glad that you see that thinking and feeling are important. Now try applying that belief.
[Times] That doesn't sound like supporting the right to live so long as its outside the body of someone who doesn't want it. That sounds like killing.
Funny how 21 weeks and six days isn't viable. (Most neonatologists surveyed said that they strongly discourage resuscitation at 22-23 weeks, and it doesn't get past average-neutral until the 25th week.) And how third trimester abortions take place when the fetus has a disability incompatible with life.
Would you care to address the analogy I gave you? Obviously, in my worldview where bodily autonomy is important, donation is to be encouraged but not compelled, but your worldview provides clear grounds for forced organ donation. I mean, you used being in space as an example, so clearly the fact of circumstances being beyond one's control (space, illness) don't make a difference in your policy on making decisions about autonomy - why don't people with liver and kidney diseases get the opportunity to decide to live?
There is no point at which a woman takes the risk of being raped. When there is a natural sequence of events the responsible moral agent is the last person who acted with the foresight of what would be a naturally occurring consequence. Rape is not a natural consequence of anything. It requires the action of an independent moral agent.
ReplyDeleteYou don't believe that women are responsible for rape but you fully believe that I would be wtf? Women are responsible for rape if you don't like them? I see (eyeroll).
Nurse analogy
she would have to give consent knowing that she cannot take it back and that the ambulance driver may rely on it in such a way that her revoking it may cause death. Deciding would not be enough, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be signed and in writing (though the prosecution may fail on evidence grounds if she hasn't).
I don't think thinking and feeling defines what a human being is and therefore I don't think it defines what rights a human being has. It is however a more rational stance than "breathing" which is idiotic air-filled rhetoric of precisely the kind pro-choice people are always denouncing in the pro-life side.
Because the kidney failure wasn't caused by the person refusing to give the kidney taking an action that they could have chosen not to take with known risk factors and with no possibility for the victim to protect themselves.
"At 24 weeks many newborn babies in the UK will survive – some in good health, some with developmental problems, some with the need for long-term support and treatment. Some babies have been kept alive earlier even than this."
ReplyDeleteEducation for Choice website
Why exactly shouldn't they be kept alive, since they are outside the mother and have nothing to do with her autonomy anymore?
"Third trimester abortions take place when the foetus has a disability incompatible with life."- Many people with such disabilities are alive and would not want someone else to decide whether their life is worth living or not.
When there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped’ there is no legal limit as to when abortion can take place. (Abortion Act 1967)
British abortion law does not specify which disabilities or conditions can or cannot be grounds for abortion after 24 weeks. The decision is left up to the woman and her doctors.
Again from the education for choice website.
I happen to know a third trimester abortion happened last week (a friend of mine is a trainee medic) because the baby had down's syndrome which hadn't showed up on an earlier scan. Does that sound to you like a disability incompatible with life? I have met a few people with down's syndrome in my time. I know of none who are suicidal.
There is no point at which a woman takes the risk of being raped. When there is a natural sequence of events the responsible moral agent is the last person who acted with the foresight of what would be a naturally occurring consequence. Rape is not a natural consequence of anything. It requires the action of an independent moral agent.
ReplyDeleteYou don't believe that women are responsible for rape but you fully believe that I would be wtf? Women are responsible for rape if you don't like them? I see (eyeroll).
Typo on my part, for which I apologize - I fully believed that you would think that, not that you would be responsible. I am happy to be proven wrong.
she would have to give consent knowing that she cannot take it back and that the ambulance driver may rely on it in such a way that her revoking it may cause death. Deciding would not be enough, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be signed and in writing (though the prosecution may fail on evidence grounds if she hasn't).
I don't think you get it. I'm trying to provide you with a scenario where someone has not consented to donate her blood, but has taken what is perhaps a risk of someone becoming dependent on her blood (for example, if it appears that the nurse is going to consent, so the ambulance starts heading over). Obviously sex is not consent to pregnancy; it's merely an action that might lead to pregnancy. So I'm trying to come up with a scenario where the nurse hasn't consented to give her blood, but has taken a risk that might lead to the patient coming to her hospital in expectation of receiving blood. You're welcome to improve the analogy.
Because the kidney failure wasn't caused by the person refusing to give the kidney taking an action that they could have chosen not to take with known risk factors and with no possibility for the victim to protect themselves.
So, once again, punishing people for having sex trumps allowing people, even people who've done nothing "wrong," to make decisions about their autonomy.
[24 weeks] Why exactly shouldn't they be kept alive, since they are outside the mother and have nothing to do with her autonomy anymore?
Look at you redefining the parameters so sneakily! In any case, the reason these neonatologists (you know, doctors whose job it is to take care of newborns) don't recommend resuscitation until the 25th week is presumably because babies born then tend to die in pain.
Many people with such disabilities are alive and would not want someone else to decide whether their life is worth living or not.
I don't think you understand what "incompatible" means. However, there are many serviceable dictionaries on the internet that you can use.
British abortion law does not specify which disabilities or conditions can or cannot be grounds for abortion after 24 weeks. The decision is left up to the woman and her doctors.
Because women are stupid, and wait until the third trimester because they don't want to reschedule their shopping dates in order to go to the doctor.
I also realize that I said that third trimester abortions were performed when the fetus had disabilities incompatible with life, when I should have said post-viability. The two are not equivalent.
I can't think offhand of a situation in which consenting to one thing forces another person to be physically dependent on you without you having consented to that dependence.
ReplyDeleteAs to "punishing women for having sex" there are many ways to have sex that do not include a man sticking his penis into a woman's vagina. No-one is advocating punishment. Simply responsibility for the natural consequences. It isn't about 'wrongs' its about causation.
There are a number of possible definitions of viability. I consider viability to be the earliest point at which any child has ever survived. Unless there is a 100% guarantee the child would not live it is a violation of that child's autonomy for a doctor to "recommend not to resuscitate."
As I said, the abortion I mentioned to you happened because the baby had down's syndrome, which was not picked up on an earlier scam. Since it is legal for third trimester pregnancies to be terminated without resuscitating the baby this has nothing to do with a woman exercising her autonomy, it has to do with the mother thinking that she doesn't want to look after a down's syndrome child and deciding for the child (y'know wrenching away its autonomy) that it's life would not be worth living in care. What does your pro-autonomy world view say about that?
I can't think offhand of a situation in which consenting to one thing forces another person to be physically dependent on you without you having consented to that dependence.
ReplyDeleteBesides sex and pregnancy, of course - I'm sure you're just expressing the difficulty of finding a suitable analogy.
As to "punishing women for having sex" there are many ways to have sex that do not include a man sticking his penis into a woman's vagina.
"It's not political discrimination if we say Jews can't vote - they can still donate to campaigns." It's a stupid thing to say - obviously there are other ways to have sex, but is it better if you're punishing them for only one way?
No-one is advocating punishment.
Except, you know, you and the rest of your movement.
Simply responsibility for the natural consequences. It isn't about 'wrongs' its about causation.
Ah, "responsibility." That's why we forcibly take blood from the driver at fault in a car collision, or a kidney from carrier parents who give their children a kidney disease. Of course.
There are a number of possible definitions of viability. I consider viability to be the earliest point at which any child has ever survived. Unless there is a 100% guarantee the child would not live it is a violation of that child's autonomy for a doctor to "recommend not to resuscitate."
As I said, the abortion I mentioned to you happened because the baby had down's syndrome, which was not picked up on an earlier scam. Since it is legal for third trimester pregnancies to be terminated without resuscitating the baby this has nothing to do with a woman exercising her autonomy, it has to do with the mother thinking that she doesn't want to look after a down's syndrome child and deciding for the child (y'know wrenching away its autonomy) that it's life would not be worth living in care. What does your pro-autonomy world view say about that?
I would ask you to refer to my earlier comment where I note the difference between third trimester and viable. It's lovely that you have your own precious definition of viability, but you are (obviously) not a doctor or scientist.
As for your question, of course I support allowing her to have an abortion. The same argument applies: it's her body. If you're pretending that she's having a post-viability abortion because she's discovered that the fetus has Down's, then my answer is the same: when the fetus is viable, it is delivered except in cases where delivery would hurt the woman. Do try.
Yes I was simply saying that I could not think of analogy that fits the same fact pattern identically.
ReplyDeleteResponsibility is why we take money from the driver at fault in a road accident. Probably because forcing them to give blood is impractical, and often not useful. They may be more injured than the other party, not be a match etc. etc. If a situation arose in which the one and only way to save the victim was to demand blood from the perpetrator and the perpetrator was clearly at fault, then that is exactly what should happen.
Claiming that what I am seeking is punishment is making a claim about motivation which you cannot know, and which isn't supported by the evidence. It isn't supported by the evidence because if I wanted to inflict punishment for sex, then there is no reason I would want that to happen exclusively where PIV sex is concerned.
The parents in your analogy are responsible for the existence of the child, not of the condition, and cannot be held responsible for ensuring that they live the longest life it is possible for them to live or don't live at all. They can be held responsible for doing what is necessary to have a shot at a life, once conceiving them.
The medical profession does not have a monopoly on the definition of words. Particularly where they have an ideological significance. If it is possible that a child will survive, it is wrong for a medical professional to decide not to try. And that means possible, not probable.
It is true that if a baby is born alive, doctors are not able to discard it, but as the times article I quoted says, babies aborted even before the trimester have their hearts stopped before being "born"
"Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered."
That includes babies aborted at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks. There is no legal limit on the baby being aborted if it has a disability and the legislation does not define what disability qualifies for abortion, so it is perfectly legal for a woman to abort a baby by stopping its heart before it is born, when there is a chance of it surviving if it were born without such an injection, provided it has any sort of disability at all. If you believe that is acceptable then the idea that your argument is based on autonomy is a complete joke. It removes all autonomy from the child, without adding anything to the autonomy of the mother. It allows her to make a decision about someone else's life based on how she feels about adoption. It has nothing to do with controlling her own body whatsoever. I could be wrong about that legal position- but I am willing to trust the Times and the education for choice website for the time being. If it's misleading legal reporting, then my bad for not checking it out properly.
Responsibility is why we take money from the driver at fault in a road accident. Probably because forcing them to give blood is impractical, and often not useful. They may be more injured than the other party, not be a match etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteSo should a woman be able to have an abortion if she can contribute a certain amount of money to a charity that helps children? Money and one's body are not the same thing, and I'm sure that if one were really devoted to the idea of responsibility and life, it would be easy to plan a blood bank of collections from at-fault drivers that could be distributed as needed.
If a situation arose in which the one and only way to save the victim was to demand blood from the perpetrator and the perpetrator was clearly at fault, then that is exactly what should happen.
Such as?
The parents in your analogy are responsible for the existence of the child, not of the condition
Surely if they knew that they were carriers of a heritable disease, they were knowingly taking the risk of passing the disease to their children. If they wanted children, why didn't they adopt or get artificial insemination/IVF?
It is true that if a baby is born alive, doctors are not able to discard it, but as the times article I quoted says, babies aborted even before the trimester have their hearts stopped before being "born"
I'm not sure if you've just missed my comment about the difference between third trimester and viability, or if you're willfully ignoring it. In case of the former: third trimester and viability are not the same thing. Maybe you think it's a good idea to induce labor on a fetus that will almost certainly die in pain, but I don't.
I mean, you think it's fun to define viability at the earliest possible time a preterm baby has ever survived. In other words, the utmost statistical outlier. Why, then, can't you rationalize abortion based on the chance of the pregnancy killing the woman? After all, it happens.
Furthermore, it's all very well to say that the "child" should have the opportunity to make its own decisions, and I certainly feel that parents, at least in the United States, have too much control over the medical care their children can and cannot receive, but how do you propose we let an extreme preterm baby decide if it wants to be resuscitated or not?
There is no legal limit on the baby being aborted if it has a disability and the legislation does not define what disability qualifies for abortion, so it is perfectly legal for a woman to abort a baby by stopping its heart before it is born, when there is a chance of it surviving if it were born without such an injection, provided it has any sort of disability at all.
Actually, I'd been meaning to ask - cite your source. I'm sure it would be very enlightening to hear about this wonderful Down's syndrome test that takes place in the third trimester or near the end of the second, instead of in the first and early second trimesters like every other Down's syndrome test. Otherwise, we just return to the old question: How stupid do you think people are? And are you evaluating this based on your own intelligence level, or do you think you are far superior?
No the point is that if a driver hits someone and the only way to save that persons life is for them to donate blood then and there, and the accident was clearly their fault then it would be morally acceptable to require them to donate blood, particularly if the victim was a pedestrian who had not themselves undertaken the risk of an accident.
ReplyDeleteIf someone takes the risk of creating your life, they assume a responsibility not to take actions which will result in your premature death. That is not the same as saying they assume a responsibility to do everything within their physical power to keep you alive. Obviously, it would be a better moral decision to adopt rather than risk a congenital abnormality, but what the law should or shouldn't do about that is a whole other philosophical can of worms that bears no relationship to whether a responsibility arises to carry the baby to term.
No, I don't think its a good idea to induce labour when the baby is likely to die in pain. But I think it is a better idea then stopping it's heart first, and then inducing labour so you don't have to bother about trying to save the child's life.
I don't "think it's fun" to define viability in any way at all. I think viability is a term which is used to make moral decisions about when a life is worth saving, and I don't think that because a child's chance of survival is small that it should be obliterated by the medical profession choosing not to help.
The whole point is that if the child at some point when it can decide decides that it does not want to live,then it can make the choice not to continue doing so. The default position should be to make sure it lives to be able to make a choice. That maximises the autonomy of the child.
My source for the legal position in the UK was from the Education for Choice website. Obviously that is not a conclusive legal source, but I think it's safe to assume they won't want it to be misleading in my favour
My understanding is that since viability as I have defined it occurs at less than 22 weeks a third trimester abortion would automatically be an abortion at the point where the baby was viable. Obviously if viability is defined at 25 weeks, then this may or may not be the case
My source for the third trimester abortion I mentioned was an anecdotal one; as I said, a friend is a medic and as far as I am aware the circumstances were that because of an earlier hospital fuck-up the fact that the baby had Down's was not noticed until a nurse noticed something on a third trimester scan and there was a second opinion. The mother then chose to abort. According to the above legal position this would be legal whether she was 24 and a half weeks pregnant, 25, 26 weeks pregnant or even beyond. For obvious reasons, I don't have citable evidence that it happened. But since you are keen to assure me it didn't,I assume that you think such a case would be deeply wrong and that the law should not permit it?
(Blogger has had issues the past few days, and I ended up losing the long comment I'd written. I do mean to reply to you.)
ReplyDeleteYeah, four days on I've stopped holding my breathe.
ReplyDeleteYeah, forgive me for actually having more important commitments than replying to a sexist douche who isn't likely to change her opinion. If you're not interested in a reply, I won't bother, but if you are, you'll have to wait.
ReplyDeleteDo tell me, by the way, so I don't waste my time.
ReplyDeleteStill checking.
ReplyDelete"sexist douche" yeah right because I just love the idea of having to be better than a man to get the same jobs,or at least equal and pretty, having my failures become representations of the limitations on all women, risking sexual attack every time I leave the house after dark, putting up with general degradation and intimidation in the street an being surrounded by degrading porn. FFS. We are meant to be on the same side. Is it any wonder the third wave has stalled somewhat.
Remember my comment where I asked you to tell me if you really cared about an answer, so I wouldn't waste my time on you if you didn't? "Still checking," that's rich. Is that a yes, or are you afraid to say you care?
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's pretty sexist to say that women lose their most fundamental human right because they've had sex. It's very nice that you have the right opinions on some issues, but given that you're trying to take away my rights over my body and replace them with your rights over my body, I don't really think you're on my side.
Obviously I am 'interested in a reply' if I am still checking. I'm not spending my time staring at a blank space. What do you want, a youtube of me crying at the lack of post?
ReplyDeleteMy rights do not come into this discussion. We are discussing the rights of the foetus. I am not a foetus. And no, in this I am most definitely not on your side. But the ease with which you are willing to call me a sexist douche for holding an opinion which has a coherent philosophy behind it, if nothing else, and misrepresent that as some kind of desire to control your body, is an example of the sort of thing that makes it impossible for feminists to act jointly on anything at all.
Oh and as for "It's very nice that you have the right opinions on some issues."
ReplyDeleteSince when did you become the arbiter of right opinions? I guess I must have missed that memo.
No thank you, I don't need a Youtube video, but something along the lines of "I'd like a reply" in between my asking "Do you want a reply" and your commenting "STILL CHECKING LOL YOU ARE A COWARD" might have been nice. I'm not psychic, I can't know that you care unless you say something.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is about your rights. Unless everything you've been saying is just some kind of clever test, you'd like to pass laws that prevent women - only women, and in a law that vastly contradicts both jurisprudence and common sense about bodily autonomy - from making medical decisions about their bodies and replace it with your decision to make them have children. And unless you've somehow been replying to my posts without reading them, you know that it's not about the rights of the fetus, because fetuses, even were they people, would not have the rights you claim to want to restore to them.
If you're not going to support feminist efforts on non-abortion issues because your precious feelings are hurt, you're not the kind of ally we need. We have better things to do than court people whose support for women's rights is conditional on their being given a cookie, because that means that support is always tenuous.
As for right opinions, I would presume that you also think your opinions are the right ones. Otherwise, you'd have gone away by now and I could devote my energies to other things.
(I may have identified the problem from before! It could have been that my comment was too long, let's see if splitting it up works.)
As is, this is a somewhat curtailed reply. With any luck I'll be able to remember most of what I said before my comment got wiped out.
ReplyDeleteNo the point is that if a driver hits someone and the only way to save that persons life is for them to donate blood then and there, and the accident was clearly their fault then it would be morally acceptable to require them to donate blood, particularly if the victim was a pedestrian who had not themselves undertaken the risk of an accident.
Come now. I'm sure if you were really devoted both to responsibility and to life, you wouldn't object to a system that would take bodily resources from people who had done something to deserve it in order to save people who need it. After all, why should two guilty parties get off scot-free and two innocent parties die, when the innocent could be saved instead?
If someone takes the risk of creating your life, they assume a responsibility not to take actions which will result in your premature death. That is not the same as saying they assume a responsibility to do everything within their physical power to keep you alive.
Except that creating your life when they know that you'll have a disease that will curtail it is taking an action that will result in your premature death. And, if the philosophy you espouse is as coherent as you say, that would mean that it is indeed the parents' responsibility to do everything possible to keep their children alive.
Obviously, it would be a better moral decision to adopt rather than risk a congenital abnormality, but what the law should or shouldn't do about that is a whole other philosophical can of worms that bears no relationship to whether a responsibility arises to carry the baby to term.
Why? Surely a law could be created that would require parents of children with, say, heritable kidney failure to donate their organs or, like the nurse in your example, be charged with manslaughter. There would probably be debate over whether there should be exceptions for parents who didn't know they could pass on diseases, but I would say that you should know whether you're a carrier before you go about having children.
No, I don't think its a good idea to induce labour when the baby is likely to die in pain. But I think it is a better idea then stopping it's heart first, and then inducing labour so you don't have to bother about trying to save the child's life.
ReplyDeleteSo at what point do we stop taking the advice of experts here? If there was an alternative method of abortion that allowed, say, a 15-week fetus to be removed intact, should it be required, and the fetus put on life support?
I don't "think it's fun" to define viability in any way at all. I think viability is a term which is used to make moral decisions about when a life is worth saving, and I don't think that because a child's chance of survival is small that it should be obliterated by the medical profession choosing not to help.
Unfortunately for you, viability is an actual medical term that has an actual definition.
By the way, you didn't answer my question: Why can't you rationalize abortion based on the chance of the pregnancy killing the woman? After all, it happens.
The whole point is that if the child at some point when it can decide decides that it does not want to live,then it can make the choice not to continue doing so. The default position should be to make sure it lives to be able to make a choice. That maximises the autonomy of the child.
And on what other medical issues should we disregard the advice of doctors and the wishes of parents? If a child were born, its parents would be the ones making medical decisions for it, in conjunction with doctors, because that's how things work. As leery as some cases in the US make me about giving parents absolute power over medical decisions, I don't think the State is the one best able to make the call here. (Not to mention that at the point we're talking about, it's obviously still the woman's medical decision as well.)
My understanding is that since viability as I have defined it occurs at less than 22 weeks a third trimester abortion would automatically be an abortion at the point where the baby was viable. Obviously if viability is defined at 25 weeks, then this may or may not be the case
And isn't that "as I have defined it" key.
My source for the third trimester abortion I mentioned was an anecdotal one; as I said, a friend is a medic and as far as I am aware the circumstances were that because of an earlier hospital fuck-up the fact that the baby had Down's was not noticed until a nurse noticed something on a third trimester scan and there was a second opinion. The mother then chose to abort. According to the above legal position this would be legal whether she was 24 and a half weeks pregnant, 25, 26 weeks pregnant or even beyond. For obvious reasons, I don't have citable evidence that it happened. But since you are keen to assure me it didn't,I assume that you think such a case would be deeply wrong and that the law should not permit it?
No, I think it should be legal; I just question the wisdom of using such a patently false anecdote to support any position.
I don't think having a degree in medicine makes you qualified to answer any question which has ethical implications. Viability has ethical implications, and I don't think because you have a medical degree you can say we shouldn't keep a child alive because it will suffer- you aren't the one suffering, it isn't your life, it is the child's life, and they should be able to make their own decision as soon as they are able to talk, and should be kept alive until that point. we stop taking the advice of medics as soon as an ethical question is involved.
ReplyDeleteWhen you have sex you undertake the risk of pregnancy and all the risks that flow from it. If you don't want to take that risk, have a hysterectomy or don't have sex. Sex is not so important that it is acceptable to kill for it.
OK, if you want to make a semantic argument, fine, in that case the point at which a baby should be kept alive if delivered is before it is viable, at the point where there is ANY chance of it surviving at all. It really makes no difference which way you slice the turkey.
If you are born with a congenital condition you don't die prematurely, you die at the natural end to your life.If your parents didn't conceive you, you wouldn't exist at all, so you can't demand that they extend your natural lifespan because of that.
How is it bodily autonomy when you are perfectly happy to go all the way through the pregnancy until you find out the baby has Down's?
ReplyDeleteI don't think having a degree in medicine makes you qualified to answer any question which has ethical implications. Viability has ethical implications, and I don't think because you have a medical degree you can say we shouldn't keep a child alive because it will suffer- you aren't the one suffering, it isn't your life, it is the child's life, and they should be able to make their own decision as soon as they are able to talk, and should be kept alive until that point. we stop taking the advice of medics as soon as an ethical question is involved.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome to make the argument that we shouldn't listen to doctors (and welcome to take that advice yourself, though not to force it on others), but as I've already explained, "viability" is a word that has a real definition, and the ethical implications tend to spring from that definition, not exist independently. It's disingenuous to try to change the definition of a word because its real definition doesn't suit your preconceived politics. How about coming up with a new "ethical" word instead of trying to redefine a medical term?
OK, if you want to make a semantic argument, fine, in that case the point at which a baby should be kept alive if delivered is before it is viable, at the point where there is ANY chance of it surviving at all.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Where are you drawing the boundaries of its chance at survival? If you're not going to go on the word of medical professionals when it contradicts your worldview, how are you figuring out for purposes of this statement when there is a chance of the fetus surviving? In short, why shouldn't a 15-week fetus be removed intact and put on life support? It's clearly not viable and no fetus at that point in development has ever survived outside, but you never know, just because it's never happened and people who know what they're talking about say it's a bad idea doesn't mean we can ignore the ethical implications.
When you have sex you undertake the risk of pregnancy and all the risks that flow from it. If you don't want to take that risk, have a hysterectomy or don't have sex. Sex is not so important that it is acceptable to kill for it.
Nor is it so great a crime that it's acceptable to take away others' bodily autonomy for having it.
If you are born with a congenital condition you don't die prematurely, you die at the natural end to your life.
So if a baby is born prematurely, there's no need to resuscitate it, because it's just dying at the natural end to its life. I see.
If your parents didn't conceive you, you wouldn't exist at all, so you can't demand that they extend your natural lifespan because of that.
This argument doesn't make sense. You've been saying specifically that the responsibility for a child that you conceive does not end at conception, which is why women should have to give birth to children. Is your philosophy then that responsibility for children begins at conception and ends at birth? Odd.
How is it bodily autonomy when you are perfectly happy to go all the way through the pregnancy until you find out the baby has Down's?
Because it's still residing in your body, and you're allowed to discriminate about what's in your body.
Viability is not something that has a definition independently of medical ethics. It is, according to the medical definition the point at which doctors think that the pain, suffering and complications, outweigh the benefits of the life involved. Its not their life to make that decision.
ReplyDeleteI think a baby should be kept alive wherever it is possible that it will survive long enough to make a decision of its own.No matter how much effort it takes, no matter how much suffering there is. Because that would be a decision based on medical possibility and not a doctor's valuation of a life.
It isn't about punishment. If you fall out of a tree and break your leg, it isn't a punishment for climbing the tree its just what sometimes happens when people take trees, and its a risk you took. The only difference here is that you have the possibility of getting out of it by killing. That's not a possibility that should be entertained.
Viability is not something that has a definition independently of medical ethics. It is, according to the medical definition the point at which doctors think that the pain, suffering and complications, outweigh the benefits of the life involved. Its not their life to make that decision.
ReplyDeleteI think a baby should be kept alive wherever it is possible that it will survive long enough to make a decision of its own.No matter how much effort it takes, no matter how much suffering there is. Because that would be a decision based on medical possibility and not a doctor's valuation of a life.
And here we come to the same question that I've already asked you - Whose medical opinion are you taking on this "wherever it is possible that it will survive"? If you're not willing to take a doctor's word for it that a child won't survive at 21 weeks, why are you willing to take a doctor's word that it won't survive at 15?
It isn't about punishment. If you fall out of a tree and break your leg, it isn't a punishment for climbing the tree its just what sometimes happens when people take trees, and its a risk you took. The only difference here is that you have the possibility of getting out of it by killing. That's not a possibility that should be entertained.
No one's arguing that people don't sometimes get pregnant, that would be silly. Just that continuing to be pregnant is not the only option, in the same way that continuing to have a broken leg is not the only option.
Any credibility you had about wanting to avoid killing flew out the window when you decided that you wanted a rape exemption. To follow the new analogy, you're arguing that people who were kidnapped and left in a tree should be allowed to receive medical care for the broken leg, whereas people who decided of their own volition to climb the tree should just go without because they knew they could hurt themselves.
You can go right ahead and deal with all those other arguments you've left unanswered, by the way.
I am willing to take doctors' opinion on what is possible, erring on the side of caution, so that if any doctor anywhere in the world says its possible, the stops are pulled out every time, but I don't think that's what's happening with viability as you described it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.efc.org.uk/Foryoungpeople/Factsaboutabortion/Viability
According to the information given on that website 'many babies survive at 24 weeks and some have been kept alive earlier'
Therefore viability (or the point at which a baby should be kept alive outside the womb whether the mother wants it or not) has to be before 24 weeks (the current abortion limit) because some babies have survived then, so it can't be impossible.
Getting out of the position of being pregnant involves killing, you need a better reason for killing someone than not wanting to take responsibility for the consequence of your actions.
None of the other arguments are things I haven't responded to over and over before.
And as for it being anti-woman, I take the same view of father's who have created embryos- they should not be able to veto the future use of those embryos whether they are with the woman or not, for the same reason. The double standard that exists is created by nature, not by me
ReplyDeleteOh and as for that anecdote you didn't believe,I found something more objective:
ReplyDelete"In 2002 110 abortions were carried out in England and Wales on the grounds of disability after 24 weeks" Education For Choice website.
I am willing to take doctors' opinion on what is possible, erring on the side of caution, so that if any doctor anywhere in the world says its possible, the stops are pulled out every time, but I don't think that's what's happening with viability as you described it.
ReplyDeleteTherefore viability (or the point at which a baby should be kept alive outside the womb whether the mother wants it or not) has to be before 24 weeks (the current abortion limit) because some babies have survived then, so it can't be impossible.
And as I already said - why is "what's happened" your lower limit? Why don't you want to take the chance that a fetus at X weeks will be the first one to survive that early? I mean, once you decide to disregard medical standards, why stop there?
Getting out of the position of being pregnant involves killing, you need a better reason for killing someone than not wanting to take responsibility for the consequence of your actions.
Look, we've been through this. I prioritize bodily liberty over life and responsibility (the prioritizing of liberty over life is generally consistent with existing law). You prioritize "responsibility" over bodily autonomy and life (which is consistent with existing law only if sex is a crime, because that's when we, as a society, make responsibility more important than bodily liberty or life).
But those are actually only your priorities when the situation is exclusively about women's bodies; we've seen that with the driver example, when you don't think at-fault drivers should give up their bodily liberty to save the lives of innocent others; and with the parent example, where you don't think parents who caused their children's heritable diseases should give up their bodily liberty to save those children's lives.
I don't see how making an exception to your ethics only in a situation that disadvantages women, as a class, is not sexist.
And as for it being anti-woman, I take the same view of father's who have created embryos- they should not be able to veto the future use of those embryos whether they are with the woman or not, for the same reason.
Could you phrase this more clearly? Right now it sounds like you're saying that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion.
Oh and as for that anecdote you didn't believe,I found something more objective:
"In 2002 110 abortions were carried out in England and Wales on the grounds of disability after 24 weeks" Education For Choice website.
Unfortunately for you, the page (and the law) doesn't distinguish between something like Down's syndrome and something like anencephaly. I don't think you're really suggesting that people with Down's may as well have no brains at all - I hope not.
I don't think I made myself clear: I think babies should be kept alive in all cases where it is theoretically possible that they will survive. Obviously, that changes depending on the technology available to do the keeping alive and it is currently before 24 weeks.
ReplyDeleteI do think that motorists should have to give blood if they are at fault and that is proven, and they are the only hope. In the case of parents they haven't caused the illness, they've caused the life.
"I was 26 weeks pregnant when I found out the baby had Down Syndrome. The doctor, my family and a so-called 'Christian' counselor thought it would be to my and the baby's advantage if I had the abortion ... The counselor was very pushy and told me I should have an abortion if I really loved my child ...
http://www.afterabortion.org/storiesprenataltesting.html
Also hate to quote the daily male but: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1223439/Would-abort-baby-Downs-Syndrome.html
The second woman found out at 23 weeks, so had she chosen to abort, it could easily have been done after the 24 weeks.
I very much doubt all the babies had something quite as serious as anencephaly- some might even have been just deaf or blind.
I was saying that if a man and a woman have IVF, the man should not be able to say that the embryos cannot be used after the relationship has broken down (in fact neither party should be able to refuse them once created.)
I don't think I made myself clear: I think babies should be kept alive in all cases where it is theoretically possible that they will survive. Obviously, that changes depending on the technology available to do the keeping alive and it is currently before 24 weeks.
ReplyDeleteNo, you've made yourself clear. I'm just wondering why "theoretically possible" for you is based on what's happened before (empirical), instead of on whether the development of the fetus indicates that it might survive outside (which would seem to be the definition of theoretical).
I do think that motorists should have to give blood if they are at fault and that is proven, and they are the only hope. In the case of parents they haven't caused the illness, they've caused the life.
I'll let the motorist example slide because it doesn't seem like you understand, but the parents are at fault to exactly the same degree as a woman who has had sex and got pregnant.
She knew or should have known the risks.
She created a life that couldn't survive on its own.
So she's obligated to take responsibility for her actions and support that life.
What makes her different from a woman who had sex and got pregnant?
"I was 26 weeks pregnant when I found out the baby had Down Syndrome. The doctor, my family and a so-called 'Christian' counselor thought it would be to my and the baby's advantage if I had the abortion ... The counselor was very pushy and told me I should have an abortion if I really loved my child ...
http://www.afterabortion.org/storiesprenataltesting.html
Very funny. How about citing a real source next time?
Also hate to quote the daily male but: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1223439/Would-abort-baby-Downs-Syndrome.html
The second woman found out at 23 weeks, so had she chosen to abort, it could easily have been done after the 24 weeks.
...Yes? And this confirms your anecdote about a third-trimester abortion how? (Third trimester is generally agreed to start around week 27. But I suppose you'll say that trimester has a moral definition so it doesn't matter how people who actually spend their lives caring for pregnant women and fetuses define it.)
I was saying that if a man and a woman have IVF, the man should not be able to say that the embryos cannot be used after the relationship has broken down (in fact neither party should be able to refuse them once created.)
Ah, sorry, I missed a "not" in your comment! Thanks for clarifying. I agree - it's not his body, it's not his business.
Whoops, missed this part.
ReplyDeleteI very much doubt all the babies had something quite as serious as anencephaly- some might even have been just deaf or blind.
It's possible. We don't know, though. Nor is it our business.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3073877
ReplyDeleteWould you mind providing a transcript?
ReplyDeleteAnd, you know, answering my arguments? (I'm going to assume some of them are covered in the video, but I very much doubt the video's going to explain why someone has a responsibility to donate their body to support a dependent life they created only if they're female.)