Medical Agrgument Against Abortion Posted: 04-14-07 21:18pm
Medical Arguments Against Abortion
Thus far in our discussion we have looked
at biblical arguments against abortion.
But what if someone doesn't believe in the
Bible? Are there other arguments we can
use? Yes, there are: medical arguments,
for example. Let's look, then, at some of
the medical arguments against abortion.
The medical arguments against abortion are
compelling. For example, at conception the
embryo is genetically distinct from the
mother. To say that the developing baby is
no different from the mother's appendix is
scientifically inaccurate. A developing
embryo is genetically different from the
mother. A developing embryo is also
genetically different from the sperm and
egg that created it. A human being has 46
chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes).
Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A
trained geneticist can distinguish between
the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm
and egg. But that same geneticist could
not distinguish between the DNA of a
developing embryo and a full-grown human
being.
Another set of medical arguments against
abortion surround the definition of life
and death. If one set of criteria have
been used to define death, could they also
be used to define life? Death used to be
defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A
stopped heart was a clear sign of death.
If the cessation of heartbeat could define
death, could the onset of a heartbeat
define life? The heart is formed by the
18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was
used to define life, then nearly all
abortions would be outlawed.
Physicians now use a more rigorous
criterion for death: brain wave activity.
A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one
of the most important criteria used to
determine death. If the cessation of brain
wave activity can define death, could the
onset of brain wave activity define life?
Individual brain waves are detected in the
fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain
wave activity to define life would outlaw
at least a majority of abortions.
Opponents to abortion also raise the
controversial issue of fetal pain. Does
the fetus feel pain during abortion? The
evidence seems fairly clear and
consistent. Consider this statement made
in a British medical journal: "Try
sticking an infant with a pin and you know
what happens. She opens her mouth to cry
and also pulls away. Try sticking an
8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his
hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his
hand away. A more technical description
would add that changes in heart rate and
fetal movement also suggest that
intrauterine manipulations are painful to
the fetus."
Obviously, other medical criteria could be
used. For example, the developing fetus
has a unique set of fingerprints as well
as genetic patterns that make it unique.
The development of sonography has provided
us with a "window to the womb" showing us
that a person is growing and developing in
the mother's womb. We can discern eyes,
ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth. Our
visual senses tell us this is a baby
growing and maturing. This is not a piece
of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the
womb.
The point is simple. Medical science leads
to a pro-life perspective rather than a
pro-choice perspective. If medical science
can be used at all to draw a line, the
clearest line is at the moment of
conception. Medical arguments provide a
strong case against abortion and for life.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4044 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Re: Medical Agrgument Against Abortion Posted: 04-15-07 12:32pm
Anonymous
wrote:
Medical Arguments Against
Abortion
Thus far in our discussion we have looked
at biblical arguments against abortion.
But what if someone doesn't believe in the
Bible? Are there other arguments we can
use? Yes, there are: medical arguments,
for example. Let's look, then, at some of
the medical arguments against abortion.
The medical arguments against abortion are
compelling. For example, at conception the
embryo is genetically distinct from the
mother. To say that the developing baby is
no different from the mother's appendix is
scientifically inaccurate. A developing
embryo is genetically different from the
mother. A developing embryo is also
genetically different from the sperm and
egg that created it. A human being has 46
chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes).
Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A
trained geneticist can distinguish between
the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm
and egg. But that same geneticist could
not distinguish between the DNA of a
developing embryo and a full-grown human
being.
Another set of medical arguments against
abortion surround the definition of life
and death. If one set of criteria have
been used to define death, could they also
be used to define life? Death used to be
defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A
stopped heart was a clear sign of death.
If the cessation of heartbeat could define
death, could the onset of a heartbeat
define life? The heart is formed by the
18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was
used to define life, then nearly all
abortions would be outlawed.
Physicians now use a more rigorous
criterion for death: brain wave activity.
A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one
of the most important criteria used to
determine death. If the cessation of brain
wave activity can define death, could the
onset of brain wave activity define life?
Individual brain waves are detected in the
fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain
wave activity to define life would outlaw
at least a majority of abortions.
Opponents to abortion also raise the
controversial issue of fetal pain. Does
the fetus feel pain during abortion? The
evidence seems fairly clear and
consistent. Consider this statement made
in a British medical journal: "Try
sticking an infant with a pin and you know
what happens. She opens her mouth to cry
and also pulls away. Try sticking an
8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his
hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his
hand away. A more technical description
would add that changes in heart rate and
fetal movement also suggest that
intrauterine manipulations are painful to
the fetus."
Obviously, other medical criteria could be
used. For example, the developing fetus
has a unique set of fingerprints as well
as genetic patterns that make it unique.
The development of sonography has provided
us with a "window to the womb" showing us
that a person is growing and developing in
the mother's womb. We can discern eyes,
ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth. Our
visual senses tell us this is a baby
growing and maturing. This is not a piece
of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the
womb.
The point is simple. Medical science leads
to a pro-life perspective rather than a
pro-choice perspective. If medical science
can be used at all to draw a line, the
clearest line is at the moment of
conception. Medical arguments provide a
strong case against abortion and for
life.
These are not "medical arguments". They
are moral arguments. And they aren't even
good. You'd have to explain, for example,
how a zygote with unique dna is so
important that a woman is obligated to
gestate it inside her own body.
I wonder if anyones ever tried sticking a
fetus with a pompom and seeing if it
withdraws it's hand away.
This is the kind of reason that no one
wins the abortion debate, and you have to
work towards the reasons women obtain
abortions to descrease the rates.
Plus, it's real nice of you to gloss over
anything to do with the woman. If you
really wantd to post some "medical
agrguments" [sic] you might want to
include medical issues that may effect the
mother.
|
chick1978
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Apr 2007 Posts: 68 Location: canada
Re: Medical Agrgument Against Abortion Posted: 04-17-07 17:05pm
Abortions are not required if
contraception is used effectively.
If you are a person that will never want
children then have steralisation done.
Abortion is the ending of a life that
would effectively be a born child if left
alone.
Birch
wrote:
Anonymous
wrote:
Medical Arguments Against
Abortion
Thus far in our discussion we have looked
at biblical arguments against abortion.
But what if someone doesn't believe in the
Bible? Are there other arguments we can
use? Yes, there are: medical arguments,
for example. Let's look, then, at some of
the medical arguments against abortion.
The medical arguments against abortion are
compelling. For example, at conception the
embryo is genetically distinct from the
mother. To say that the developing baby is
no different from the mother's appendix is
scientifically inaccurate. A developing
embryo is genetically different from the
mother. A developing embryo is also
genetically different from the sperm and
egg that created it. A human being has 46
chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes).
Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A
trained geneticist can distinguish between
the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm
and egg. But that same geneticist could
not distinguish between the DNA of a
developing embryo and a full-grown human
being.
Another set of medical arguments against
abortion surround the definition of life
and death. If one set of criteria have
been used to define death, could they also
be used to define life? Death used to be
defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A
stopped heart was a clear sign of death.
If the cessation of heartbeat could define
death, could the onset of a heartbeat
define life? The heart is formed by the
18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was
used to define life, then nearly all
abortions would be outlawed.
Physicians now use a more rigorous
criterion for death: brain wave activity.
A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one
of the most important criteria used to
determine death. If the cessation of brain
wave activity can define death, could the
onset of brain wave activity define life?
Individual brain waves are detected in the
fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain
wave activity to define life would outlaw
at least a majority of abortions.
Opponents to abortion also raise the
controversial issue of fetal pain. Does
the fetus feel pain during abortion? The
evidence seems fairly clear and
consistent. Consider this statement made
in a British medical journal: "Try
sticking an infant with a pin and you know
what happens. She opens her mouth to cry
and also pulls away. Try sticking an
8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his
hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his
hand away. A more technical description
would add that changes in heart rate and
fetal movement also suggest that
intrauterine manipulations are painful to
the fetus."
Obviously, other medical criteria could be
used. For example, the developing fetus
has a unique set of fingerprints as well
as genetic patterns that make it unique.
The development of sonography has provided
us with a "window to the womb" showing us
that a person is growing and developing in
the mother's womb. We can discern eyes,
ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth. Our
visual senses tell us this is a baby
growing and maturing. This is not a piece
of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the
womb.
The point is simple. Medical science leads
to a pro-life perspective rather than a
pro-choice perspective. If medical science
can be used at all to draw a line, the
clearest line is at the moment of
conception. Medical arguments provide a
strong case against abortion and for
life.
These are not "medical arguments". They
are moral arguments. And they aren't even
good. You'd have to explain, for example,
how a zygote with unique dna is so
important that a woman is obligated to
gestate it inside her own body.
I wonder if anyones ever tried sticking a
fetus with a pompom and seeing if it
withdraws it's hand away.
This is the kind of reason that no one
wins the abortion debate, and you have to
work towards the reasons women obtain
abortions to descrease the rates.
Plus, it's real nice of you to gloss over
anything to do with the woman. If you
really wantd to post some "medical
agrguments" [sic] you might want to
include medical issues that may effect the
mother.
|
sillyakchick
Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2691
Thanks: 6
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-17-07 17:42pm
Sterilization is not without it's own host
of side effects!
If "left alone" many babies would not be
born or be born with birth defects. That
is why women need to receive pre-natal
care.
These issues are not as simple as you
would like others to believe.
|
AyaMiyaki
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 8338 Location: Floating on a cloud, United States
Thanks: 185
Thanked:15
Re: Medical Agrgument Against Abortion Posted: 04-17-07 17:57pm
chick1978
wrote:
Abortions are not required
if contraception is used
effectively.
.i just wanted to point out that no birth
control method is 100% effective apart
from abstinance. Quite a few women become
pregnant despite consistant birth control
use.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-17-07 20:51pm
Quote:
Abortions are not
required if contraception is used
effectively.
COntraception is not effective for all
women. Our own Carifairy cannot use
horomonal contraceptives. She even fell
pregnant on a non-horomonal iud.
Quote:
If you are a
person that will never want children then
have steralisation done.
Doctors will almost never sterilize young
women, because doctors think they are too
dumb to know what they want. Doctors think
that every single woman on the planet will
some day have an uncontrollable urge to
procreate.
Secondly, sterilization can adversly
affect the body just like contraception
can.
Quote:
Abortion is the ending of a life that
would effectively be a born child if left
alone.
Not true; many pregnancies spontaneously
miscarry before week 20.
|
chick1978
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Apr 2007 Posts: 68 Location: canada
Posted: 04-25-07 22:49pm
Yes, but most pregnancies would continue
if lest alone. Therfore a living,
breathing child would be born at the end
of the pregnancy.
Eri.......................................
........
Not true; many pregnancies spontaneously
miscarry before week 20.[/quote]
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-25-07 22:55pm
chick1978
wrote:
Yes, but most pregnancies
would continue if lest alone. Therfore a
living, breathing child would be born at
the end of the pregnancy.
Eiri
wrote:
............................
...................
Not true; many pregnancies spontaneously
miscarry before week
20.
<
span class="postbody">
I'd have to see some actualy statistics;
unfortunately many of the pregnancies that
don't make it, the woman passes on and
thinks it is just a period so they're
undocumented.
|
diamond splinter
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 611 Location: ,
Posted: 04-26-07 08:32am
how conveniant
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-26-07 11:51am
diamond splinter
wrote:
how conveniant
I'm sorry that nature isn't convenient
enought to display statistics of all the
babies it kills just for
pro-life's pleasure. Becuse as we all
know, pro-life loves looking at the
statistics of dead babies.
|
diamond splinter
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 611 Location: ,
Posted: 04-26-07 14:55pm
Eiri
wrote:
diamond splinter
wrote:
how conveniant
I'm sorry that nature isn't convenient
enought to display statistics of all the
babies it kills just for
pro-life's pleasure. Becuse as we all
know, pro-life loves looking at the
statistics of dead
babies.
Do you wanna supply proof of that idiotic
statement fool
|
sillyakchick
Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2691
Thanks: 6
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-26-07 18:03pm
diamond splinter
wrote:
how conveniant
Here is an article which helps to shed
some light on the difficulty in
calculating the number of miscarriages in
any particular community.
If a woman is not treated, the miscarriage
typically goes unreported.
It is true that many women miscarry prior
to even knowing they are pregnant. This
happens if there is a drastic inborn
genetic error of human development during
the first few weeks. If you take a couple
of classes in human development or speak
to any seasoned midwives, this statement
is understood to be accurate.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1174 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9
Re: Medical Agrgument Against Abortion Posted: 04-28-07 08:17am
Anonymous
wrote:
Medical Arguments Against
Abortion
Thus far in our discussion we have looked
at biblical arguments against abortion.
But what if someone doesn't believe in the
Bible? Are there other arguments we can
use? Yes, there are: medical arguments,
for example. Let's look, then, at some of
the medical arguments against abortion.
The medical arguments against abortion are
compelling. For example, at conception the
embryo is genetically distinct from the
mother. To say that the developing baby is
no different from the mother's appendix is
scientifically inaccurate. A developing
embryo is genetically different from the
mother. A developing embryo is also
genetically different from the sperm and
egg that created it. A human being has 46
chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes).
Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A
trained geneticist can distinguish between
the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm
and egg. But that same geneticist could
not distinguish between the DNA of a
developing embryo and a full-grown human
being.
Another set of medical arguments against
abortion surround the definition of life
and death. If one set of criteria have
been used to define death, could they also
be used to define life? Death used to be
defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A
stopped heart was a clear sign of death.
If the cessation of heartbeat could define
death, could the onset of a heartbeat
define life? The heart is formed by the
18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was
used to define life, then nearly all
abortions would be outlawed.
Physicians now use a more rigorous
criterion for death: brain wave activity.
A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one
of the most important criteria used to
determine death. If the cessation of brain
wave activity can define death, could the
onset of brain wave activity define life?
Individual brain waves are detected in the
fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain
wave activity to define life would outlaw
at least a majority of abortions.
Opponents to abortion also raise the
controversial issue of fetal pain. Does
the fetus feel pain during abortion? The
evidence seems fairly clear and
consistent. Consider this statement made
in a British medical journal: "Try
sticking an infant with a pin and you know
what happens. She opens her mouth to cry
and also pulls away. Try sticking an
8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his
hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his
hand away. A more technical description
would add that changes in heart rate and
fetal movement also suggest that
intrauterine manipulations are painful to
the fetus."
Obviously, other medical criteria could be
used. For example, the developing fetus
has a unique set of fingerprints as well
as genetic patterns that make it unique.
The development of sonography has provided
us with a "window to the womb" showing us
that a person is growing and developing in
the mother's womb. We can discern eyes,
ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth. Our
visual senses tell us this is a baby
growing and maturing. This is not a piece
of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the
womb.
The point is simple. Medical science leads
to a pro-life perspective rather than a
pro-choice perspective. If medical science
can be used at all to draw a line, the
clearest line is at the moment of
conception. Medical arguments provide a
strong case against abortion and for
life.
Get a grip and look at some real medical
information Web MD
instead of blind religous right
propagandizing.
For the record.. I have two children, one
still birth, two mid trimester
miscarriages and one abortion.
Miscarriage happens. Miscarriage happens
even to what appear to be perfectly
healthy fetuses. They happen at 19 weeks..
they happen at 21 weeks and they produce
still births at 25 weeks.
Abortion is usually done before 12 weeks..
you tell me which you think is easier on
women and I will tell you which really is.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-28-07 13:03pm
diamond splinter
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
diamond splinter
wrote:
how conveniant
I'm sorry that nature isn't convenient
enought to display statistics of all the
babies it kills just for
pro-life's pleasure. Becuse as we all
know, pro-life loves looking at the
statistics of dead
babies.
Do you wanna supply proof of that idiotic
statement
fool
I don't need to. Pro-lifers have brought
together the statistics of abortions for
years. You know where to find these stats.
Pro-lifers also love throwing these
statistics around, showing them to people,
and looking at them over and over,
lamenting over all of the dead "babies".
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-28-07 13:04pm
sillyakchick
wrote:
diamond splinter
wrote:
how conveniant
Here is an article which helps to shed
some light on the difficulty in
calculating the number of miscarriages in
any particular community.
If a woman is not treated, the miscarriage
typically goes unreported.
It is true that many women miscarry prior
to even knowing they are pregnant. This
happens if there is a drastic inborn
genetic error of human development during
the first few weeks. If you take a couple
of classes in human development or speak
to any seasoned midwives, this statement
is understood to be
accurate.
Thank you, Sillya
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-29-07 04:38am
Quote:
If you are a
person that will never want children then
have steralisation done.
This is so much easier said than done. I
know a couple of women from another forum
who had to jump through so many hoops and
tell a myriad of blatant lies to get their
doctor to give them the tubal ligation or
essure...and these women were in their 30s
- old enough to know what they want. It
just took a couple of morons who needed to
have more little usurpers post-tubal to
ruin it for all the women who don't want
kids. Hell, I would love to get sterilized
right now, but at my age, I would get
laughed right out of the office.
Quote:
Not true; many
pregnancies spontaneously miscarry before
week 20.
This is sort of true. I believe the
statistic I have read is that 20 percent
of pregnancies will end in miscarriage.
Then again, most statistics are made up on
the spot, so that 20 percent could be way
off.
As far as the OP, what about the medical
arguments in favor of abortion? What if
the mother has an ectopic pregnancy, or
the fetus has Tay-Sachs (which causes
inevitable death for the child)? What if
the mother is mentally or emotionally
unstable due to being pregnant (and I
don't mean the typical pregnancy mood
swings)? What if she can't kick her
smoking habit and screws up the fetus?
Though not medical, what if the woman
realizes she would be an unfit parent due
to low income, lack of experience with
children, or lack of desire? Why should
women be punished for these circumstances,
many of which were not chosen? Why should
the unwanted or deformed children be
punished by being forced into a life where
they are not wanted because people like
you bleat for women to have little to no
control over their own bodies?
It's arguments like this that make me wish
all pro-life women would get pregnant and
die of complications that could have been
prevented with abortion.
|
kethib54
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 10 Location: AZ
Abortion Or Miscarriage Posted: 08-07-07 11:34am
Comparing abortion to miscarriage is
unfortunately about the same as comparing
homicide to death by natural causes.
Truth is both pro-choice and pro-life
claim to want to make abortions less
prevalent. Medical, genetic and
biological arguments confirm that the
unborn human fetus is 100% human.
Pro-choicers love to call the unborn human
being a zygote or a fetus (but that does
not accurately or specifically describe
the creature. The zygote, embryo, or
fetus carried within a female human being
is 100% human being. The only arguments
favoring abortion try to be ambiguous
about the zygote, embryo or fetus and they
try to be civil in the definition of who
dies in an abortion. Abortion really does
kill one human being and wound at least
one other human being. Adoption is a
glorious God-exampled alternative to
abortion. It also represents a kinder
gentler alternative.
|
sillyakchick
Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2691
Thanks: 6
Thanked:0
Posted: 08-07-07 11:47am
Would you like to adopt a crack baby? How
about one with terrible genetic problems?
Would you like to adopt a baby born
without a brain? How about one who will
die within days of birth?
As I stated previously, these issues are
never as simple as we would like to think
they are. That is why abortion is legal.
No one here would aregue that any z/e/f
being carried by awoman is not HUMAN. It
is not a CITIZEN, nor is it BORN.
Also, nobody was comparing abortion to
miscarriage, it was simply being debated
that miscarriage occurs more commonly than
is statistically accounted for.
|
milletics
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Jun 2007 Posts: 204
Posted: 08-07-07 11:55am
Its called responsibility. If people had
it, abortions would almost never occur.
There was a time when I didnt want kids(at
least not then), but I chose to have
sex(using bc) and I knew that there was a
risk of my wife becoming pregnant and I
was also responsible(key word) enough to
accept the cosequences should she become
pregnant. Thank God she did to.
We have the most wonderful daughter. Sick
to think my wife could have killed her.
Those are great scientific FACTS.
Facts dont matter too much for the
choicers.
|
kethib54
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 10 Location: AZ
It Is Not a Citizen Posted: 08-07-07 12:02pm
I have no question that some babies are
born with huge problems. Personally, I
have a daughter with a serious genetic
problem, but I did not take that problem
as giving me the right to kill her, even
when she was little. Killing is not the
answer to large problems. I also have a
close friend that chose not to abort a
baby conceived when she was raped by an
illegal alien (hence also not a citizen).
That baby has just entered high school.
There are exceptionally difficult problems
in this old world, but I find that killing
is almost never a reasonable solution.
The z/e/f is living, is human and no one
should have the right to kill the innocent
human being. The only time I see abortion
as legit is when the pregnancy endangers
the life of the mother. That
statistically represents less than 5% of
abortions. The pain and suffering of
people does not legitamize killing, and it
does not solve any problem. Many who
promote abortion are very opposed to
capital punishment. I will make you a
deal. You oppose killing innocent human
beings and I will oppose killing guilty
dreadful felons. Deal?
