7 of 40
7
Pro-life Atheists
Posted: 21 October 2008 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Veronica - 21 October 2008 04:45 AM

To be continued later…

Don’t bother.  I know more about reproduction than you do from every possible angle: medical, legal, historical, ethical/philosophical.  I’ve given you more than you deserve already, and I’m bored with your pathetic offerings.  They aren’t worth my time.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

Just got back from participating in the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity.

Nice to see all the company I have.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 06:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28
M is for Malapert - 21 October 2008 04:02 PM
Veronica - 21 October 2008 04:45 AM

To be continued later…

Don’t bother.  I know more about reproduction than you do from every possible angle: medical, legal, historical, ethical/philosophical.  I’ve given you more than you deserve already, and I’m bored with your pathetic offerings.  They aren’t worth my time.

I wish to finish what I started and present my view, my pathetic offering from an anti-abortion perspective notwithstanding, considering your take has been from the pro-abortion one. Besides, since the title of this thread is “Pro-Life Atheists,” views on anti-abortion, even if it comes from a non-atheist should be okay.

You are free not to read my posts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28
M is for Malapert - 20 October 2008 06:01 PM

Do some reading about the Hippocratic Oath.  For one thing, it wasn’t written by Hippocrates (who performed abortions) but by Pythagoreans, who also condemned surgery or any letting of blood.  For another, it’s irrelevant today.

Pythogoras was a philosopher-mathematician (known as “Father of Numbers”). He has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath or medicine.

Hippocrates is known as the “Father of (Western) Medicine” and the Hippocrates Oath was attributed to him from antiquity. Even if a couple of scholars question the authenticity of the source nearly twenty five centuries later (based on ???), the Oath has played an integral role throughout the history of Western medicine.

“The Hippocratic Oath, a seminal document on the ethics of medical practice, was attributed to Hippocrates in antiquity. This is probably the most famous document of the Hippocratic Corpus… While the Oath is rarely used in its original form today, it serves as a foundation for other, similar oaths and laws that define good medical practice and morals. Such derivatives are regularly taken today by medical graduates about to enter medical practice.”

Hippocrates not only did NOT induce abortions, he forbade medical doctors from inducing them. Hence it is included in the Oath. The history of medical practice is proof that medical doctors took the oath seriously and until recently abortion was considered a crime.

Most countries, in which abortion is legal, also has a conscience clause for medical doctors, which enables them to opt out of doing the procedure.

The most recent updated version/adaption of the Hippocratic Oath was posted earlier.

[ Edited: 21 October 2008 07:49 PM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 08:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Veronica - 21 October 2008 11:22 PM
M is for Malapert - 20 October 2008 06:01 PM

Do some reading about the Hippocratic Oath.  For one thing, it wasn’t written by Hippocrates (who performed abortions) but by Pythagoreans, who also condemned surgery or any letting of blood.  For another, it’s irrelevant today.

Pythogoras was a philosopher-mathematician (known as “Father of Numbers”). He has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath or medicine.

Wrong again.  See the website of the University of Virginia Medical School, http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/antiqua/hippocrates.cfm

Partial quote:

The organization of the Hippocratic Oath is clearly bipartite. The first half specifies the duties of the pupil toward his teacher and his obligations in transmitting medical knowledge; the second half gives a short summary of medical ethics. Because the second half of the Oath is inconsistent with Hippocrates’s own principles and practices, we must assume he was not its sole contributor, if one at all.

One immediate inconsistency is the Oath’s prohibition against abortion. The Hippocratic Corpus contains a number of allusions to the methods of abortion and the use of pessaries. The Oath’s prohibitions did not echo the general feeling of the public either. Abortion was practiced in Greek times no less than in the Roman era, and it was resorted to without scruple. In a world in which it was held justifiable to expose children immediately after birth, it would hardly seem objectionable to destroy the embryo.

A second discrepancy between the Oath and general Hippocratic principles is the ban on suicide. Suicide was not censured in antiquity. Self-murder as a relief from illness was regarded as justifiable, so much so that in some states it was an institution duly legalized by the authorities. Nor did ancient religion proscribe suicide. It did not know of any eternal punishment for those who ended their own lives. Law and religion then left the physician free to do whatever his conscience allowed.

Pythagoreanism is the only dogma that can possibly account for the attitude advocated in the Hippocratic Oath. Among all the Greek philosophical schools, the Pythagoreans alone outlawed suicide and abortion and did so without qualification. The Oath also concurs with Pythagorean prohibitions against surgical procedures of all kinds and against the shedding of blood, in which the soul was thought to reside. Again, this interdiction against the knife is especially out of keeping with the several treatises in the Hippocratic Corpus that deal at length with surgical techniques and operating room procedures.

It is little wonder that this Oath, although incorrectly attributed to Hippocrates, has remained steadfastly the symbol of the physician’s pledge. The prohibition against abortion and suicide were (and remain) in consonance with the principles of the Christian Church. The earliest reference to the Oath is in the first century CE, and it may have been appropriated soon after to fit the religious ideals of the time. The substitution of God, Christ, and the saints for the names of Asclepius and his family was easy enough. It is ironic that the Hippocratic Oath, in its present form with its religious subtext, is associated with Hippocrates, the man who first separated medicine from religion and disease from supernatural explanations.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Veronica - 21 October 2008 10:51 PM

I wish to finish what I started and present my view,

You can copy and paste without attribution whatever trash you like.  I’m simply pointing out to you and other forum readers that you are ignorant.

Anyone who wishes to understand more about abortion can Google my past posts, since I won’t have the time or interest to rebut your sources, unless it’s unusually easy to do so.  I do give my sources, so people can judge their value.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 08:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28
M is for Malapert - 20 October 2008 06:25 PM

The joke is that these physicians were all equally ignorant stumblebums compared to the medical profession today.  Midwives actually had a better record of safety in caring for pregnant women than physicians did, if only because the midwives were clean.

Male physicians wore frock coats to do surgery and didn’t change or even wash their hands before attending childbirth.  They would insert their blood-encrusted, filthy fingers into women’s bodies and, no surprise, puerperal fever and other septic illness followed with lethal result.

Meanwhile, midwives attended one woman at a time and stayed through the birth.  They wouldn’t go to another birth immediately and would clean up between times.  They knew as much through simple apprenticeship and observation as the physicians did, and they were gentle and clean.  They were powerful competition to the medical boobs—and they were rooted out. 

It took generations for midwifery to make a comeback in the US; it never fell out of favor in Britain and Europe and as a result medical history is quite different—there, it was mainly wealthy women who died of childbirth fever, because they could afford physicians.  They died like flies.  Poorer women, who could only afford the services of a midwife, were much likelier to survive childbirth, and their babies too.

The importance of cleanliness in childbirth was discovered in Vienna by a physician named Semmelweiss, who wondered why it was the richer, physician-attended wards of women who were dying in childbirth in greater numbers than the poor wards of women attended by midwives.  He was laughed at when he urged doctors to wash their hands, and women went on dying.

It is a story of grotesquerie, and would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

“Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818 – August 13, 1865), also Ignac Semmelweis (born Semmelweis Ignác Fülöp), [1] [2] was a Hungarian physician called the “saviour of mothers” [3] [4] who discovered, by 1847, that the incidence of puerperal fever, also known as childbed fever could be drastically cut by use of hand washing standards in obstetrical clinics.

While employed as assistant to the professor of the maternity clinic at the Vienna General Hospital in Austria in 1847, Semmelweis introduced hand washing with chlorinated lime solutions for interns who had performed autopsies. This immediately reduced the incidence of fatal puerperal fever from about 10 percent (range 5–30 percent) to about 1–2 percent. At the time, diseases were attributed to many different and unrelated causes. Each case was considered unique, just like a human person is unique. Semmelweis’ hypothesis, that there was only one cause, that all that mattered was cleanliness, was extreme at the time…

“Semmelweis’ practice only earned widespread acceptance years after his death, when Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease which offered a theoretical explanation for Semmelweis’ findings. Semmelweis is considered a pioneer of antiseptic procedures…

“Semmelweis concluded that he and the medical students carried “cadaverous particles” on their hands from the autopsy room to the patients they examined in the First Obstetrical Clinic. This explained why the student midwives in the Second Clinic who were not engaged in autopsies and had no contact with corpses experienced a much lower mortality rate…

“The germ theory of disease had not yet been developed at the time. Thus, Semmelweis concluded that some unknown “cadaverous material” caused childbed fever. He instituted a policy of using a solution of chlorinated lime for washing hands between autopsy work and the examination of patients and the mortality rate dropped a ten-fold order of magnitude, comparable to the Second Clinic’s. The mortality rate in April 1847 was 18.3 percent, handwashing was instituted mid-May, the rates in June were 2.2 percent, July 1.2 percent, August 1.9 percent and, for the first time since the introduction of anatomical orientation, the death rate was zero in two months in the year following this discovery…”

The medical doctors could be “blamed” for not knowing the germ theory of disease, a theory that had not yet been formulated in the time of Semmelweis. The ignorance of something that was not known led to not being particular about washing hands thoroughly after autopsy work (not surgery), which the students of midwifery did not do in the first place. Semmelweis did manage to find a solution to the problem of mortality however and brought down the death rate to zero. Surely one can’t expect a lower death rate than zero!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Medical science has progressed steadily and a medical doctor is expected to practice the professional only in accordance with the knowledge available to them at the time and the means at their immediate disposal.

I don’t know how an obstetrician could feel professionally threatened by midwives. Midwives, even modern ones, handle normal deliveries - healthy mothers carrying healthy children. The service of a medically trained obstetrician is required only when the pregnancy is complicated by illness in the mother during pregnacy, the not optimal position of the fetus at the time of delivery which can’t be rectified by physical manipulation from the outside, difficulty for any number of reasons which require additional help, which to the best of knowledge a midwife is not yet qualified to do - medical management of pregnant women, episiotomy (cutting the perinieum to avoid irregular perineal tears, including the possibility of infection), forceps delivery or caesarian section.

Could it not be that midwives feel that obstetricians have taken over their exclusive profession away from them to a certain extent?

[ Edited: 21 October 2008 11:49 PM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

From the History of Medicine Division, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

“The Hippocratic Oath (OrkoV) is perhaps the most widely known of Greek medical texts. It requires a new physician to swear upon a number of healing gods that he will uphold a number of professional ethical standards. One of the best known prohibitions is, “to do no harm” (epi dhlhsei de kai adikihi eirxein)

Little is known about who wrote it or first used it, but it appears to be more strongly influenced by followers of Pythagoras than Hippocrates and is often estimated to have been written in the 4th century B.C.E.

Over the centuries, it has been rewritten often in order to suit the values of different cultures influenced by Greek medicine…”

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

Note, the claim is that the Hippocrates Oath “appears to be more strongly influenced by followers of Pythagoras...”

“Appears to be influenced” is not exactly the same as written by…

“Followers of Pythagoras” is not the same as “by Pythagoras.”

Considering there is no proof that the followers of Pythagoras wrote the Hippocrates Oath, there is no reason to say with certainty that Hippocratic did NOT write it. Why would it be called the Hippocratic Oath, and not the Pythogorean Oath if it is supposedly written by the followers of Pythogoras? And if the followers of Pythogoras wrote it why did they attribute it to Pythagoras and not take the credit for it themselves? Does a hypothesis that the Hippocrates Oath “may have been influenced by the followers of Pythagoras” prove that Pythogoras was involved with medicine (which he was not) and was not the philosopher-mathematician as he is well known to be?

Similarly “allusions” to abortion and use of pessaries in the writing of Hippocrates does not imply that he performed abortions and then forbade other medical doctors from performing them. If abortion and infanticide was rampant among the Greek pagans of his day, all the more reason why Hippocrates would add a special mention prohibiting the practice in his instruction on ethical practice of medicine.

[ Edited: 21 October 2008 09:30 PM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28
M is for Malapert - 20 October 2008 06:25 PM

Also read some history of medicine in the USA.  In the mid-19th century, the AMA was busy trying to establish itself as a respectable profession, “the regulars”, attempting to create a monopoly on medical treatment and squeeze out midwives and “irregular” practitioners who hadn’t been trained at certain approved medical schools…

The AMA is a pandering joke.  It’s no wonder that only about half of US physicians belong to this group of fools.

The stated mission of AMA:

Mission: To promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.

Core Values: (1) Leadership; (2) Excellence; and (3) Integrity and Ethical Behavior.

Vision: To be an essential part of the professional life of every physician.

The American Medical Association helps doctors help patients by uniting physicians nationwide to work on the most important professional and public health issues.

******************************************
What exactly makes the mission of AMA a “joke?” Since it is a voluntary service, no physician is forced to be a member. The journal they publish, JAMA, happens to be among the best medical journals in the world.

The best source of information on the American Medical Association would be the website of AMA.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/1854.html

*******************************************

So half of US physicians are fools?  Only because they are members of AMA??????????? Or is it because it is likely that non-abortionists are more likely to be members of AMA?

[ Edited: 21 October 2008 09:36 PM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 09:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

One textbook of human embryology which is a good source of reference:

The Developing Human by Moore and Persaud

Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell, a zygote, into a multicellular human being…Development does not stop at birth…”

[ Edited: 22 October 2008 01:25 AM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2008 12:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28
M is for Malapert - 21 October 2008 03:16 PM
Veronica - 21 October 2008 03:57 AM

M is for Malapert:

1. The life of ALL human beings begins as a single celled zygote (fertilized egg).

Nope.  The life of all human beings begins as gametes.  There is no such thing as a “single celled zygote” (see my posts on cloning).  Some people are the product of a fertilized egg and an egg that began developing without sperm.

The human being is exactly where it is meant to be during the first nine months of its development, namely in its mother’s womb, and it looks and functions at every stage in the womb of its mother exactly as a human being is supposed to look and function at that stage.

What kind of argument is that?  Incidentally, there are human beings alive today who never saw the inside of their mothers’ wombs.  They developed elsewhere in her body.

Regardless, if I don’t want something (or someone, if you consider an embryo to be a person) in my body, however much you think it’s meant to be there, it’s coming out.

A gamete is NOT the beginning of a human being; a fertilized ovum or zygote is. A zygote has the unique, chromosome complement that constitutes the beginning of a human being, whereas the gamete has only half the number of chromosomes.

Human cloning is not a reality yet. Even at the level of cloning done in animals, the ovum is still required and the full complement of chromosomes is provided by one cell or another. The ovum is then implanted in the uterus for further development. The artificial process, which is not easy to achieve and can go wrong in so many ways, only manages to achieve the feat of using the full set of chromosomes from a single body; the ovum and uterus cannot be dispensed with. Nature has devised a natural means to mix and match chromosomes to provide variety and better offspring. It is well known that consangunious mating increases the risk of children born with congenital deformities/diseases. What purpose does it serve to clone human beings?

Sure the zygote is a single cell with a complete set of chromosomes, one half of which is derived from the sperm of the father of the child.

Neither IVF (although the oocyte and sperm are fertilized in vitro, the zygote must still be implanted into a uterus for further development) nor ectopic pregnancy is the norm. The uterus remains the anatomically normal place where a child develops.  Ectopic pregnancy is not without dangers for the life of the mother and sometimes requires termination of pregnancy to save her life, simply because the embryo/fetus happens to be growing in a place it is not meant to be.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2008 12:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28
M is for Malapert - 20 October 2008 06:01 PM
Veronica - 20 October 2008 12:43 AM

Abortion on the other hand has only one goal, to kill the unborn child at the instruction of the mother.


Nope, it’s to prevent a child from coming into being.  Of course, if you want to think of an embryo as a person and give it the same rights as a person, you must be sure not to give it MORE rights than other persons. .

The zygote is the beginning of a new human being. By the time the woman even suspects pregnancy, the developing human, by then called the embryo, is already embedded in the uterus of its mother. The heart of the developing human begins to beat on day 22/23 after fertilization. At the end of eight weeks the embryo is called a fetus, (merely a technical term to differentiate between different stages in a continous process of development, like one calls a born child a newborn, toddler, pre-schooler, adolescent, adult or whatever) because it has developed all the organs and looks externally like a born human baby, except that it is a miniature version.

Abortion is therefore killing that unborn child.

Contraception which prevents fertilization can be rightly called “preventing a child from coming into being.”  The term is no longer valid after fertilization has taken place.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2008 12:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28
Beam_Me_Up - 21 October 2008 03:27 PM

The new human being comes into existence not by its own free choice, but the free choice of its mother. The woman makes her choice before the child is conceived, namely when she decides to have sex.

Not all intercourse is consensual.

Animals do not interfere with nature and abort pregnancies. It is not common practice for animals to kill their own offspring.

Some animals eat feces. What is your point?

Our supposed direct ancestors - bonobo apes, gorilla, chimpanzees et al - most certainly don’t.

You apparently have no understanding of evolution.

So if sex is considered an instinct that should not be regulated in anyway,…

What planet do you live on?

You simply want to control the choices of another individual. If you truly want to stop abortions, then offer to support the women and raise the children.

According to abortion statistics, pregnancy due to rape accounts for a mere 0.3% !

Ninety eight percent of abortions are abortions of convenience, yes abortion-on-demand by women who can afford the children but do not want to for various reasons, hardly covered by medical ethics.

Most animals seem to treat their own kind better than humans who kill (abort) their own offspring. That is the point I intended to make.

My hyperbolic mention of evolution was to prove the same point.

Should people who object to infanticide and homicide also have the responsibility to look after the murderers? What makes killing a growing child in its mother’s womb right and the killing of the same child outside its mother’s womb murder?

In third world countries, where people are desperatel poor and governments don’t give any kind of support to families, they do not demand the government or others take care of the children they produce. Nobody threatens to kill their children if the government doesn’t take care of them.

As to abortion rates in developed countries, social benefits do not seem to have affected the rate of abortions very much because abortions are done for convenience in most cases. On the other hand tougher laws and reluctance of medical doctors to perform abortions, have had a direct impact.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2008 01:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28
M is for Malapert - 21 October 2008 03:54 PM
Veronica - 21 October 2008 04:06 AM

2. Reproduction is a natural physiological process.

So is cancer.

The new human being comes into existence not by its own free choice, but the free choice of its mother.

Nonsense.  A woman using contraception, say, may be doing so because she doesn’t want children.  Her choice to enter into a sexual relationship with a man does not mean that she also consents to enter a pregnancy relationship with an embryo, assuming you consider it to be a person.

The woman makes her choice before the child is conceived, namely when she decides to have sex.

Nope.  See above.  Pregnancy is legally considered a different thing than sex; for instance, the Supreme Court decision Michael M. v. Sonoma County held that it was constitutional for a state to penalize men, but not women, in statutory rape because unlawful sexual intercourse could result in pregnancy, which imposes harm on women that men do not face.  If you were correct and intercourse/pregnancy were the same thing, then the only harm would be the intercourse in cases of statutory rape.  The Court held otherwise. 

Similarly, in cases of forcible rape, normal pregnancy has been found to be “great bodily injury” above and beyond the rape, in other words a separate intrusion or violation.

Then there are pregnancies after sterilizations fail (“wrongful pregnancy” cases).  Not only have physicians been held liable for child support in these cases, they are also required to pay damages for the pregnancy itself, as a legal injury.  The wrongful pregnancy, although resulting from consensual intercourse, is a damage or wrong done to the woman: an intrusion quite separate from the intrusion she accepted when she had intercourse. 

So, you’re wrong.

From the beginning of human history, sex has been the only means by which human beings have reproduced.

Again, irrelevant.  However, not true.  Let me direct you to the interesting case of the African woman who was born without a vagina and could not become pregnant through sexual intercourse.  One day, as she was giving one of her lovers a blow job, another lover burst in on them.  A knife fight ensued, and the angry lover stabbed the woman.  The knife cut her stomach and semen spilled out into her abdominal cavity.  Some entered her fallopian tubes and she was surprised to find herself pregnant. 

Now, here is a woman who not only does not engage in, but cannot engage in reproductive sexual intercourse.  She is pregnant as the result of a crime committed against her (leaving out for the moment the actions of the embryo).  Giving a blow job is not a crime, and she had no reason to expect a violent felon to try to kill her.  She was merely going about her everyday activities, which could never result in pregnancy.

Yet here she is, pregnant solely as the result of a violent crime committed against her (again, ignoring the embryo for now).  She has every right to defend herself against both the knife-wielding felon and the pregnancy process which unexpectedly began within her.

However, rape victims who are pregnant are also the victims of crime.  On the other hand, consensual sexual intercourse is not a crime; however, since it’s always the embyro which causes pregnancy, all women are in the same position when it comes to pregnancy: consenting to one relationship perhaps (sexual intercourse, or nonprocreational sexual activity) but not to any other (rape, or being slashed with a knife, or being impregnated by an embryo).  They all have the same right of self-defense against any act or process which intrudes on their bodily integrity.

Human physiology was not constructed with provision for artificial contraceptives to regulate number of pregnancies.

Actually, human physiology was constructed with built-in birth control: anovulation.  Under normal, natural circumstances, active women ovulate only a handful of times per lifetime and menstruate less than that.  Normally, women would have sex hundreds or thousands of times per lifetime and become pregnant 3 or 4 of them. 

Unnatural food production and food storage, unnatural eating habits for both women and babies, and so forth, have resulted in today’s hyperfertility and massive waste of bodily resources in monthly menstruation and constant pregnancy, unless artificial measures like contraception or abstinence are taken.  (Paraphrased from Williams Obstetrics.) 

So as far as nature is concerned, every intercourse has the potential to produce an offspring.

The human race couldn’t have survived if every intercourse had the potential to produce a pregnancy.  However, women have also fallen back on infanticide and abortion when too many pregnancies occurred.  This is perfectly natural as well, and the key to human survival.

Animals do not interfere with nature and abort pregnancies.

Yes, they do.  For instance, rabbits simply absorb embryos when they are given a scare, or are hungry.

It is not common practice for animals to kill their own offspring. Our supposed direct ancestors - bonobo apes, gorilla, chimpanzees et al - most certainly don’t.

Veronica.  Honey, please do some reading.  None of these animals are our direct ancestors; they are distant relatives—gorillas far more distant than chimps (both common and bonobo). 

Chimps commit infanticide regularly; bonobos don’t.  In the case of humans, we come down on the side of the common chimps.  As late as the early 1800s, a third of all babies born in Europe died by infanticide, according to The New England Journal of Medicine.

Other animals commit infanticide as well.

Today, we are fortunate to have contraception and abortion as much preferable methods of population regulation, since it’s almost certain that women will never be able to go back to the life that permits anovulation to restrict births to such a tiny number.

Cancer is an abnormal, pathological process.

Pregnancy is a direct result of sex. It is well known that contraceptives do not offer 100% protection, so a woman who engages in sexual activity, even with contraceptives, is aware of the possibility of pregnancy. The development of artificial contraception, and sex outside marriage as the norm is a most recent development in human societies.

The child has absolutely nothing to do with its coming into being. It is brought into being by the voluntary act of its mother. Even in the rare case of rape, the child is brought into existence without its own choice and consent.

The embryo does not “cause” pregnancy. The fertilization of the mothers egg and the father’s sperm is brought about by the mother’s sexual act. The zygote merely proceeds to develop in the way predetermined by its genes. Sex that brought the human being into being and killing the developing human through abortion are both the voluntary choices of its mother.

Pregnancy due to rape accounts for only 0.3% of abortions, an absolutely tiny fraction.

What difference does it make to the biological existence of the growing child in the womb how the law of the land it happens to be conceived in defines pregnancy and personhood? The developing human does not become more or less of a human simply because of a definition. Only the protection it is entitled to by the law of the land varies, not the fact of its existence. Countries that recognize the unborn child as a developing human offers it protection from the time the child is conceived. For civil purposes, the unborn child is given protection as well. Only when its own mother decides to have it killed, does it lose its right to life, and the right of the mother varies according to the law of the land.

I don’t know what species of human beings you are talking about in which the females ovulate only a couple of times in its lifetime. The homo sapiens physiology I’m aware of, the woman ovulates in every mentrual cycle, which is on an average once a month during the whole period of fertility, from menarche till menopause.

I’m not aware of too many human cultures where infanticide and abortion was the norm, and it was used as a population control method. Infant mortality rate used to be high because medicine was primitive. That acted as an indirect population control, not infanticide. Infant mortality due to illness is not referred to as infanticide.

How many animals exihibit the cognitive ability and capacity for free choice that humans do? Do we compare our behavior with rabbit or other animal behavior under stress? If so which animal - the ones that are most brutal by instinct, not by choice, or the ones that are the most harmless by instinct, not by choice?

[ Edited: 22 October 2008 02:22 AM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2008 01:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

Obstetrics is about taking care of the pregnant mother so that she may deliver a healthy child. The “unit of pregnancy” is merely technical jargon. It does not mean that the growing child is not a developing human which has distinct set of chromosomes, its own gender, is merely attached to the mother for the first nine months of its existence via the detachable placenta deriving oxygen and nutrients from her etc. The child is also exposed to harm as a result of being dependent on its mother for survival. Consider the effects of smoking, poor nutrition, drugs, alcohol, AIDS in the mother etc on the development of the child.

Medical doctors refer to all “persons,” no matter what their age, as patients. They do not refer to any patient as a “person.” So does a doctor’s definition of a person have any relevance? The “personhood” is an arbitary definition invented by law for the purpose of Roe vs Wade. It has no relevance outside of Roe vs Wade.

As to Fetologists or perinatal pediatricians intervening to help an unborn child within the womb, they are acting fully in accordance with medical ethics, to HELP, not to kill as an abortionist does. All medical science is about using artificial methods to HELP sick people. Only abortionists violate the ethics, hence the special law to protect their backs.

[ Edited: 22 October 2008 02:16 AM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
   
7 of 40
7
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed