She didn't choose abortion?

[j2k4]

Not at all, although in my opinion my first post was more substantial than my second so perhaps you didn't achieve that goal. If you would like to know whether I think there would be any sense in this woman sacrificing an otherwise excellent prognosis for a pregnancy then I would say no. I would say she had children and I imagine a family and friends who had a greater claim on her life than a foetus. But that's all hypothetical since that wasn't the case here.

I must say, then, that our opinions differ as to the substance of your post.

Had the prognosis been favorable, I am quite sure she would have chosen differently; however, such was not the case, and we are not privy to precisely where the odds stood...10%? 30%?

She may indeed have decided in accordance with your opinion, and I am not here to argue otherwise.

I hope as well you've correctly concluded I would question the sensibility of abortion in most of the circumstances it is practiced.

This is not to say I believe you have revealed to me your own thoughts on abortion.

That first sentence is making my brain bleed. You hope I have assumed that you think abortion isn't sensible on the whole? Why would you hope that and why would I assume it without being told?

I hope you will forgive my forgetting everyone here is not familiar with my views on the subject, and I hope your brain heals soon.

Mea culpa.

I believe abortion in the first trimester should be freely available to all women who want it for whatever reason they want it. After that I believe it should only be available if a woman's life is in danger otherwise.

Just out of curiosity, how/why do you arrive at your "first trimester" formulation?

Incidentally J2K4...this is interesting. Do you admire this woman for her sacrifice of a few months of her life, or just for not contravening your own moral code?

I admire her for her clarity of thought.

Others might have decided more selfishly or dithered over the decision.

As to your last, I do have a moral code; that is to say, I have a code for living my life, and it is informed by morals.

I use it as well to judge others, however I have condemned very few, and I do not (as yet) count you amongst the latter, so kindly remove the twist your knickers.

I hope you continue to find this interesting.

[Squeamous]

There's no need to get upset.....I was genuinely interested as to whether you admired her simply for agreeing with you. Often people admire those that share their views for that reason alone.

We are privy to where the odds stood...her cancer was terminal. In light of that what she did was neither courageous or showed any clarity of thought beyond what one would expect of a human being in full possession of her faculties. The course of action she chose was the only rational one.

I arrive at the first trimester because by that point the organs have formed including the spinal cord and brain, and the baby is able to move its limbs and respond to its environment. Once it can do that I consider it a human being. And by 3 months in any responsible woman should be aware enough of her body to have realised she is pregnant and have an abortion if she wants one.

[j2k4]

There's no need to get upset.....I was genuinely interested as to whether you admired her simply for agreeing with you. Often people admire those that share their views for that reason alone.

We are privy to where the odds stood...her cancer was terminal. In light of that what she did was neither courageous or showed any clarity of thought beyond what one would expect of a human being in full possession of her faculties. The course of action she chose was the only rational one.

I arrive at the first trimester because by that point the organs have formed including the spinal cord and brain, and the baby is able to move its limbs and respond to its environment. Once it can do that I consider it a human being. And by 3 months in any responsible woman should be aware enough of her body to have realised she is pregnant and have an abortion if she wants one.

What makes you think I am upset?



As to the odds, perhaps I could have been clearer...radiation or chemotherapy might have extended her life to a degree she felt it worth marginalizing the baby's chances.

While it appears she acted decisively, many who remained "in charge of their faculties" or "rational" could have eschewed the decision she made without suffering accusations they were insane or irrational.

If you regard her story as unexceptional, you are apparently at odds with the media's reportage, for if she had decided other than she did, we would not be discussing this.

Back to the trimester question:

You deem a spinal column and brain development proof a threshold is crossed.

A similar step for others is the moment of birth, at which point some argue the baby is 100% viable and no longer dependent on the hospitality of the womb.

I have never understood this, as a freshly-birthed infant will inevitably die absent continuing attention.

It strikes that me both scenarios are merely convenient milestones for deciding the life is or is not worth keeping/saving/nurturing; after all, if a fertilized egg is to become the combination spinal chord/brain, or a suckling infant, it must be considered as life, yes?

[Squeamous]

I guarantee that if she had decided to extend her life for a few months over the birth of her baby it would never be in the media. Most people would consider this a grossly selfish act and no-one would be shouting about it from the rooftops. In fact, I think she would rightly receive a lot of criticism in the minds of most people. I am personally fed up of the media making heroes of people who simply choose the only proper course of action....it devalues the meaning of the word.

Yes, I believe that the linking up of the spinal cord and brain and the subsequent ability of the foetus to respond to its environment is an important threshold.

The birth as a threshold doesn't stand up, because if this was the case babies would be induced past 5 months gestation instead of an abortion and given their chances of survival instead of killed in the womb before being 'born'. Actually I believe this would be a better option than late stage abortion.

I believe the conception threshold doesn't stand up because to take the rights of a clump of undifferentiated cells over those of a living human being is a nonsense. There are millions of embryos in cryobanks all over the world that are being held in stasis with no hope of resurrection and yet you never hear of widespread protest over those, or people standing outside storage labs with placards. In my opinion the conception threshold is the result of too much God-fearing and not enough common sense.

[Biggles]

Although I am aware of the argument regarding late abortion in the US, how common is late abortion other than for extreme medical reasons? In the UK the generally observed limit is 24 weeks but something like 98.2% of abortions (or thereabouts) occur before the first 16 weeks. There was discussion recently about reducing the time limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks but as far as I understood this would not actually make any meaningful impact on abortion numbers. That said such a reduction might help the few stragglers make their minds up more quickly.

Ultimately we are all choosing a cut off point. Those that choose conception are ignoring the fact that eggs and sperm are also potential life (notwithstanding the silliness about Onanism ). Other religions have historically taken other standpoints. I believe Zarathustrianism believed that the spirit entered the body at 20 weeks (or thereabouts) prior to that the body is an empty shell. However, those that believe a soul is created when two cells subdivide are not going to be swayed by medical talk of brains and spinal chords. Equally those of a non-religious disposition are unlikely to be swayed by nebulous concepts of souls inhabiting microscopic cell clusters.

Other than that I believe the woman made the right decision given her circumstances.

[C-mos]

she is a brave woman
a truely lover of her baby

[Squeamous]

If you remove the nucleus of a 1 cell embryo immediately after fertilisation of egg with sperm and replace it with a somatic (ie non sex) cell nucleus such as skin cell, and zap it with electricity you will create an embryo which is a clone of that somatic cell. At what point there has that skin cell, something which we shed from our bodies in the millions every day and which we sweep off the furniture with the flick of a duster and some Pledge, become a life? As our understanding of reproduction advances I believe that we will stop viewing it as a magical and mystical process and more and more as the switching on of genes in a cascade triggered simply by chemical interactions. The fact is, too few people understand enough about it to think clearly on the subject and religion fills the void.

[Busyman™]

I'm saying prayers for this incredible woman:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1799

I like the story but it seemed the obvious choice anyway.

Not to be so blunt but the mother could've still died even with quick treatment.

I hope she makes it through though.

[saqib]

amazingly brave

[bmick]

thats an amazing story