February 21, 2007: Youngest surviving premature baby

[tw]

Originally Posted by SeanAhern

After seeing this kind of evidence that people can survive after being in the womb for so short a time (and hearing anecdotal evidence of at least two more stories), how can people ever bring themselves to allow abortions on children in utero at that same (and later) stage of development?

How can people so opposed to abortions also intentionally lie so as to murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis only for their own self serving political agenda.

The minute you entertain your emotions, then all this is relevant. Those most opposed to abortions also support Israeli stealing of Palestinian land and other acts of aggression only because these moral people want Armageddon. Why do these same people who worry about a few dead babies also have no problem advocating a massacre of most Jews in Israel - Armageddon? You opened the can of worms with the predicate of your question. You tell me who more moral - or are they really only lying to themselves to entertain their emotional biases?

Meanwhile, how can thousands of human life be murdered in fertility clinics? Another perfect example of reasoning based only in emotional bias.

[SeanAhern]

Originally Posted by tw

Those most opposed to abortions also support Israeli stealing of Palestinian land and other acts of aggression only because these moral people want Armageddon. Why do these same people who worry about a few dead babies also have no problem advocating a massacre of most Jews in Israel - Armageddon? You opened the can of worms with the predicate of your question. You tell me who more moral - or are they really only lying to themselves to entertain their emotional biases?

I understand your point -- that being "pro life" means that you should be opposed to the intentional taking of life in all of its forms, be it abortion, fertility, war, "military actions", etc. All I can say is that most of the people in the pro life circles I frequent DO oppose those things. Not all, of course, but most. This mindset requires consistency, and you're right to point out hypocricy when you see it. Forget what you hear from congresscritters and other political pundits. I'm talking about the people on the ground, the counselors at crisis pregnancy centers, the girls who decide to put their children up for adoption, the ones holding vigils for prisoners on death row.

I also don't want to conflate too many issues. A discussion about abortion can go in many directions, but diving into the politics of war can sometimes muddy the waters.

The legal line for abortions in the U.S. is "viability." English common law had it at "quickening", which is somewhere around 20-24 weeks. But Roe vs. Wade codified it at about 7 months (28 weeks), or specifically, "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

But you have to watch out for the "viability" argument. Given the photograph that we're having this discussion under, it's clear that we're getting better and better at being able to care for children at earlier and earlier stages of gestation. There are even people working (in Japan) on artificial wombs. Some time in the future, we're likely to have the ability to have a fetus be viable outside the womb mere days after conception. I wouldn't want our definition of who is worthy to live be based upon what current technology we have around.

Anyway, sorry to mire the conversation down. I just wanted to get people thinking.

[tw]

Originally Posted by SeanAhern

I also don't want to conflate too many issues. A discussion about abortion can go in many directions, but diving into the politics of war can sometimes muddy the waters. ...

But you have to watch out for the "viability" argument. Given the photograph that we're having this discussion under, it's clear that we're getting better and better at being able to care for children at earlier and earlier stages of gestation.

And now we must discuss stem cells. At what point is life somehow 'magical'. It's not – which is why the argument against stem cells is 100% emotional. Life of all types has value - finite value. Emotional types don't like that. But value is reality.

We put up borders in a hope to maximize the value of life – to make decisions easier. That does not mean all humans should live. Some defective fetuses are more humanly terminated before a cognizant life form exists. Is that lump in a guy's hand a human - or just a lump of cells? I see a lump of cells that could become a human life - but is not a cognizant life form.

We treasure things that can grow to be something great - that have the potential for great value. And that is the difference between a realist and the emotional types. I see a picture that is only a picture of reality. The minute I have emotions about that picture - I become my own worst enemy. I value life far more than those who 'feel'. Therefore I have no problem when some fetuses have value and other do not.

Who is to decide? Well either no one or someone. Everything we do is a statistical estimate. But again, where do emotions appear. Never if one has greater respect for life. We train people logically to make better decisions. Making no decisions can be a most inhuman thing we might do.

Where does emotion enter? After brutally demanding irrefutable facts and after drawing conclusions from those facts; only then do we compare those conclusions with an emotion. If the emotion says something is wrong, we throw out everything and do a hard, unemotional, and logical analysis again to find a possible mistake. That is where emotion belongs in decision making. I 'feel' there is something wrong. Therefore we analyze it again to either find the logical error, or to discover we have emotional biases adverse to society and mankind.

Those who were racists discovered they were racists - classic decision based only in emotion - when doing hard logical analysis (or confronted by significant examples). Eventually discovering their emotions were wrong. Since they were not thinking logically, then they were racists.

Emotion is a circuit breaker - a warning or safety device that something may be wrong. When emotion is part of a decision process, then we become our own worst enemies. Why are we wasting hundreds of thousands in Iraq? That too came from decisions based only in emotion – total denial of facts. Decisions based in emotion make one his own worst enemy.

He did not say, “I feel, therefore I am”.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by SeanAhern

The legal line for abortions in the U.S. is "viability." English common law had it at "quickening", which is somewhere around 20-24 weeks. But Roe vs. Wade codified it at about 7 months (28 weeks), or specifically, "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

In the UK the legal limit was reduced in 1990 to 24 weeks.

In 2005 only 1.4% of all terminations in the UK occured at over 20 weeks. 67% were performed at under 10 weeks, 89% at under 13 weeks

The NHS limit in functional terms is 19 weeks. Terminations beyond this point are not undertaken by most hospitals or clinics and the overnight stay necessary may lead to waiting times. In other words it is a serious procedure that needs to be planned in advance and thought through carefully. The second scan takes place at 20 weeks and the small number of terminations at this point may be as a result of something discovered at this point.

Although the image of those little gummy feet is indeed a powerful one, I still wouldn't see a termination at that stage to be murder. I do not believe a foetus is a child. Perhaps the fact that babies can survive at 22 weeks would be better used to prompt pro-lifers into accepting the need for better access to early stage terminations.