Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

[maynragh]

22 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

Do you honestly believe there is a universal definition of life?  You posted a wiki link earlier. Here's another

Not quite the same

The second para suggests the definition of life is controversial.  I agree and therefore do not accept the principle of a universal definition.

 

 

I think you have misunderstood what I mean't by universal. For any definition to be reliable it must be applicable universally. So a definition that would allow a horse and a rock to both be 'life' doesn't work. A definition that would allow a horse, but exclude a bacteria also doesn't work - universality is the basis for all classical scientific knowledge. 

The second paragraph of that page doesn't help you I'm afraid. If you don't want to accept that a blastocyst is life then you need to propose another definition which would allow that, without excluding any other form of life. As far as I'm aware that is impossible, but I'm always happy to learn. You've set out your position as if you wanted to base it on fact though. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by maynragh

[ballaughbiker]

I have already proposed the idea that a blastocyst is potential life. 

[maynragh]

Just now, ballaughbiker said:

I have already proposed the idea that a blastocyst is potential life. 

4 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

Continuing,  without reference to the second law of thermodynamics, let's start with a simple question.

Is fertilisation synonymous with pregnancy?

You want to continue without facts now? It is life, not potential life. That is a fact. A fact you have not provided any evidence to counter? If you have a reliable alternative definition of life please post it. Your opening gambit was strong on people who swerve facts. 

[maynragh]

If we are using a definition of 'synonymous' something like "closely associated with or suggestive of" then yes, ordinarily fertilisation is closely associated with pregnancy in every day life. If you walked in to work tomorrow and said you'd been fertilised, people would assume you were pregnant.  Fertilisation can of course be entirely separate.   

Time for bed now. Let's resume tomorrow!

Edited December 1, 2018 by maynragh

[ballaughbiker]

 

Quote

Fertilisation can of course be entirely separate. 

Indeed it can which was the point of the question. So an ovum can be fertilised (eg in vitro) yet pregnancy has yet to be achieved. They are therefore not synonymous.

However if that same ovum goes on to achieve implantation, then the person becomes pregnant. That being the case , implantation is the deciding factor isn't it?

Edited December 1, 2018 by ballaughbiker
spelling and + in vitro

[Gee Cee]

Much of this discussion about when a life becomes viable is quite irrelevant to the real issue. A deliberate smokescreen perhaps?

Babies tend to be aborted when they are several months old.

I'm not sure what the limit is now, but let's say for the sake of argument, that an abortion can take place up to 24 weeks.

Everyone seems to agree that after 24 weeks abortion should not be allowed.

The pro-abortionists need to consider what state the foetus is in at 23 weeks and 6 days. I for one doubt that it is possible to tell the difference between a foetus that is 23 weeks and 6 days old, and one that is 24 weeks old. Despite this, there are many people who would happily kill one, and protect the other.

It doesn't matter what time period you choose, the same argument will apply.

The only way to be sure that you are not killing babies, is to outlaw abortion.

[maynragh]

5 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

 

Indeed it can which was the point of the question. So an ovum can be fertilised (eg in vitro) yet pregnancy has yet to be achieved. They are therefore not synonymous.

However if that same ovum goes on to achieve implantation, then the person becomes pregnant. That being the case , implantation is the deciding factor isn't it?

Morning!

I suspected you were using synonymous when you mean't inextricable, that's why I asked what definition you were using. Fertilisation and pregnancy are synonymous, they are not inextricable. The standard medical definition of pregnant is "The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body." Implanted or not is irrelevant. Even if we were to accept that proposition for the sake of discussion I'm not really sure how you think that helps, because 'pregnant' is not equal to 'commencement of life'. Such a definition would then excluded all forms of life that never experience implantation - which is the problem of universality already discussed. You then create a definition of life specifically to assist your position, which is extremely weak logic. Even if you want to hold that implantation is commencement of pregnancy this direction has further problems, because the next obvious point is that the fertilised egg does not have to be implanted inside a parent. It can continue to grow in vitro - at which point does it then become 'life' if it is never 'implanted', according to the logic you are using? This is why the implantation equals life argument fails. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by maynragh

[maynragh]

58 minutes ago, Gee Cee said:

Much of this discussion about when a life becomes viable is quite irrelevant to the real issue. A deliberate smokescreen perhaps?

Babies tend to be aborted when they are several months old.

I'm not sure what the limit is now, but let's say for the sake of argument, that an abortion can take place up to 24 weeks.

Everyone seems to agree that after 24 weeks abortion should not be allowed.

The pro-abortionists need to consider what state the foetus is in at 23 weeks and 6 days. I for one doubt that it is possible to tell the difference between a foetus that is 23 weeks and 6 days old, and one that is 24 weeks old. Despite this, there are many people who would happily kill one, and protect the other.

It doesn't matter what time period you choose, the same argument will apply.

The only way to be sure that you are not killing babies, is to outlaw abortion.

You are correct. However, as we have already clarified, society has decided that it is acceptable to terminate life in certain circumstances. There is no universal way to differentiate between any of them - so if you are bothered about the human life that is terminated before it is born, but not bothered about the lives that are terminated after they are born then you're a hypocrite. I've asked you what you're prepared to do about it and you've never answered. 

[Gee Cee]

I am not a hypocrite. As many on this forum will testify, I am just as bothered about those who have been born. Especially if they choose to ride in the TT races!

You ask "what am I prepared to do about it"? Well I'm sorry, but I do not understand the question. What is this 'IT' that you want me to do something about?

 

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Morning!

I suspected you were using synonymous when you mean't inextricable, that's why I asked what definition you were using. Fertilisation and pregnancy are synonymous, they are not inextricable. The standard medical definition of pregnant is "The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body." Implanted or not is irrelevant. Even if we were to accept that proposition for the sake of discussion I'm not really sure how you think that helps, because 'pregnant' is not equal to 'commencement of life'. Such a definition would then excluded all forms of life that never experience implantation - which is the problem of universality already discussed. You then create a definition of life specifically to assist your position, which is extremely weak logic. Even if you want to hold that implantation is commencement of pregnancy this direction has further problems, because the next obvious point is that the fertilised egg does not have to be implanted inside a parent. It can continue to grow in vitro - at which point does it then become 'life' if it is never 'implanted', according to the logic you are using? This is why the implantation equals life argument fails. 

Good morning.

In vitro fertilisation has challenged many of convenient definitions that had been used for years.

I think this is ultimately helpful because those who make our laws really aren't going to consider the likes of Schrödinger's ideas and definitions, laws of thermodynamics, entropy etc etc. If we can move on from yesterday evening's tortuous analogies with their suspect logic, we might actually get somewhere.

So, I think a reasonable definition of the start of pregnancy is the moment that the blastocyst implants in the uterine wall. In vitro fertilisation has demonstrated that conception can occur without the potential mother being pregnant. This inconvenience is something Schrödinger never had to deal with but we do.

So, firstly, can we accept that a pregnancy starts at implantation?

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Much of this discussion about when a life becomes viable is quite irrelevant to the real issue. A deliberate smokescreen perhaps?

My opinion differs.

A radical pro-abortionist will want (?need)  the definition of life to start at conception because thinking can then stop and any action that interrupts the natural process can be condemned. 

They can stand in the streets with placards showing very late abortions (the reasons why they were aborted are unknown) showing the very worst scenario because they know this will evoke the biggest emotional impact.

You then mention pro-abortionists. I trust you can recognise that the vast majority of those who supported a change in Manx law hate the very idea of abortion, me included. I therefore object to a simplistic label ultimately suggesting that I might be like the idea. I don't but I am pragmatic enough to recognise that shit happens and not everyone has an ideal life and ideal circumstances in which to bring up an unplanned child.

FWIW, I think 24 weeks is far too late unless there is an over-riding medical need to abort. I remember Alex Allinson suggesting 14 weeks* should be the general limit. That too is rather late for me but it is considerably better than 24. What I can't agree with it the phrase "It doesn't matter what time period you choose, the same argument will apply." This is only used by radical anti-abortionists who require utter simplification to give all the other inconvenient considerations a big swerve. Unfortunately, a woman with an unwanted pregnancy cannot be so readily dismissive.

Radical anti-abortions always use the word "baby". A fertilised single cell prior to mitosis is a baby to them. They do so to attain the biggest emotional response.

The bit about TT riders is so utterly ludicrous in this context, it is entirely unworthy of any comment.

 

* Does anyone know if this idea was taken any further forward?

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

FWIW, I think 24 weeks is far too late unless there is an over-riding medical need to abort. I remember Alex Allinson suggesting 14 weeks* should be the general limit. That too is rather late for me but it is considerably better than 24. [...]

* Does anyone know if this idea was taken any further forward?

The Abortion Reform Bill 2018 is currently awaiting Royal Assent and the Explanatory Notes that came with the Bill lay out the structure of the way the different trimesters are dealt with:

Quote

10. Clause 6 specifies the conditions which must be satisfied before an abortion may take place. The three trimesters of a pregnancy are treated differently to reflect the ethical and moral issues which arise as the foetus develops and the medical and surgical procedures necessary to provide an abortion at the different stages of pregnancy.

(a) Subsection (2) allows for abortion on request of the pregnant woman up to 14 weeks gestation. According to the latest statistics from England and Wales 92% of abortions there were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation.

(b) Subsections (4) to (7) allow the provision of an abortion from the beginning of the 15th week and ending at the end of the 23rd week of the gestation period. These conditions include: risk to the pregnant woman’s life or health, substantial risk of the foetus having a serious developmental anomaly or fatal foetal anomaly, cases where the pregnancy was a result of rape, and where there are serious social grounds to justify the abortion.

(c) Subsection (8) details the exceptional reasons for a late termination after 24 weeks gestation. In practice, these would be carried out only in a specialist foetal medicine unit in the UK following a tertiary referral in order to guarantee expert assessment and advice.
The exceptional reasons in this section include: risk to the life of the pregnant woman or risk of grave long-term injury to her health, substantial risk that the foetus would die before or during labour, and that if born the child would die shortly after birth or have such significant impairments that would limit either the length or quality of the child’s life.

According to the latest statistics from England and Wales only 0.1% of abortions there were carried out at over 24 weeks gestation. Late terminations carry substantial risks to the pregnant woman and require specialist counselling, support and techniques. For this reason they are usually only carried out in a specialist centre.

This seems reasonable to me (including the expectation that the very rare (c) ones should be done off-Island).  The only real worry I have about this is that elements in the DHSC will try to obstruct its implementation.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Babies tend to be aborted when they are several months old.

GC said.

Roger said

Quote

a) Subsection (2) allows for abortion on request of the pregnant woman up to 14 weeks gestation. According to the latest statistics from England and Wales 92% of abortions there were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation.

S'pose it just about matches. The activists never show pictures of up to 13 weeks though do they?  Nah, always manipulate opinion with the much later ones. 

 

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

The only real worry I have about this is that elements in the DHSC will try to obstruct its implementation.

Well if that does happen then it needs to become public information. I suspect however a vulnerable young woman with an unwanted pregnancy will not want a showdown. They have more than enough to cope with already.

[maynragh]

9 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

Good morning.

In vitro fertilisation has challenged many of convenient definitions that had been used for years.

I think this is ultimately helpful because those who make our laws really aren't going to consider the likes of Schrödinger's ideas and definitions, laws of thermodynamics, entropy etc etc. If we can move on from yesterday evening's tortuous analogies with their suspect logic, we might actually get somewhere.

So, I think a reasonable definition of the start of pregnancy is the moment that the blastocyst implants in the uterine wall. In vitro fertilisation has demonstrated that conception can occur without the potential mother being pregnant. This inconvenience is something Schrödinger never had to deal with but we do.

So, firstly, can we accept that a pregnancy starts at implantation?

Good Evening.

I don't think I inferred that the definition of life was being considered by law makers did I? I would assume law makers (at least those who are doing the technical drafting) are fully aware that they are dealing with the termination of human life, why would they need to consider the point any further? There is no suspect logic. As with any scientific theory, Schrödinger's definition of life could be (and would be) replaced or upgraded at any time if a better version were proposed based on reliable evidence. At the moment it hasn't happened as far as I'm aware, so the scientific definition of life is as stated. This has absolutely no relevance to whatever ethical position anyone may choose to take, it's just a scientific fact. Human life starts when a group of human cells which are distinct from either parent begins to maintain it's own order, at the cost of increasing disorder outside of itself. Implantation is irrelevant. The facts don't force any logical person to draw any particular ethical conclusion, they're just facts. 

You may think that a reasonable definition of pregnancy is implantation. The standard medical definition disagrees with you (as do I). I don't see what difference it makes anyway. The word 'pregnant' is as irrelevant as the word 'baby' - they're simply not reliable terms for any logical discussion. 

Roger is 100% correct. The units that are going to be asked to handle this are the same units that are already screwed to the floor. It's already public information, (virtually) nobody cares. This was the real tragedy of the entire local debate in my opinion. It seemed to be highly focused on the conflict with almost no consideration for the reality of what is happening to the people who we're going to expect to deliver the victory.