Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 31 of 316 (181944)
01-30-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
01-30-2005 9:26 PM


Re: the logic
Lets look at it again.
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
First tell me what the word sustained means, then tell me, what does the word irreversible mean there?
Also tell me why this law was written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2005 9:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2005 11:01 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2005 11:12 PM riVeRraT has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 316 (181956)
01-30-2005 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by riVeRraT
01-30-2005 10:09 PM


Re: Medical definitions
Obviously you have trouble comprehending what I say.
Back the fuck off. I understood you perfectly.
You're the one that seems to misunderstand your own argument. Do you deny that, under your plan, the woman only gets to make the choice about the abortion after her doctor has decided she can? Or do you not understand that your requirement for a medical assessment of risk means that a doctor is determining whether or not an abortion will be allowed?
Think it through before you accuse me of reading problems.
and then the decsion could be hers
Yes, that's exactly it. Then the decision is hers. That is, only after the doctor has made his decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2005 10:09 PM riVeRraT has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 316 (181957)
01-30-2005 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by riVeRraT
01-30-2005 10:15 PM


Re: the logic
the law was written to provide a uniform standard for the declaration of death while it was still possible to remove organs and thus to enable the transplant of those organs to other patients.
as noted in the essay "irreversible" means (to me anyway) beyond the ability of medical science to make them work.
obviously if there are no lungs or brains there is no way to make them work (but that is getting ahead eh?)
from dictionary.com: sustained
6. To experience or suffer: sustained a fatal injury.
close enough.
you're nit-picking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2005 10:15 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 6:34 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 36 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 6:46 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 316 (181962)
01-30-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by riVeRraT
01-30-2005 10:15 PM


Re: the logic
riVeRraT writes:
Also tell me why this law was written.
From the link provided for the legal definition of death:
This Act provides comprehensive bases for determining death in all situations. It is based on a ten-year evolution of statutory language on this subject. The first statute passed in Kansas in 1970. In 1972, Professor Alexander Capron and Dr. Leon Kass refined the concept further in "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L. Rev. 87. In 1975, the Law and Medicine Committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) drafted a Model Definition of Death Act. In 1978, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) completed the Uniform Brain Death Act. It was based on the prior work of the ABA. In 1979, the American Medical Association (AMA) created its own Model Determination of Death statute. In the meantime, some twenty-five state legislatures adopted statutes based on one or another of the existing models.
There is moe there if you wish to pursue the matter further. The link is provided for that purpose.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2005 10:15 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 6:48 AM RAZD has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 35 of 316 (181996)
01-31-2005 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-30-2005 11:01 PM


Re: the logic
I am nit-picking?
You take the whole thing out of context, and I am nit-picking. lol
One can also add to the word sustained, that it is something that happens to that person outside the natural chain of events called a growing cycle.
So if we remove a fetus from a womb, it cleary, without a doubt does not fit into the category sustained.
Cleary without a doubt, if you remove a fetus from its womb, you are the cause of the sustained, fatal injury.
There is so much more you are wrong on, but I think I can stop here, and you can change your ways now, have a good night, I'll be here all week.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2005 11:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2005 7:22 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 36 of 316 (181998)
01-31-2005 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-30-2005 11:01 PM


Re: the logic
I can't help myself, this is so much fun.
Let's read the whole story:
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
Drafted by the
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
and by it
APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT
IN ALL THE STATES
at its
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
MEETING IN ITS EIGHTY-NINTH YEAR
ON KAUAI, HAWAII
JULY 26 AUGUST 1, 1980
WITH PREFATORY NOTE
Approved by the American Medical Association
October 19, 1980
Approved by the American Bar Association
February 10, 1981 UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
The Committee which acted for the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws in preparing the Uniform Determination of Death Act was
as follows:
GEORGE C. KEELY, 1600 Colorado National Building, 950 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, CO 80202, Chairman
ANNE McGILL GORSUCH, 243 South Fairfax, Denver, CO 80222
JOHN M. McCABE, Room 510, 645 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611,
Legal Counsel
WILLIAM H. WOOD, 208 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108
JOHN C. DEACON, P.O. Box 1245 Jonesboro, AR 72401, President, Ex Officio
M. KING HILL, JR., 6th Floor, 100 Light Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, Chairman,
Executive Committee, Ex Officio
WILLIAM J. PIERCE, University of Michigan, School of Law, Ann Arbor, MI 48109,
Executive Director, Ex Officio
PETER F. LANGROCK, P.O. Drawer 351, Middlebury, VT 05753, Chairman,
Division E, Ex Officio
Copies of all Uniform and Model Acts and other printed matter issued by the Conference may be
obtained from:
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
645 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 510
Chicago, Illinois 60611 UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
PREFATORY NOTE
This Act provides comprehensive bases for determining death in all
situations. It is based on a ten-year evolution of statutory language on this subject.
The first statute passed in Kansas in 1970. In 1972, Professor Alexander Capron
and Dr. Leon Kass refined the concept further in "A Statutory Definition of the
Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L.
Rev. 87. In 1975, the Law and Medicine Committee of the American Bar
Association (ABA) drafted a Model Definition of Death Act. In 1978, the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) completed the
Uniform Brain Death Act. It was based on the prior work of the ABA. In 1979, the
American Medical Association (AMA) created its own Model Determination of
Death statute. In the meantime, some twenty-five state legislatures adopted statutes
based on one or another of the existing models.
The interest in these statutes arises from modern advances in lifesaving
technology. A person may be artificially supported for respiration and circulation
after all brain functions cease irreversibly. The medical profession, also, has
developed techniques for determining loss of brain functions while
cardiorespiratory support is administered. At the same time, the common law
definition of death cannot assure recognition of these techniques. The common law
standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally
demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions."
There is, then, a potential disparity between current and accepted biomedical
practice and the common law.
The proliferation of model acts and uniform acts, while indicating a
legislative need, also may be confusing. All existing acts have the same principal
goal extension of the common law to include the new techniques for
determination of death. With no essential disagreement on policy, the associations
which have drafted statutes met to find common language. This Act contains that
common language, and is the result of agreement between the ABA, AMA, and
NCCUSL.
Part (1) codifies the existing common law basis for determining death
total failure of the cardiorespiratory system. Part (2) extends the common law to
include the new procedures for determination of death based upon irreversible loss
of all brain functions. The overwhelming majority of cases will continue to be
determined according to part (1). When artificial means of support preclude a
determination under part (1), the Act recognizes that death can be determined by
the alternative procedures.
Under part (2), the entire brain must cease to function, irreversibly. The
"entire brain" includes the brain stem, as well as the neocortex. The concept of
"entire brain" distinguishes determination of death under this Act from "neocortical
death" or "persistent vegetative state." These are not deemed valid medical or legal
bases for determining death.
This Act also does not concern itself with living wills, death with dignity,
euthanasia, rules on death certificates, maintaining life support beyond brain death
in cases of pregnant women or of organ donors, and protection for the dead body.
These subjects are left to other law.
This Act is silent on acceptable diagnostic tests and medical procedures. It
sets the general legal standard for determining death, but not the medical criteria for
doing so. The medical profession remains free to formulate acceptable medical
practices and to utilize new biomedical knowledge, diagnostic tests, and equipment.
It is unnecessary for the Act to address specifically the liability of persons
who make determinations. No person authorized by law to determine death, who
makes such a determination in accordance with the Act, should, or will be, liable
for damages in any civil action or subject to prosecution in any criminal proceeding
for his acts or the acts of others based on that determination. No person who acts in
good faith, in reliance on a determination of death, should, or will be, liable for
damages in any civil action or subject to prosecution in any criminal proceeding for
his acts. There is no need to deal with these issues in the text of this Act.
Time of death, also, is not specifically addressed. In those instances in
which time of death affects legal rights, this Act states the bases for determining
death. Time of death is a fact to be determined with all others in each individual
case, and may be resolved, when in doubt, upon expert testimony before the
appropriate court.
Finally, since this Act should apply to all situations, it should not be joined
with the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act so that its application is limited to cases of
organ donation.
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
Section
1 . Determination of Death.
2. Uniformity of Construction and Application.
3. Short Title.
Be it enacted . . .
 1. [Determination of Death]. An individual who has sustained either (1)
irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible
cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A
determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical
standards.
 2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application]. This Act shall be
applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law
with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.
 3. [Short Title]. This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of
Death Act.
Funny, you said:
quote:
the law was written to provide a uniform standard for the declaration of death while it was still possible to remove organs and thus to enable the transplant of those organs to other patients.
So you clearly do not understand why this law was written, and your obvious misapplication of such law is totally erroneous.
Like Andrew Dice Clay says: OOOOHHHHH!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2005 11:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2005 7:14 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 37 of 316 (181999)
01-31-2005 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
01-30-2005 11:12 PM


Re: the logic
Try reading your own links.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2005 11:12 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 316 (182005)
01-31-2005 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by riVeRraT
01-31-2005 6:46 AM


Re: the logic
Actually I was aware of it.
This definition enables but does not enact organ donor action
there is sufficient difference in meaning that you should be able to understand. obviously the law was written with the clear understanding and awareness of the existence and requirements and moral validity of such programs, and thus would not be intendend to block such programs: that leaves them enabled. get it?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 6:46 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 7:28 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 316 (182009)
01-31-2005 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by riVeRraT
01-31-2005 6:34 AM


Re: the logic
clearly without a doubt removing something without a brain or lungs is not a problem.
clearly if there is damage to the brain and lungs before removal, that the act of removal does not alter the damage sustained by the brain and lungs. clearly you are reaching.
again you are conflating a "romanticised" view of abortion of them always involving healthy viable fetuses, and this is - obviously - not the case.
the definition clearly limits "sustained" elements in question to the brain and lungs.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 6:34 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 7:30 AM RAZD has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 40 of 316 (182011)
01-31-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
01-31-2005 7:14 AM


Re: the logic
It was written for several reasons. I was alive at the time, and I remember its main porpuse was so that relatives could pull the plug on an otherwise dead person.
It was not written to describe the satus of a fetus once it has been ripped from its womb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2005 7:14 AM RAZD has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 41 of 316 (182012)
01-31-2005 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
01-31-2005 7:22 AM


Re: the logic
You know what, can we limit this conversation to healthy fetus's only?
Since you missed the part where I agreed with you.
clearly without a doubt removing something without a brain or lungs is not a problem
I guess you always eat your cookies before they are done, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2005 7:22 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2005 12:30 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 01-31-2005 6:44 PM riVeRraT has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 316 (182064)
01-31-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by riVeRraT
01-31-2005 7:30 AM


Re: the logic
riVeRrat msg #40 writes:
It was written for several reasons. I was alive at the time, and I remember its main porpuse was so that relatives could pull the plug on an otherwise dead person.
It was not written to describe the satus of a fetus once it has been ripped from its womb.
I never said it was. What I said was that the {basis\criteria} needs to be the same at each end to be morally consistent.
riVeRrat msg #41 writes:
You know what, can we limit this conversation to healthy fetus's only?
Why do that when the main purpose I can see for late term abortion is that the fetus is not healthy? Even if you concede that late term abortion is valid for very unhealthy fetuses that still begs the question of what criteria is used for making that decision, criteria that is consistent and logical.
I guess you always eat your cookies before they are done, right?
Yes, if I know that something was forgotten in the batter and that they will not turn out to be edible, I'll take them out and put in another batch that is properly made.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 7:30 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 01-31-2005 6:53 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 46 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2005 5:46 AM RAZD has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 43 of 316 (182126)
01-31-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by riVeRraT
01-31-2005 7:30 AM


Re: the logic
I just found this thread so I know I am joining late. I had replied to a similar argument by RAZD (well essentially the same one) in an earlier thread, and some of my concerns remain, however...
Rat, your initial reply was terribly unfounded. Not only was it over emotional (apparently your guilt actually still requires you to blame society) it was filled with strawmen.
RAZD wrote a very interesting essay on this topic and it was constructed quite well. For some reason you are acting as if every sentence argued for abortion, when most of it was simply setting up arguments for how we view life and death, and then how we could apply those to abortion. It doesn't even argue that YOU have to take the biological approach with your own child's life, just understand what would logically acceptable given a biological based approach. I mean a consistent biological approach.
You know what, can we limit this conversation to healthy fetus's only?
This is a fiction. In reality we cannot know 100%, and sometimes not even 50% whether at any time a fetus is actually healthy. Some problems are not even seen until the last stages of development and/or birth.
You have stated that unlike a person on life support, a fetus stands a good chance of coming out of (growing out of) its current condition. I request you go and find some statistics to support that claim. This was already attempted elsewhere in an EvC thread and failed.
In reality the "chance" is actually quite terrible. The "chance" improves as time goes on, but to say "a fetus" stands a good chance of survival is incorrect. It depends on what stage.
Indeed that was exactly what RAZD was getting at.
On top of this unknown... the health of the baby... there is also the unknown of what will happen to the mother at some point in the future. We cannot know that a mother will not suffer at some later point, and waiting around to allow an abortion only when it is known, could be too late.
It is in this reality that decisions are made: We cannot say for certain that a fetus is genuinely healthy or will stay healthy, and neither can we say for certain that the mother will stay healthy and be able to survive the delivery.
The best we can do is craft rules taking into consideration baseline norms regarding concepts of life and nonlife (as separate from death), or better yet of person and nonperson. The one thing to keep in mind is that the woman is always a person.
clearly without a doubt removing something without a brain or lungs is not a problem
Now that you agreed with RAZD's basic premise of how to go about this, perhaps you ought to explain where things aren't clear but perhaps can be defined. That is what RAZD did, and quite well.
BTW--- Porn and premarital sex do not cause unwanted pregnancy. I enjoy both quite a bit and for some time now with absolutely no hazards. In contrast, there are many married couples, even those that use contraceptives, which end up with unwanted pregnancies. If you want to feel guilt for doing something stupid, or having had some bad luck, fine. Just don't use it to club other people, as if you received some insight on how other people should live to avoid your errors.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by riVeRraT, posted 01-31-2005 7:30 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2005 6:10 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 316 (182128)
01-31-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
01-31-2005 12:30 PM


Re: the logic
Nice essay, though it suffers the same problem as the first time you brought it up and that is using the definition of death.
Rat was correct that there is an acute difference between a person in a coma or dying, and a fetus which is growing. They are moving in opposite directions and it is very arguable that if it was known that a person in a coma was getting better as time progressed, it is unlikely that they would be allowed to pull the plug.
I realize you are trying to set out conditions that we can identify, but you still need to separate your argument of "nonperson", from that of "dead". You can probably do that by stating more clearly at the time that you are taking criteria from death that would be shared by a nonperson, in part if not in total. Thus the lack of functions would not have to be irreversible to be a nonperson, thought it would be to be dead.
Clearly this is something that Rat has jumped on, even if he seems to have missed exactly what you were doing and indeed ranted at you for no real reason besides personal guilt. I predict it is something that is going to continue plaguing your essay, even from those not as personally involved with countering your conclusion.
I mean I agree for the most part, yet I still see that kind of hanging out there. It is pretty much the largest thread sticking out.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2005 12:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2005 10:00 PM Silent H has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 316 (182169)
01-31-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Silent H
01-31-2005 6:53 PM


thanks holmes
and welcome back to this issue. You may have noticed that many comments of yours have been incorporated in this version, as well as stuff we got into in the later posts (preemies, etc).
it is very arguable that if it was known that a person in a coma was getting better as time progressed, it is unlikely that they would be allowed to pull the plug.
But that is part of the argument. Likewise if you knew that the mother and the baby were going to be fully healthy it is unlikely that a late term abortion would be chosen either.
And then there are cases where the patient will likely 'improve' over time but never regain a fraction of the personhood they had before. From vegetable to high functioning vegetable. Not my personal wish and not for many people (hence the "living wills" and all that they cover). It is the gray areas that are open to different levels of acceptability ... and the precedent from the choices allowed at the end of life is that those choices are left to those who are intimately connected - the "appropriate surrogates"
They are moving in opposite directions
Actually they are moving in the same direction (or is one getting younger? ). Yes, there is a (natural) tendency to view a fetus as being at the beginning of a wonderful life, but that is just not always the case. The comparison to a person on life support is valid regardless of age (and remember that a person on life support can be a child in a coma just as easily as some old geezer, preemies are on life support and the rational still applies) if you consider it like a trajectory: will they be able to reach an elevation above some rational criteria (such as the criteria for personhood).
Remember that there are two lines that I draw here: the first one is before the "signature" elements of human life (as used by the definition of death) are developed (ie before the formation of the brain, seeing as the lungs are the last of these elements to develop).
Notice that technically "fetus" refers to the last 6-7 months of development, preceded by the zygote to embryo stages (Human Development Chart), and that this is about where the life\death line is crossed as well. The chart also says (bold mine for emphasis):
day 7 - 9: Blastocyst implants in wall of uterus (55% of Zygotes never reach this stage.)
{and further down:} 15 % of pregnancies miscarry during weeks 4-12
With just those two figures you are down to 75% of 45% = 33.75%, or a 1/3rd natural "success" to that point: 65% of zygotes never make it to week 12 normally.
There is a point reached where a decision (conscious or unconscious) is made to continue or not: regardless of the planning (or the failure of precautions) a point is reached where awareness of the biological process is pretty inevitable, where a decision is made to have or not to have, and this point is at about the same stage of development.
I do agree with riVeRrat that there is a decision involved with having sex, but I think it is a little more complex than just {{if pregnant then have child}}, and I also think that the issue should be discussed and agreed on before hand by both participants rather than wait for the point of no return.
And as for my "10 years old" arbitrary criteria, the chart also has:
child, 8 - 11 yrs: Capable of independent survival
But that is just an aside.
The second line is the one of personhood and the quality of life question.
To me this issue {can\should\must} be considered up to the point of birth, and is a much harder question to define, as it involves the "trajectory" calculation and differing levels of minimum value being placed by different people. Certain to my mind is that there would need to be a valid medical reason to remove support at this point: the health of the mother or the health of the fetus.
From wikipedia on fetus (Fetus - Wikipedia):
Approximately 40% of the variation in birth weight can be accounted for by genetic factors, whereas 60% can be accounted for by environmental factors.
And we know that full potential development is dependant to some degree on birth weight (I would think weight at a specific week - like 24 - would be a better criteria?) - there are elements that may just not be within the control of the mother to provide.
There are still valid and ethical reasons to terminate later pregnancies, and the criteria for personhood gives us a rational guide for those choices while allowing for a variety of beliefs, similar to the way the life support victims are considered.
Enough for now.
ps - love the new avatar. it is so ... you, so coy and innocent ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 01-31-2005 6:53 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 02-01-2005 5:56 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024