Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

dartboardio

Shame on the family, not for aborting, that part is fine especially with the extremely high risk of fatal abnormalities.

Shame on that family for trying to make a case out of something they agreed to do.

Idiots. Should have gotten 100s of tests done if they wanted to know for certain there would be a ten percent chance that it infact would be a healthy baby.

They've really made themselves look like compo claimers, fools

Stop arguing over yer morals in relation to abortion, we had that conversation almost a year ago and majority of the country voted in favour, so just face it.

The real question here is what ye think of a family suing professionals for giving them advice and warning them if they go ahead with pregnancy there baby will most likely be unable to survive or have a life of serious abnormalities etc, yet the family agreed, knowing nothing is ever 100% and there can always be a slight chance this may not be the case, thats the whole meaning of 'HIGH RISK'

SusieBlue

stefanovich wrote: »

I do know women who have had abortions. Some quite closely. Guilt is the main aftereffect.

Some people feeling guilt is not a good enough reason to take the choice away from everyone else.

A study done on one thousand Irish women who had procured abortions reported their most common feeling in the aftermath of their abortions to be ‘gratitude and relielf’.
98% of women surveyed said they had no regrets and would recommend the procedure to women in similar circumstances.
97% said they felt they had made the right choice.

You can read it for yourself here, if you wish.

https://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pills-study-3030940-Oct2016/?amp=1

dartboardio

SusieBlue wrote: »

Some people feeling guilt is not a good enough reason to take the choice away from everyone else.

A study done on one thousand Irish women who had procured abortions reported their most common feeling in the aftermath of their abortions to be ‘gratitude and relielf’.
98% of women surveyed said they had no regrets and would recommend the procedure to women in similar circumstances.
97% said they felt they had made the right choice.

You can read it for yourself here, if you wish.

https://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-pills-study-3030940-Oct2016/?amp=1

As a woman who had an abortion a couple of years ago, i also felt relief. Not to say any other woman might feel that. But there you go.

Muzzymor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To be fair WHATEVER decision we make in our democracies about our position on abortion in any given jurisdiction is going to be "meddling in the lives of other humans". So there is no justifiable pissing contest to be had there.

The real question is that while meddling, is there any moral or ethical argument for curtailing the choices, freedoms and well being of actual human sentient PEOPLE, in deference to something that is not, and has not, ever been sentient?



You are projecting. They are killing a someTHING there not a someONE.

It is not that they did or did not "decide" they want their life ended. They do not even have the capacities or faculties relevant to the concept of "decision" in the first place.

You are projecting YOUR faculties of sentience and decision making onto a living biological form that lacks them entirely, and acting like this is then morally relevant. You could make the same error with a rock and it would be no less a nonsense.

Clearly the fundamental ethical disagreement here is about whether you believe that just because a "foetus" doesn't have sentience right now it's ok to kill it,despite the fact that if you don't kill it it's essentially guaranteed to be sentient a couple of weeks later. I'm not interested in getting into a semantic argument with you. We'll never meet in the middle because there is no middle

I'm 100% athiest and the only thing I can think is that the difference must come down to how one thinks about time/one's own existence etc. I believe that I was alive when I was a foetus and I believe aborted foetus's would be just as alive as I am now if people didn't kill them. You can call that projecting, I'll call it a belief that intentionally ending an already developing human life is wrong.

kaymin

amcalester wrote: »

There’s no heartbeat at 4 weeks.

Why lie?

Lol. Not that it matters since you don't seem open minded.

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/s1001602/your-pregnancy-at-5-weeks

kaymin

kaymin wrote: »

Lol. Not that it matters since you don't seem open minded.

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/s1001602/your-pregnancy-at-5-weeks

Oh God what is the relevance of the heart? That organ is about as vital as its bladder or its arse, tbqh.

What's with this near-mystical obsession with the foetal heartbeat?

Edit: this question applies as much to pro-choicers as to anti-choicers. The heart is not the seat of the soul, regardless of what was said in Primary School Religion class.

Boggles

SusieBlue wrote: »

98% of women surveyed said they had no regrets

I don't think they did, I can't find that question asked anywhere in the survey.

Link?

Goldengirl

Nobelium wrote: »

Good honest observation . . being hypocritical about abortion doesn't make hypocrisy and abortion ok though. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That is your opinion but not that of the majority who voted for repeal and to legalise abortion.
That you think it is wrong is irrelevant therefore.
This is a tragedy because this foetus would have been a wanted baby, it is always a tragedy for couples with a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality whether the pregnancy goes to term or not . However aborting an unwanted foetus is not a tragedy, because it is UNWANTED and no matter how you much you protest about it, this discussion has been had, we all voted, and abortion is now legal .

kaymin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ermmmmm ok. What has this to do with me given I never told anyone "when there is or is not another human life growing."?????



You will have to take it up with "people" then as you are not describing me here. I do not choose what I believe. The evidence, argument, data and reasoning offered for a position dictates to me what I believe, and why.

You said:
'But again you will find it comes down to a distinction between different meanings of the word "human". Some of which apply to a fetus, and some of which do not.'

For every reason you give, a counter argument can be given. The 'evidence' as you put it is not objective and really is someone's opinion of when a fetus becomes human.

amcalester

kaymin wrote: »

Lol. Not that it matters since you don't seem open minded.

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/s1001602/your-pregnancy-at-5-weeks

You said 4 weeks, then changed to ~ 1 month and now it’s 5 weeks.

Kinda seems like you’re changing your story to suit a narrative.

nozzferrahhtoo

Muzzymor wrote: »

Clearly the fundamental ethical disagreement here is about whether you believe that just because a "foetus" doesn't have sentience right now it's ok to kill it

You have certainly correctly identified the core difference in our positions. But you use that as an excuse to not discuss it further. Which is a shame. I can defend my position in that regard. I am wondering can you. But now we will never know.

But here is a thought experiment that the last Anti Choice speaker I tried it on literally ran away from. If I developed a fully functioning General Artificial Intelligence but it had a 5 hour "turn on" time before it attained sentience. Then I turned it on and 3 hours into the 5 I unplugged it, I deleted the program, and I used the parts to make a toaster..... morally and ethically what have I actually done wrong?

Put another way..... upon what would you base the idea or claim that something not sentient has a right to become sentient.

Muzzymor wrote: »

I believe aborted foetus's would be just as alive as I am now if people didn't kill them. You can call that projecting

Nope THAT I would not call projecting at all. Your projecting was something else entirely. What you describe here I 100% agree with in fact. I 100% agree with you in thinking that if we did not kill it, it would be just as alive as us later on most likely.

No disagreement there. The disagreement lies in the fact that you have not established any argument as to why that mutually accepted fact places a shred of moral or ethical onus on our shoulders. Other than you personally believe it to be so.

kaymin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh God what is the relevance of the heart? That organ is about as vital as its bladder or its arse, tbqh.

What's with this near-mystical obsession with the foetal heartbeat?

Edit: this question applies as much to pro-choicers as to anti-choicers. The heart is not the seat of the soul, regardless of what was said in Primary School Religion class.

I was replying to another poster who accused me of lying. But now that you said it, an absence of a heartbeat dictates when someone is dead so the corollary is that a heartbeat indicates when someone is alive.

kaymin

amcalester wrote: »

You said 4 weeks, then changed to ~ 1 month and now it’s 5 weeks.

Kinda seems like you’re changing your story to suit a narrative.

I never mentioned 4 weeks.

nozzferrahhtoo

kaymin wrote: »

For every reason you give, a counter argument can be given.

If you say so. But I note you are saying you CAN do so but not ACTUALLY doing so. That is no small difference. And I wonder if maybe the claims of being able to do it, in lieu of actually doing it, suggest the claim you CAN might not be true.

kaymin wrote: »

The 'evidence' as you put it is not objective and really is someone's opinion of when a fetus becomes human.

Until we discuss what we each think the evidence actually is, which we have not discussed yet, how can you pre-declare what form it will take?

kaymin wrote: »

an absence of a heartbeat dictates when someone is dead

You might want to check into just how accurate that claim is. It might not be as true as you think. However once again it must be pointed out that merely being "alive" is not something anyone is questioning here that I know of. That the fetus is "alive" is hardly in doubt. But so what? The last steak you ate was "alive" before it was heading to be a steak. Which proves my point that when it comes to morality and ethics it is more than something merely being "alive" that is relevant here.

amcalester

kaymin wrote: »

I never mentioned 4 weeks.

Actually, you didn’t. Not sure how I made that mistake. Apologies.

Goldengirl

amcalester wrote: »

You said 4 weeks, then changed to ~ 1 month and now it’s 5 weeks.

Kinda seems like you’re changing your story to suit a narrative.

Yes and by the way , Kaymin , you would have to have the ultrasound paddle in your uterus to pick up a heartbeat at that stage!
Maybe you did ?
If anyone knows better correct me ,but I had to have a intra vaginal ultrasound to pick up a heartbeat at 8 weeks.

kaymin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you say so. But I note you are saying you CAN do so but not ACTUALLY doing so. That is no small difference. And I wonder if maybe the claims of being able to do it, in lieu of actually doing it, suggest the claim you CAN might not be true.



Until we discuss what we each think the evidence actually is, which we have not discussed yet, how can you pre-declare what form it will take?

Okay, you've stated you base your view of when a fetus is human on evidence. Please provide such evidence and the timing of when this change occurs. As mentioned I believe there is no evidence, there are opinions though.

kaymin

Goldengirl wrote: »

Yes and by the way , Kaymin , you would have to have the ultrasound paddle in your uterus to pick up a heartbeat at that stage!
Maybe you did ?
If anyone knows better correct me ,but I had to have a intra vaginal ultrasound to pick up a heartbeat at 8 weeks.

I'm male but surely the point is that a heartbeat can be detected at 5 weeks or ~ 1 month.

Candamir

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This to me is key. If 2 doctors signed off they have a case to answer as they are potentially a danger to others and probably shouldn't be practising. If 2 doctors didn't sign off then whoever carried out the abortion broke the law if the abortion happened in Ireland.

And running a single test no matter how allegedly accurate always carries risks. At minimum 2 tests should be required.

To be Frank, everything you’ve said there is incorrect.

kaymin wrote: »

I was replying to another poster who accused me of lying. But now that you said it, an absence of a heartbeat dictates when someone is dead so the corollary is that a heartbeat indicates when someone is alive.

No it doesn’t.

I’ve seen plenty of people without a heart beat who were very much alive, and plenty with a heartbeat who were very much dead.

Plumbthedepths

ToBeFrank123 wrote:

Was it signed off by 2 doctors as per the law? If so then these doctors may have a case to answer.

Wrong they don't.

political analyst

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Strawman argument? Not at all I responded to a comment. As I said pro lifers seem more concerned with the unborn as opposed to the pregnant girl/woman.

What makes you think pro-lifers don't care about both? What evidence is there that pregnancy causes harm to a 14-year-old girl? Abortion punishes the girl's unborn child for the rape of the girl.

kaymin

Candamir wrote: »

To be Frank, everything you’ve said there is incorrect.




No it doesn’t.

I’ve seen plenty of people without a heart beat who were very much alive, and plenty with a heartbeat who were very much dead.

Okay, you might need to elaborate. I'm not familiar with people walking around without a heartbeat

SusieBlue

political analyst wrote: »

What makes you think pro-lifers don't care about both? What evidence is there that pregnancy causes harm to a 14-year-old girl? Abortion punishes the girl's unborn child for the rape of the girl.

Evidence? She’s a 14 year old CHILD who was violated in one of the most abhorrent ways known to man, she is still in school she isn’t even an adult, and you’re saying it wouldn’t cause any harm for her to carry and give birth to her rapists baby?

It’s not for you or I to say it wouldn’t cause harm, when we don’t know what mental and physical anguish it would cause, and we won’t be the ones who have to live with the consequences.

If she doesn’t feel like it’s something she can do it we should respect that.

Igotadose

political analyst wrote: »

What evidence is there that pregnancy causes harm to a 14-year-old girl?

Pregnancy and birth can, and do cause plenty of harm. Lifelong incontinence, blood pressure issues, depression, and on and on. Pregnancy and childbirth are very risky (something pro-birth fail to mention, like, ever.)

nozzferrahhtoo

kaymin wrote: »

Okay, you've stated you base your view of when a fetus is human on evidence. Please provide such evidence and the timing of when this change occurs. As mentioned I believe there is no evidence, there are opinions though.

Well an error I first have to fix in what you asked.... is that my position on abortion is NOT at all based on "the timing when the change occurs". We in fact do not know that 100%.

No my position on abortion is based on periods we know it has not occurred. Which is different and important.

Well as I said a few times, the differing meanings of "human" are important here. I will use human with a small h to mean biologically human. I will use Human with a capital H to mean a Sentient Person.

I believe, like you I think, that the fetus is human since conception.

I do not believe a fetus at 12-16 weeks is Human however. Because.... and this is the evidence bit..... we know generally a list of pre-requisites for sentience and the fetus at that age simply has none of them.

Some reading material randomly picked:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2018/04/19/tracing-consciousness-in-the-brains-of-infants/
https://prochoiceplus.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/lets-talk-about-sentience/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648310622109

And if you are interested similar for farm animals:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e372/be1b7005c6d0b0782037e5a5bdb0511bc853.pdf

But basically the summary is simple. We have developed an ongoing understanding of what is required for sentience. And the things on that list are simply missing in a fetus at 12-16 weeks development.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I developed a fully functioning General Artificial Intelligence but it had a 5 hour "turn on" time before it attained sentience. Then I turned it on and 3 hours into the 5 I unplugged it, I deleted the program, and I used the parts to make a toaster..... morally and ethically what have I actually done wrong?

Put another way..... upon what would you base the idea or claim that something not sentient has a right to become sentient.

That's an easy one. Your AI is not human, it is only a machine. The foetus is human. We don't owe the same duty of care to machines as we do to fellow humans.
Self driving cars. It could easily happen that somebody gets severely brain damaged in a car crash, but the emergency services don't focus their attention on trying to save the car's on board computer instead of the human, on the basis that the car's AI is now smarter than the human.

Muzzymor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You have certainly correctly identified the core difference in our positions. But you use that as an excuse to not discuss it further. Which is a shame. I can defend my position in that regard. I am wondering can you. But now we will never know.

But here is a thought experiment that the last Anti Choice speaker I tried it on literally ran away from. If I developed a fully functioning General Artificial Intelligence but it had a 5 hour "turn on" time before it attained sentience. Then I turned it on and 3 hours into the 5 I unplugged it, I deleted the program, and I used the parts to make a toaster..... morally and ethically what have I actually done wrong?

Put another way..... upon what would you base the idea or claim that something not sentient has a right to become sentient.



Nope THAT I would not call projecting at all. Your projecting was something else entirely. What you describe here I 100% agree with in fact. I 100% agree with you in thinking that if we did not kill it, it would be just as alive as us later on most likely.

No disagreement there. The disagreement lies in the fact that you have not established any argument as to why that mutually accepted fact places a shred of moral or ethical onus on our shoulders. Other than you personally believe it to be so.

If you can't figure out my view from what I already posted then further discussion won't really help. But I'll lay out my position and leave it at that. I am 100% not asking you to agree with me.

Sentience is something that's argued as a justification for abortion by the pro abortion people as one of the loopholes of when it is actually ok to end a human life, if you look above you'll see a post where I stated I don't agree with its use in these arguments.

My view is that a human life that is already developing is a human life, with all the potential etc that entails. To end that life is in my view therefore wrong, regardless of current sentience or lack thereof.
As I said, we can surely agree that in the vast majority of cases were a feotus not aborted, it would develop sentience or whatever other thing you use to differentiate between foetus life and human life that has a value in a matter of weeks. That foetus would naturally become a human who I assume in most cases would be quite pleased not to have been killed.

I understand your standpoint and I also understand mine. In mine I simply have to accept that due to how I see the world, I am not ok with abortion at any stage when a human life is already in motion. Any other stance would be hypocritical of me and also result in perpetually arguing semantics with people like youself, as fun as that is

If you kill a 20 year old you rob them of experiences they would have had had you not killed them. You don't say, well you died at 20 so you never had those experiences/ they weren't yours and you had no right to them because the future doesn't exist and all you are is what you were at the moment you were killed age 20. It would be reasonable to assume that had said person not been killed they would have had experiences at 30, 40, 50 etc and not just been in the perpetual state of being 20.

Likewise if you end a human life before it reaches sentience, it was still a human life, it would have been sentient and had experiences/hopes and dreams/loved and been loved etc if you hadn't killed it and a human life has been robbed of its potential as much as a 1, 10, 80 year old who gets killed was.

If doctors remove a child's reproductive organs before they reach puberty, it's not a moral argument to turn around and say "you hadn't actually reached sexual maturity at the point we removed them so you haven't actually lost anything". Likewise removing the possibility for sentience from a human life that hasn't reached sentience but will in a few weeks doesn't hold up because it conveniently ignores the fact that the only reason sentience won't happen is because you interferred.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

That's an easy one. Your AI is not human, it is only a machine. The foetus is human. We don't owe the same duty of care to machines as we do to fellow humans.

Don't we? Why not? What is it about "human" that confers the onus in question? Why do we need only have concern for a sentience if it is instantiated on a meat platform rather than silicon?

If we met another sentience tomorrow be it AI or an alien species from another world.... why is either of them not being "human" relevant here?

Or if we developed the technology to move your brain from your body into a machine tomorrow, and we kept the body alive though without your consciousness in it.... which should our moral and ethical concern lie with? Your meat body or the consciousness in the silicon? And why?

recedite wrote: »

Self driving cars.

Are not sentient. So you are using an example that contrives not to address thee actual question asked here. I specifically said "a fully functioning General Artificial Intelligence" that "attained sentience". Nothing at all to do with self driving cars, and you know it.

Sardonicat

Igotadose wrote: »

political analyst wrote: »

What evidence is there that pregnancy causes harm to a 14-year-old girl?

Pregnancy and birth can, and do cause plenty of harm. Lifelong incontinence, blood pressure issues, depression, and on and on. Pregnancy and childbirth are very risky (something pro-birth fail to mention, like, ever.)

Not to mention that many ( if not most )14 yo girls are not physically developed fully to carry a pregnancy to term without incurring some form of long term physical harm. And that's without even considering the lifelong psychological injury it would undountedly inflict.

Really, what's the point of arguing with someone who doesn't believe a child being forced to carry to term and deliver against her will would come to no harm from the experience. Once again it just proves that born children don't matter a sh1t to this lot

Candamir

kaymin wrote: »

Okay, you might need to elaborate. I'm not familiar with people walking around without a heartbeat

You’ve a rather narrow view point there. Of course they weren’t walking around. But very much alive (patients on cardiac bypass have no heartbeat for example. Much easier target for the surgeons)

The point of the point was to point out the inaccuracy of your point. Presence or absence of a heart beat does not dictate if someone is alive or not.

nozzferrahhtoo

Muzzymor wrote: »

If you can't figure out my view from what I already posted then further discussion won't really help.

But I never indicated I can not figure out your view. Your view is in fact plain as day. It is the basis for your views, and the arguments supporting them, that remain thus far opaque however.

Muzzymor wrote: »

Sentience is something that's argued as a justification for abortion

Already you are wrong. Which is funny because I explained this already in a post not 2 pages back. Sentience is NOT used to justify abortion. It is used to point out that there is no requirement for justification in the first place! If you can not get that much right, I can see why you are unwilling to converse.

Muzzymor wrote: »

by the pro abortion people

I have yet to meet a single "pro abortion" person in my life. If you are aware of any, send them my way please.

Muzzymor wrote: »

My view is that a human life that is already developing is a human life, with all the potential etc that entails. To end that life is in my view therefore wrong, regardless of current sentience or lack thereof.

I share that view, but I know what it means too. In terms of TAXONOMY it is certainly a human life. But that is about all.

However your "therefore" is a non-sequitur to what comes before. You are using "therefore" as a placeholder for an explanation you have not actually offered here.

Muzzymor wrote: »

That foetus would naturally become a human

The fact you acknowledge it will BECOME a Human means you also 100% agree with me it is NOT a Human now. You can not have your cake and eat it there. You are either X or becoming X. You can not be becoming if you already are. Careful with your language, you are shooting yourself in the foot with it.

Muzzymor wrote: »

If you kill a 20 year old you rob them of experiences they would have had had you not killed them.

You would, but I do not see that as relevant. The only relevance here is you have ended the life of a sentient agents with rights to whom we should have moral and ethical concern by virtue of it BEING a sentient agent. That it might or might not have had experiences later on, is relevant solely because you decree it to be so by fiat. I am not seeing any actual arguments supporting that decree yet.

Muzzymor wrote: »

I'm not interested in thought experiments about hypothetical AI

Yeah as I said the other guy ran away from it too. I expected you to also. You did not disappoint.

The same thought experiment is doable with you yourself however. If our technology reaches a point where I could instantiate your consciousness on silicon, and I then offered your loved ones a choice to either take your prone body home, or the terminal containing YOU.... I think we both know which they will pick AND why.

Candamir

kaymin wrote: »

I'm male but surely the point is that a heartbeat can be detected at 5 weeks or ~ 1 month.

1 month - 5 weeks gestational age maybe at a push. But pregnancy is dated from LMP - so add two weeks at least to make your statement accurate.

volchitsa

Muzzymor wrote: »

Likewise if you end a human life before it reaches sentience, it was still a human life, it would have been sentient and had experiences/hopes and dreams/loved and been loved etc if you hadn't killed it and a human life has been robbed of its potential as much as a 1, 10, 80 year old who gets killed was.

The argument about what it "would have been" had it not died before it reached sentience can apply just as easily to use of a condom : the couple have ensured that both sperm and egg will die instead of developing into its full potential of whoever that person would have been had they not used the condom.

Which is why what "might have been if only" is not a solid argument for a ban on abortion.

I'm not interested in thought experiments about hypothetical AI, merely in discussing human life and the morality of ending one that isn't your own.

You're approaching pregnancy as though the pregnant woman were not completely involved, and therefore her consent required, for a particular human life to get to sentience.

She is not "ending a life that isn't her own", because to some extent it actually is part of her until it reaches viability. She is merely taking control of her own bodily functions. Withdrawing consent to share her organs. If that means that the embryo or fetus can't survive without access to her organs, well that really isn't anyone else's business but hers.

volchitsa

Candamir wrote: »

1 month - 5 weeks gestational age maybe at a push. But pregnancy is dated from LMP - so add two weeks at least to make your statement accurate.

When I was pregnant at 6 weeks there was no visible heartbeat. A week later there was. That's the norm I believe, and definitely not later than usual anyway.

(I knew I was pregnant, BTW, from urine tests, but the question was whether it was in the uterus and developing properly. It was, but at 6 weeks it was a little too early to confirm either point.)

kaymin

Candamir wrote: »

You’ve a rather narrow view point there. Of course they weren’t walking around. But very much alive (patients on cardiac bypass have no heartbeat for example. Much easier target for the surgeons)

The point of the point was to point out the inaccuracy of your point. Presence or absence of a heart beat does not dictate if someone is alive or not.

In fairness your argument is very weak.

Muzzymor

volchitsa wrote: »

The argument about what it "would have been" had it not died before it reached sentience can apply just as easily to use of a condom : the couple have ensured that both sperm and egg will die instead of developing into its full potential of whoever that person would have been had they not used the condom.

A sperm and egg that never come into contact are not a developing human.
A foetus in the womb is.

As to the second part of your post. An unborn child is inside a woman and connected to her/reliant upon her body but surely we can agree it's also a seperate being whether or not she ends up "Withdrawing consent to share her organs." Anyway, amusing phrase

petalgumdrops

A CVS should not be taken as definitive. The sample collected from a CVS is a mixture of fetal and maternal dna.
Geneticists will always advise an Aminocenthesis on foot of a poor CVS result. This is soley fetal dna and higher accuracy. The problem is that you need to wait until 15+ weeks to take this test. Termination has no limits when it is a ffa and so there was no rush to complete the termination.
Yes campaigners refused to listen to concerns over misdiagnosis for fear of compromising repeal. Assurances given that this would never happen, terminations would be almost impossible after 12 weeks, strict guidelines, three doctors, counselling!!! Any parent with a misdiagnosis was silenced, told they had a choice. That this could happen was flagged many times by many families, the comback always being that those with concerns were "misogynistic, religious zealots, lacking in compassion, scaremongers, forced birthers"

I know the geneticist in NMH as he advised me over my CVS which yielded almost a carbon copy of the results this family received. His immediate recommendation was that I must do an amnio as there was the chance the issue was mosiac and to rule out the possibility of sample contamination.

Rushed debates, rushed legislation, rushed introduction of services dressed up as compassion and healthcare without full consideration or acknowledgement that mistakes could happen.
The right to life was cited during the campaign as being non important and that women were the greates protectors of a childs right to life. What do this family do now? Can't see them suing for wrongful death of a child that has no constitutional rights or protections regardless of the procedures that were followed.

seamus wrote: »

That's needlessly prescriptive. The margin for error varies between tests.

For example, the odds of two false positives with HIV is astronomically unlikely. "So why not do a third, just to be sure"; because realistically that doesn't give you anything. You're more likely to get a false negative on the 3rd test than 3 false positives in a row.

Same for these tests. The margin for error differs between tests, so the requirements for making an accurate diagnosis aren't as simple as saying, "All tests must be done thrice!". In some cases you won't have enough samples. In others you will delay or confuse the outcome unnecessarily.

nozzferrahhtoo

Muzzymor wrote: »

A sperm and egg that never come into contact are not a developing human. A foetus in the womb is.

That is dodging the point the user made though. The point being that "It would have been sentient but for our actions" is just as applicable to the use of contraception. The world is replete with absent souls that WOULD be alive and sentient and experiencing things today BUT for our use of contraception.

So it would appear the moment your concern comes online, in terms of potentials, is actually quite arbitrary. It certainly is not grounded by anything you have put forward so far.

This is the absurdity of projecting moral and ethical concern on perceived potentials, rather than actual instances.

However since you have declared (though I do not believe it, I expect a reply quite soon in fact, due to something I have tongue in cheek in the past dubbed "Nozzferrahhtoos first law of forum posting" which states "The probability of a user replying to you goes UP in proportion to the number of indications they have offered that they wont") you have no intention of continuing our previous conversation I have a different question.

What do you think morality and ethics and rights actually are? More specifically what are they FOR? What are they actually doing for us? What is their purpose?

Candamir

kaymin wrote: »

In fairness your argument is very weak.

What argument?

kaymin wrote: »

I was replying to another poster who accused me of lying. But now that you said it, an absence of a heartbeat dictates when someone is dead so the corollary is that a heartbeat indicates when someone is alive.

Whatever you think it is, at least it’s not blindingly inaccurate like your above statement.

The presence, or absence of a heartbeat does not dictate whether someone is alive or dead.

volchitsa

Muzzymor wrote: »

A sperm and egg that never come into contact are not a developing human.
A foetus in the womb is.

Thing is, "a fetus in the womb" is a graduation from a single cell right up to 30 seconds before birth, where clearly there is no real difference between it and the newborn it will become in just a few seconds.

So can we pin that statement down a little please? At what point do you think the difference is so clear as to make ending its life wrong?

Killing sperm is fine in your opinion, I assume, but killing a nine month fetus would not be.

IMO the single cell that results from sperm and egg "coming into contact" is very similar to the sperm and egg before they came into contact. Certainly much closer to those than to the full term fetus in the process of being born, would you agree?

So where would you draw the dividing line, if not at sentience or at least viability?

As to the second part of your post. An unborn child is inside a woman and connected to her/reliant upon her body but surely we can agree it's also a seperate being whether or not she ends up "Withdrawing consent to share her organs." Anyway, amusing phrase

And IMO it's funny that you find it amusing to think that a woman's going consent may be required for a pregnancy.

Although I only find it funny since the referendum showed just what a minority that view of women as forced breeders has become. I found it terrifying before.

mvl

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh God what is the relevance of the heart? That organ is about as vital as its bladder or its arse, tbqh.

What's with this near-mystical obsession with the foetal heartbeat?

Edit: this question applies as much to pro-choicers as to anti-choicers. The heart is not the seat of the soul, regardless of what was said in Primary School Religion class.

As someone who did have a personal experience on this, would see the heart beat is a first milestone a pregnancy needs to pass: no heartbeat @ 6/7 weeks, the fetus is not viable and can be aborted. Nothing mystical about it.

nozzferrahhtoo

mvl wrote: »

would see the heart beat is a first milestone a pregnancy needs to pass: no heartbeat @ 6/7 weeks, the fetus is not viable and can be aborted. Nothing mystical about it.

It is the first milestone meaningful to human narrative I suppose. But in the first 7 weeks of development the development has passed all kinds of biological milestones any one of which is as important as the other, and the failure of many of which would render the fetus just as un-viable.

I fear it is only the first milestone in the kind of story we humans tell ourselves, not in any actually developmental biology.

kaymin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well an error I first have to fix in what you asked.... is that my position on abortion is NOT at all based on "the timing when the change occurs". We in fact do not know that 100%.

No my position on abortion is based on periods we know it has not occurred. Which is different and important.

Well as I said a few times, the differing meanings of "human" are important here. I will use human with a small h to mean biologically human. I will use Human with a capital H to mean a Sentient Person.

I believe, like you I think, that the fetus is human since conception.

I do not believe a fetus at 12-16 weeks is Human however. Because.... and this is the evidence bit..... we know generally a list of pre-requisites for sentience and the fetus at that age simply has none of them.

Some reading material randomly picked:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2018/04/19/tracing-consciousness-in-the-brains-of-infants/
https://prochoiceplus.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/lets-talk-about-sentience/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648310622109

And if you are interested similar for farm animals:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e372/be1b7005c6d0b0782037e5a5bdb0511bc853.pdf

But basically the summary is simple. We have developed an ongoing understanding of what is required for sentience. And the things on that list are simply missing in a fetus at 12-16 weeks development.

That's interesting but ultimately it comes down to your opinion as to whether a human who hasn't become sentient but is likely to become so should be saved. I believe they should. My understanding is that a human may not become sentient until possibly as late as 30 weeks - when you look at images of them at that stage they are very much a human even if they don't qualify as Human by your standard.

Just to add, who decided that the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity at a point in time should determine whether you live or die? And how accurate are these tests of sentience?

mvl

petalgumdrops wrote: »

A CVS should not be taken as definitive. The sample collected from a CVS is a mixture of fetal and maternal dna.
Geneticists will always advise an Aminocenthesis on foot of a poor CVS result. This is soley fetal dna and higher accuracy. The problem is that you need to wait until 15+ weeks to take this test. Termination has no limits when it is a ffa and so there was no rush to complete the termination.

Yeah, that's what I also knew. So would you know why they use CVS in here at all, if it is riskier than amniocentesis (higher chance of miscarriage) and detects less no of defects ? - is it only the CVS availability before 15 weeks ?

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I know the geneticist in NMH as he advised me over my CVS which yielded almost a carbon copy of the results this family received. His immediate recommendation was that I must do an amnio as there was the chance the issue was mosiac and to rule out the possibility of sample contamination.

This is another thing I am trying to find out: have they been advised for amnio and didn't take it ? think I've read today amnio can be recommended after 15 weeks in AUS, so they could have waited for that...

petalgumdrops

mvl wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I also knew. So would you know why they use CVS in here at all, if it is riskier than amniocentesis (higher chance of miscarriage) and detects less no of defects ? - is it only the CVS availability before 15 weeks ?

CVS can be done earlier thats why they do it I assume but contrary to Rhona Mahony and Boylan saying it is 99.9% accurate it is not! No decision to terminate should be made on the basis of this test. In my case a scan showed there may be an issue. I was not at the correct gestation for the Amnio which is more Accurate so a CVS was performed. I was so anxious to find out what was wrong I did the CVS before I even knew what I was doing! FISH results showed no T18 ,21 or 13 but 2 weeks later devestated to find out the conclusive results showed an extremely rare trisomy. Only 11 babies born in the world with this issue! Heavily pushed to abort. 100% assurances given my child would die.
Geneticist took different approach and reccomended Amino and explained the limitations of CVS. Reassured me, no mention of termination at all.


This is another thing I am trying to find out: have they been advised for amnio and didn't take it ? think I've read today amnio can be recommended after 15 weeks in AUS, so they could have waited for that...

Not sure but as far as I can see their FISH results which are less accurate came back positive but the 2 week detailed profiling of each chromosome came back negative. I had the opposite my inital FISH results were negative but final results were positive. Had to wait for an amnio for a.few weeks then another few weeks to get results which showed my baby was fine. placental mosasicm not full blown Trisomy! His placenta was abnormal and this was monitored he was induced early as placenta malfunctioned but they expected and monitored for this.

To add I'm currently 16 weeks pregnant and I was offered testing in NMH even though there was no clinical indication to do so. This was something I was not offered pre repeal! Overtesting when not clinically necessary opens a can of worms with the potential for mistakes to be made!

mvl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is the first milestone meaningful to human narrative I suppose. But in the first 7 weeks of development the development has passed all kinds of biological milestones any one of which is as important as the other, and the failure of many of which would render the fetus just as un-viable.
I fear it is only the first milestone in the kind of story we humans tell ourselves, not in any actually developmental biology.

Yes, there are other smaller development stages, but I think once there is HB, there is less risk of miscarriage, so I would have suggested it is more important from an Obstetrician's pov, rather than helping human narrative.
Some info (not as technical I am afraid) in The Meaning of No Fetal Heartbeat on an Early Ultrasound

Nobelium

Goldengirl wrote: »

That is your opinion but not that of the majority who voted for repeal and to legalise abortion.
That you think it is wrong is irrelevant therefore.
This is a tragedy because this foetus would have been a wanted baby, it is always a tragedy for couples with a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality whether the pregnancy goes to term or not . However aborting an unwanted foetus is not a tragedy, because it is UNWANTED and no matter how you much you protest about it, this discussion has been had, we all voted, and abortion is now legal .

Argumentum ad populam is a logical fallacy, and doesn't suddenly make taking another human life ethical. Also, your claim that because a human life is not wanted by you it's ok to kill it doesn't stand up as an adequate justification either.

mvl

petalgumdrops wrote: »

To add I'm currently 16 weeks pregnant and I was offered testing in NMH even though there was no clinical indication to do so. This was something I was not offered pre repeal! Overtesting when not clinically necessary opens a can of worms with the potential for mistakes to be made!

Good luck !

See - if they offer the less reliable, riskier test first, there may be an issue the hospitals need to address. But I think process can be improved, and also, future parents need to educate themselves more ...

nozzferrahhtoo

kaymin wrote: »

That's interesting but ultimately it comes down to your opinion as to whether a human who hasn't become sentient but is likely to become so should be saved.

For me it is not opinion. It is inevitable if you ask and honestly answer a simple question series:

What is morality, ethics and rights. Specifically what are they FOR? What do they do? Why do we have them?

I think when you realise the answer to those question, the conclusion about the massive ethical difference between a sentient agent, and a potentially MAYBE sentient agent, is absolutely massive. And there is no coherent basis upon which to afford the potential one any moral or ethical concern at all.

kaymin wrote: »

when you look at images of them at that stage they are very much a human even if they don't qualify as Human by your standard.

Oh certainly in terms of biology and physical shape and appearance they are entirely human. But what has, for example, shape got to do with anything? A mannequin in a clothing store is more human shaped than most fetus. Yet we have ZERO ethical concern on that basis for a mannequin. It would be ridiculous for us to have any.

Shape, taxonomy, biology.... I am not seeing why these are focal points for morality. THAT they are a focal point for your ethics is clear, do not get me wrong. WHY is the what is unclear.

As I said before if I instantiated your consciousness in a computer and removed it from your body.... I doubt many loved ones would have much concern for your body any more. And I think we both know why. And it has NOTHING to do with your shape or biology in that moment. Would it?

kaymin wrote: »

Just to add, who decided that the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity at a point in time should determine whether you live or die? And how accurate are these tests of sentience?

I do not think it SHOULD determine if it lives or dies. I think it should determine whether we should have any moral or ethical concern for it. Specifically whether it should have rights. If a fetus should have a right to life, I want to know why. It is human shaped.... not so much a reason for me. Nor do I see why it should be.

As for the accuracy of tests, I am not clear I know what you mean. It is deeper than that. It is more the accuracy of the science that has determined what the pre-requisites for consciousness and sentience even are in the first place. And if those things are absent, which they are in a fetus, we therefore have NO basis to think it is sentient.

There is no real "sentience test" per se in other words. There is a great line in a movie I saw once where an AI is created. The government agent comes to meet it and says "Can you prove you are conscious?" and the AI simply replies "Can you?".

Which of course, he can't.

But if we list the reasons we might have to think something sentient, a fetus at early stages pretty much has the same number of them as a rock. It is not that we test it for sentience. It is that we have NO reason to think it is there.

Taiga

Sardonicat wrote: »

Not to mention that many ( if not most )14 yo girls are not physically developed fully to carry a pregnancy to term without incurring some form of long term physical harm. And that's without even considering the lifelong psychological injury it would undountedly inflict.

Really, what's the point of arguing with someone who doesn't believe a child being forced to carry to term and deliver against her will would come to no harm from the experience. Once again it just proves that born children don't matter a sh1t to this lot

Sadly I can only thank this once.:(