mjt328 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 8 hours ago, Doc Brown said: One thing we can agree on is that we all should be against rape regardless of the circumstances. That's still an extreme position forcing somebody who through no fault of their own becomes pregnant to be forced to have that baby. It should be left for the victim of the rape to decide. The issue of abortion really comes down to only one question: When does life begin? All of the other discussions about women's rights, health concerns, rape victims, etc. are vitally important. But they mean absolutely nothing until you have answered this question FIRST. When does life begin? Because regardless of the other circumstances surrounding the pregnancy - AT SOME POINT you have to acknowledge the "fetus" has become a living human being. And whatever point you believe life starts (conception? 8 weeks? 5 months? birth?)... then at that very point, abortion is the same as killing a living person. There is no other way around it. 1
oldmanfan Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 I agree the fundamental question is when does life begin. But as a scientist who has directed IVF labs for a number of years, I can hopefully provide some input as to that question. First, one has to be sure that one you talk about life you talk about human, and not biological, life. The egg and sperm are both viable living cells, and when they untie they create another living cell. The question then is: is that new cell a human life? And for that there needs to be a complete understanding of early development. The fertilized egg or zygote is not truly a unique human entity, or unique life, as some would suggest. It is the beginning of the potential of such, but not truly a unique entity. If one takes that view, one then must deny the existence of identical twins, as they are derived from the same fertilized egg. I don't think anyone would make the argument that twins are not, each, unique entities. The zygote then has to undergo a number of cell divisions to form a blastocyst, which contains one hundred or so cells, and is the stage that the embryo can normally implant in the uterus. From years of IVF experience, and from studies of basic biology, it is known that many zygotes arrest in development early one, perhaps after one or two cell divisions. Thus they do not have the cellular or genetic machinery to form a fetus. And, a critical point to make, humans are eutherian mammals. This means in order for development to ensue there is a requirement for development of the placenta, to allow for maternal-embryonic communication. Thus, without implantation there is no development into a fetus. Considering the above, it can be stated that a fertilized egg has the POTENTIAL to form a baby. It has the potential to form two babies. OR three. Or most times none. Potential is the key word, which is why labs like mine are constantly obsessing over conditions to support proper growth and development of embryos. But biology dictates many fertilized eggs do not make it, and that does not mean I or a woman who just had intercourse are killing anything. it means it is normal biology. Some say science has proven life begins at conception. It has not. It is impossible biologically to define conception, as the fertilization process contains a number of sequential steps from initial contact of sperm with cells surrounding the egg to the union of male and female pronuclei at syngamy. A more logical place to begin the discussion is implantation, for without that you have no development and there is a defined measure (hCG levels) that tell you implantation has occurred. The Alabama law uses 6 weeks as a defined term. Pregnancy dates from the last menstrual period, not hen the embryo implants, not when you get a positive pregnancy test. It's why humans have 40 week gestation periods but talk about being pregnant for nine months; there is a month long difference between dating and knowing. Many women simply do not know they are pregnant at six weeks; it is only three weeks from implantation. That date seems ill advised to me. I would also say that the NYS law, to me, is draconian and borderline evil; to do such late term terminations should only be done, if at all, if the life of the mother is in imminent danger. My position is that we should all be working to make a society where abortion is never required unless imminent danger to the mother is in place. Being pro choice should mean you have the ability to make choices. Like you should be able to choose contraceptives of your choice, and they should be readily available (which to me means if you're a pharmacist and someone gives you a prescription for a pill form a licensed physician, you fill it). Men should never have sex without condoms unless they intend to become a dad. Younger kids should be instructed about waiting until they are mature ought to handle the responsibilities of sex (but if you think abstinence is the only answer to this issue, good luck - sex is as basic a biologic instinct as seeking water). Using the morning after pill to me is a sound approach because again implantation has not occurred. As one who works with infertile couples, I am a strong proponent of adoption. But I also cannot imagine taking away choices from women who have been raped or been the victims of *****, just that I would encourage that choice to be made as early as possible. Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values. as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven. Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer. One cannot apply the scientific methods to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins. Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion. 4
Bray Wyatt Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 40 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: I agree the fundamental question is when does life begin. But as a scientist who has directed IVF labs for a number of years, I can hopefully provide some input as to that question. First, one has to be sure that one you talk about life you talk about human, and not biological, life. The egg and sperm are both viable living cells, and when they untie they create another living cell. The question then is: is that new cell a human life? And for that there needs to be a complete understanding of early development. The fertilized egg or zygote is not truly a unique human entity, or unique life, as some would suggest. It is the beginning of the potential of such, but not truly a unique entity. If one takes that view, one then must deny the existence of identical twins, as they are derived from the same fertilized egg. I don't think anyone would make the argument that twins are not, each, unique entities. The zygote then has to undergo a number of cell divisions to form a blastocyst, which contains one hundred or so cells, and is the stage that the embryo can normally implant in the uterus. From years of IVF experience, and from studies of basic biology, it is known that many zygotes arrest in development early one, perhaps after one or two cell divisions. Thus they do not have the cellular or genetic machinery to form a fetus. And, a critical point to make, humans are eutherian mammals. This means in order for development to ensue there is a requirement for development of the placenta, to allow for maternal-embryonic communication. Thus, without implantation there is no development into a fetus. Considering the above, it can be stated that a fertilized egg has the POTENTIAL to form a baby. It has the potential to form two babies. OR three. Or most times none. Potential is the key word, which is why labs like mine are constantly obsessing over conditions to support proper growth and development of embryos. But biology dictates many fertilized eggs do not make it, and that does not mean I or a woman who just had intercourse are killing anything. it means it is normal biology. Some say science has proven life begins at conception. It has not. It is impossible biologically to define conception, as the fertilization process contains a number of sequential steps from initial contact of sperm with cells surrounding the egg to the union of male and female pronuclei at syngamy. A more logical place to begin the discussion is implantation, for without that you have no development and there is a defined measure (hCG levels) that tell you implantation has occurred. The Alabama law uses 6 weeks as a defined term. Pregnancy dates from the last menstrual period, not hen the embryo implants, not when you get a positive pregnancy test. It's why humans have 40 week gestation periods but talk about being pregnant for nine months; there is a month long difference between dating and knowing. Many women simply do not know they are pregnant at six weeks; it is only three weeks from implantation. That date seems ill advised to me. I would also say that the NYS law, to me, is draconian and borderline evil; to do such late term terminations should only be done, if at all, if the life of the mother is in imminent danger. My position is that we should all be working to make a society where abortion is never required unless imminent danger to the mother is in place. Being pro choice should mean you have the ability to make choices. Like you should be able to choose contraceptives of your choice, and they should be readily available (which to me means if you're a pharmacist and someone gives you a prescription for a pill form a licensed physician, you fill it). Men should never have sex without condoms unless they intend to become a dad. Younger kids should be instructed about waiting until they are mature ought to handle the responsibilities of sex (but if you think abstinence is the only answer to this issue, good luck - sex is as basic a biologic instinct as seeking water). Using the morning after pill to me is a sound approach because again implantation has not occurred. As one who works with infertile couples, I am a strong proponent of adoption. But I also cannot imagine taking away choices from women who have been raped or been the victims of *****, just that I would encourage that choice to be made as early as possible. Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values. as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven. Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer. One cannot apply the scientific methods to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins. Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion. What is your opinion then on when life begins?
mjt328 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 27 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: I agree the fundamental question is when does life begin. But as a scientist who has directed IVF labs for a number of years, I can hopefully provide some input as to that question. First, one has to be sure that one you talk about life you talk about human, and not biological, life. The egg and sperm are both viable living cells, and when they untie they create another living cell. The question then is: is that new cell a human life? And for that there needs to be a complete understanding of early development. The fertilized egg or zygote is not truly a unique human entity, or unique life, as some would suggest. It is the beginning of the potential of such, but not truly a unique entity. If one takes that view, one then must deny the existence of identical twins, as they are derived from the same fertilized egg. I don't think anyone would make the argument that twins are not, each, unique entities. The zygote then has to undergo a number of cell divisions to form a blastocyst, which contains one hundred or so cells, and is the stage that the embryo can normally implant in the uterus. From years of IVF experience, and from studies of basic biology, it is known that many zygotes arrest in development early one, perhaps after one or two cell divisions. Thus they do not have the cellular or genetic machinery to form a fetus. And, a critical point to make, humans are eutherian mammals. This means in order for development to ensue there is a requirement for development of the placenta, to allow for maternal-embryonic communication. Thus, without implantation there is no development into a fetus. Considering the above, it can be stated that a fertilized egg has the POTENTIAL to form a baby. It has the potential to form two babies. OR three. Or most times none. Potential is the key word, which is why labs like mine are constantly obsessing over conditions to support proper growth and development of embryos. But biology dictates many fertilized eggs do not make it, and that does not mean I or a woman who just had intercourse are killing anything. it means it is normal biology. Some say science has proven life begins at conception. It has not. It is impossible biologically to define conception, as the fertilization process contains a number of sequential steps from initial contact of sperm with cells surrounding the egg to the union of male and female pronuclei at syngamy. A more logical place to begin the discussion is implantation, for without that you have no development and there is a defined measure (hCG levels) that tell you implantation has occurred. The Alabama law uses 6 weeks as a defined term. Pregnancy dates from the last menstrual period, not hen the embryo implants, not when you get a positive pregnancy test. It's why humans have 40 week gestation periods but talk about being pregnant for nine months; there is a month long difference between dating and knowing. Many women simply do not know they are pregnant at six weeks; it is only three weeks from implantation. That date seems ill advised to me. I would also say that the NYS law, to me, is draconian and borderline evil; to do such late term terminations should only be done, if at all, if the life of the mother is in imminent danger. My position is that we should all be working to make a society where abortion is never required unless imminent danger to the mother is in place. Being pro choice should mean you have the ability to make choices. Like you should be able to choose contraceptives of your choice, and they should be readily available (which to me means if you're a pharmacist and someone gives you a prescription for a pill form a licensed physician, you fill it). Men should never have sex without condoms unless they intend to become a dad. Younger kids should be instructed about waiting until they are mature ought to handle the responsibilities of sex (but if you think abstinence is the only answer to this issue, good luck - sex is as basic a biologic instinct as seeking water). Using the morning after pill to me is a sound approach because again implantation has not occurred. As one who works with infertile couples, I am a strong proponent of adoption. But I also cannot imagine taking away choices from women who have been raped or been the victims of *****, just that I would encourage that choice to be made as early as possible. Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values. as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven. Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer. One cannot apply the scientific methods to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins. Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion. Fantastic response, and exactly what I was trying to get at. The question of "when life begins" is not something that can be answered by science. Scientists can look into a microscope and understand what is happening biologically. But the determination of when it actually becomes life is completely open to interpretation. At the end of the day, it comes down to a person's moral beliefs. Many Christians are against any form of abortion, because the Bible states that God "knew" each person before they were conceived. Their stance is not based on being anti-women or anti-choice. They simply believe abortion at any point is killing a human life. Some denominations have extended this to even forbid birth control, but that seems to be a very small minority among the Christian population. Others (like you mentioned) may point to implantation, which occurs within a few weeks. Others may look at the fetal heartbeat, which is about 3 weeks. I've heard others point to when pain can be felt in the womb, which I understand is around 20 weeks. In my opinion, society should err on the side of caution. If there is a chance you are killing a living human being, you do your best to avoid it. All other questions and circumstances come secondary. I can certainly understand if a pregnancy threatens the mother's life, because in that situation you are trading a life for a life. But I don't see the justification in any other circumstance.
3rdnlng Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 1 hour ago, oldmanfan said: I agree the fundamental question is when does life begin. But as a scientist who has directed IVF labs for a number of years, I can hopefully provide some input as to that question. First, one has to be sure that one you talk about life you talk about human, and not biological, life. The egg and sperm are both viable living cells, and when they untie they create another living cell. The question then is: is that new cell a human life? And for that there needs to be a complete understanding of early development. The fertilized egg or zygote is not truly a unique human entity, or unique life, as some would suggest. It is the beginning of the potential of such, but not truly a unique entity. If one takes that view, one then must deny the existence of identical twins, as they are derived from the same fertilized egg. I don't think anyone would make the argument that twins are not, each, unique entities. The zygote then has to undergo a number of cell divisions to form a blastocyst, which contains one hundred or so cells, and is the stage that the embryo can normally implant in the uterus. From years of IVF experience, and from studies of basic biology, it is known that many zygotes arrest in development early one, perhaps after one or two cell divisions. Thus they do not have the cellular or genetic machinery to form a fetus. And, a critical point to make, humans are eutherian mammals. This means in order for development to ensue there is a requirement for development of the placenta, to allow for maternal-embryonic communication. Thus, without implantation there is no development into a fetus. Considering the above, it can be stated that a fertilized egg has the POTENTIAL to form a baby. It has the potential to form two babies. OR three. Or most times none. Potential is the key word, which is why labs like mine are constantly obsessing over conditions to support proper growth and development of embryos. But biology dictates many fertilized eggs do not make it, and that does not mean I or a woman who just had intercourse are killing anything. it means it is normal biology. Some say science has proven life begins at conception. It has not. It is impossible biologically to define conception, as the fertilization process contains a number of sequential steps from initial contact of sperm with cells surrounding the egg to the union of male and female pronuclei at syngamy. A more logical place to begin the discussion is implantation, for without that you have no development and there is a defined measure (hCG levels) that tell you implantation has occurred. The Alabama law uses 6 weeks as a defined term. Pregnancy dates from the last menstrual period, not hen the embryo implants, not when you get a positive pregnancy test. It's why humans have 40 week gestation periods but talk about being pregnant for nine months; there is a month long difference between dating and knowing. Many women simply do not know they are pregnant at six weeks; it is only three weeks from implantation. That date seems ill advised to me. I would also say that the NYS law, to me, is draconian and borderline evil; to do such late term terminations should only be done, if at all, if the life of the mother is in imminent danger. My position is that we should all be working to make a society where abortion is never required unless imminent danger to the mother is in place. Being pro choice should mean you have the ability to make choices. Like you should be able to choose contraceptives of your choice, and they should be readily available (which to me means if you're a pharmacist and someone gives you a prescription for a pill form a licensed physician, you fill it). Men should never have sex without condoms unless they intend to become a dad. Younger kids should be instructed about waiting until they are mature ought to handle the responsibilities of sex (but if you think abstinence is the only answer to this issue, good luck - sex is as basic a biologic instinct as seeking water). Using the morning after pill to me is a sound approach because again implantation has not occurred. As one who works with infertile couples, I am a strong proponent of adoption. But I also cannot imagine taking away choices from women who have been raped or been the victims of *****, just that I would encourage that choice to be made as early as possible. Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values. as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven. Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer. One cannot apply the scientific methods to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins. Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion. Very good response from someone who certainly has some expertise on the subject. This is the kind of discussion that I would hope would happen more often here at PPP. BTW it is the Georgia law that uses 6 weeks as a defined term. The Alabama law basically forbids abortion altogether and really came about as a political challenge to right to choose people, with the idea that the SCOTUS will eventually rule on the inevitable lawsuits. On another note, I think that anyone who is raped should get a "morning after pill" as soon as possible.
oldmanfan Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 48 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: What is your opinion then on when life begins? My moral and religious belief, again because it is not something defined scientifically, is when the fetus can sustain life on its own. And with medical advances that age becomes younger and younger with time. Does that mean, however, I would advocate for abortion at, say 12 weeks? Overall, no, but It would depend on circumstances. If my wife and I had conceived a child with Down syndrome, we would not have terminated. That was our choice. We did , however, have a conception with a chromosomal trisomy that was incompatible with embryonic growth and development to term, and although we saw a heartbeat at 6 weeks by 8 weeks it was gone. I do think these decisions must be made by the individual in question. I have seen couples where a man with a pro-life T shirt was sitting right next to the bed of his wife who just had a termination due to a fetal abnormality. Having worked in the field for over 35 years, what I've learned is that it is impossible to make moral judgments for another unless you are put into the same circumstance. Or to put it another way, people often want to make something black and white when the reality is the issue exists in shades of gray. 1
row_33 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: My moral and religious belief, again because it is not something defined scientifically, is when the fetus can sustain life on its own. And with medical advances that age becomes younger and younger with time. Does that mean, however, I would advocate for abortion at, say 12 weeks? Overall, no, but It would depend on circumstances. If my wife and I had conceived a child with Down syndrome, we would not have terminated. That was our choice. We did , however, have a conception with a chromosomal trisomy that was incompatible with embryonic growth and development to term, and although we saw a heartbeat at 6 weeks by 8 weeks it was gone. I do think these decisions must be made by the individual in question. I have seen couples where a man with a pro-life T shirt was sitting right next to the bed of his wife who just had a termination due to a fetal abnormality. Having worked in the field for over 35 years, what I've learned is that it is impossible to make moral judgments for another unless you are put into the same circumstance. Or to put it another way, people often want to make something black and white when the reality is the issue exists in shades of gray. good answers but time continues unabated and decisions have to be made in real time based on whatever is of use at the moment this apparently isn't the kind of thing we can all sit down and talk about for hours over a cup of cocoa
oldmanfan Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Very good response from someone who certainly has some expertise on the subject. This is the kind of discussion that I would hope would happen more often here at PPP. BTW it is the Georgia law that uses 6 weeks as a defined term. The Alabama law basically forbids abortion altogether and really came about as a political challenge to right to choose people, with the idea that the SCOTUS will eventually rule on the inevitable lawsuits. On another note, I think that anyone who is raped should get a "morning after pill" as soon as possible. Thanks for correcting that. I am for anything that prevents unwanted pregnancy, and since implantation starts the clock on that process I become irritated by the position of some pharmacists who refuse to fill a lawfully written prescription for the morning after pill by a licensed physician or NP or PA. We have even had folks in our practice that we've put on birth control pills to control endometriosis or to time egg retrieval procedures, and pharmacists have refused to fill those. Of all the issues, that surround this complex debate, that one is the one that angers me. If you are a pharmacist, fill a legal prescription. If you have some sort of religious thing that prevents you from doing so, then find another profession. 1
Bray Wyatt Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: My moral and religious belief, again because it is not something defined scientifically, is when the fetus can sustain life on its own. And with medical advances that age becomes younger and younger with time. Does that mean, however, I would advocate for abortion at, say 12 weeks? Overall, no, but It would depend on circumstances. If my wife and I had conceived a child with Down syndrome, we would not have terminated. That was our choice. We did , however, have a conception with a chromosomal trisomy that was incompatible with embryonic growth and development to term, and although we saw a heartbeat at 6 weeks by 8 weeks it was gone. I do think these decisions must be made by the individual in question. I have seen couples where a man with a pro-life T shirt was sitting right next to the bed of his wife who just had a termination due to a fetal abnormality. Having worked in the field for over 35 years, what I've learned is that it is impossible to make moral judgments for another unless you are put into the same circumstance. Or to put it another way, people often want to make something black and white when the reality is the issue exists in shades of gray. Thanks for your answer, I wasnt asking it as a leading question or anything, more out of curiosity for someone who has more knowledge on the subject than I. I do have a clarification question on what do you mean when you say "fetus can sustain life on its own" what do you mean by that? As I see people mention that without ever explaining/defining what it means.
oldmanfan Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 Just now, row_33 said: good answers but time continues unabated and decisions have to be made in real time based on whatever is of use at the moment this apparently isn't the kind of thing we can all sit down and talk about for hours over a cup of cocoa Well put. It is as stated an extraordinarily grey issue, with temporal issues being critical. I just wish people would quit painting is as black and white.
row_33 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Thanks for correcting that. I am for anything that prevents unwanted pregnancy, and since implantation starts the clock on that process I become irritated by the position of some pharmacists who refuse to fill a lawfully written prescription for the morning after pill by a licensed physician or NP or PA. We have even had folks in our practice that we've put on birth control pills to control endometriosis or to time egg retrieval procedures, and pharmacists have refused to fill those. Of all the issues, that surround this complex debate, that one is the one that angers me. If you are a pharmacist, fill a legal prescription. If you have some sort of religious thing that prevents you from doing so, then find another profession. a profession should not impinge on the conscience of its member it can get tough at times
Bray Wyatt Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 1 minute ago, oldmanfan said: Thanks for correcting that. I am for anything that prevents unwanted pregnancy, and since implantation starts the clock on that process I become irritated by the position of some pharmacists who refuse to fill a lawfully written prescription for the morning after pill by a licensed physician or NP or PA. We have even had folks in our practice that we've put on birth control pills to control endometriosis or to time egg retrieval procedures, and pharmacists have refused to fill those. Of all the issues, that surround this complex debate, that one is the one that angers me. If you are a pharmacist, fill a legal prescription. If you have some sort of religious thing that prevents you from doing so, then find another profession. That would bother me too, if a doctor prescribes someone something, the job of the pharmacist is to make sure they receive it and the client is aware of any possible interactions, not overrule a doctor.
row_33 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Well put. It is as stated an extraordinarily grey issue, with temporal issues being critical. I just wish people would quit painting is as black and white. i'm kind of amused by the people who gleefully and yet angrily demand for increasing abortions where they are not concerned at all i understand those who have a religious view and keep to it, but the other side is astounding, i guess there's $$$ and power to be made from it 12 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: That would bother me too, if a doctor prescribes someone something, the job of the pharmacist is to make sure they receive it and the client is aware of any possible interactions, not overrule a doctor. pharmacists have the ability to overrule a doctor they can refuse prescriptions for many reasons Edited May 17, 2019 by row_33
Bray Wyatt Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 Just now, row_33 said: i'm kind of amused by the people who gleefully and yet angrily demand for increasing abortions where they are not concerned at all i understand those who have a religious view and keep to it, but the other side is astounding, i guess there's $$$ and power to be made from it pharmacists can overrule a doctor they can refuse prescriptions for many reasons I mean I get if they feel it may be a fraudulent one, but for the reason oldmanfan described thats absurd.
oldmanfan Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said: Thanks for your answer, I wasnt asking it as a leading question or anything, more out of curiosity for someone who has more knowledge on the subject than I. I do have a clarification question on what do you mean when you say "fetus can sustain life on its own" what do you mean by that? As I see people mention that without ever explaining/defining what it means. This is going to sound awful, but in a sense the fetus exists in utero in a somewhat parasitic relationship with the mother. The fetus can only get oxygen and required nutrients from the mother through the placenta. Once the placental communication with the mother is terminated, then the fetus must be able to breath on its own and take in and utilize nutrients etc. But one can certainly intervene with modern medical care after termination of the placental connection (such as ECMO for oxygenation, etc.), and as such the age of viability has come down since Roe v. Wade. And may continue to do so. 3 minutes ago, row_33 said: i'm kind of amused by the people who gleefully and yet angrily demand for increasing abortions where they are not concerned at all i understand those who have a religious view and keep to it, but the other side is astounding, i guess there's $$$ and power to be made from it pharmacists have the ability to overrule a doctor they can refuse prescriptions for many reasons If there a potentially dangerous drug interaction with another prescribed medication, certainly. What our patients have run into are pharmacists who refuse to fill any birth control prescription because of their religious beliefs. They have no business being pharmacists then.
Bray Wyatt Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 1 minute ago, oldmanfan said: This is going to sound awful, but in a sense the fetus exists in utero in a somewhat parasitic relationship with the mother. The fetus can only get oxygen and required nutrients from the mother through the placenta. Once the placental communication with the mother is terminated, then the fetus must be able to breath on its own and take in and utilize nutrients etc. But one can certainly intervene with modern medical care after termination of the placental connection (such as ECMO for oxygenation, etc.), and as such the age of viability has come down since Roe v. Wade. And may continue to do so. I was more curious as to if that meant being able to breathe on its own or not, which it does. The whole nutrients part to me while an issue, wouldnt hold too much weight as a baby still needs to be fed after its born, and there are IV's and things. I have two kids and you think I would have paid more attention to these developmental things when they were happening lol I do think we need to draw a line somewhere on when a decision should be made on when one would be allowed vs not, and as you say with the advances in technology making it more viable for the baby to live outside the womb earlier, the law should then be reviewed every now and then to be updated. Just a quick google search yielded this result on viability: According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 24 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive. Trying to make a common sense proposal here, it would seem it would have to be something well before 24 weeks when a decision would have to be made. While it is a tough decision, I do not think it should be something that would take that long to make.
3rdnlng Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: My moral and religious belief, again because it is not something defined scientifically, is when the fetus can sustain life on its own. And with medical advances that age becomes younger and younger with time. Does that mean, however, I would advocate for abortion at, say 12 weeks? Overall, no, but It would depend on circumstances. If my wife and I had conceived a child with Down syndrome, we would not have terminated. That was our choice. We did , however, have a conception with a chromosomal trisomy that was incompatible with embryonic growth and development to term, and although we saw a heartbeat at 6 weeks by 8 weeks it was gone. I do think these decisions must be made by the individual in question. I have seen couples where a man with a pro-life T shirt was sitting right next to the bed of his wife who just had a termination due to a fetal abnormality. Having worked in the field for over 35 years, what I've learned is that it is impossible to make moral judgments for another unless you are put into the same circumstance. Or to put it another way, people often want to make something black and white when the reality is the issue exists in shades of gray. I like this answer also. I personally am not for abortion but I'm not against it on a wider basis. I believe abortion is between the parties and their God but I also believe that it should be regulated by government so that babies aren't being murdered in the third trimester. As someone who has had to make a life or death decision over someone else I'm well aware of how difficult that decision can be. With that said, yes, there are fewer blacks & whites in this world than grays.
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 1 hour ago, oldmanfan said: Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values. as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven. Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer. One cannot apply the scientific methods to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins. Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion. This, here, is basically why I'm pro-choice. A sincere desire not to inflict my personal values on others in the presence of such ambiguity.
row_33 Posted May 17, 2019 Posted May 17, 2019 27 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: This is going to sound awful, but in a sense the fetus exists in utero in a somewhat parasitic relationship with the mother. The fetus can only get oxygen and required nutrients from the mother through the placenta. Once the placental communication with the mother is terminated, then the fetus must be able to breath on its own and take in and utilize nutrients etc. But one can certainly intervene with modern medical care after termination of the placental connection (such as ECMO for oxygenation, etc.), and as such the age of viability has come down since Roe v. Wade. And may continue to do so. If there a potentially dangerous drug interaction with another prescribed medication, certainly. What our patients have run into are pharmacists who refuse to fill any birth control prescription because of their religious beliefs. They have no business being pharmacists then. can't read the scrawl, they know the doctor isn't reliable, incorrect amounts due to doc error or doc forgetting the history of the patient... for matters of conscience that's getting steep, but one should be protected, it will obviously come at a professional cost to refuse service that is legal pharm has the ability to change the prescription to the lowest cost generic equivalent of what was requested
Recommended Posts