I hesitate even to mention an argument going around in the media about abortion.
The issue (legitimately) raises strong feelings.
My view, expressed before, is abortion should be rare, safe and legal. (I admit paraphrasing the Clintons on this but it does express my view).
That said, there is a current argument in favour of allowing abortion based on the relatively high miscarriage rate. In summary the argument says that, since many pregnancies miscarry, and since an induced abortion is just a miscarriage, abortion merely does what nature often does. This, somehow, suggests abortion is unproblematic.
The trouble with this argument can be seem in a moment if one considers human life. (And this is not a "start of life" argument).
Everyone dies. It is not a question of whether but merely a question of when.
Death is natural.
Does this mean killing, say, a 52 year old woman in good health (who is bound to die anyway) is merely doing what nature does and is, accordingly, ok? (I hope the answer is obvious -- if not, the answer is no, it is not ok).
Maybe I misunderstand the miscarriage argument -- if so perhaps wise readers can set me straight? Otherwise, I will base my view on other arguments.
7 comments:
I'm not sure exactly what argument you are referring to, but the high miscarriage rate in the first month or so (I recall it is estimated at something around 50% or more, but I may be remembering wrong) is sometimes cited against the "life begins at conception" argument. It is simply suggesting that the crisp division pre and post conception is not so crisp since so many fertilized eggs have zero chance of surviving no matter what humans might try to do. Taken literally, if one buys into the "life begins at conception", yet to be developed medical technology would have to attempt to identify and save these grossly defective embryos for as long as possible, even if they will never develop the organs necessary for life beyond the early embryotic stage.
This point is not so directly relevant to the abortion debate, except for the people who really want to ban everything from the moment of conception (including a number of different birth control methods which prevent implantation). Certainly such people are not a tiny minority, and, in fact, probably represent the majority of the prolife movement. However, many of the prolife group recognize that the best they could achieve is to ban abortion beyond some time after conception. When that is the goal they are fighting for, I don't see how miscarriage rates would be used as an argument for allowing abortions.
Hope this helps.
Why can't the Cons and the libs meet the Canadian people halfway.
If a woman wants an abortion in the first 3 months, is should be allowed.
Just like in France, anything after that would not be allowed.
I think that's fair.
France doesn't forbid abortion after 3 months, but it does require two doctors to confirm a threat to the woman's health or a birth defect. Before that it is available on demand. There is an independent body which determines which kind of birth defects are serious enough to allow late term abortion.
Why France? There are lots of different examples of countries setting different time frames, different conditions. It sounds like France allows any two doctors, so presumably one of these would be the woman's doctor, and perhaps a colleague. Canada used to require a panel of 3 independent (from the woman's doctor) doctors and some women died because the independent panel was not closely enough connected to the woman's medical condition. That was an easy restriction to challenge, as no woman should have to die because of a cumbersome oversight committee. When you set up restrictions, you need to think of what kind of oversight it will have. If it is simply the woman and her doctor, that's what we have now. Who else do you think should be involved in this decision?
Anon #1 -- thanks, this does help clarify
The miscarriage argument was also addressed in a letter in yesterday's Post by a doctor. Not sure if I totally follow the logic here, but I thought you might be interested.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
[img]http://clououtlet.com/img/clououtlet.com.jpg[/img]
[b]Christian Louboutin[/b] is a French footwear designer whose footwear has incorporated beaming, red-lacquered soles that include befit his signature.
Louboutin helped bring about stilettos back into approach in the 1990s and 2000s, sly dozens of styles with heel heights of 120mm (4.72 inches) and higher. The designer's professed objective has been to "write a better half look vulgar, charming, to make her legs look as extensive as [he] can." While he does put up for sale some lower-heeled styles, Louboutin is in general associated with his dressier evening-wear designs incorporating jeweled straps, bows, feathers, obvious leather, red soles and other nearly the same decorative touches. He is most customarily known as a remedy for his red-bottom high stump shoes, commonly referred to as "sammy red-bottoms." Christian Louboutin's red-bottom colour code is registered as Pantone 18-663 TPX.
Despite being known for his distinction clients, he almost never gives shoes away – present discounts preferably to his high-profile fans. This policy also extends to his physical one's own flesh, because he feels that giving shoes away as gifts is unimaginative.
His unique biggest customer is Danielle Steel, who is reputed to own in excess of 6,000 pairs and is known to have purchased up 80 pairs at a heyday when shopping at his stores.
(с) [url=http://clououtlet.com]Christian Louboutin[/url]
Post a Comment