Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
54 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Survival, Numbers, money, and Abortion rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


Disclaimer:If you're unable to discuss the ideas of life, quality of life, comparative costs, or policy vs morality in anything less than absolute terms, please post in one of the many, many, many threads RSP has devoted to that sort of discussion.


So one of the things I've seen bandied about is the *when* of abortion. When is the right time to put a 'no' on abortion as a viable option? I'm not looking for a simple answer here. Not 'because the body does it we can do it' nor 'It's never okay for any fetus to ever not be delivered.' One of the things I've heard is people calling for a reduction in the timing from 24 weeks max to 20 weeks max. I was curious just what that entails. I mean, what is 4 weeks? What is 1 week? What does such a short amount of time MEAN? apparently, a great deal.

Here's a link on baby weights/sizes at periods of gestation:

http://www.babycenter.com/average-fetal-length-weight-chart

And here's a bit on fetal viability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Here's another source for folks who don't like wiki:
http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm

Since that one is a couple years old we've got this one which goes into other factors like weight and gender:
http://www.easybabylife.com/premature-survival-rates.html

Though the title for youngest surviving goes to this one now, though the twin died 6 weeks after delivery:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-s...

What's the point of all these links? To lay a ground work. It appears to me that 24 weeks seems to be the weight/development threshold for a 50/50 shot at a baby surviving. This isn't taking into account chances of developmental issues this is simply 'does it die.'

Since there's a need for a line someplace, 50/50 doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. It seems like a 'fighting chance', and balances success vs cost(which we know happens in every instance of healthcare, death panels etc)

I'd be curious to see how far people might nudge it one way or the other, and their particular reasoning for it. For the purposes of this discussion though assume Abortion is going to remain legal and accessible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
9 months is about the age of a fetus when pro-lifers stop caring about it~
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
Since there's a need for a line someplace, 50/50 doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. It seems like a 'fighting chance', and balances success vs cost

I'm not sure "can we keep it alive" is a good criterion for drawing the line. Just because we can keep something alive does not mean it is good to do so.

Also, wherever you think the line should be, I'm not sure it's that bad to err on the side of too late rather than too early. Suppose I think it should be at 20 weeks, and someone else thinks it should be at 24 weeks. Currently over 98% of abortions happen by 20 weeks anyway, so it makes sense to me to push the line farther out, and leave the people involved free to make the decision in those rare weird cases.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
single sentences wrote:
9 months is about the age of a fetus when pro-lifers stop caring about it~


*sigh*
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can anyone discuss abortion without bringing in some sort of absolute baggage? Even if you're trying to determine a nebulous "when" then you're smuggling in the notion that there should be a line and that once we find it crossing that line is wrong. As an "abort literally whenever, even it means second thoughts on the way to the hospital" guy I clearly don't belong here so I'll leave you to it but I'm just not sure what you're hoping to accomplish, the thread premise seems fundamentally flawed and doomed to devolve into another generic abortion argument.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ordinary Evidence
Canada
Nanaimo
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Questions about the health of the mother and baby should be dealt with on a case by case basis, as circumstances and considerations are highly idiosyncratic.
The deliberation of the mother and her medical practitioner should be the determining factor.
Therefore 'when' would be just one of many factors involved in this decision.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Message wrote:
Can anyone discuss abortion without bringing in some sort of absolute baggage? Even if you're trying to determine a nebulous "when" then you're smuggling in the notion that there should be a line and that once we find it crossing that line is wrong. As an "abort literally whenever, even it means second thoughts on the way to the hospital" guy I clearly don't belong here so I'll leave you to it but I'm just not sure what you're hoping to accomplish, the thread premise seems fundamentally flawed and doomed to devolve into another generic abortion argument.


I'm sorry it's coming off that way. I don't expect an absolute line in the sand and a polar 'right/wrong on either side. I'd like to think folks are mature enough to discuss where they'd put the line while recognizing it's a personal choice and we're talking percentages and a nebulous pile of variables so the simple idea of perfectly good/bad is not so simply defined.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ordinary Evidence
Canada
Nanaimo
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In my opinion, there is no 'when'. Abortion should be an option during the entire pregnancy, just as other medical interventions and procedures are options.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
In my opinion, there is no 'when'. Abortion should be an option during the entire pregnancy, just as other medical interventions and procedures are options.


So you don't feel that even as late as 40-42 weeks when a fetus would survive completely and even thrive unaided outside of the womb in all but the more bizarre circumstances there should be a limit? Is it simply a case of birth=life?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ordinary Evidence
Canada
Nanaimo
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As I stated, in my opinion, this should be left to the woman and her doctor. There is no limit.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leland Pike
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Message wrote:
Can anyone discuss abortion without bringing in some sort of absolute baggage? ...the thread premise seems fundamentally flawed and doomed to devolve into another generic abortion argument.

Seems to me this discussion has value even within the context of an absolute view of when abortion should be allowed.

For example: My view is that we should only resort to abortion to save the life of the mother.

But even then we have to weigh the odds that the mother would die without the abortion against the chances that the baby could survive outside the womb. And in the case of a miscarriage we have to decide at what stage we should still try to save the baby and how hard we should try versus allowing nature to take it's course.

My first load of laundry is dry so I'll have to come back to the issue in a few minutes. (So probably somewhere on the fifth or sixth page of the thread...)

EDIT: Typo
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
Shadrach wrote:
single sentences wrote:
9 months is about the age of a fetus when pro-lifers stop caring about it~


*sigh*

i just cant believe its about lives when thousands of lives are threatened in various ways every day while pro-lifers waste so much time and effort trying to outlaw abortion which wouldnt even bring the results they expect~
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
As I stated, in my opinion, this should be left to the woman and her doctor. There is no limit.


I'm sorry, I'm just trying to clarify. This isn't meant to be judgmental, just information gathering. So for you the whole concept is about the woman's choice since her body is the incubator/carrier? The unborn one way or the other doesn't factor into it?

I'm not looking to debate you on your position, just to be sure I am not misinterpreting it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ordinary Evidence
Canada
Nanaimo
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am not sure how I can be more clear.
Doctor's make medical decisions with their patients at all stages of life, from birth to death.
The parent is responsible for and advocates for their child until that child reaches adulthood.
Both parties actions are constrained and proscribed by ethical standards and laws.
Specific laws restricting abortion based on arbitrary timelines are not only not helpful, but in my opinion are an added and unnecessary burden to that decision making process.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
I am not sure how I can be more clear.
Doctor's make medical decisions with their patients at all stages of life, from birth to death.
The parent is responsible for and advocates for their child until that child reaches adulthood.
Both parties actions are constrained and proscribed by ethical standards and laws.
Specific laws restricting abortion based on arbitrary timelines are not only not helpful, but in my opinion are an added and unnecessary burden to that decision making process.


I think I understand now, thank you for being patient
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ordinary Evidence
Canada
Nanaimo
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No problem. Thanks for being patient with my responses.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
As I stated, in my opinion, this should be left to the woman and her doctor. There is no limit.


Woman delivering twins at full term viable, first out is the boy she had hoped for. "Kill the other doc, I got my boy and can't really afford another one without having an uncomfortably tight budget for the next 18 years."

"No problemo young lady! After all, it's just a fetus. Now hang on a sec while I plug in the bone saw."

OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
In my opinion, there is no 'when'. Abortion should be an option during the entire pregnancy, just as other medical interventions and procedures are options.


You're a sick fuck.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leland Pike
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As I've said already abortions are only appropriate to save the life of the mother.

But in that case and when miscarriages occur the decision whether to attempt to save the child and what measures to take to do so should be made on the same basis as with any other person.

On the one hand, ordinary medical care should never be denied based on whether or not some bureaucrat (or anyone else) thinks the 'quality of life' would justify the patient's continued existence.

On the other hand, it's becoming more and more common for people to include "Do Not Resuscitate" instructions with their physician. (Between two-thirds and three-quarters of people who receive CPR die anyway. They just die getting the hell beat out of them. Less than ten percent have a 'normal' life afterwards. The majority of survivor's lives are somewhere between marginal and human vegetable...)

The child's parents, as his or her advocates, are the ones who should decide how to care for their own offspring, within the parameters of the same laws and medical protocols that apply to anyone else, ideally in consultation with their attending physicians.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
As I stated, in my opinion, this should be left to the woman and her doctor. There is no limit.


Woman delivering twins at full term viable, first out is the boy she had hoped for. "Kill the other doc, I got my boy and can't really afford another one without having an uncomfortably tight budget for the next 18 years."

"No problemo young lady! After all, it's just a fetus. Now hang on a sec while I plug in the bone saw."

OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
In my opinion, there is no 'when'. Abortion should be an option during the entire pregnancy, just as other medical interventions and procedures are options.


You're a sick fuck.


Go be obnoxious someplace else, there's plenty of RSP.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lelandpike wrote:
As I've said already abortions are only appropriate to save the life of the mother.

But in that case and when miscarriages occur the decision whether to attempt to save the child and what measures to take to do so should be made on the same basis as with any other person.

On the one hand, ordinary medical care should never be denied based on whether or not some bureaucrat (or anyone else) thinks the 'quality of life' would justify the patient's continued existence.

On the other hand, it's becoming more and more common for people to include "Do Not Resuscitate" instructions with their physician. (Between two-thirds and three-quarters of people who receive CPR die anyway. They just die getting the hell beat out of them. Less than ten percent have a 'normal' life afterwards. The majority of survivor's lives are somewhere between marginal and human vegetable...)

The child's parents, as his or her advocates, are the ones who should decide how to care for their own offspring, within the parameters of the same laws and medical protocols that apply to anyone else, ideally in consultation with their attending physicians.


Interesting. So while you both come at it from opposite ends, it appears both you and O.E. have identical concepts as to where the power of choice should ultimately lay when it comes to an unborn(or in your case recently prematurely born) child and the medical procedures attached to it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leland Pike
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
lelandpike wrote:
As I've said already abortions are only appropriate to save the life of the mother.

But in that case and when miscarriages occur the decision whether to attempt to save the child and what measures to take to do so should be made on the same basis as with any other person.

On the one hand, ordinary medical care should never be denied based on whether or not some bureaucrat (or anyone else) thinks the 'quality of life' would justify the patient's continued existence.

On the other hand, it's becoming more and more common for people to include "Do Not Resuscitate" instructions with their physician. (Between two-thirds and three-quarters of people who receive CPR die anyway. They just die getting the hell beat out of them. Less than ten percent have a 'normal' life afterwards. The majority of survivor's lives are somewhere between marginal and human vegetable...)

The child's parents, as his or her advocates, are the ones who should decide how to care for their own offspring, within the parameters of the same laws and medical protocols that apply to anyone else, ideally in consultation with their attending physicians.


Interesting. So while you both come at it from opposite ends, it appears both you and O.E. have identical concepts as to where the power of choice should ultimately lay when it comes to an unborn(or in your case recently prematurely born) child and the medical procedures attached to it.


Apparently. Except I don't know if we would see eye to eye on ethics or what the appropriate laws and medical protocols should be...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
As I stated, in my opinion, this should be left to the woman and her doctor. There is no limit.


Woman delivering twins at full term viable, first out is the boy she had hoped for. "Kill the other doc, I got my boy and can't really afford another one without having an uncomfortably tight budget for the next 18 years."

"No problemo young lady! After all, it's just a fetus. Now hang on a sec while I plug in the bone saw."

OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
In my opinion, there is no 'when'. Abortion should be an option during the entire pregnancy, just as other medical interventions and procedures are options.


You're a sick fuck.


Go be obnoxious someplace else, there's plenty of RSP.


Go fuck yourself Shadrach. You're not the boss of me. You're probably not even the boss of you.

Plus, that guy is a sick fuck. He literally believes that until the baby is physically pulled out of the mother's birth canal that she and the "doctor" have every right to murder it without cause. Do you agree with that? That a full term human child can be slaughtered on a whim with no medical reason if mom decides it's all a mistake?

Or does some flea-bitten, mangy feline in Africa have more right to live than a human being?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
As I stated, in my opinion, this should be left to the woman and her doctor. There is no limit.


Woman delivering twins at full term viable, first out is the boy she had hoped for. "Kill the other doc, I got my boy and can't really afford another one without having an uncomfortably tight budget for the next 18 years."

"No problemo young lady! After all, it's just a fetus. Now hang on a sec while I plug in the bone saw."

OrdinaryEvidence wrote:
In my opinion, there is no 'when'. Abortion should be an option during the entire pregnancy, just as other medical interventions and procedures are options.


You're a sick fuck.


Go be obnoxious someplace else, there's plenty of RSP.


Go fuck yourself Shadrach. You're not the boss of me. You're probably not even the boss of you.

Plus, that guy is a sick fuck. He literally believes that until the baby is physically pulled out of the mother's birth canal that she and the "doctor" have every right to murder it without cause. Do you agree with that? That a full term human child can be slaughtered on a whim with no medical reason if mom decides it's all a mistake?

Or does some flea-bitten, mangy feline in Africa have more right to live than a human being?


Go away Tripp, you're not contributing.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lelandpike wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
lelandpike wrote:
As I've said already abortions are only appropriate to save the life of the mother.

But in that case and when miscarriages occur the decision whether to attempt to save the child and what measures to take to do so should be made on the same basis as with any other person.

On the one hand, ordinary medical care should never be denied based on whether or not some bureaucrat (or anyone else) thinks the 'quality of life' would justify the patient's continued existence.

On the other hand, it's becoming more and more common for people to include "Do Not Resuscitate" instructions with their physician. (Between two-thirds and three-quarters of people who receive CPR die anyway. They just die getting the hell beat out of them. Less than ten percent have a 'normal' life afterwards. The majority of survivor's lives are somewhere between marginal and human vegetable...)

The child's parents, as his or her advocates, are the ones who should decide how to care for their own offspring, within the parameters of the same laws and medical protocols that apply to anyone else, ideally in consultation with their attending physicians.


Interesting. So while you both come at it from opposite ends, it appears both you and O.E. have identical concepts as to where the power of choice should ultimately lay when it comes to an unborn(or in your case recently prematurely born) child and the medical procedures attached to it.


Apparently. Except I don't know if we would see eye to eye on ethics or what the appropriate laws and medical protocols should be...


Oh most certainly not I would imagine, I just meant the methodology behind the decision. It's interesting how people arrive at their decisions, and I think studying THAT would help us better construct debates and discussions in general. For instance, you both use the mother and doctor as final say while he would have all abortions legal and you almost none. I've got questions for the both of you actually.

For you:In the context of mother/doctor being the ultimate say, how much power do you give a municipal body to interfere? If a doctor and mother both decide at 20 weeks, or 39 weeks, that they think the fetus should be terminated, can a State or Nation enact laws superceding that authority?

For Ordinary Evidence: As I imagine I know the answer to the above for you I'll focus the other way. Who among the doctor/Mother has final veto power? If a mother decides she wants an abortion does the doctor have right to refusal? Considering the treatment is time sensitive in a very definite sense(birth) is the doctor libel for any monetary damages if he is allowed to and does refuse and the mother delivers before she can find a replacement? If the doctor cannot refuse, how do you square that with choice?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:


Go away Tripp, you're not contributing.


Nope. Like I said, you don't have any control over how, what and why people discuss things in RSP. You wanted to have an abortion thread where the only subject allowed was abortion in the context of "absolute terms"? Not gonna happen. There are no "absolute terms" and you fucking well know it. It's like that pointless 1-10 pain chart in the doctor office. What's a "1" and what's a "10"? Who the fuck knows? All anyone can do is hazard a guess.

So it seems you and the sick fuck who thinks murder is totally reasonable prefer to ignore the living, breathing, blood pumping humanity of a child safe within a womb and determine absolutely and 100% arbitrarily that somehow a determination can be made by officially trained specialists coupled with usually clueless under informed teen mothers as to when it's sorta-murder and when it's real-murder.

The simple reality is that nobody knows absolutely anything about when the spark of consciousness that defines *a human* happens. Yet some like you and most certainly the SF above seem morbidly interested in laying out a production plan for murders of convenience.

How about this - if the mother's life is at risk or if incest or forcible rape of any sort was involved then abortion would not only be available, but state funded if the mother is poor or if a verifiable felony occurred. And we all know that means only a small percentage of pregnancies would be legal to abort and that alone is enough to anger the butt-licking democratic politicians and the racists who believe they are controlling the human pest population by aborting black babies.

And none of that even addresses the advances in medicine that now allow us to diagnose unborn children early in the pregnancy who will be born with serious mental or physical impairments.

Yet you want to discuss this in only absolute Ivory Tower parameters? Not a fucking chance dude, it's my pleasure to call 'em as I see 'em.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.