Join Our Community!
Share
Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum > Medical Agrgument Against Abortion (Page 1)
Avatar
Q: Medical Agrgument Against Abortion
asked by: Anonymous on April 14th, 2007
Medical Arguments Against Abortion
Thus far in our discussion we have looked at biblical arguments against abortion. But what if someone doesn't believe in the Bible? Are there other arguments we can use? Yes, there are: medical arguments, for example. Let's look, then, at some of the medical arguments against abortion.
The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.

Another set of medical arguments against abortion surround the definition of life and death. If one set of criteria have been used to define death, could they also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

Opponents to abortion also raise the controversial issue of fetal pain. Does the fetus feel pain during abortion? The evidence seems fairly clear and consistent. Consider this statement made in a British medical journal: "Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away. Try sticking an 8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus."

Obviously, other medical criteria could be used. For example, the developing fetus has a unique set of fingerprints as well as genetic patterns that make it unique. The development of sonography has provided us with a "window to the womb" showing us that a person is growing and developing in the mother's womb. We can discern eyes, ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth. Our visual senses tell us this is a baby growing and maturing. This is not a piece of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the womb.

The point is simple. Medical science leads to a pro-life perspective rather than a pro-choice perspective. If medical science can be used at all to draw a line, the clearest line is at the moment of conception. Medical arguments provide a strong case against abortion and for life.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Replies(43)
User Profile
Birch
replied on April 15th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Re: Medical Agrgument Against Abortion
Anonymous wrote:
Medical Arguments Against Abortion
Thus far in our discussion we have looked at biblical arguments against abortion. But what if someone doesn't believe in the Bible? Are there other arguments we can use? Yes, there are: medical arguments, for example. Let's look, then, at some of the medical arguments against abortion.
The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.

Another set of medical arguments against abortion surround the definition of life and death. If one set of criteria have been used to define death, could they also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

Opponents to abortion also raise the controversial issue of fetal pain. Does the fetus feel pain during abortion? The evidence seems fairly clear and consistent. Consider this statement made in a British medical journal: "Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away. Try sticking an 8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus."

Obviously, other medical criteria could be used. For example, the developing fetus has a unique set of fingerprints as well as genetic patterns that make it unique. The development of sonography has provided us with a "window to the womb" showing us that a person is growing and developing in the mother's womb. We can discern eyes, ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth. Our visual senses tell us this is a baby growing and maturing. This is not a piece of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the womb.

The point is simple. Medical science leads to a pro-life perspective rather than a pro-choice perspective. If medical science can be used at all to draw a line, the clearest line is at the moment of conception. Medical arguments provide a strong case against abortion and for life.


These are not "medical arguments". They are moral arguments. And they aren't even good. You'd have to explain, for example, how a zygote with unique dna is so important that a woman is obligated to gestate it inside her own body.

I wonder if anyones ever tried sticking a fetus with a pompom and seeing if it withdraws it's hand away.

This is the kind of reason that no one wins the abortion debate, and you have to work towards the reasons women obtain abortions to descrease the rates.

Plus, it's real nice of you to gloss over anything to do with the woman. If you really wantd to post some "medical agrguments" [sic] you might want to include medical issues that may effect the mother.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
chick1978
replied on April 17th, 2007
Experienced User
Re: Medical Agrgument Against Abortion
Abortions are not required if contraception is used effectively.
If you are a person that will never want children then have steralisation done.
Abortion is the ending of a life that would effectively be a born child if left alone.




Birch wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Medical Arguments Against Abortion
Thus far in our discussion we have looked at biblical arguments against abortion. But what if someone doesn't believe in the Bible? Are there other arguments we can use? Yes, there are: medical arguments, for example. Let's look, then, at some of the medical arguments against abortion.
The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.

Another set of medical arguments against abortion surround the definition of life and death. If one set of criteria have been used to define death, could they also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

Opponents to abortion also raise the controversial issue of fetal pain. Does the fetus feel pain during abortion? The evidence seems fairly clear and consistent. Consider this statement made in a British medical journal: "Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away. Try sticking an 8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus."

Obviously, other medical criteria could be used. For example, the developing fetus has a unique set of fingerprints as well as genetic patterns that make it unique. The development of sonography has provided us with a "window to the womb" showing us that a person is growing and developing in the mother's womb. We can discern eyes, ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth. Our visual senses tell us this is a baby growing and maturing. This is not a piece of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the womb.

The point is simple. Medical science leads to a pro-life perspective rather than a pro-choice perspective. If medical science can be used at all to draw a line, the clearest line is at the moment of conception. Medical arguments provide a strong case against abortion and for life.


These are not "medical arguments". They are moral arguments. And they aren't even good. You'd have to explain, for example, how a zygote with unique dna is so important that a woman is obligated to gestate it inside her own body.

I wonder if anyones ever tried sticking a fetus with a pompom and seeing if it withdraws it's hand away.

This is the kind of reason that no one wins the abortion debate, and you have to work towards the reasons women obtain abortions to descrease the rates.

Plus, it's real nice of you to gloss over anything to do with the woman. If you really wantd to post some "medical agrguments" [sic] you might want to include medical issues that may effect the mother.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
sillyakchick
replied on April 17th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Sterilization is not without it's own host of side effects!

http://www.tubal.org/

If "left alone" many babies would not be born or be born with birth defects. That is why women need to receive pre-natal care.

These issues are not as simple as you would like others to believe.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
AyaMiyaki
replied on April 17th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Re: Medical Agrgument Against Abortion
chick1978 wrote:
Abortions are not required if contraception is used effectively.


.i just wanted to point out that no birth control method is 100% effective apart from abstinance. Quite a few women become pregnant despite consistant birth control use.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on April 17th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Quote:
Abortions are not required if contraception is used effectively.


COntraception is not effective for all women. Our own Carifairy cannot use horomonal contraceptives. She even fell pregnant on a non-horomonal iud.

Quote:
If you are a person that will never want children then have steralisation done.


Doctors will almost never sterilize young women, because doctors think they are too dumb to know what they want. Doctors think that every single woman on the planet will some day have an uncontrollable urge to procreate.

Secondly, sterilization can adversly affect the body just like contraception can.

Quote:

Abortion is the ending of a life that would effectively be a born child if left alone.


Not true; many pregnancies spontaneously miscarry before week 20.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
chick1978
replied on April 25th, 2007
Experienced User
Yes, but most pregnancies would continue if lest alone. Therfore a living, breathing child would be born at the end of the pregnancy.


Eri....................................... ........
Not true; many pregnancies spontaneously miscarry before week 20.[/quote]
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on April 25th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
chick1978 wrote:
Yes, but most pregnancies would continue if lest alone. Therfore a living, breathing child would be born at the end of the pregnancy.


Eiri wrote:
.................................... ...........
Not true; many pregnancies spontaneously miscarry before week 20.


I'd have to see some actualy statistics; unfortunately many of the pregnancies that don't make it, the woman passes on and thinks it is just a period so they're undocumented.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
diamond splinter
replied on April 26th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
how conveniant Rolling Eyes
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on April 26th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
diamond splinter wrote:
how conveniant Rolling Eyes


I'm sorry that nature isn't convenient enought to display statistics of all the babies it kills just for pro-life's pleasure. Becuse as we all know, pro-life loves looking at the statistics of dead babies.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
diamond splinter
replied on April 26th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
diamond splinter wrote:
how conveniant Rolling Eyes


I'm sorry that nature isn't convenient enought to display statistics of all the babies it kills just for pro-life's pleasure. Becuse as we all know, pro-life loves looking at the statistics of dead babies.


Do you wanna supply proof of that idiotic statement fool
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
sillyakchick
replied on April 26th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
diamond splinter wrote:
how conveniant Rolling Eyes


Here is an article which helps to shed some light on the difficulty in calculating the number of miscarriages in any particular community.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/70 99/32

If a woman is not treated, the miscarriage typically goes unreported.

It is true that many women miscarry prior to even knowing they are pregnant. This happens if there is a drastic inborn genetic error of human development during the first few weeks. If you take a couple of classes in human development or speak to any seasoned midwives, this statement is understood to be accurate.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Jincks013
replied on April 28th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Re: Medical Agrgument Against Abortion
Anonymous wrote:
Medical Arguments Against Abortion
Thus far in our discussion we have looked at biblical arguments against abortion. But what if someone doesn't believe in the Bible? Are there other arguments we can use? Yes, there are: medical arguments, for example. Let's look, then, at some of the medical arguments against abortion.
The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.

Another set of medical arguments against abortion surround the definition of life and death. If one set of criteria have been used to define death, could they also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

Opponents to abortion also raise the controversial issue of fetal pain. Does the fetus feel pain during abortion? The evidence seems fairly clear and consistent. Consider this statement made in a British medical journal: "Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away. Try sticking an 8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus."

Obviously, other medical criteria could be used. For example, the developing fetus has a unique set of fingerprints as well as genetic patterns that make it unique. The development of sonography has provided us with a "window to the womb" showing us that a person is growing and developing in the mother's womb. We can discern eyes, ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth. Our visual senses tell us this is a baby growing and maturing. This is not a piece of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the womb.

The point is simple. Medical science leads to a pro-life perspective rather than a pro-choice perspective. If medical science can be used at all to draw a line, the clearest line is at the moment of conception. Medical arguments provide a strong case against abortion and for life.


Get a grip and look at some real medical information Web MD instead of blind religous right propagandizing.

For the record.. I have two children, one still birth, two mid trimester miscarriages and one abortion. Miscarriage happens. Miscarriage happens even to what appear to be perfectly healthy fetuses. They happen at 19 weeks.. they happen at 21 weeks and they produce still births at 25 weeks.
Abortion is usually done before 12 weeks.. you tell me which you think is easier on women and I will tell you which really is.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on April 28th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
diamond splinter wrote:
Eiri wrote:
diamond splinter wrote:
how conveniant Rolling Eyes


I'm sorry that nature isn't convenient enought to display statistics of all the babies it kills just for pro-life's pleasure. Becuse as we all know, pro-life loves looking at the statistics of dead babies.


Do you wanna supply proof of that idiotic statement fool


I don't need to. Pro-lifers have brought together the statistics of abortions for years. You know where to find these stats. Pro-lifers also love throwing these statistics around, showing them to people, and looking at them over and over, lamenting over all of the dead "babies".
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on April 28th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
sillyakchick wrote:
diamond splinter wrote:
how conveniant Rolling Eyes


Here is an article which helps to shed some light on the difficulty in calculating the number of miscarriages in any particular community.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/70 99/32

If a woman is not treated, the miscarriage typically goes unreported.

It is true that many women miscarry prior to even knowing they are pregnant. This happens if there is a drastic inborn genetic error of human development during the first few weeks. If you take a couple of classes in human development or speak to any seasoned midwives, this statement is understood to be accurate.


Thank you, Sillya Smile
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Cambion
replied on April 29th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Quote:
If you are a person that will never want children then have steralisation done.


This is so much easier said than done. I know a couple of women from another forum who had to jump through so many hoops and tell a myriad of blatant lies to get their doctor to give them the tubal ligation or essure...and these women were in their 30s - old enough to know what they want. It just took a couple of morons who needed to have more little usurpers post-tubal to ruin it for all the women who don't want kids. Hell, I would love to get sterilized right now, but at my age, I would get laughed right out of the office.

Quote:
Not true; many pregnancies spontaneously miscarry before week 20.


This is sort of true. I believe the statistic I have read is that 20 percent of pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Then again, most statistics are made up on the spot, so that 20 percent could be way off.

As far as the OP, what about the medical arguments in favor of abortion? What if the mother has an ectopic pregnancy, or the fetus has Tay-Sachs (which causes inevitable death for the child)? What if the mother is mentally or emotionally unstable due to being pregnant (and I don't mean the typical pregnancy mood swings)? What if she can't kick her smoking habit and screws up the fetus? Though not medical, what if the woman realizes she would be an unfit parent due to low income, lack of experience with children, or lack of desire? Why should women be punished for these circumstances, many of which were not chosen? Why should the unwanted or deformed children be punished by being forced into a life where they are not wanted because people like you bleat for women to have little to no control over their own bodies?

It's arguments like this that make me wish all pro-life women would get pregnant and die of complications that could have been prevented with abortion.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
kethib54
replied on August 7th, 2007
New User
Abortion Or Miscarriage
Comparing abortion to miscarriage is unfortunately about the same as comparing homicide to death by natural causes. Truth is both pro-choice and pro-life claim to want to make abortions less prevalent. Medical, genetic and biological arguments confirm that the unborn human fetus is 100% human. Pro-choicers love to call the unborn human being a zygote or a fetus (but that does not accurately or specifically describe the creature. The zygote, embryo, or fetus carried within a female human being is 100% human being. The only arguments favoring abortion try to be ambiguous about the zygote, embryo or fetus and they try to be civil in the definition of who dies in an abortion. Abortion really does kill one human being and wound at least one other human being. Adoption is a glorious God-exampled alternative to abortion. It also represents a kinder gentler alternative.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
sillyakchick
replied on August 7th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Would you like to adopt a crack baby? How about one with terrible genetic problems? Would you like to adopt a baby born without a brain? How about one who will die within days of birth?

As I stated previously, these issues are never as simple as we would like to think they are. That is why abortion is legal.

No one here would aregue that any z/e/f being carried by awoman is not HUMAN. It is not a CITIZEN, nor is it BORN.

Also, nobody was comparing abortion to miscarriage, it was simply being debated that miscarriage occurs more commonly than is statistically accounted for.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
milletics
replied on August 7th, 2007
Experienced User
Its called responsibility. If people had it, abortions would almost never occur.
There was a time when I didnt want kids(at least not then), but I chose to have sex(using bc) and I knew that there was a risk of my wife becoming pregnant and I was also responsible(key word) enough to accept the cosequences should she become pregnant. Thank God she did to.
We have the most wonderful daughter. Sick to think my wife could have killed her.

Those are great scientific FACTS.
Facts dont matter too much for the choicers.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
kethib54
replied on August 7th, 2007
New User
It Is Not a Citizen
I have no question that some babies are born with huge problems. Personally, I have a daughter with a serious genetic problem, but I did not take that problem as giving me the right to kill her, even when she was little. Killing is not the answer to large problems. I also have a close friend that chose not to abort a baby conceived when she was raped by an illegal alien (hence also not a citizen). That baby has just entered high school. There are exceptionally difficult problems in this old world, but I find that killing is almost never a reasonable solution. The z/e/f is living, is human and no one should have the right to kill the innocent human being. The only time I see abortion as legit is when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. That statistically represents less than 5% of abortions. The pain and suffering of people does not legitamize killing, and it does not solve any problem. Many who promote abortion are very opposed to capital punishment. I will make you a deal. You oppose killing innocent human beings and I will oppose killing guilty dreadful felons. Deal?
Did you find this post useful?
|
Quick Reply
Search