Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Viability and Abortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Joel View Post
    There you go again.
    You somehow think I'm arguing something like:
    1) X has the potential for T
    2) Therefore X has the property of T (or "is a T")
    I'm not arguing that at all. I have said that in various ways.

    I keep talking only about whether X has the potential for T, and you keep thinking that I'm talking about whether X has the property T.
    The only property I'm talking about is whether X has the potential for T.
    Then you are not talking about the property in an actual/ontological sense, nor are you talking about the fetus being "viable from fertilization". You are simply saying that a fetus has the potential to become viable, which is not a new argument.


    Originally posted by Joel View Post
    Viability, in the contemporary usage, is certainly about "having the potential" or "lacking the potential".
    That is, the question being raised is when does the fetus have the potential to live outside the womb. As I quoted before, the definition given in Roe v Wade was "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."

    The actualization of that potential would be: living outside the mother's womb, perhaps with artificial aid.
    If the baby is actually "living outside the mother's womb, perhaps with artificial aid", then there is no question of abortion. The pregnancy is no more. If "viability" means "living outside the mother's womb, perhaps with artificial aid", then it is irrelevant to abortion because there is no pregnancy to terminate.

    Therefore, if "viability" can have any relevance to abortion, it must refer to the state prior to that being actual--i.e. to the potential. It has to be able to describe a fetus in the womb (for which living outside the womb is only potential).

    Thus its definition cannot be:
    "living outside the mother's womb, perhaps with artificial aid"
    but can be:
    "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."

    Indeed, the person arguing for viability is arguing that a fetus at, say, 30 weeks has the potential and at 3 weeks does not. They are drawing a line based on when they think that exists. Surely they are not claiming that a 30 week fetus in the womb is actually living outside the womb, but rather is "potentially able to do so". Correct?


    Second, you suggest here here adding a new condition: "under normal conditions". At first glance "under normal conditions, albeit with artificial aid" appears to be contradictory. Artificial aid creates non-normal conditions. I think you are trying to (ad hoc) limit the amount/kind of artificial aid which is permitted under the definition. It's not clear that there is any such non-arbitrary limit. A point on the spectrum of when the suitable environment is "too much like the mother's womb" seems arbitrary.

    If an objective point such as you want were found, then that could put a stop to my argument in the OP. In which case I would fall back to the standard argument that it's irrelevant. That the particular kind of environment required is irrelevant to the question of right to life and murder. All humans have environmental requirements.
    I already mentioned what is considered viable: a heart pumping its own blood, lungs drawing air, bodily functions controlled by one's own brain, etc. That's the concept of "viable". Trying to argue from a different definition, one where you're not talking about "viable" in the sense that anyone else is using it in this context, just isn't going to work. At best, you're going to force the courts to be a little more precise in their wording. But the concept of viability is clearly not close to what you're trying to achieve with your definition.
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • #62
      Um, you guys do know that viability only refers to survivability outside the womb as far as the legal definition is concerned. If Baby can survive, even with assistance, outside the womb it is viable.

      Roe did NOT assert that the embryo was not human - even Blackmon didn't go that far (I still think he was on something when he wrote that thing ). Y'all are actually talking more about 'personhood' - when Baby gets to be considered a people. The law does NOT consider the embryo or even the zygote as nonhuman.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        Originally posted by Joel
        There you go again.
        You somehow think I'm arguing something like:
        1) X has the potential for T
        2) Therefore X has the property of T (or "is a T")
        I'm not arguing that at all. I have said that in various ways.

        I keep talking only about whether X has the potential for T, and you keep thinking that I'm talking about whether X has the property T.
        The only property I'm talking about is whether X has the potential for T.
        Then you are not talking about the property in an actual/ontological sense, nor are you talking about the fetus being "viable from fertilization". You are simply saying that a fetus has the potential to become viable, which is not a new argument.
        To apply my abstract (X and T) comments to this particular discussion:
        T is "living outside the womb...".

        "X has the potential for T" is "X is viable."

        The potential I'm talking about, is not the potential to become viable. I'm talking about the potential of being "possibly able to live outside the womb..."
        That is not the potential to become viable. That potential is viability. To have that potential (to be "possibly able to...") is to be viable.

        I already mentioned what is considered viable: a heart pumping its own blood, lungs drawing air, bodily functions controlled by one's own brain, etc.
        You are incorrect. "Lungs drawing air" implies the baby is already outside the womb. But the person wanting to use viability as a dividing line, is dividing between different fetuses in the womb (e.g. between a 3 week fetus in the womb and the 30-week fetus in the womb). They would say, e.g., that the 30 week fetus in the womb is viable. That fetus, which is not drawing air in its lungs, is said to be viable.

        Your sense, of saying that only babies actually outside the womb are viable, makes "viable" irrelevant to abortion. If that is the sense that people mean, then their viability argument defeats itself in self-contradiction.

        I'm not changing the definition, I'm just going by the definition in Roe v Wade (i.e., "potentially able..."). You are the one wanting to change it, by deleting "potentially able" and adding, ad hoc, additional conditions to it, besides simply being potentially able to survive outside the womb albeit with artificial aid.

        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        Um, you guys do know that viability only refers to survivability outside the womb as far as the legal definition is concerned. If Baby can survive, even with assistance, outside the womb it is viable.
        Yes, thank you. The definition does not specify "heart pumping its own blood" etc.

        Comment


        • #64
          Doesn't a fetus already pump his/her own blood?
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Joel View Post
            To apply my abstract (X and T) comments to this particular discussion:
            T is "living outside the womb...".

            "X has the potential for T" is "X is viable."

            The potential I'm talking about, is not the potential to become viable. I'm talking about the potential of being "possibly able to live outside the womb..."
            That is not the potential to become viable. That potential is viability. To have that potential (to be "possibly able to...") is to be viable.


            You are incorrect. "Lungs drawing air" implies the baby is already outside the womb. But the person wanting to use viability as a dividing line, is dividing between different fetuses in the womb (e.g. between a 3 week fetus in the womb and the 30-week fetus in the womb). They would say, e.g., that the 30 week fetus in the womb is viable. That fetus, which is not drawing air in its lungs, is said to be viable.

            Your sense, of saying that only babies actually outside the womb are viable, makes "viable" irrelevant to abortion. If that is the sense that people mean, then their viability argument defeats itself in self-contradiction.

            I'm not changing the definition, I'm just going by the definition in Roe v Wade (i.e., "potentially able..."). You are the one wanting to change it, by deleting "potentially able" and adding, ad hoc, additional conditions to it, besides simply being potentially able to survive outside the womb albeit with artificial aid.


            Yes, thank you. The definition does not specify "heart pumping its own blood" etc.
            No, and this is why your argument is, frankly, not coherent. "Potentially able" means that if the fetus were to be born today, then it would be able to survive outside of the womb — pumping its own blood, drawing oxygen through its lungs, using its brain to control bodily functions, etc. That's just what viable means. You're trying to take it in a completely different direction, divorced from the current medical and legal meaning.

            And if you're divorcing "viable" from that meaning then your argument simply doesn't pertain.
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
              Doesn't a fetus already pump his/her own blood?
              Not in the same manner as after birth.

              Source: Fetal Circulation. American Heart Association. 2015.01.08




              The blood that flows through the fetus is actually more complicated than after the baby is born (normal heart). This is because the mother (the placenta) is doing the work that the baby’s lungs will do after birth.


              The placenta accepts the bluest blood (blood without oxygen) from the fetus through blood vessels that leave the fetus through the umbilical cord (umbilical arteries, there are two of them). When blood goes through the placenta it picks up oxygen and becomes red. The red blood then returns to the fetus via the third vessel in the umbilical cord (umbilical vein). The red blood that enters the fetus passes through the fetal liver and enters the right side of the heart.


              The red blood goes through one of the two extra connections in the fetal heart that will close after the baby is born.

              © Copyright Original Source

              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                No, and this is why your argument is, frankly, not coherent. "Potentially able" means that if the fetus were to be born today, then it would be able to survive outside of the womb — pumping its own blood, drawing oxygen through its lungs, using its brain to control bodily functions, etc. That's just what viable means. You're trying to take it in a completely different direction, divorced from the current medical and legal meaning.

                And if you're divorcing "viable" from that meaning then your argument simply doesn't pertain.
                So if a baby is born prematurely and needs assistance in breathing then it would not be viable and would therefore be allowed to be aborted?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  So if a baby is born prematurely and needs assistance in breathing then it would not be viable and would therefore be allowed to be aborted?
                  No - this was covered pretty extensively in this thread already.

                  Technological assistance for normal functions (e.g., NICU equipment for regulating blood pressure, assisting breathing) does not contradict fetal viability. What Joel is saying that viability includes such technological measures as artificial wombs that would allow a fertilized egg to develop. Such zygotes/embryos/fetuses are not viable — they simply won't live outside of the womb environment.

                  Right now, fetal viability is 22-23 weeks. In the future, we may get it down to 21 weeks. It's not going to go lower than that, certainly not down to 0-12 weeks.
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    So, an ECMO machine that circumvents the lungs but not the heart is different than using a placenta? And how does bypassing the lungs count as not pumping blood???
                    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                      So, an ECMO machine that circumvents the lungs but not the heart is different than using a placenta? And how does bypassing the lungs count as not pumping blood???
                      I think you're missing the general in the specific, here, or the "forest for the trees," as the saying goes: fetal viability refers to the ability of fetuses in general to perform these functions and survive outside the womb. It's not about taking out one function and declaring a fetus unviable.

                      People can haggle about just how much technological assistance is required before a fetus is not actually viable — and that's a legitimate topic, helping to drop our understanding of "viable" down from ~28 weeks decades ago to ~23 weeks today. But the concept of viability means something specific and that's dealing with the neonate's ability to survive "on its own", with technology assisting its own functions.

                      An artificial womb, which would simply replace the functional environment of a womb, does not make the fetus "viable", at least not in the medical or legal sense. That's the issue at hand.
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        No, and this is why your argument is, frankly, not coherent. "Potentially able" means that if the fetus were to be born today, then it would be able to survive outside of the womb — pumping its own blood, drawing oxygen through its lungs, using its brain to control bodily functions, etc. That's just what viable means. You're trying to take it in a completely different direction, divorced from the current medical and legal meaning.

                        And if you're divorcing "viable" from that meaning then your argument simply doesn't pertain.
                        But viability does not require the fetus to be able to survive on its own today. It admits the necessity of artificial aid. Any limitations on the amount/kind of artificial aid allowed seems arbitrary.

                        If people using "viable" are assuming conditions like getting oxygen through its lungs, then their use of viable is arbitrary and irrelevant. In which case my error is just in interpreting the stated definition more charitably (less arbitrarily) than they intend it. In which case my argument would be to say that even if you interpret it more charitably than they intend, it still doesn't do what they want.


                        Also from what I know, a fetus only ever pumps its own blood. The mother's body does not pump its blood for it (though as you point out, the point of oxygen/carbon exchange is different). Nor does the Mother's body control the fetus' bodily functions in lieu of the fetus' brain. So it's not like artificial aid would necessarily have to do what the mother's womb does not even do.

                        Therefore, really it seems like you are trying to draw a different line than survivability (with aid). Your line is drawn at being able to switch over to taking in nourishment, water, and oxygen through the mouth and lungs instead of taking it in through a cord in the abdomen. Which is not the same thing as being able to survive with aid. Adults in a hospital may take in water and nourishment artificially directly into the bloodstream. One day hospitals may be able to oxygenate blood in adults in case of respiratory failure. Are we going to say that that adult's state is now too much like being "in a womb", so they aren't "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", so they aren't "viable"? (So it's okay to murder them?) I think reasonable people would say such an adult is living outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

                        And, on the other hand, a 30-week fetus may be able to take in nourishment, water, and oxygen through mouth and lungs and yet have some other, unusual defect that makes that particular fetus not viable. So again, your drawn line seems to be different from viability.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                          So, an ECMO machine that circumvents the lungs...
                          What do you know. That can already be done. Neat-o.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Joel View Post
                            What do you know. That can already be done. Neat-o.
                            But they can't be used for babies before 32-34 weeks gestation. Too much risk for a brain hemorrhage. If they tried using ECMO on a micropreemie, the kid's brain would be destroyed from the pressure causing bleeding.
                            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by whag, Today, 05:11 PM
                            0 responses
                            15 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:25 AM
                            32 responses
                            184 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post oxmixmudd  
                            Started by whag, Yesterday, 01:48 PM
                            24 responses
                            104 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 11:56 AM
                            52 responses
                            269 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post seer
                            by seer
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                            77 responses
                            383 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X