A friend aborted THREE babies with down syndrome!

[Eufrosnia]

It’s down to scientific experiments done by experts in their field and countless tests.

I am obviously not a scientific expert

Well yes, so I think you should be careful when you claim things. Science cannot actually say when life begins. It can only formulate definitions for it and then use it.

So after saying that life begins at “first breath”, a doctor can decide if something is alive using that criterion. But this definition might indeed be wrong in the first place.

Also, it should be somewhat evident to you why this fails. There are babies who cannot breath by themselves that will be put in to machines to help them breath till surgery. Is that DEAD? Or there are those who simply stop breathing due to some condition. They can be resuscitated. In your way of thinking, why do that? They are DEAD.

I think it is also false to say that the Fetus doesn’t breathe. It needs oxygen to survive and is supplied by the mother’s blood. You can check it if you do not trust me. So if anything, you will have to refine your position to "anything that cannot breathe (i.e. supply oxygen for itself) by its own is DEAD. Lot of grown living people fall in to that category, just so you know…

 

[LauraMajestic]

Well yes, so I think you should be careful when you claim things. Science cannot actually say when life begins. It can only formulate definitions for it and then use it.

So after saying that life begins at “first breath”, a doctor can decide if something is alive using that criterion. But this definition might indeed be wrong in the first place.

Also, it should be somewhat evident to you why this fails. There are babies who cannot breath by themselves that will be put in to machines to help them breath till surgery. Is that DEAD? Or there are those who simply stop breathing due to some condition. They can be resuscitated. In your way of thinking, why do that? They are DEAD.

I think it is also false to say that the Fetus doesn’t breathe. It needs oxygen to survive and is supplied by the mother. You can check it for me if you do not trust me. So if anything, you will have to refine your position to "anything that cannot breathe (i.e. supply oxygen for itself) by its own is DEAD. Lot of grown living people fall in to that category, just so you know…

A fetus needs oxygen but it cannot start breathing independently until a certain stage which is when it starts life.

Remember I’m not a scientist . I’m just telling you the commonly accepted scientific definition as you put it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

A fetus needs oxygen but it cannot start breathing independently until a certain stage which is when it starts life.

Remember I’m not a scientist . I’m just telling you the commonly accepted scientific definition as you put it.

So as I said, first, scientific definitions are pointless in this discussion. We are actually discussing whether a scientific definition is accurate i.e. that of life beginning at first INDEPENDENT breath.

But as we can see, there are some serious logical issues with it to start off. If we say breathing independently, that still fails. Why? We have countless people on life support because they cannot breath on their own but talk and eat who we consider to be very much ALIVE. Are they dead too?

So your definition that having to BREATH independently seems outright incorrect.

 

[LauraMajestic]

So as I said, first, scientific definitions are pointless in this discussion. We are actually discussing whether a scientific definition is accurate i.e. that of life beginning at first INDEPENDENT breath.

But as we can see, there are some serious logical issues with it to start off. If we say breathing independently, that still fails. Why? We have countless people on life support because they cannot breath on their own but talk and eat who we consider to be very much ALIVE. Are they dead too?

So your definition that having to BREATH independently seems outright incorrect.

People on life support have breathed before and reached the state of life. It’s not the same comparison.

 

[Eufrosnia]

People on life support have breathed before and reached the state of life. It’s not the same comparison.

Oh I see. So you have some exceptions to this rule too now. Haha, honestly Laura, ask yourself, how does one KNOW when life begins? If we do not know how to define what Life is, how can we know?

All we have are best guesses like “it begins with first breath” or “it begins when the baby exits the womb” etc. But those are just that, BEST GUESSES.

You are here arguing that we should all believe your best guess on when life begins. Do you think it reasonable that we assent to your view?

 

[LauraMajestic]

Oh I see. So you have some exceptions to this rule too now. Haha, honestly Laura, ask yourself, how does one KNOW when life begins? If we do not know how to define what Life is, how can we know?

All we have are best guesses like “it begins with first breath” or “it begins when the baby exits the womb” etc. But those are just that, BEST GUESSES.

You are here arguing that we should all believe your best guess on when life begins. Do you think it reasonable that we assent to your view?

It’s not MY view . It’s the view of expert scientists who have studied this for years and years.

It is a guess of probability but a VERY GOOD GUESS. A very good guess in the same case a gravity. Gravity is only a theory but that certainly seems to be true

 

[Eufrosnia]

It’s not MY view . It’s the view of expert scientists who have studied this for years and years.

It doesn’t matter how much you study though. I am asking how do they KNOW? There is no test/experiment that spits out the answer “This is when life begins”.

So instead, you just have people assume “X is when life begins” and then use that as the test for life.

It is a guess of probability but a VERY GOOD GUESS. A very good guess in the same case a gravity. Gravity is only a theory but that certainly seems to be true

You are confusing things. Gravity is true because it can be shown experimentally to exist. However, there is NO experiment that you can do to show that “Life began when the thing drew its first independent breath”.

Do you see the difference here?

 

[bonvivantHermit]

Science is not an absolute. Before Roe V. Wade medicine acknowledged that life begins at conception. Most states would not even allow abortion at the point you claim is legal and moral. Here’s an excerpt from a 1962 secular textbook- books.google.com/books?id=lMNsAAAAMAAJ&q=%22life+begins+at+conception%22+Obstetrics&dq=%22life+begins+at+conception%22+Obstetrics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5OOuUOe_JKqQyQHqm4HQCw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw

And according to your definition, a child born unable to breath on it’s own would be not be alive -as long as they were on a respirator.

 

[hsmomforlife]

I’m not saying that I agree with abortion from a moral perspective. I say I’m ‘pro-abortion’ in that I support it being legal. If abortion were illegal imagine the illegal back-alley abortions. A truly horrific sight.

EDIT: Anyway, yes I would agree with what you said. Having an abortion because the ‘time is not right’ is perfectly understandable. No money or maybe just don’t want to have a baby. The fetus is technically not living so it isn’t murder. Having an abortion BECAUSE a child has down syndrome is totally different. It shows the parents wouldn’t want a child merely because it has down syndrome. It shows the parents are bigoted.

So…let’s get this straight…in your view it’s ok to abort a baby because they don’t have any money or maybe just don’t want to have a baby, but if the baby has Down sydnrome and they are afraid (because of their ignorance about Down sydnrome) that they won’t be able to raise a baby with Down syndrome because they a) can’t afford it or b) they don’t want to…THEN it’s horrific. But to abort a baby that doesn’t have a prenatal diagnosis of somesort is fine?

Since when is a fetus ‘technically not living’??? I had a scare at 5 weeks prenant that I may be miscarrying and they couldn’t get a heartbeat (we didn’t know at the time that I was only 5 weeks along) and I faced that moment where I didn’t know if my baby was alive or dead, so to say that a fetus is not technically living is simply wrong.

Oh, and let’s not go down the ‘back alley’ road of reasoning…imagining all of the legal abortions is truly a horrific sight and women are dying from legal abortions…it’s bigger than ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’…

 

[Bezant]

I agree and did not intend to twist your words. I was just hoping the OP would not misunderstand your words and encourage her friends decision, which is common for people to feel compelled to support their friends and their decisions no matter what.

In other words, I was asking you, in hopes that you would clarify more specifically. Which you did

No problem.

 

[akela135]

It’s not MY view . It’s the view of expert scientists who have studied this for years and years.

It is a guess of probability but a VERY GOOD GUESS. A very good guess in the same case a gravity. Gravity is only a theory but that certainly seems to be true

So it has been several years since I was actually in school doing research on human development but from what I remember life starts at conception. I’ll try to explain this simply and then if you have questions feel free to ask.

Basically think of IVF. When a sperm and egg are combined in a dish they form in a unique cell with its own set of DNA. This cell begins to divide and grow. First it takes nutrients stored in the egg while it does its own division in the process of developing itself. It will continue to take in nutrients and develop into what we’d consider an adult as long as it has access to said nutrients and also a safe shelter. (which coincidentally is the same thing every other living creature does.)

In this case the developing embryo will take nutrients from the mother. The mother gives the nutrients in the same way a buffet provides us food. We still have to actively collect the food onto our plates and eat it ourselves. Same for the embryo, it just takes what it needs and continues to develop. It will do this until the woman’s body decides it is to costly to continue providing energy to this fetus and goes into labor to expel it. The baby then takes its first breath but it will die unless it is able to access nutrients and is given a safe shelter. Breathing will not be enough to keep it alive. The baby can now be provided with the opportunity for nutrients in several ways, breast milk, baby formula, or perhaps even a hospital IV however you can lead a baby to breast milk but you can’t make it drink it! It still has to actively feed itself even if you are assisting it to reach nutrients.

This will continue until some point when it is able to provide nutrients to itself. In my own personal case I was not dependent from my parents until I got my first job in highschool when I then had the option of providing my own shelter and nutrients(groceries). To explain that thought better, when I was five if my parents had died I would have had to hope that someone else would provide me a home and food or I would not have been able to do so myself and my ability to breath would not save me. I hope this made sense!

 

[akela135]

I just was thinking back over what I said and realized that I might have sounded a little rude. It was too late to edit so I thought I’d post an apology here. I wasn’t trying to be condescending or anything I just thought it might be easier if we started from the ground up. I think the real issue is that it isn’t when life begins but that we as a culture have a subjective view about what and when life matters and when it does not.

The example is that the women who had three abortions for babies she suspected to have down syndrome views those lives as less than a baby without down syndrome. In her mind it is justified to end a life if it is less than some personal standard. As a culture we discuss a woman’s choice as a reason for legal abortions and not whether the fetus is alive. We hold that it is alive but not a full person as it is relatively dependent on the women and thus it is her choice whether or not to be depended on.

A fetus needs oxygen to survive the same as every other living creature. It just gets its oxygen from the environment it is living in, which happens to be a woman’s body. In the same way we get our oxygen by breathing air but not breathing water. Water has plenty of oxygen we just don’t have a way to access it. A fish could actually take oxygen from the air except its gills collapse under their own weight due to the fact they were designed to be in an aquatic environment where the liquid would help support them. ( I guess technically our own lungs need an aquatic environment or they too would collapse it is just that we provide that environment within our bodies while gills are external, but that is beside the point )

 

[vera_dicere]

I’m not saying that I agree with abortion from a moral perspective. I say I’m ‘pro-abortion’ in that I support it being legal. If abortion were illegal imagine the illegal back-alley abortions. A truly horrific sight.

.

That’s a load of old hog wash.

Check out Ireland’s maternal mortality stats. Some of the lowest, sometimes the lowest in the world. No dead women lying half naked in back alleys with coat hangers sticking out of them.

In fact the whole “Illegal abortion means lots of dead back alley women” is a dirty myth. See this blog, more info the you can shake a coat hanger at: realchoice.blogspot.co.nz/

Its actually logical isnt’ it? If you were some creepy mongrel doling out illegal abortions you wouldn’t want to be killing your customer base, and when you’re peddling something illegal you can’t just leave it on craig’s list, its spread by word of mouth and if the word on the street is your hand isn’t steady with the meth douche then no one’s going to come knocking. And think of all the people your botch job would have to go through, the customer, the people who find the customer, the ambos, the doctors and nurses in the emergency department, the surgeons, the ward staff [if the woman lives], the guy doing the autospy, the coroner, the police, the funeral director and so on and so fourth, you think all those people are going to cover up a woman dead from a back alley butcher?

Nope.

The “banning abortion would kill lots of women” is such a load of bull manure its actually quite laughable. Especially in the modern age of antibotics and blood transfusions.

If anything, the pro-abortion movement is more interested in abortion than in protecting women, given the hideous stats of women dying and being injured by dodgey abortionists.

 

[vera_dicere]

Well the fetus isn’t living. You aren’t taking a life because it never started.

And yes, legal abortions aren’t ideal, but, they are CERTAINLY better than back alley abortions and you know that.

I’m pretty sure condoms don’t damage a woman’s health.

Either stick with history or do some research. I’m trying to be charitable here, but come on, its 2012 anyone who thinks the foetus isn’t living really needs to get back to biology.

If the foetus isnt’ living, its dead, or is it undead? So are you claiming some sort of “zombie foetus” [because as awesome as *I think that would be, its just not realistic].

THis is what helped me during my highschool biology days, MRS GREN, its used to determine if something is alive, Movement, Respiration, Sense, Growth Reproduction, Excretion, Nutrition. The zygote/embryo/foetus does all of these things, therefore, it is alive. If it wasn’t alive, why the need to kill it?

Basic stuff.

And learn up on your condoms, 50% failure rate over 10 years. So if you use them religiously for 10 years, you have a 50% chance of unplanned pregnancy or STD. In fact, since 2001 all studies have found condoms increase the risk of STDs, as more people are having more sex thinking safe sex is protecting them, all they’re doing is increasing the chance for failure rates to be expressed.

Plus, the HIV virus is actually smaller than the bonds between the latex molecues.

Come on, I’ve seen your posts in other threads, you’re clearly intelligent, direct some of that towards biology.

The numbers and facts don’t support your conclusions.

 

[Kelfa28]

Well the fetus isn’t living. You aren’t taking a life because it never started.

And yes, legal abortions aren’t ideal, but, they are CERTAINLY better than back alley abortions and you know that.

I’m pretty sure condoms don’t damage a woman’s health.

Preview: This is a post about miscarriages and stillborns. Please do not scroll down if that bothers you.

So, I’m genuinely curious.

How do you react to a close relative or friend…or yourself…when someone miscarriages? I mean, according to your logic…that child was never alive to begin with…so why the mourning?

How about a child who was stillborn and never took their first breath. Why mourn an object that was never alive to begin with? According to your logic a stillborn baby is no more then a doll. It was never alive to begin with. So why mourn he/she’s death?

Stillborns are babies that are born dead. That is the definition. In fact…in many countries including most western countries) a death certificate is ordered for a stillbirth later then 20 weeks.

But how can this be true if the child was never alive to begin with?

 

[mharren]

Even if these tests suggest a higher possibility of Downs, isn’t it possible that these tests have results that are less than foolproof? I think it would be strange if three babies in a row indeed had Downs, but I would be less surprised if she had three tests that indicated a high possibility of Downs.

I think it so strange that such a high percentage of children who have a high risk of Downs are aborted. I realize that the condition does have varying degrees of severity, but the people I have met who have it are delightful and live with quite a high level of independence. Not that it should matter, because every person is a gift from God no matter what, but for a syndrome like Downs to be treated like an automatic death sentence is just…so strange to me.

Prayers for you and this poor woman who has no understanding of what she has done.

They are not fool proof. Our only fool proof tests are things I don’t believe Catholics would ever do. Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis is the ONLY thing we have to be certain and with that we can be certain before a pregnancy is started, but it’s a technology that I think many would classify as ‘playing god’.

The only way to confirm something like Trisomy 21 during the pregnancy is a karyotype of the child’s chromosomes, because Trisomy 21 is a defect in chromosomal structure we an see it on the plate after the amniocentesis. But by the time you get to that point…you’re what? 12-15 weeks in? I think…I can’t recall off the top of my head and Im too lazy to go into my study.

The only thing with down’s children that I find troubling is that they become downs adults and even if their parents raise them at home, most end up in institutions or assisted housing. I have treated several Trisomy 21 adults though and they don’t appear to me to be aware of their limitations or aware that having a job as a janitor or something would by ‘normal’ people be regarded as meaningless (perhaps). They seem happy in their own perception of the world.

I did however have a call at one of the local half-way/assisted living houses where I used to be and since I do house calls I went. A developmentally retarded man and an under age girl with downs had had sex and she was confirmed pregnant. When I told her I was checking her for pregnancy she was very excited, she was however (I heard) crushed when the social workers told her that her baby would be taken away from her when it was born, though I suspect if that baby failed it’s own screenings it was aborted with permission from next-of-kin.

But in regards to the OP, it does seem more like she had 3 tests indicative of downs rather than confirmed. We very rarely can even say something is 100% for sure.

Regards,

• Mharren

 

[mharren]

I missed the back-and-forth that ended up with life beginning when the baby breathes…

MEDICALLY: Life begins at conception when the cytoplasmic determinants migrate to the vegetal pole. Stop looking on Google books or Wikipedia and hit PubMed and read the real work.

LEGALLY: The child has no legally recognized ‘self-agency’. There is a difference between a person and a ‘person’ in the legal definition.

When life begins is different bio-medically vs, legally.

But it’s certainly not when the dang thing breathes…lol.

If you do nothing else actually look up the globally-agreed upon definition of what makes something ‘living’, and why we are arguing over whether viruses are alive or not. You can find that definition in a high-school biology book.

Regards,

• Mharren

 

[Burdensome1]

You just have to remember that everyone has the right to live their life the way they want to. Even if you really disagree.

So many people are so lucky that society doesn’t actually work according to their silly headed thoughts, else someone who really wants to kill and rob them would. Even if they disagreed…

 

[mafh]

Just keep in mind that your friend is not necessarily a bad person. The medical profession puts a lot of pressure on women carrying Down’s babies to abort, and in fact I believe a staggering percentage of those pregnancies are in fact aborted. Otherwise, what would be the point of the amniocentesis test? It really comes down to the fact that a significant fraction of society doesn’t really recognize the personhood of a fetus, or at least not a type of personhood equivalent to that of a post-birth human being. If someone doesn’t recognize a being as a ‘person’, then they don’t feel that killing this being is murder.

 

[chero23]

Having a child with down syndrome is not a bad thing. These kids are God’s blessing, may God illuminate her and shows her what is right