Doctors in denial

[John1956]

I found the following on a medical website, authored by supposed smart doctors:

“Illegal abortions are unsafe and account for 13% of all maternal mortality and serious complications. Death from abortion is almost unknown in the United States or in other countries where abortion is legally available.” (Reference:
emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview )

While maternal death is a tragedy, these doctors appear to be in denial in their second sentence when they fail to mention the other victim in abortion, namely, the baby.

John

 

[Lubomyr]

Do you see how we’re being played like a violin here? See how making abortion “illegal” suddenly makes abortion a bad thing that can only be cured by keeping it legal? They’re trying to make you think that keeping abortion legal is the only humane ting to do.

Take a look at the same argument in a different area, gun control.

What if I said, "Illegal guns are unsafe and account for 13% of all mortality and serious complications. Death from guns is almost unknown in countries where guns are legally available."

See how that changes everything?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

"Illegal guns are unsafe and account for 13% of all mortality and serious complications. Death from guns is almost unknown in countries where guns are legally available."

See how that changes everything?

Well, that’s flat-out untrue no matter how you interpret it – gun violence and gun deaths are higher where guns are legally available. The statement on abortions is true if one does not count the fetus as a human life to die or be killed.

 

[Lubomyr]

Well, that’s flat-out untrue no matter how you interpret it – gun violence and gun deaths are higher where guns are legally available. The statement on abortions is true if one does not count the fetus as a human life to die or be killed.

No no - read the original article more carefully - the original article *does not say *that illegal abortions *are more dangerous than *legal ones. It would take an entire book to sort out all the deceptive claims the article makes; I just picked out one.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

“Illegal abortions are unsafe and account for 13% of all maternal mortality and serious complications.”

How do they come up with this figure of 13% of all maternal mortality? The only Western country I know of that still has a total ban on abortion is Malta, so if the author of the article is saying that 13% of all pregnant women in the West die from illegal abortion, this means that we talking about Malta and perhaps a handful of other countries where abortion is not available on request. It is highly unlikely that this would add up to 13% for all Western countries. The other possibility is that the author is talking about all of the countries in the world, which would include the Muslim countries. The only Muslim country I know of that **does not ** ban abortion entirely is Bahrain (you can check this on the United Nations Abortion Law by Country web site). If considering Muslim countries alone you might get a 13% figure, however it would be very problematic (if not impossible) to collect stats on illegal abortions in these countries. Even if it was 13% in these countries, once you added in China and Russia and the West where abortion is legal, easily accessible and even encouraged there is no way you could find that many illegal abortions being performed.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I found the following on a medical website, authored by supposed smart doctors:

“Illegal abortions are unsafe and account for 13% of all maternal mortality and serious complications. Death from abortion is almost unknown in the United States or in other countries where abortion is legally available.” (Reference:
emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview )

While maternal death is a tragedy, these doctors appear to be in denial in their second sentence when they fail to mention the other victim in abortion, namely, the baby.

John

Perhaps they’re not in denial - perhaps they honestly believe that the fetus is not a person?

 

[John1956]

Perhaps they’re not in denial - perhaps they honestly believe that the fetus is not a person?

Then I would consider these doctors incompetent for not knowing basic **human **development.

John

 

[Jonatello]

it’s insanely frustrating and saddening, but many people really truly just don’t believe a fetus is a real baby/person

if they can’t be convinced by video of extremely early-term babies grabbing fingers, i don’t know how they could ever be convinced outside of God’s grace and our love.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Then I would consider these doctors incompetent for not knowing basic **human **development.

John

By “person”, I mean a being worthy of moral consideration. Of course the fetus is a member of homo sapiens.

 

[John1956]

By “person”, I mean a being worthy of moral consideration. Of course the fetus is a member of homo sapiens.

A new person enters the human race at the moment of fertilization. At that moment (of fertilization) the person is indeed “worthy of moral consideration” and entitled to a right to life, just like you and I are entitled to a right to life.

John

 

[Jonatello]

A new person enters the human race at the moment of fertilization. At that moment (of fertilization) the person is indeed “worthy of moral consideration” and entitled to a right to life, just like you and I are entitled to a right to life.

John

see, i agree with you, but unfortunately there are many who aren’t convinced.

its the kind of thing that makes people like us want to scream and cry and pull hair out of chia pets, but when others don’t see it that way, all the repetitious declarations and accusations in the milky way won’t budge an honest heart.

i don’t mean to say all this is what you’re doing, rather just making a broad general statement i suppose.

 

[John1956]

The statement that life begins at fertilization is not merely a "repetitious declaration; it is a fact of basic biology.

As far as the accusation (that these doctors are incompetent), I will go a step further and say they may be a danger to society (of babies) if they do not recognize the personhood of the unborn baby.

John

 

[Jonatello]

The statement that life begins at fertilization is not merely a "repetitious declaration; it is a fact of basic biology.

actually, and i know this is going to sound ridiculous, the statement was “a new person enters the human race” not “life begins at”

such a distinction seems crazy, but many super clinical people on the other side see a major difference between “human life” and “person”

i’ve had these debates with them. they just honestly believe a human life (lifeform of human type) is not necessarily a lifeform that has received true personhood yet.

asking them to p(name removed by moderator)oint when that personhood magically appears turns into an entirely different mindtangle

As far as the accusation (that these doctors are incompetent), I will go a step further and say they may be a danger to society (of babies) if they do not recognize the personhood of the unborn baby.

John

clarification: i wasn’t charging you at all with any accusations. i tried to make sure that was understood at the end of my comment that it wasn’t really directed toward you, just ruminating generally.

 

[John1956]

many super clinical people on the other side see a major difference between “human life” and “person.”

Such “super clinical people” may not be so super after all because they seem to contradict themselves by saying there is a difference between “human life” and “person.”

And I know you weren’t charging me with accusing anyone, but I don’t mind admitting that I *was * doing some accusing - of these doctors - for being incompetent and a threat to society. I stand by my accusation.

John

 

[Nate13]

actually, and i know this is going to sound ridiculous, the statement was “a new person enters the human race” not “life begins at”

such a distinction seems crazy, but many super clinical people on the other side see a major difference between “human life” and “person”

i’ve had these debates with them. they just honestly believe a human life (lifeform of human type) is not necessarily a lifeform that has received true personhood yet.

asking them to p(name removed by moderator)oint when that personhood magically appears turns into an entirely different mindtangle

The only way I see them as being able to declare them not a person is by saying you have to have self-awareness to be a considered a “person”. The ambiguity your talking about here comes when you ask when an unborn child becomes self-aware and what proof does a person have of this. You would then also have to ask if people in a coma or who are mentally disabled stop being people. It also kind of seems like a gotcha point, to destroy someone before they have a chance to become self-aware whenever that point is. Its like “haha! I killed you before you before you were able to know you were alive and therefore its not killing!”

 

[John1956]

And there’s a lack of self-awareness when we sleep.

You make a good point, Nate.

John

 

[Jonatello]

Such “super clinical people” may not be so super after all because they seem to contradict themselves by saying there is a difference between “human life” and “person.”

And I know you weren’t charging me with accusing anyone, but I don’t mind admitting that I *was * doing some accusing - of these doctors - for being incompetent and a threat to society. I stand by my accusation.

John

ok fair enough (although i still feel the vinegar isn’t getting us anywhere)

and “super clinical” probably isn’t the perfect term, please don’t get hung up on that…i’m definitely not saying they’re correct lol (i think its an extremely reckless way to view personhood)

 

[Jonatello]

The only way I see them as being able to declare them not a person is by saying you have to have self-awareness to be a considered a “person”.

yeah that’s cited often (as if we were even close to being able to understand consciousness and self-awareness, much less measure it).

the other one that comes up probably more often is the so-called “viability” factor to determine personhood (as if there’s some presumed logical connection between womb-independence and personhood)

ie: so long as the fetus(baby) can’t survive without the womb, it s a parasite rather than a person…but even if a fetus fits the clinical definition of a parasite, where’s the rule that says a parasite can’t be a person?

and this is another case of putting the dictionary before the diction. people define words only after they’ve birthed into language as an attempt to try and document officially what people mean when they say x. But every official definition has loopholes and what happens is people start mixing definitions with the spirit of the word. So since we all know parasites aren’t people, if a human life fits the written definition of a parasite, the assumption follows that it “must not be a person.”

The ambiguity your talking about here comes when you ask when an unborn child becomes self-aware and what proof does a person have of this.

exactly, particularly if the “self-aware” angle is their reasoning.

You would then also have to ask if people in a coma or who are mentally disabled stop being people.

yeah i think that’s a fantastic point

It also kind of seems like a gotcha point, to destroy someone before they have a chance to become self-aware whenever that point is. Its like “haha! I killed you before you before you were able to know you were alive and therefore its not killing!”

well, but i really don’t think they’re looking for a loophole to commit murder. i tend to think most of them honestly believe its not a person (unfortunately)

 

[Jonatello]

And there’s a lack of self-awareness when we sleep.

exactly, at least when we’re not dreaming

or at least a self awareness that we can remember

we hardly have a clue about this stuff yet

 

[kama3]

i tend to think most of them honestly believe its not a person (unfortunately)

A pro-lifer believes that once a genetically distinct and genetically human organism is formed, it becomes a new person. A single-cellular person that is, but a person nonetheless. (This definition runs into several problems, i.e. with cloning, but I will pass over that for now.)

A lot of people believe that being a person is associated with self-awareness (or, in religious terms, having a soul). We know from biology that self-awareness is associated with brain cortex, hence – until the fetus in question develops a sufficiently complex brain, it is inherently incapable of self-awareness (in religious terms, it cannot posses a soul). Nobody knows for sure what sufficiently complex brain actually means, but it is obvious that humans in early development stages, having no brain at all, do not qualify.