In the past 100 years we've gone from carriages to spaceflight. lord. And it'll keep on carrying on. Viability has gone to what, 20 weeks tops at the extreme. Most people concede that it's still around 23-24 weeks. I applaud the scientists and medical researchers that made this possible--- not that anti-scientific policy including a vague disdain for stem cell research because---helped. Or government shutdowns that defund NASA first (wat). That's fairly linear growth. The first fully sequenced human genome, at $3 billion and nearly two decades came in at 2003. Now, in 2014, we have basically broken under $1,000 per genome sequenced, and a genome can be processed in hours. That's exponential growth. It's quite a huge difference.
Yet again you have to move off on tangents. That tells me you cannot argue the topic at hand. ...and don't you just hate it when your own logic is used to humiliate you? You can't just be pro-science when it suits you.
Are you arguing that in the future of science, you see exponential growth in the extension of prenatal care---when it has been static for the last few decades? If you are, I'd like to see what literature you are consulting. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-12625253 You should work in science, and actively support it at every point, if you actually believe in saving lives, rather than scoring vague political points. Ensure the government does not defund scientific research. Make a stand against arbitrary stances with no reflection in the literature, or in the practice of experts.
And it's not as if legislative frameworks are iron-cast in the face of new technologies---and new findings---there just haven't been those new technologies, or new findings for the age of viability.
Northside -- you're really struggling. You are the one who is ignoring science's power here. You are now trying to argue that we're near the biological limit of nature? You place no probability on new, unforeseen innovation? Like that's never happened before, right? It's amazing the logic twists you're willing to stoop to in order to defend your political point.
YES, I AM IMOGEN MORGAN, the person who works in the field, has studied in the field, has lived in the field, and breathes the field. And knows what the hell I'm talking about. Hell, let me cite Nature too. http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/labcoat-life/should_extremely_preterm_babies_be um it looks like you're getting contradicted by experts in the field. hmm. The magic of science!
Btw, that has to be a good quote soundbit for the next time I catch you disrespecting climate scientists. Not even trying to score "points". Just pointing out the facts.
Your "you people" attitude and "the black friend" sideswipe are just low blows that indicate from where your response is coming. You are either being disingenuous or too genuine and I'm not playing.
Problem is that the abortion debate isn't about science or when life begins, it's about religion and what people arbitrarily believe. The same people who think life begins at conception are usually the same ones who dismiss science and don't trust it, so using science to argue is kinda pointless. I mean, the people who are anti-abortion are also against letting women get contraceptive coverage from their employer insurance plan if their employer doesn't believe contraction is morally ok. So the act of preventing a sperm from uniting with an egg is wrong, then of course to these folks abortion is too. Debate is futile. What's important is to just defends woman's right to have control over their body and not let religious figures dictate what happens in medical facilities or what type of contraceptive coverage women get. And the intimidation that goes on outside abortion clients is just wrong and needs to stop as well. Can't believe that is considered free speech by the S.C.
nope -- again you can only attempt to twist my words. You have to understand that regarding future scientific discoveries, there will be things we simply aren't aware of today. Even the top scientists. It's fact that the unborn are viable at much earlier in gestation than only 100 short years ago. What might be possible in the next 100 years? 200 years?
And yet there are others who deserve consideration too. You choose to ignore those considerations altogether, which makes your opinion too biased to take seriously.
What if you have sex and the contraception fails? What if you can't afford contraception (or, by extension, the pregnancy which might follow)? It isn't that my morality is "superior" in any way, nor is that or the woman. However, our morality is definitely different from yours and you don't get to force your morality on others.
Good post and I agree that science isn't going to decide this debate. As much as people can argue that science has pushed back the age of viability it has also greatly muddied what the definition of life is. If you're argument is that thanks to incubator and other neo-natal technology means that a fetus is viable outside of the womb much earlier how far are you willing to take that? With in vitro fertilization, cellular engineering, genetic manipulation, cloning and etc.. every cell in the human body is a potential new life. I don't think science is going to objectively provide an answer of when life begins so whether abortion is legal or illegal is more a matter of social concerns (ethics, morals, rights, public opinion) rather than a scientific issue.
Of course. No one here cares about infant mortality in the third world and we need to build a wall to keep babies from Central America getting into the US. (Unfortunately I wish this was more tongue and cheek)
I have considered those others and decided against because their stakes are relatively minor and for them to get their way requires the death of the other party. It's not even close really.... Stop saying that I ignore anything. On the other hand, name one way that you've taken an aborted fetus' rights into consideration.
