7
   

The Obsolete Science Behind Roe v. Wade

 
 
Stacy24
 
Sun 31 Oct, 2021 02:27 pm
The Obsolete Science Behind Roe v. Wade

My youngest patients are unborn babies, and today’s ultrasounds show they are fully alive and human.
By Grazie Pozo Christie

The Supreme Court will soon reconsider the decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), which made abortion legal in America through all nine months of pregnancy. At that “point in the development of man’s knowledge,” as Justice Harry Blackmun put it in Roe, there was simply no consensus about when life begins. In other words, the fetus could not be said with any certainty to be alive and therefore wasn’t worthy of legal protection.

As a diagnostic radiologist—whose youngest patients are fetuses, who are very much alive—I submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization urging the justices to rethink Roe, a case premised on a claim about science. I was joined by two other female physicians, a neonatologist and an obstetrician, who also value their youngest patients, believing that whether inside their mothers or born, premature or full-term, they are worthy of respect and protection.

Ultrasound technology was in its infancy in the 1970s, when there was much more uncertainty about life before birth. The first ultrasound machines, introduced in 1958, were enormous, and the images were rudimentary. It was only in the later 1970s that fetal ultrasound became widely available, with increasingly detailed images of recognizably human babies. Black-and-white ultrasound images are now found on refrigerators of expectant parents across America. New three-dimensional images have put a human face on the person once dehumanized as a mere clump of cells.

Perfectly apparent now, to the justices sitting on today’s court as well as the public, are the liveliness and humanity of babies at 15 weeks of gestation—the age at which Mississippi proposes to protect them from elective termination.

Nestled within their mothers, these fetuses on average are 6.4 inches long and weigh 4.1 ounces. They have the proportions of a newborn—seemingly all head and rounded belly. The major organs are formed and functioning, and although the child receives nutrients and oxygen through the mother’s umbilical cord, the fetal digestive, urinary and respiratory systems are practicing for life outside the womb. The sex of the child is easy to discern by this point. The baby swallows and even breathes, filling the lungs with amniotic fluid and expelling it. The heart is fully formed, its four chambers working hard, with the delicate valves opening and closing.

A healthy baby at 15 weeks is an active baby. Unless the child is asleep, kicking and arm-waving are commonly seen during ultrasound evaluations. The fetal spine is a marvel of intricacy, and it is most often gently curved as the fetus rests against the mother’s uterine wall. Often, I watch as babies plant their feet against the uterine wall and stretch vigorously. Sometimes a delicate hand—with all five fingers—approaches the face and appears to scratch an itch. Fingernails aren’t visible, but they are present. We can see how the bones of the leg meet the tiny ankles and the many-boned feet.

At 15 weeks, the brain’s frontal lobes, ventricles, and thalamus fill the oval-shaped skull. The baby’s profile is endearing in its petite perfection: gently sloping nose, distinct upper and lower lips, eyes that open and close. With the advent of 3D ultrasound, we can now see the fetal face in all its detail.

These are the patients I encounter daily in my work as a radiologist. Clearly human, clearly alive, no longer mysteriously hidden from the eyes and knowledge of man, they ask us to consider them not disposable nonhumans but valuable members of our human family.

Yes, our understanding was different in 1973. But in Roe’s own terms, we have arrived at a much different “point in the development of man’s knowledge” about life in utero. The Supreme Court’s judgement should reflect that advancement and put an end to the casual cruelty of unfettered abortion.

https://archive.fo/oaOCm#selection-137.0-361.239
 
neptuneblue
 
  7  
Sun 31 Oct, 2021 02:56 pm
@Stacy24,
You can think and feel any way you want.

But you will not legislate my choice away from me.

maxdancona
 
  -2  
Sun 31 Oct, 2021 05:05 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

You can think and feel any way you want.

But you will not legislate my choice away from me.



Emotionally speaking, there are a lot of similarities between gun rights and abortion rights.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sun 31 Oct, 2021 10:05 pm
@maxdancona,
How so?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 07:27 am
@Stacy24,
So you wish to force women to go through the discomfort and health risks of taking a fetus to a full term infant with special note of forcing a woman to bring a rapist fetus to full term as the Texas law now demand?

How about this if the state wish to have undesired fetus brought to full term the state can find a way to removed the fetus from a woman in an early time frame and then bring it to full term either with the aid of women voluntaries or by artificial wombs.

Oh any child born that way it would be the state duty to raise to adulthood on. the state dime
engineer
 
  2  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 08:59 am
@BillRM,
That would be an interesting law suit for someone to bring. A rape victim forced to bring the child to term would be out approximately $15K for the costs leading up to and including the delivery. Does the state have to pay that?
BillRM
 
  2  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 09:42 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

That would be an interesting law suit for someone to bring. A rape victim forced to bring the child to term would be out approximately $15K for the costs leading up to and including the delivery. Does the state have to pay that?


Since Texas had such a law we all might just get to see who will paid for the rapist fetus being born,
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 02:29 pm
The "science" doesn't change any of the reasons why a woman might seek to terminate a pregnancy. Not everyone believes that a fetus is a human person, as it lacks agency and is totally dependent on its physiological connection to its host. The woman who wrote the article, as a devout Catholic, already opposed legal abortion but the facts she laid out won't change the mind of anyone who's taken time to consider the question and has concluded that "choice" is the answer.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 04:07 pm
I bet a lot of people would support $15000 payments to victims of rape who choose to not have an abortion.

Would the liberals on this thread support such a bill?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 04:11 pm
@Stacy24,
I think as far as the science goes...

The question of when an abortion is legal is an important one. The original Roe V. Wade used the term "viable". This has certainly changed.

There is lots of room in the middle. Consider these two positions.

1) Supporting a woman's right to end a pregnancy for any reason in the first 3 months of pregnancy.

2) Supporting a woman's right to end a pregnancy for any reason up until the labor starts.

I think there are a lot of people who will support the first position, but think that ending the life of a baby that is fully developed and ready to be delivered should be illegal.

maxdancona
 
  0  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 04:13 pm
@Stacy24,
I am pro-choice. I think the OP has a valid point. I think that the simplistic pro-life view is unrealistic and ignores the uncomfortable fact that abortion does end a life.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 06:50 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I think there are a lot of people who will support the first position, but think that ending the life of a baby that is fully developed and ready to be delivered should be illegal.


An then we have fully developed "babies" that are doom to a few weeks of painful existent due to medical conditions they will be born with or ones that are threatening the mothers very existent if allow to go full term.

The women who are in such sad positions should be allow to decide such matters not male law makers.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 06:55 pm
@BillRM,
How extreme are you on this issue, Bill?

1. Do you believe that a woman has a right to terminate a fully viable and health baby even after its due date (as long as it hasn't been born yet)?

2. Do you believe that only in medical emergencies (i.e. the life of the mother or the health of the baby are at risk) does a woman have a right to terminate a baby that is fully developed?

These are two different things.

If you are really saying that a woman can end a fully developed healthy baby for any reason at its due date.... then say this clearly. Because, my point is that most reasonable people draw a line somewhere. The question then is where you draw the line.

It is easy for me to accept abortions in the first trimester. This is a personal decision, and I don't defend it logically other than to say that in the first trimester the fetus is pretty basic and lacks most cognitive skills. Of course this line is necessarily subjective.

I have trouble accepting abortions in the last trimester. I have seen a birth, and I believe (again subjectively but based on real experiences with pregnancy and birth) that a baby is certainly a human being at birth and must reach a state of being human sometime before birth.

The question is where do we draw the line. I don't think that is an easy question.

BillRM
 
  2  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 07:37 pm
@maxdancona,
Women are the gate keepers to the next generation and it is their bodies and their lives they are risking to bring the next generation into existence.

I know you think it is your right to set the rules for the half of the human race that assume such a duty but it is not at least in my opinion.

When you take the rights of women to decide such matters you almost at once end up with a state such as Texas ordering women to be breeders for men who had rape them for one example.

It would seems that I trust women must more then you do and that they are not random murders of their offspring if not control by state laws.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2021 08:08 pm
@BillRM,
Just to be clear Bill.

A fully healthy baby will be born on its due date at 1:00pm with no complications. At one minute before that the woman has the right to end the life that baby (I assume you agree that one minute later killing the baby would be murder).

Is that the position you are taking?

(Incidentally, your "trust women" argument is nonsense, there are women who kill their one or two year old children. There are laws against this.)
Stacy24
 
  0  
Tue 2 Nov, 2021 05:15 pm
@neptuneblue,
Why do you think it's OK to take away the body of a late term pregnancy baby?

Adult women have every from of birth control available to them, and can choose not to engage in the act instead of resorting to killing. What choice do fully formed babies have?
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 2 Nov, 2021 07:06 pm
@maxdancona,
So you think that woman does not have a right to control their own damn Womb????

The state have both a right and a duty to made all women who are carrying a slave to the state within a few weeks of the women becoming pregnant?

The court in Rowe ver Wade have always given the states some control in the case of very very late abortions so your example is very very dishonest, not that such late abortions was ever a problem if done at all it was done to save the life of the mother in almost all cases. Or where the fetus was so non healthy the baby have only a few weeks or even hours of painful life after birth.
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 2 Nov, 2021 07:09 pm
@Stacy24,
Stacy24 wrote:

Why do you think it's OK to take away the body of a late term pregnancy baby?

Adult women have every from of birth control available to them, and can choose not to engage in the act instead of resorting to killing. What choice do fully formed babies have?


You hear of rape or an act of incest on a child or a no fault failure of birth control??????
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 2 Nov, 2021 07:24 pm
@maxdancona,
By the way we have the cases of women who had conceive so many fetuses at once that the only way of allowing any of them to survive is to do an abortion on one or two of the fetuses in the womb?

So my friend would you allow those abortions or would you prefer all the fetuses to died??

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_reduction

Selective reduction is the practice of reducing the number of fetuses in a multiple pregnancy, say quadruplets, to a twin or singleton pregnancy. The procedure is also called multifetal pregnancy reduction.[3] The procedure is most commonly done to reduce the number of fetuses in a multiple pregnancy to a safe number, when the multiple pregnancy is the result of use of assisted reproductive technology; outcomes for both the mother and the babies are generally worse the higher the number of fetuses.[4] The procedure is also used in multiple pregnancies when one of the fetuses has a serious and incurable disease, or in the case where one of the fetuses is outside the uterus, in which case it is called selective termination.[4]

The procedure generally takes two days; the first day for testing in order to select which fetuses to reduce, and the second day for the procedure itself, in which potassium chloride is injected into the heart of each selected fetus under the guidance of ultrasound imaging.[5] Risks of the procedure include bleeding requiring transfusion, rupture of the uterus, retained placenta, infection, a miscarriage, and prelabor rupture of membranes. Each of these appears to be rare.[4]

Selective reduction was developed in the mid-1980s, as people in the field of assisted reproductive technology became aware of the risks that multiple pregnancies carried for the mother and for the fetuses.[6][7]

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Tue 2 Nov, 2021 07:38 pm
@BillRM,
Bill, I am arguing against extremism. I am not the one being dishonest.

We need to draw a line between when you can end a pregnancy and when you can't. If you are arguing that this is birth... a fully healthy baby ready to be born can be terminated until the instant it leaves the womb, then make this argument honestly.

Otherwise, we are going to have to draw a line. I find it easier to accept abortions in the first trimester.
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Obsolete Science Behind Roe v. Wade
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 09:16:34