General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Georgia Governor Approves Ban On Abortions After 20 Weeks With No Exception For Rape Or Incest [View all]lacrew
(283 posts)As I have consistently stated, the abortion discourse has devolved into a name calling contest....and you proved it.
As far as defects go, the article in the OP states that abortions will be allowed in cases where the baby has a low chance of survival, even after 20 weeks.
As far as how well a 23 week baby survives...it has nothing to do with the discussion. The fact that some premature babies, born at 23 weeks have severe problems has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should be considered human at that point. The discussion was never about 'saving' a 23 weeker....but whether or not a 23 week baby is human. And, you confirmed it with your own anectdotal evidence that you have a friend with a real live human, born at 23 weeks.
And all this business about resussitation....this is not the discussion at all. I don't even understand where this is coming from. Again, the example of the 23 week baby is meant to only demonstrate the humanness of a baby at that age...it had nothing to do with whether or not to treat a premie...that is an entirely different discussion.
Now, you think 20 weeks is too early, because pregnancy may be difficult to detect by then. This is the crux of the matter - the whole reason medical ethics can be a very sticky wicket. My opinion: its going to get tougher and tougher, because babies are going to survive earlier and earlier. And ethically, most state constitutions obligate their governments to protect life. It is not unreasonable to assume a 23 week baby is 'alive'....and I would challenge anyone who wished to tell me which human experience a baby that age does not participate in - breath, brain activity, sensation of pain, heart beat, its all there. What about the mother? Well this law essentially says, if the mother's life is not in danger, there is no suffering she can go through, which would trump the 20 week fetus' right to live.
As I've said before, the state has to draw the line somewhere (oddly some on this thread have contested that statement, with the notion that a 39 week fetus has no human rights). GA is drawing the line at 20. I'm ok with that - its based on solid evidence about the human characteristics of a 20 week old fetus. You think its too early...based on the inability to detect pregnancy by that point. To me, that really is moot...it doesn't change the humaness of the fetus, or the state's obligation to protect it. I know this collides with the mother's rights....but sometimes there are no easy answers.
I predict many states will change from a 26 or 28 week standard, and go to 20....even very liberal states. To me, it has little to do with politics (except for some who would argue for abortion at the end of the third trimester). It has always been about where to draw the line, and medical miracles are demonstrating to us that the line is currently in the wrong place.
Now back to my original post, about demagoguing the issue (i.e. saying somebody's opinion is 'BS'). That is an all or nothing approach. You might just find that such an inflexible approach will put us back in the 'nothing' column.