This topic has been started largely for AIJ who wants to discuss the subject.
My involvement throughout my career has been to run occasional prenatal diagnostic tests for genetic disease. As a geneticist, I, along with all my colleagues throughout N. America support freedom of choice. Our role is to support the choices that patients make. So if a couple decide to keep a foetus diagnosed with Down's syndrome it is our responsibility to support that choice and to arrange for the best supportive care to maximize that child's potential. Should they make the other choice then our role is to support that choice and provide supportive care for the couple.
Now that I know you a little better, I can say that it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.
I like the Camus quote too.
Just to confuse the issue(s):
This is a many sided issue, dealing with the life of a child, (not a choice), the damage done to a woman in an abortion, (physical and mental), and, let's not forget, the moola made by the abortion industry.
Where shall we start?
With actual science of when human life begins? Seems like a good place, since in this country EVERYONE has the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even when a bum piece of legislation tries to unseat the Constitution, and then the courts try to obfuscate the issue of when human life begins. It begins when human DNA begins replicating after the human sperm meets the human egg, thus forming a new human person. This is not seriously disputed that I know of, but I'm willing to address this issue with scientific fact.
Evidence shows babies in the womb feel pain: https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/4314/7025/7913/MSOB_004_A_Painful_Presum...
Rubber Meets Road:
Westchester Institute White Paper
When Does Human Life Begin?
A Scientific Perspective
Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life:
1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg?
2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.
Why do we need scientific fact, anyway? (Not rhetorical question.)
"...While (NEARLY) no one objects to the destruction of ordinary human cells for biomedical research, the use of human beings for such purposes is universally condemned. Clearly, some non-arbitrary criteria must be established to determine when living human cells give rise to a new individual human being."
Quote from: Westchester Institute White Paper: When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective
Maureen L. Condic, Senior Fellow at Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine
Capitalization and underline emphasis is mine.
Really, I wonder how far in time we are away from shedding our universal condemnation of the use of human beings in biomedical research. We've shed so much of our ethical inhibitions against such things in a relatively short time that we must be pretty close to it....The Boiling Frog Syndrome in action.
Case in point: The lack of widespread outrage over Planned Parenthood's and other's selling of aborted baby parts for "research." I think we're pretty close to it...
"UNMH officials also said there was no plan to stop accepting fetal tissue from Boyd’s clinic – despite an internal policy that appears to call the practice into question. The policy does not prohibit the practice, they say, but conceded that its wording could be misunderstood by a 'lay' person."
Mental Health and Abortion: Is there a RED FLAG here? You decide, after looking at the evidence, which in health related circles uses clinical studies that real people volunteer for and meta data analysis of those studies, (yes, statistics are involved), to basically determine if something is true or not....sort of.
In this area, we're really talking about increased risk of something bad happening. How much risk is the question. In this case, mental health problems are the "bad", which can ruin a life just as fast as cancer, or a fatal car accident...It's real. I know first hand, because I work in the Mental Health field as a RN, and I'm working on a Master's degree, so I look at a lot of research. I have both a personal and professional interest in this stuff. But I want the truth. And yes, Jack, I can handle the truth. Can you?
The American Psychology Association in 2008 concluded, after reviewing available data, that “there is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult women. Their research consistently found that the backgrounds and circumstances of the women who seek abortions vary. The Task Force found some studies that indicate that some women do experience sadness, grief and feelings of loss following an abortion and some experience ‘clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety.’ The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain.”
(Underline emphasis mine.)
“A more recent review of the literature, (2013), found that 13 studies showed a clear risk for at least one mental problem in the abortion group versus childbirth, five papers showed no difference, three studies showed a greater risk of mental disorders due to abortion compared with miscarriage, four found no difference and two found that short-term anxiety and depression were higher in the miscarriage group, while long-term anxiety and depression were present only in the abortion group.”
So, while the debate in clinical psychology circles continues to be “inconclusive”, women who have elective abortions clearly suffer more from mental health problems, some leading to suicide, than women who give birth. So THERE IS STRONGER EVIDENCE that supports the theory that abortion causes more mental health issues for women than childbirth, (18 studies showing worse outcomes versus 9 showing “no difference.”) There is SOMETHING to the “Post Abortion Syndrome” that shouldn’t be dismissed as a “Prolife propaganda” trick. More research is clearly needed here before we can assume that abortions don’t cause mental health risks to women, as they clearly present greater danger in this area, based on this more recent analysis.
Why would clinical professionals be so blind to the clear need for more research when there is such a greater danger to women, (twice as many studies show greater risk), after abortion?