Re: Lalla Ward married Richard Dawkins?

"Lorrill Buyens" <buyensl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:r9bp12tfa40e0v29sa66lrgs64h6ts9t3u@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:22:10 +0000 (UTC), doctor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (The
Doctor),
Loyal Agent of the rec.arts.drwho Illuminati, gifted us with these words
of
wisdom:

In article <sgol12dv6c75tlltdgepfc1kp4ag3tj2fv@xxxxxxx>,
Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:14:56 +0000 (UTC), doctor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (The
Doctor),
Loyal Agent of the rec.arts.drwho Illuminati, gifted us with these words
of
wisdom:

In article <82uf125asn6q9pb6te1u7dj3riop10ekaj@xxxxxxx>,
Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:45:58 GMT, MDS <mds@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Loyal Agent of
the
rec.arts.drwho Illuminati, gifted us with these words of wisdom:

Chancellor_Goth wrote:

Has stem cell research been allowed? That uses embryos.

A day-old embryo is one thing. A nine-month preborn baby is quite
another.

_baby_ n. a (1): an extremely young child, esp: INFANT (2): an
extremely
young animal b: the youngest of a group 2 a: one that is like a
baby (as in
behavior) b: something that is one's special responsibility,
achievement, or
interest 3 slang a: GIRL, WOMAN -- often used in address b:
BOY, MAN --
often used in address 4: PERSON, THING (is one tough ~)
- _Webster's Tenth Collegiate_

I see no mention of a fetus in those definitions. And no, a fetus is
not a child.

So where is the definition of fetus?

_fetus_ n. : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate esp. after attaining
the basic
structural plan of its kind: specif.: a developing human from usu.
three
months after conception to birth
- _Webster's Tenth Collegiate_

Then explain Buddhism's and Islam's definition that leaves off the words
three months .

I don't have to explain definitions I've never heard from religions I
don't
belong to, and neither does the dictionary.

Abortion: Science, politics and morality collide
a.. 10:15 18 March 2006
b.. Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
c.. Alison Motluk
What can science say about the morally contentious issues surrounding
abortion? Last week the governor of South Dakota enacted a law banning all
abortion in the state, except for when a woman's life is in danger. This
challenges the US Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling that such bans are
unconstitutional. The state is basing its challenge on a report by the South
Dakota Task Force on Abortion, a 17-member panel of senators, lawyers,
doctors and campaigners from both sides of the abortion debate. The report
was commissioned to evaluate the medical and social evidence surrounding
abortion, especially evidence not available in 1973. The panel called
witnesses and examined thousands of pages of testimony from previous
abortion cases. Key issues the task force focused on include identifying
when life begins, and examining any physical and mental health risks
associated with abortion. Four members of the task force walked out before
its work was completed. Alison Motluk reports

When does life begin?

Task force conclusion

"The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably
prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of
fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a living human
being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care
of modern medicine."

Evidence cited

The task force cited scientific advances since 1973 as showing an embryo to
be a "whole, separate, unique, living, human being" from the moment of
conception. The advances in question include DNA fingerprinting, which shows
a pattern of DNA that can identify an individual, and the polymerase chain
reaction, which makes it possible to amplify and extract that information
from a single cell. Techniques that show an embryo has a complete set of DNA
"have proven that each human being is totally unique immediately at
fertilization", the panel's report says. The task force also cited findings
that control of growth and development are established by the embryo's DNA
after the third division of the fertilised egg: this stage is reached long
before the embryo is implanted in the womb, which has previously been cited
as signifying when personhood began.

The broader picture

While the fertilised egg holds the DNA needed to create a human being, that
alone cannot be said to give it the status of a person. A hair follicle or
some nail clippings also contain their owner's complete genetic fingerprint,
yet these objects are clearly not human beings.

The point at which life or personhood begins is not something biology can
settle, says David Magnus, co-director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical
Ethics, California. The task force pointed to evidence that it says shows
that "the human being is fully programmed for human growth and development
for his or her entire life at the one-cell stage". This, however, fails to
take account of recent developments in epigenetics, which suggest that the
expression of some genes can be reprogrammed at any stage in our lives.

Magnus quotes the example of identical twins who are one entity at the point
of fertilisation; not until a few days later do they become separate. They
clearly develop into two individuals who have different personalities and
patterns of behaviour, even though they share the same DNA. Magnus's
assertion raises the question of whether a "soul" assigned at fertilisation
would later have to be split.

"Wherever you want to draw the line about where life begins, biology seems
to suggest conception is a bad place to do it," Magnus says. If biology
tells us anything, it is that nature does not hold the fertilised embryo in
particularly high regard. The vast majority of fertilised eggs are discarded
naturally, through miscarriage.

Is it more dangerous to have a child or a termination?

Task force conclusion

"The task force finds the physical health risks are significant and
important for women considering whether or not to obtain an abortion.
Current physical health risks are not included in pre-abortion informed
consent materials for South Dakota women."

Evidence cited

Health risks that have been associated with abortion include infection,
haemorrhage, problems with future pregnancies, and increased risk of breast
cancer and death. The task force heard that women are four times as likely
to die in the year following an abortion than in the year after a birth and
some studies suggest an increased risk of suicide following abortion.

Pregnant women and those who have recently given birth are generally
believed to be at lower risk of ill health because they adopt healthier
behaviour to protect the child.

The task force was also told that a report by the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) last year concluded that "the medical
literature, when carefully evaluated, clearly demonstrates no significant
negative impact" on long-term reproductive and psychological health or
cancer risk with surgical abortion. Figures presented to the task force by
the pro-choice group Planned Parenthood suggest that the risk of death from
early abortion is no more than 1/7th the risk during childbirth or full-term
pregnancy. It also heard that the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) has
concluded that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in
breast cancer risk".

The broader picture

The task force dismissed the Planned Parenthood figures because they had
been partially derived from statistics issued by the US Centers for Disease
Control. The task force said these figures were "unreliable and grossly
understated" because they confine the definition of maternal death to just
six weeks after birth or termination. The figures also fail to record deaths
in which post-abortion infection was implicated but was not the primary
cause of death, and do not include deaths from suicide or cancer which may
be connected to the abortion.

The task force also refuted the conclusion of the ACOG report "due to other
testimony and materials" that it examined. Also, many of the studies which
have linked abortion to breast cancer may have suffered from recall bias,
with healthy women less likely to report having had an abortion than those
who were ill. The task force concluded it could not confirm a risk and
called for further study of any link.

An unofficial report compiled by the four members who left the task force
emphasised the NCI and ACOG conclusions and called for legislation that
would compel the South Dakota department of health to collect systematic
state-wide statistics on fetal, infant, child and maternal mortality rates,
so that South Dakota could assess for itself whether abortion increases
maternal mortality.

Is abortion bad for a woman's mental health?

Task force conclusion

"It is simply unrealistic to expect that a pregnant mother is capable of
being involved in the termination of the life of her child without risk of
suffering significant psychological trauma and distress. To do so is beyond
the normal, natural, and healthy capability of a woman whose natural
instincts are to protect and nurture her child."

Evidence cited

Several large studies suggest that women are more likely to suffer from
depression, bipolar disorder and suicidal thoughts following an abortion and
are more likely to abuse drugs. The task force also heard evidence from a
psychiatrist who backed up these findings with observations from her own
work. However, another witness pointed out that most major professional
mental health organisations say that scientific studies provide no grounds
for concluding that abortion is likely to lead to depression.

The broader picture

The question of how abortion might affect a woman's future mental health is
littered with confounding factors. First, there is the problem of causality.
Some women may have abortions because they have mental health problems that
would make it hard to raise a child. These problems may predispose them to
later mental illness. Also, many women will not report a termination, and
this can skew results. Researchers have tried to overcome these problems,
but the conclusions different teams draw - even from the same set of data -
can vary widely.

One of the studies cited by the task force was a 2002 paper published in the
British Medical Journal in which David Reardon and Jesse Cougle of the
Elliot Institute in Springfield, Illinois, used data from the US National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth. This studied thousands of American women aged
14 to 21 and compared those who had carried their child to term with those
who had abortions. The women who'd had a termination were 50 per cent more
likely to be at "high risk" of depression, the researchers said. Then, last
December, Sarah Schmiege of the University of Colorado and Nancy Russo of
Arizona State University analysed the same data and found no increased risk.
A key difference was that the first study excluded almost all of the
teenagers because there was no mental health data on them before pregnancy.
Teenage mothers are more likely than older mothers to suffer depression, so
excluding them from the study may have underestimated the harm of
childbirth. According to David Fergusson of Christchurch School of Medicine
and Health Sciences in New Zealand, "it has been in the interest of both
sides not to have the science too strong." His own research suggests that
abortion may carry a mental health risk, albeit small. He adds that abortion
is so common there should be a body of evidence about the risks, benefits
and long-term consequences on the mental health of women. Yet no such body
exists. The American Psychological Association states that abortion has no
lasting or significant health risks.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading