Australian Government Plan to Increase Immunisation Rates

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by Ox

But finally, if one were to consider the medical taxonomy decisive (and I want to emphasize that that would be a stupid thing to do), it's worth noting that all these medical dictionaries define "conception" as the formation of a viable zygote, which takes place immediately upon fertilization several days before implantation.

Yeah, the basic research I did showed that, for the most part, birth control blocks ovulation, meaning that fertilization could still potentially occur if it failed or ovulation had already occurred. Apparently, Plan B theoretically doesn't inhibit implantation (which is where you could theoretically get into the sticky situation of a unique organism being basically "killed") but there is almost no way to prove that it doesn't do so scientifically. I think I wouldn't have a problem with my wife using it, except that it is like 50 bucks.

edit: And it also apparently DOES NOT affect anything after implantation.

[Vanthar]

Ox, in your own links it shows that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have considered conception occurring at implantation for 46 years now. Perhaps I was injecting my own opinion in there too much, but that classifies as a long held medical definition to me. I did not think I was misleading people at all, Plan B is not considered an abortifacient by the medical community.

I also don't think your analogy is appropriate at all because most people do use the medical definitions of the human reproductive cycle specifically to make their ethical case on whether or not the drug is an 'abortion pill'. My apologies for insulting your intelligence with my obnoxious argument, perhaps I was being a bit too dismissive of other viewpoints with my initial comments.

[Ox]

Okay, Vanthar, let's put it this way: I don't know your views on these issues (although I can guess). But let's say the ACOG turns around tomorrow and declares it classifies an unfertilized ovum as a "baby." will that affect your opinion of the issues involved? Why or why not?

[VerseD]

Are you saying that only moral authorities can determine when life begins, and not doctors or scientists?

[Ox]

First, unless there's something I'm missing, everyone agrees that any cell with ongoing metabolic processes is "alive." Life began once, several billion years ago; dead tissue does not get quickened in the womb.

Second, I'm not making an appeal to moral authority (still less am I denigrating a doctor's or scientist's ability to occupy that office). I'm simply pointing out that medical taxonomy is employed primarily for the purposes of diagnosing and treating illness, and there's no obvious reason why that taxonomy would map particularly well to ethical categories. To the limited extent that some medical professionals use words like "conception" and "abortifacients" in a different way than ethicists, that merely demonstrates we should be careful to define our terms. Both embryologists and nuclear physicists use the word "fission," but neither is necessarily required to defer to the other.

[Panthera]

I think one should avoid heterosexual intercourse anyway, since according to the above 2/3 of fertilized eggs are naturally aborted. You murder two living creatures for one that even has a chance.

This is clearly unethical, and going forward I will cease all of my unprotected sex with women.

[Vanthar]

Originally Posted by Ox

Okay, Vanthar, let's put it this way: I don't know your views on these issues (although I can guess). But let's say the ACOG turns around tomorrow and declares it classifies an unfertilized ovum as a "baby." will that affect your opinion of the issues involved? Why or why not?

I don't find your hypothetical plausible, but in that scenario I would have to at least regard the pill as one that causes abortion. I would think this because I consider that organization responsible enough to make that decision based on the weight of scientific knowledge on the subject, which is how I myself would also look at the situation. Though as I'm sure you surmised, I don't have any moral issues with medical abortion as a procedure.

I think it would be more important if they made that change to those who are against abortion because it makes nearly all contraceptives we have available abortion inducing agents. I recognize the terminology may not be how you decide these issues, but I find it rather critical in regards to the positions I typically hear for and against abortion.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by Vanthar

I don't find your hypothetical plausible, but in that scenario I would have to at least regard the pill as one that causes abortion. I would think this because I consider that organization responsible enough to make that decision based on the weight of scientific knowledge on the subject, which is how I myself would also look at the situation. Though as I'm sure you surmised, I don't have any moral issues with medical abortion as a procedure.

Taxonomy is not, and will never be, part of the scientific method. No peer-reviewed study found that pregnancy started at implantation, rather than fertilization, it's simply defined that way.

And no, VerseD, purely scientific bodies have no authority as to whether or not something is ethical. The interpretation of the ethics of scientific discovery are entirely within the domain of philosophy.

Also, the organization made the definition because of political considerations, not because of scientific evidence. It's right there in Ox's link.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by Panthera

I think one should avoid heterosexual intercourse anyway, since according to the above 2/3 of fertilized eggs are naturally aborted. You murder two living creatures for one that even has a chance.

This is clearly unethical, and going forward I will cease all of my unprotected sex with women.

By golly, you're right! Henceforth I shall only engage in coitus with members of my own gender so as to completely avoid causing any "miscarriages", a.k.a. abortions!

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Panthera

I think one should avoid heterosexual intercourse anyway, since according to the above 2/3 of fertilized eggs are naturally aborted. You murder two living creatures for one that even has a chance.

This is clearly unethical, and going forward I will cease all of my unprotected sex with women.

Well, if eventual unintended death qualifies as murder, you're undercounting. Even zygotes that implant, mature, and are born, will eventually die. Conception (however defined) has a 100% fatality rate.

[Panthera]

Originally Posted by MagGnome

By golly, you're right! Henceforth I shall only engage in coitus with members of my own gender so as to completely avoid causing any "miscarriages", a.k.a. abortions!

Good heavens, sir, you've proposed a truly outrageous alternative. We must engage in empirical testing immediately.

[Shieldmaiden]

It appears that Mr Panthera and Mr Gnome have solved an ethical quandary of monumental proportions. I'm sure fundamentalist Christian conservatives everywhere will be rejoicing at the news!

[Ox]

Actually, Mags makes a really good point: the medical term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion." If, as Vanthar argues, medical taxonomy is true and ethically determinative, that alters the picture dramatically. I had expressed sympathy to my colleague who "suffered" a "miscarriage", but really I should have congratulated her on making a free choice. I'm also going to ask her to pay me back for those flowers.

[Panthera]

Originally Posted by Ox

Well, if eventual unintended death qualifies as murder, you're undercounting. Even zygotes that implant, mature, and are born, will eventually die. Conception (however defined) has a 100% fatality rate.

Not all murder is made equal - we might just be looking at manslaughter. It's you that would expose them to the risk in the first place - clearly not an entirely ethical practice! If the death of a zygote is really so horrific that I'd want to limit or ban the use of a medication that might possibly (but probably doesn't) harm a fertilized egg, then I've got one hell of a bullet to bite here to have any child at all.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by Panthera

Good heavens, sir, you've proposed a truly outrageous alternative. We must engage in empirical testing immediately.

I propose that we engage in rigorous scientific experimentation five months hence in the city of New York. I theorize that our results will be quite climatic.

[Zero]

Originally Posted by MagGnome

I propose that we engage in rigorous scientific experimentation five months hence in the city of New York. I theorize that our results will be quite climatic.

So how awkward is it going to be when you both realize you're pitchers and not catchers?

[Vanthar]

Originally Posted by Ox

Actually, Mags makes a really good point: the medical term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion." If, as Vanthar argues, medical taxonomy is true and ethically determinative, that alters the picture dramatically. I had expressed sympathy to my colleague who "suffered" a "miscarriage", but really I should have congratulated her on making a free choice. I'm also going to ask her to pay me back for those flowers.

I don't think any of you guys know what taxonomy means, but obviously this example is conflating multiple definitions.

Abortion is a generic medical term describing any cause of early pregnancy termination. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion of natural causes which I'm sure you are not considering the same as medically induced abortions. As always, the terminology is quite clear even though the layperson might not be familiar with it.

[Narradisall]

Masturbation is still safe though, yes?

YES?!?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by Vanthar

Abortion is a generic medical term describing any cause of early pregnancy termination. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion of natural causes which I'm sure you are not considering the same as medically induced abortions. As always, the terminology is quite clear even though the layperson might not be familiar with it.

Right, but the definition of terminology does not, and cannot, determine what is ethical. If that's the case, if a ruling body decides that "murder" means "the loss of life of a white person", then suddenly it becomes impossible to murder black people! Defining the start of pregnancy as "implantation" rather than "fertilization" doesn't begin to say whether killing* the newly formed zygote is morally correct.

Again, I'm not convinced abortion is murder, but given that it is ethically tricky, I'd like to avoid the grey area if possible.


*I'm struggling to find a more neutral word for it, perhaps somebody could help me out? I understand that "kill" is a loaded term

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by Narradisall

Masturbation is still safe though, yes?

YES?!?

Not if you're doing it right.