Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
bravo, Pax.
shrmn8rpoptart said:o
1. when does the fetus reach the age of viability medically speaking?
anitram said:
You will find differing answers depending on what you are specifically asking. Generally, it's accepted to be 28 weeks (and in Britain, this is the legally accepted age), but in some places, for legal purposes the window is stretched from 24-28 weeks.
I do see alcoholism as a disease. But I must speak up when people start comparing it to cancer. It's frankly silly. They are two completely different issues, one of which involves at least partially recovery via behavioural changes while the other does not. As an alcoholic you have the option of entering rehab and combined with a lot of different factors including counselling and so on, alter your behavioural patterns which predispose you to addiction. You cannot alter your genetic makeup, but it is possible to be rehabilitated without doing so. When you get leukemia, you have absolutely no recourse yourself when it comes to recovery.
Alcoholism is a disease, but baseless comparisons really kind of cheapen the argument, IMO.
joyfulgirl said:
So I think it's important to keep reminding people that it is a disease and if the comparison to cancer gets the message through then I will continue to use the comparison. The point is that alcoholics deserve every bit of the respect and compassion that people with other diseases get.
pax said:Allow me to take a stab at this one.
Most people I know who are, at least politically speaking, pro-choice, are in favor of abortion within a limited window of time and circumstances. I don't know anyone who is actually okay with late-term or partial-birth abortion, unless absolutely medically necessary to save the life of the mother, but I and many others agree that abortion should be a legal option for a woman with a pregnancy she cannot handle, provided that option is explored during the early stages of development in which (as far as we can tell) the fetus has no central nervous system, limited or lack of capacity to feel pain, limited or no consciousness, etc.
Okay. So based on that, you could say that if this woman became pregnant and knew she (shall we say) enjoyed a drink from time to time, she had two choices: have a very early-term abortion, or quit drinking while pregnant. She did neither. Assuming that she knew of the risks of drinking heavily while pregnant but consciously chose to both carry the pregnancy to term and continue drinking, she can indeed be held responsible for her actions regardless of whether one approves of abortion or not, or whether one's government allows for legal early-term abortion or not.
I cannot stress this enough: Most pro-choice individuals do NOT believe that you can do "whatever you like" with your body, including a pregnant body. Rather, we believe that during the space of time in which a fetus is not viable to live outside the body and has minimal or no nervous system, abortion should be a legal option for women. Once the woman consciously and freely chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, and the fetus subsequently reaches viability, she can be held responsible for what happens to the fetus.
It's realistically and philosophically impossible to argue that a blastocyst is equivalent to a newborn.
xtal said:Just wondering:
Am I the only alcoholic that has been through rehab in this thread?