Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

mvl

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh God what is the relevance of the heart? That organ is about as vital as its bladder or its arse, tbqh.

What's with this near-mystical obsession with the foetal heartbeat?

Edit: this question applies as much to pro-choicers as to anti-choicers. The heart is not the seat of the soul, regardless of what was said in Primary School Religion class.

As someone who did have a personal experience on this, would see the heart beat is a first milestone a pregnancy needs to pass: no heartbeat @ 6/7 weeks, the fetus is not viable and can be aborted. Nothing mystical about it.

nozzferrahhtoo

mvl wrote: »

would see the heart beat is a first milestone a pregnancy needs to pass: no heartbeat @ 6/7 weeks, the fetus is not viable and can be aborted. Nothing mystical about it.

It is the first milestone meaningful to human narrative I suppose. But in the first 7 weeks of development the development has passed all kinds of biological milestones any one of which is as important as the other, and the failure of many of which would render the fetus just as un-viable.

I fear it is only the first milestone in the kind of story we humans tell ourselves, not in any actually developmental biology.

kaymin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well an error I first have to fix in what you asked.... is that my position on abortion is NOT at all based on "the timing when the change occurs". We in fact do not know that 100%.

No my position on abortion is based on periods we know it has not occurred. Which is different and important.

Well as I said a few times, the differing meanings of "human" are important here. I will use human with a small h to mean biologically human. I will use Human with a capital H to mean a Sentient Person.

I believe, like you I think, that the fetus is human since conception.

I do not believe a fetus at 12-16 weeks is Human however. Because.... and this is the evidence bit..... we know generally a list of pre-requisites for sentience and the fetus at that age simply has none of them.

Some reading material randomly picked:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2018/04/19/tracing-consciousness-in-the-brains-of-infants/
https://prochoiceplus.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/lets-talk-about-sentience/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648310622109

And if you are interested similar for farm animals:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e372/be1b7005c6d0b0782037e5a5bdb0511bc853.pdf

But basically the summary is simple. We have developed an ongoing understanding of what is required for sentience. And the things on that list are simply missing in a fetus at 12-16 weeks development.

That's interesting but ultimately it comes down to your opinion as to whether a human who hasn't become sentient but is likely to become so should be saved. I believe they should. My understanding is that a human may not become sentient until possibly as late as 30 weeks - when you look at images of them at that stage they are very much a human even if they don't qualify as Human by your standard.

Just to add, who decided that the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity at a point in time should determine whether you live or die? And how accurate are these tests of sentience?

mvl

petalgumdrops wrote: »

A CVS should not be taken as definitive. The sample collected from a CVS is a mixture of fetal and maternal dna.
Geneticists will always advise an Aminocenthesis on foot of a poor CVS result. This is soley fetal dna and higher accuracy. The problem is that you need to wait until 15+ weeks to take this test. Termination has no limits when it is a ffa and so there was no rush to complete the termination.

Yeah, that's what I also knew. So would you know why they use CVS in here at all, if it is riskier than amniocentesis (higher chance of miscarriage) and detects less no of defects ? - is it only the CVS availability before 15 weeks ?

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I know the geneticist in NMH as he advised me over my CVS which yielded almost a carbon copy of the results this family received. His immediate recommendation was that I must do an amnio as there was the chance the issue was mosiac and to rule out the possibility of sample contamination.

This is another thing I am trying to find out: have they been advised for amnio and didn't take it ? think I've read today amnio can be recommended after 15 weeks in AUS, so they could have waited for that...

petalgumdrops

mvl wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I also knew. So would you know why they use CVS in here at all, if it is riskier than amniocentesis (higher chance of miscarriage) and detects less no of defects ? - is it only the CVS availability before 15 weeks ?

CVS can be done earlier thats why they do it I assume but contrary to Rhona Mahony and Boylan saying it is 99.9% accurate it is not! No decision to terminate should be made on the basis of this test. In my case a scan showed there may be an issue. I was not at the correct gestation for the Amnio which is more Accurate so a CVS was performed. I was so anxious to find out what was wrong I did the CVS before I even knew what I was doing! FISH results showed no T18 ,21 or 13 but 2 weeks later devestated to find out the conclusive results showed an extremely rare trisomy. Only 11 babies born in the world with this issue! Heavily pushed to abort. 100% assurances given my child would die.
Geneticist took different approach and reccomended Amino and explained the limitations of CVS. Reassured me, no mention of termination at all.


This is another thing I am trying to find out: have they been advised for amnio and didn't take it ? think I've read today amnio can be recommended after 15 weeks in AUS, so they could have waited for that...

Not sure but as far as I can see their FISH results which are less accurate came back positive but the 2 week detailed profiling of each chromosome came back negative. I had the opposite my inital FISH results were negative but final results were positive. Had to wait for an amnio for a.few weeks then another few weeks to get results which showed my baby was fine. placental mosasicm not full blown Trisomy! His placenta was abnormal and this was monitored he was induced early as placenta malfunctioned but they expected and monitored for this.

To add I'm currently 16 weeks pregnant and I was offered testing in NMH even though there was no clinical indication to do so. This was something I was not offered pre repeal! Overtesting when not clinically necessary opens a can of worms with the potential for mistakes to be made!

mvl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is the first milestone meaningful to human narrative I suppose. But in the first 7 weeks of development the development has passed all kinds of biological milestones any one of which is as important as the other, and the failure of many of which would render the fetus just as un-viable.
I fear it is only the first milestone in the kind of story we humans tell ourselves, not in any actually developmental biology.

Yes, there are other smaller development stages, but I think once there is HB, there is less risk of miscarriage, so I would have suggested it is more important from an Obstetrician's pov, rather than helping human narrative.
Some info (not as technical I am afraid) in The Meaning of No Fetal Heartbeat on an Early Ultrasound

Nobelium

Goldengirl wrote: »

That is your opinion but not that of the majority who voted for repeal and to legalise abortion.
That you think it is wrong is irrelevant therefore.
This is a tragedy because this foetus would have been a wanted baby, it is always a tragedy for couples with a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality whether the pregnancy goes to term or not . However aborting an unwanted foetus is not a tragedy, because it is UNWANTED and no matter how you much you protest about it, this discussion has been had, we all voted, and abortion is now legal .

Argumentum ad populam is a logical fallacy, and doesn't suddenly make taking another human life ethical. Also, your claim that because a human life is not wanted by you it's ok to kill it doesn't stand up as an adequate justification either.

mvl

petalgumdrops wrote: »

To add I'm currently 16 weeks pregnant and I was offered testing in NMH even though there was no clinical indication to do so. This was something I was not offered pre repeal! Overtesting when not clinically necessary opens a can of worms with the potential for mistakes to be made!

Good luck !

See - if they offer the less reliable, riskier test first, there may be an issue the hospitals need to address. But I think process can be improved, and also, future parents need to educate themselves more ...

nozzferrahhtoo

kaymin wrote: »

That's interesting but ultimately it comes down to your opinion as to whether a human who hasn't become sentient but is likely to become so should be saved.

For me it is not opinion. It is inevitable if you ask and honestly answer a simple question series:

What is morality, ethics and rights. Specifically what are they FOR? What do they do? Why do we have them?

I think when you realise the answer to those question, the conclusion about the massive ethical difference between a sentient agent, and a potentially MAYBE sentient agent, is absolutely massive. And there is no coherent basis upon which to afford the potential one any moral or ethical concern at all.

kaymin wrote: »

when you look at images of them at that stage they are very much a human even if they don't qualify as Human by your standard.

Oh certainly in terms of biology and physical shape and appearance they are entirely human. But what has, for example, shape got to do with anything? A mannequin in a clothing store is more human shaped than most fetus. Yet we have ZERO ethical concern on that basis for a mannequin. It would be ridiculous for us to have any.

Shape, taxonomy, biology.... I am not seeing why these are focal points for morality. THAT they are a focal point for your ethics is clear, do not get me wrong. WHY is the what is unclear.

As I said before if I instantiated your consciousness in a computer and removed it from your body.... I doubt many loved ones would have much concern for your body any more. And I think we both know why. And it has NOTHING to do with your shape or biology in that moment. Would it?

kaymin wrote: »

Just to add, who decided that the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity at a point in time should determine whether you live or die? And how accurate are these tests of sentience?

I do not think it SHOULD determine if it lives or dies. I think it should determine whether we should have any moral or ethical concern for it. Specifically whether it should have rights. If a fetus should have a right to life, I want to know why. It is human shaped.... not so much a reason for me. Nor do I see why it should be.

As for the accuracy of tests, I am not clear I know what you mean. It is deeper than that. It is more the accuracy of the science that has determined what the pre-requisites for consciousness and sentience even are in the first place. And if those things are absent, which they are in a fetus, we therefore have NO basis to think it is sentient.

There is no real "sentience test" per se in other words. There is a great line in a movie I saw once where an AI is created. The government agent comes to meet it and says "Can you prove you are conscious?" and the AI simply replies "Can you?".

Which of course, he can't.

But if we list the reasons we might have to think something sentient, a fetus at early stages pretty much has the same number of them as a rock. It is not that we test it for sentience. It is that we have NO reason to think it is there.

Taiga

Sardonicat wrote: »

Not to mention that many ( if not most )14 yo girls are not physically developed fully to carry a pregnancy to term without incurring some form of long term physical harm. And that's without even considering the lifelong psychological injury it would undountedly inflict.

Really, what's the point of arguing with someone who doesn't believe a child being forced to carry to term and deliver against her will would come to no harm from the experience. Once again it just proves that born children don't matter a sh1t to this lot

Sadly I can only thank this once.:(

nozzferrahhtoo

mvl wrote: »

Yes, there are other smaller development stages, but I think once there is HB, there is less risk of miscarriage

Less than what exactly??? You are being rather unclear here. There are MANY developmental milestones in the biological development of a fetus any one of which if it failed would likely result in miscarriage. What criteria are you using exactly to measure relative likelihoods here?

What likely is true is that the longer a fetus develops without miscarriage, the more likely it is to continue to do so. And as such the heart beat is not a milestone so much as it is merely temporally later in the process than somethings and earlier than others.

What any of this otherwise interesting conversation has to do with abortion though, I have kinda lost the thread on. Even were I/we to grant it as a narrative milestone.... is there any reason to think such a milestone relevant ethically?

BoJack Horseman

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill.

15 is hardly controversial.

Plumbthedepths

political analyst wrote:

What makes you think pro-lifers don't care about both? What evidence is there that pregnancy causes harm to a 14-year-old girl? Abortion punishes the girl's unborn child for the rape of the girl.

Wanting to force a girl/woman to remain pregnant against their will displays an absence of care towards the expectant female in my opinion.

Sardonicat

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill.

15 is hardly controversial.

Eh, no we didn't!

AulWan

petalgumdrops wrote: »

To add I'm currently 16 weeks pregnant and I was offered testing in NMH even though there was no clinical indication to do so. This was something I was not offered pre repeal! Overtesting when not clinically necessary opens a can of worms with the potential for mistakes to be made!

Would your previous history not be grounds for offering you the test?

Also, how easily accessible is the animocentesis test? Considering some maternity hospitals don't even offer scans routinely, I could see an issue with accessing amniocentesis, (especially if a public patient).

If a woman has already had two tests and been told they are accurate to 99% I can understand why someone wouldn't wait, if an amnio takes "a few weeks" to access, then another few weeks for the results. All those weeks add up, and I could see how that would be very difficult, mentally, for some to deal with.

Plumbthedepths

BoJack Horseman wrote:

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill.

Absolutely untrue.

SusieBlue

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill.

15 is hardly controversial.

You must have voted in a different referendum to the rest of us then.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

We voted for babies to be aborted a 25 weeks..... Or max-term if mother says she's mentally ill .

What referendum did you vote in?

If true you could provide a link to show that this is the case, unless of course the hse page I'm reading is out of date
https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/how-to-get-an-abortion/when-you-can-have-an-abortion.html

kaymin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For me it is not opinion. It is inevitable if you ask and honestly answer a simple question series:

What is morality, ethics and rights. Specifically what are they FOR? What do they do? Why do we have them?

I think when you realise the answer to those question, the conclusion about the massive ethical difference between a sentient agent, and a potentially MAYBE sentient agent, is absolutely massive. And there is no coherent basis upon which to afford the potential one any moral or ethical concern at all.



Oh certainly in terms of biology and physical shape and appearance they are entirely human. But what has, for example, shape got to do with anything? A mannequin in a clothing store is more human shaped than most fetus. Yet we have ZERO ethical concern on that basis for a mannequin. It would be ridiculous for us to have any.

Shape, taxonomy, biology.... I am not seeing why these are focal points for morality. THAT they are a focal point for your ethics is clear, do not get me wrong. WHY is the what is unclear.

As I said before if I instantiated your consciousness in a computer and removed it from your body.... I doubt many loved ones would have much concern for your body any more. And I think we both know why. And it has NOTHING to do with your shape or biology in that moment. Would it?



I do not think it SHOULD determine if it lives or dies. I think it should determine whether we should have any moral or ethical concern for it. Specifically whether it should have rights. If a fetus should have a right to life, I want to know why. It is human shaped.... not so much a reason for me. Nor do I see why it should be.

As for the accuracy of tests, I am not clear I know what you mean. It is deeper than that. It is more the accuracy of the science that has determined what the pre-requisites for consciousness and sentience even are in the first place. And if those things are absent, which they are in a fetus, we therefore have NO basis to think it is sentient.

There is no real "sentience test" per se in other words. There is a great line in a movie I saw once where an AI is created. The government agent comes to meet it and says "Can you prove you are conscious?" and the AI simply replies "Can you?".

Which of course, he can't.

But if we list the reasons we might have to think something sentient, a fetus at early stages pretty much has the same number of them as a rock. It is not that we test it for sentience. It is that we have NO reason to think it is there.

True the shape of the baby / fetus arguably shouldn't matter if there was nothing else going on but our understanding of the brain is fairly primitive so I wouldn't rely on a doctor / quack that concludes there's no sentience because s/he can't see / prove it.

There's even views out there that sentience isn't present in newborns:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/?redirect=1

volchitsa

kaymin wrote: »

True the shape of the baby / fetus arguably shouldn't matter if there was nothing else going on but our understanding of the brain is fairly primitive so I wouldn't rely on a doctor / quack that concludes there's no sentience because s/he can't see / prove it.

There's even views out there that sentience isn't present in newborns:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/?redirect=1

Okay but you're forgetting the fact that abortion only concerns one person's right to end the pregnancy, namely the woman inside whose body it is.

If the newborn isn't sentient, that may or may not raise questions about what rights we should grant it, but no other human being is required to nurture it 24/7 at some risk to their own health.

That's why we allow abortion, and it is the pregnant woman and nobody else who can avail of it.

petalgumdrops

AulWan wrote: »

Would your previous history not be grounds for offering you the test?

Also, how easily accessible is animo - considering some maternity hospitals don't even offer scans routinely, I could see an issue with accessing amniocentesis.

If you've already had two tests and been told they are accurate to 99% I can understand why someone wouldn't wait, if an amnio takes "a few weeks" to access, then another few weeks for the results. All those weeks add up, and I could see how that would be very difficult, mentally, for some people to deal with.

I'm sorry but your point In saying if you do two tests and they are accurate to 99% is like relying on contraception as infallible even though it only claims to be 99% effective! Yes side stated throughout the campaign when the use of contraception was debated, that contraception fails, not full proof and accepted there was a margin of error so unwanted pregnancies will occur. (Which is true) we take that risk knowing it may fail.
This lady presumably had two tests but only the CVS was diagnostic the Harmony is a screening tool the same way an NT scan is a screening tool. It should never ever be taken as a diganosis. Had the referendum campaign allowed honest, open debate on this then people would be a lot more informed.

You stated the few weeks that an amnio takes can be too difficult for a family to deal with. You are right it is tough and doctors used this length of time to try to encourage me to have a termination. I would have to give birth if I waited for results. It would be kinder more compassionate to do it now! These were the things I was told!

The fact remains the couple made a choice. which is what we voted for, we didn't discuss the limitations or consequences of that choice. In fact Lisa chambers TD and Kate O'Connell disputed that there was even such a thing as abortion regret. "Makey uppy", "fatal means fatal there is no ambiguity"
The couple made that choice on the basis of FISH results and a screening harmony test that gave a risk assessment or probability for an abnormality. They did not have adequate information to make a decision that could never be undone. Perhaps the immediate access to termination or pressure from doctors contributed to this (only the couple can answer this). My immediate reaction was to abort too, flight or fight I was scared, vulnerable, unsure and definitely not thinking clearly enough to make any decision like that. Yet together4yes are looking to liberalise further the legislation to get rid of the 3 day cooling off period, that time and space for informed decisions to be made. This incident is the direct result of an inadequate system being put in place at haste. A campaign that refused to give credence to all aspects of the debate. It is tragic that this has happened.

kaymin

volchitsa wrote: »

Okay but you're forgetting the fact that abortion only concerns one person's right to end the pregnancy, namely the woman inside whose body it is.

If the newborn isn't sentient, that may or may not raise questions about what rights we should grant it, but no other human being is required to nurture it 24/7 at some risk to their own health.

That's why we allow abortion, and it is the pregnant woman and nobody else who can avail of it.

I've not forgotten that though my thoughts primarily concern the unborn who may well have a level of consciousness that none of us are aware of and whose rights to life are ignored by the pro-choicers.

AulWan

Maybe someone else can actually answer my question - how accessible is amniocentesis testing in Irish maternity hospitals?

Is it readily available and offered when other tests raise doubts? Can such a test be scheduled and carried out within 2-3 days?

Is it equally available (and offered) to public patients?

volchitsa

kaymin wrote: »

I've not forgotten that though my thoughts primarily concern the unborn who may well have a level of consciousness that none of us are aware of and whose rights to life are ignored by the pro-choicers.

So in your mind the rights of a living breathing sentient woman,take second place to the possibility that there might - despite some evidence to the contrary - be some tiny degree of sentience in the fetus?

As a living, breathing woman myself, what can I say? My rights can't be worth much to you if they are less important than a mere possibility.

petalgumdrops

AulWan wrote: »

Maybe someone else can actually answer my question - how accessible is amniocentesis testing in Irish maternity hospitals?

Is it readily available and offered when other tests raise doubts? Can such a test be scheduled and carried out within 2-3 days?

Is it equally available (and offered) to public patients?

Sorry I had edited to include this but it didn't appear. If clinically necessary it is absolutely offered. So a poor CVS would be grounds for an amnio as reccommended by the geneticist to me. I was public on all my pregnancies and if clinically necessary for me to see geneticist, fetal medicine, extra scans they were all made available.

up for anything

The thread title needs changing. It wasn't a healthy baby that was aborted. It was a viable fetus.

Plumbthedepths

up for anything wrote:

The thread title needs changing. It wasn't a healthy baby that was aborted. It was a viable fetus.

The thread title was chosen to incite outrage .

kaymin

volchitsa wrote: »

So in your mind the rights of a living breathing sentient woman,take second place to the possibility that there might - despite some evidence to the contrary - be some tiny degree of sentience in the fetus?

As a living, breathing woman myself, what can I say? My rights can't be worth much to you if they are less important than a mere possibility.

It's not an either or situation. Yes if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy then abort if there is no alternative.

The 'evidence' of the presence / absence of sentience is almost non- existent from what I've read. What I do know is that the unborn yawns, kicks, moves, listens to noise from surroundings etc

mvl

petalgumdrops wrote: »

You stated the few weeks that an amnio takes can be too difficult for a family to deal with. You are right it is tough and doctors used this length of time to try to encourage me to have a termination. I would have to give birth if I waited for results. It would be kinder more compassionate to do it now! These were the things I was told!

I find this very odd, non-professional.
- In my case it was my OB who encouraged me to have other tests, wait for another scan before the actual abortion ... but different country, different methodologies.
Maybe this process is too new for some of these doctors too.

AulWan

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If clinically necessary it is absolutely offered. So a poor CVS would be grounds for an amnio as reccommended by the geneticist to me. I was public on all my pregnancies and if clinically necessary for me to see geneticist, fetal medicine, extra scans they were all made available.

Thanks for the reply. Were they able to arrange these tests quickly?