Saturday, February 25, 2006

Ban of Abortion in South Dakota, what about In Vitro Fertilization?

Just read a very interesting article on this issue, I realise I never looked at it the way before.

In a way, I think I'm lucky to be in Singapore where distasteful matters are swept under the carpet and not talked about. Matters like abortion. Seriously, being a conservative society as we ought to be, we are very open on the topic of abortion. Not in the sense that we talk about it, but we allow it to happen without much fanfare. That's what my American Law tutor told us, she finds it funny.

When very fundamental issues arise, our politician tend to keep quiet, like the gay issues..

Anyway a motion had just been passed in South Dakota, banning all abortion except in medical emergencies. Yes, the ban even covers abortion arising from rape and incest. Everything except medical emergency.

That's a truckload of bull..

The arguement is that life starts at the point of conception. Ok, I shall not argue with that, since that's their belief.. so there.. But then the article I read pointed out something which I had never thought of, if life starts at the point of conception, then shouldn't in-vitro fertilization be banned? Since the process fertilizes multiple zygotes (should I use this word?) but only a few are implanted, the rest are frozen indefinitely (?). But sooner or later, these frozen zygotes becomes non-viable, so isn't that the same as abortion?

If all life should be respected, then there should be no exception.

This brings about another question, not very related, but can Catholics undergo ivf treatment? My very surface understanding tells me that a child is gift given by God, thus, contraception should not be used as it intervenes with God's plan. So if a Catholic couple remains childless after years, can they undergo ivf treatment? But then that will be against God's plan, isn't it?

I have to apologise to anyone that I may offend with that question, I really don't know much about Christianity, not to say about Catholics. I'm not judging or anything, I'm just curious. The question just popped up in my mind and refuses to go away..

Pro-choice and pro-life people can never resolve their issues, coz they are never talking about the same thing.

Pro-life believes that all life must be protected.

Pro-choice believes that it's a woman's personal choice, which have nothing to do with the state, the religion or even their closest relations. It's a choice to be made by an individual, for an individual.

Final thing, I'm glad I'm living in Singapore, where I have access to excellence medical care when the need arises. It may never arise, but I'm happy that when it does, I will have a choice.

<<>> <<>>


Anonymous said...

just a small note...many Christians who are most active against abortion are not exactly against invitro, but they are against treatments which involve fertilizing more eggs than the mother could carry (so perhaps three at a shot rather than a half dozen) so none have to be culled.

There are also many Christian organizations here which adopt these unused, frozen embryos so that they do not have to be killed.

I only mention this because you hint at hypocracy where I believe none exists.

Jayce said...

I admit, I'm bias against Christians, that's coz of the ones I met.. *shudders*

Anyway how do the organizations adopt those frozen embryos? And what do they use them for?

Anonymous said...

Is it? AFAIK, Catholics are against IVF as well, so no hypocrisy exists.

Did you know some 80% of all abortions are done by MARRIED women who are well out of their teens?

Did you know that abortions are legal in Singapore as late as 6 months, when the foetus, has a beating heart, movement of hands and feet, feel pain and has a high likelihood of survival if delivered normally?

I dont agree with a blanket ban, but the status quo is a holocaust, happening because people couldnt care less.

Anonymous said...

Did you know that Singapore with an annual birth rate of barely 40000, we have 12000 abortions?

Did you know that by the time most sotong mothers realise they are pregnant, ie 4 weeks, the foetus already looks like a human, just a lot smaller and has a beating heart, just like you and me.

Lots of Germans knew what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, but they chose to keep quiet. I guess they also wanted a choice.

Jayce said...

I'm happy to hear that, at least they are consistent.

I'm not too sure about the late stage abortion, I guess those procedures are only done when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. Well at least that's what I would like to think.

I know we have a high abortion rate when compared to our birth rates, but if what anony says is right (I'm not too sure where to check), that most abortions are done by married couples, then I can understand why. I know someone who had an abortion, coz there's already 4 children in the family, and the couple do not think that it's feasible to have a 5th child. Also she got pregnant coz of a IUD failure, and not due to failure to use contraceptions.

IMO, if a woman is not actively seeking to be pregnant, she really would not notice that she's pregnant. Pregnancy symptoms do not always occur when a woman is pregnant. And sometimes, menstration can occur even when a woman is pregnant. Not all woman have regular menstral cycle, for some, missing a month or two is common for them, so we can't really blame them for not knowing they are pregnant.

When a feotus is at 7 weeks old, it's only 0.25cm long, with a heart, but no ears, arms or legs. And about half of the embryos at this stage are miscarried through natural causes.

Anonymous said...

Get real. How many families in Singapore has 4 kids? One in FIVE pregnancies end in abortion. If our grandparents can bring up a dozen children during the Great Depression and World Wars, I'm sure we can bring up five in such prosperous times, or has comfortable life made young people gone soft?

When you were born, you have no tooth or breast. Does that make you lesser a human being? Is killing a baby lesser a crime than killing a fullgrown adult?
Does it mean someone with no ears, or arms or legs is not a human being and can be killed if they are too much of an inconvenience? This is Nazi talk.

And most of your "half of the embryos" dont even survive to 4 weeks in the first place for the pregnancy to be noticed, let alone be a justication for abortion. Really, if pregnancies are so fragile, why pay so much for abortion? Just drink pineapple juice and jump jump will do.

And lastly, most abortions are a result of contraception failure. Just because the damn contraception failed doesnt give anybody the right to strangle a newborn baby, so why cant the same protection be extended to someone even younger, more vulnerable than a newborn?

Jayce said...

If you're talking about families with children around my age group, I would say quite a few. At least those that I know of.

Of course our grandparents can bring up dozens of kids, they need them to go out to work to help support the family, can kids these days do that? It's already hard enough to find a kid that know how to save money and pay for their own bills from their savings, not to mention working to support the family.

The sad thing is, a foetus is not considered a human in the eyes of the law, so abortion, which is killing a foetus is not considered murder. And I mention the no eyes thing to show that a foetus does not look like a human at 4 weeks old. Embryos at that stages looks alike, whether it's human or fowl. I mention no eyes coz too many people are deceived by the pro-life propaganda out there. A lot of information they provide are just misinformation or information twisted to their goals. A classic example is the Silent Scream video.

Of course a contraception failure does not justify an abortion, but the use of contraception means the couple are not planning to have kids, so should they be penalized for something that went wrong? When it comes to a choice between the adult and the foetus, I would choose what's best for the adult. That's life, humans are selfish.

I'm not trying to justify that abortion is good. I just like to keep my options open.

Anonymous said...

You said it out. Abortions are done to satisfy selfish needs. Life is not a bargain with God or the Government. So you think you do your part with contraception, you have to be rewarded with the "right" to abortion?

The miracle of life lies in it's unpredictability. Life is worth living because we have the optimism to tackle the uncertainties of life, and the optimism to share our lives with our children. Do we keep our options open to kill children who turn out to be autistic? Do we keep our options open to slaughter our children if they turn out to be too naughty to handle? If one can learn to love and respect the life of a dog or a cat, surely a helpless human foetus deserves some protection?

There are a lot of options we give up without asking. We give up the option to kill, we give up the option punch people, we give up the option to slander people, so that we can enjoy the freedom from others doing the same to us. Yes, it is too late to abort you, but arent you glad your parents didnt find you too inconvenient for their lifestyles? You dont think your parents compromised their lifestyle and financial freedom to have you around?

Do you like the iPod? Do you know Steve Jobs is a result of an unwanted pregnancy and was given up for adoption within one week of birth? If his mother exercised her option to minimise the inconvenience to her life, the world will be poorer for it.

If you live long enough, someday, you will be old, blind, bald, wrinkled and even senile. At which point should one rise above the "propaganda", and recognise that there is no human being left, and dump you down the rubbish chute? When your heart stops perhaps? Fair enough, because a 4 week old foetus has a beating heart.

Jayce said...

Yes, I agree. Being alive is being selfish. Living is about the survival of the fittest.

I don't think i'm rewarded with the right to abortion. I HAVE the right to abortion once I'm being born a Singaporean. The woman's charter makes sure that I have the right and I don't have to earn it.

Using contraception is being responsible. Of course being a parent is also about being responsible, but if I feel that at that particular point of time, I do not have the means to be a parent, isn't it responsible that I don't bring the child to the world?

Of course I can always give the child up for adoption. I could carry the child to term and then give it up for adoption. But I would rather not, coz that's going to the worst 9 months of my life. Singaporeans are already harsh to people on premartial sex, what about unwed mothers? I personally feel that the social support is not there. And of course, I should not had sex in the first place so that I would not get into such trouble rite?

Good example, but not for me coz I never liked the ipod, sorry. Why not you tell me about all the other famous people that could had been aborted? A person is not a book already written before he is born, we make our own destiny. Even if Steve was not born, I'm sure someone else would come up with the ipod.

A 4 week foetus have a heartbeat, my dog have a heartbeat, but does that equal to being thinking being?