Loading...
Title : Oh, those thorny babies!
link : Oh, those thorny babies!
Oh, those thorny babies!
I'm reading "Medical advances saving premature babies pose thorny issues for abortion rights advocates/Babies are surviving earlier in pregnancy than ever before, complicating the debate over fetal viability at issue in the Mississippi abortion case before the high court" (WaPo).Many hospitals have held firm to a 23- to 24-week line, and, as a matter of policy, do not provide lifesaving care to babies under that gestational age, arguing it’s unethical to subject a baby, parents and medical providers to such procedures, only to have the child die. But a growing number are offering aggressive treatment to babies in that difficult 22- to 23-week “gray zone,” — or even younger...The field experienced a major breakthrough in 2017 when Emily Partridge, Marcus Davey and Alan Flake from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) announced a prototype of a “biobag” that they had used to gestate sheep......The comments over there are what I expected. Highest-rated: "It complicates nothing. The woman decides. 'Religious' folks need to mind their own beeswax." Also: "Not that complicated. A women gets pregnant and decides to abort. It's simple actually. Only religion zealots think it's complicated."
Bioethicists, philosophers and other experts said the development would challenge the whole notion of viability as a marker for when abortion can occur. Today, a person’s right to decide not to be pregnant results in the termination of the fetus. But if science evolves to the point that those two things could be separated, a person might retain the right to cease carrying a fetus — but not terminate the fetus....
Katie Watson, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine who has served as an adviser on the Planned Parenthood medical board, calls that notion an “Orwellian scenario”: “If a woman does not want to create another person, suddenly the state takes it out of the womb so the state can raise it — or force her to?...
I'm reading "Medical advances saving premature babies pose thorny issues for abortion rights advocates/Babies are surviving earlier in pregnancy than ever before, complicating the debate over fetal viability at issue in the Mississippi abortion case before the high court" (WaPo).
Many hospitals have held firm to a 23- to 24-week line, and, as a matter of policy, do not provide lifesaving care to babies under that gestational age, arguing it’s unethical to subject a baby, parents and medical providers to such procedures, only to have the child die. But a growing number are offering aggressive treatment to babies in that difficult 22- to 23-week “gray zone,” — or even younger...The field experienced a major breakthrough in 2017 when Emily Partridge, Marcus Davey and Alan Flake from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) announced a prototype of a “biobag” that they had used to gestate
Loading...
sheep......
Bioethicists, philosophers and other experts said the development would challenge the whole notion of viability as a marker for when abortion can occur. Today, a person’s right to decide not to be pregnant results in the termination of the fetus. But if science evolves to the point that those two things could be separated, a person might retain the right to cease carrying a fetus — but not terminate the fetus....
Katie Watson, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine who has served as an adviser on the Planned Parenthood medical board, calls that notion an “Orwellian scenario”: “If a woman does not want to create another person, suddenly the state takes it out of the womb so the state can raise it — or force her to?...
The comments over there are what I expected. Highest-rated: "It complicates nothing. The woman decides. 'Religious' folks need to mind their own beeswax." Also: "Not that complicated. A women gets pregnant and decides to abort. It's simple actually. Only religion zealots think it's complicated."
Bioethicists, philosophers and other experts said the development would challenge the whole notion of viability as a marker for when abortion can occur. Today, a person’s right to decide not to be pregnant results in the termination of the fetus. But if science evolves to the point that those two things could be separated, a person might retain the right to cease carrying a fetus — but not terminate the fetus....
Katie Watson, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine who has served as an adviser on the Planned Parenthood medical board, calls that notion an “Orwellian scenario”: “If a woman does not want to create another person, suddenly the state takes it out of the womb so the state can raise it — or force her to?...
The comments over there are what I expected. Highest-rated: "It complicates nothing. The woman decides. 'Religious' folks need to mind their own beeswax." Also: "Not that complicated. A women gets pregnant and decides to abort. It's simple actually. Only religion zealots think it's complicated."
Thus articles Oh, those thorny babies!
that is all articles Oh, those thorny babies! This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Oh, those thorny babies! with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/12/oh-those-thorny-babies.html
0 Response to "Oh, those thorny babies!"
Post a Comment