Abortion -- what is abortion, what not

[MikeNovack]

Premise #1
An egg is fertilized, begins development, and drifts down the Fallopian tube into the uterus (takes about a week). IF/F while in the uterus it manages to lodge, attach to the wall, inducing the wall to produce a placenta for it can it survive. At the same time, chemicals are produced to prevent another attachment. Which leads to premise #1

Suppose we had a pill/shot that resulted in production of the "don't allow attachment" hormone. Call it the "days to week after pill". Would THIS be abortion? Remember that there was no certainty of attachment (probably well under 50% in humans).

[Impenitent]

all in all- you're just a-nother egg on the wall

guitar solo

-Imp

[Lacewing]

We don't need no eggs attaching
We don't need to be their host
No dark sarcasm from the theists
Preacher, leave our eggs alone

[MikeNovack]

Suppose we had a pill/shot that resulted in production of the "don't allow attachment" hormone. Call it the "days to week after pill".

Note that while posed as a theoretical premise as not YET in existence, it is almost certain that there are labs working on it.

[MikeNovack]

Note on statistics ----- The chances that a fertilized embryo will implant in uterus is abut 25% (assuming the embryo developed to the correct stage and the right time in the uterus cycle.Not very different if getting there naturally from the fallopian tube or inserted by pipette as part of the IVF process. Also explains why the percentage f fraternal twins (and triplets) higher with IVF since usually insert three embryos (about 60% that at least one would implant).

Meaning ---the 25% from "natural" is almost all from chances of implantation, not the zygote getting fertilized (by sex on the right day of the cycle). With IVF the embryo is known to be at the right stage.

[Gary Childress]

Note on statistics ----- The chances that a fertilized embryo will implant in uterus is abut 25% (assuming the embryo developed to the correct stage and the right time in the uterus cycle.Not very different if getting there naturally from the fallopian tube or inserted by pipette as part of the IVF process. Also explains why the percentage f fraternal twins (and triplets) higher with IVF since usually insert three embryos (about 60% that at least one would implant).

Meaning ---the 25% from "natural" is almost all from chances of implantation, not the zygote getting fertilized (by sex on the right day of the cycle). With IVF the embryo is known to be at the right stage.

I would think something like a "week after" pill (or whatever it would be called) is fine. I don't see why anyone would protest such a thing except someone who is fanatical about "not interfering" with "God's plan" or something. I've heard that some sects of Christianity believe that every baby someone has saves someone else's soul (or something like that). I guess overpopulation to the point of habitat extinction is a good thing in that respect. If we're going to go out, let's go out with horrible starvation from lack of food, suffocation from lack of plants producing oxygen, etc. Who cares anymore? It's impossible to argue with religious fanatics. We may as well all kill ourselves so we can join almighty God in the afterlife. It'll be a beautiful thing.

[MikeNovack]

OK, try this one. A mutation of the HEXA gene is what causes "Tay Sachs". Recessive, so it takes two copies of the mutated gene to cause "Tay Sachs". With just one cpy of the gene mutated, can live a normal life except for being a carrier.

Tests exist. Ideally a carrier would not marry another carrier. But suppose they did. Then there is a one in four chance for a baby to have Tay Sachs (will die as a young child, certainly before four). It's a gradual buildup f toxins.

There are also tests in pregnancy that can detect if the fetus would be a baby doomed by Tay Sachs. While some Tay Sachs carrier couples avoid pregnancy and adopt if they want children. Because embryoss can be tested before implantation, IVF is a an alternative to adoption. Others rely on testing in utero and aborting any doomed babies.

Jewish law is mixed on this (whether abortion permitted or not) NOTE -- I am referencing Jewish law because while the incidence of HEXA mutation carriers in the general population is abut 1:300 it is abut 1:30 among Jews, and order of magnitude more serious. Therefore among Jews, more attention to things like pre-marital counseling and possible use of abortion (or IVF discarding Tay Sachs embryos).

Thoughts?

[Impenitent]

and they will create the perfect human, through genetics-

and they will all have blonde hair and blue eyes...

perfect little communist babies

utopia

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

and they will create the perfect human, through genetics-
and they will all have blonde hair and blue eyes...

perfect little communist babies
utopia

Except this was not about eugenics with that goal. And while we might still have negative attitudes about eugenics with the goal of eliminating "defects" in general, the genetic defect in this case is 100% fatal. While before our ability to detect by testing, Tay Sachs usually was diagnosed between ages 1-2 years old when the toxin level had built up high enough to cause noticeable effects. But essentially the baby was being slowly poisoned from birth (unable to produce the enzyme required to break down this metabolic toxin).

Opposed to eugenics for THAT use also?

[MikeNovack]

PS ---- Testing is now possible to detect carriers of a number of genetic diseases. While the chances of a person in the general population having having ONE of these is relatively low around 5%( (*) it is an order of magnitude greater in some populations (Ashkenazi Jews, Finns, etc.). So whille premarital screening , counseling, and planing what to do might not be advisable for all, might be for those groups. OR CLOSE KIN. For example, some states to marry. Now the odds of a defect being the same not random.

However, feel free to voice objection THIS use of eugenics. Explain why.


(*) 5% might seem high, but remember, unless the prospective parents are carriers of the SAME defect, not going to be a problem if recessive. Say they can test ofr ten of thee. Then 5% for ANY of these is more like 0.5% for a specific one << no, I didn't bother using the PROPER calculation, so just ball park >>

[Impenitent]

PS ---- Testing is now possible to detect carriers of a number of genetic diseases. While the chances of a person in the general population having having ONE of these is relatively low around 5%( (*) it is an order of magnitude greater in some populations (Ashkenazi Jews, Finns, etc.). So whille premarital screening , counseling, and planing what to do might not be advisable for all, might be for those groups. OR CLOSE KIN. For example, some states to marry. Now the odds of a defect being the same not random.

However, feel free to voice objection THIS use of eugenics. Explain why.


(*) 5% might seem high, but remember, unless the prospective parents are carriers of the SAME defect, not going to be a problem if recessive. Say they can test ofr ten of thee. Then 5% for ANY of these is more like 0.5% for a specific one << no, I didn't bother using the PROPER calculation, so just ball park >>

slippery slope... alter the genes for one thing (birth defects of whatever flavor) and then alter them for anything...

and as you mentioned, certain populations have a greater % of genetic "diseases"

...it is an order of magnitude greater in some populations (Ashkenazi Jews, Finns, etc.)

so might as well not have those people reproduce at all?

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

so might as well not have those people reproduce at all?

The topic is abortion (pre or post implantation)

When you argue they should not reproduce you mean instead of aborting/not implanting a defective embryo (we are discussing genetic defects which can be detected by test.

WHY/EXPLAIN If it's a matter of being against any form of eugenics, remember that sterilization or other measures to prevent breeding WAS part of eugenics. If are opposed to all eugenics, you are contradicting yourself

If it's a matter that YOUR god (the god you believe in) should decide, why should people who do not believe in that (particular) deity pat you any attention?