When is miscarriage not abortion.

Author: zedvictor4 ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 20
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    Though the methodology might be different.

    Even if it is based upon a conscious decision rather than a sub-conscious decision, the intent of the host mass is still based within the same physiology. 

    That is to say, in both instances the foetus is intentionally rejected by the host.

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @zedvictor4
    What would you define miscarriage as? 


  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,098
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    --> @zedvictor4
    I bet you thought the  ( In both instances the foetus is intentionally rejected by the host.) Part was supposed to be the mic drop moment hey?
    It ain't

    If You explain miscarriage and abortion that way then you have to also explain normal birth that way to. Even more so.
    So that stuffs up ya mic drop.

    Also someone can make another have a miscarriage. ( this needs work ) 


    Buttttttt Zed,  if you want know the difference, think of it like this.
     

    Lets say You get a phone call from your friend janet.
    Janet tells you she had a miscarriage. (  Let it soak in. ) 
    Or 
    Janet rings you and tells you she is having a abortion, or had a abortion.
    If she say one of theses things to you, you know full well what it means. 



  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    Well you explained birth. "Normal". (Not withstanding other postnatal possibilities). And obviously there are no extreme contentions regarding "Normal".
     
    And the intent or actions of third parties are irrelevant to the question.


    And so I explained miscarriage and abortion. "Rejection"

    The relevance is the intent of the host, whether it be a conscious decision or an unconscious decision.

    In both instances the outcome will be the same. "Janet" will physiologically reject the foetus. 

    In both instances both decisions will have resulted from the natural physiological processes of the mass, that is "Janet".


    It's an a honest debateable point which is open to honest debate. So it would clearly be far to soon to be dropping one's mic.


    And furthermore. I read Janet and John books 50 years ago at infant school.

    So let's mature up the debate a bit.

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Miscarriage is the rejection of a foetus by the host. 

    As is abortion.

    One is an unconscious decision. One is a conscious decision.  


    The real question that applies is in terms of legislative decision making.

    When will miscarriage no longer be regarded as separable from abortion.
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,098
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    Yeah I went to far. 
    Ok mature now.

    I'd ask the same thing the real nih asked. 
    Because there probably is a better way to word it.

    But ( Giving Birth ) fits under ( the rejection of a foetus by a host ) and the difference between " giving birth " or whatever you want to call it, and having a abortion is a obvious A BIG DIFFERENCE. 

    So zed?
    Can I have it again. Why giving birth doesn't fall under ( the reject of the foe by the ho )
     the word " normal " might be able to describe a miscarriage.  
    This needs work. 

    Now I'll introduce " having a child out of wedlock ".  ( a subject that you would be touchy on ) 

    If you think having a child is " Normal " ( which i think i do )

    So zed. Answer me this. 
    Is giving birth to a child out of wedlock "  Normal "?  Normal as in.  Having a child out of wedlock is exactly the same as having a child in a marriage. 

    Also ( I'm pretty sure actions of a third party needs to be factored in )   A God would factor this in? 

    One could perform abortions and or cause a  miscarriage to a conscious or unconscious person.

    But zed.  I have no qualms with the OP.   I'm going to need some time to think about. 
    ( What is the diff between abort and miscar. )  I'll get back to you. 
    Sorry about my bad grammar in advance anddddddd. Good day. 


  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @zedvictor4
    I guess the law would be determined by is it reasonable to blame for the abortion if not it is a miscarriage?
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    Ok: 

    So the host can neither consciously nor subconsciously prevent normal birth. Therefore how can this be regarded as rejection. (dismissed as inadequate, unacceptable or faulty).

    And though one can obviously proffer various social scenarios whereby the living offspring is latterly rejected. This obviously is not the same.

    Whereas if we apply definition to both miscarriage and abortion this clearly is rejection. (Dismissed as inadequate, unacceptable or faulty)

    So:
    Although not really applicable to the issue, answer me this.

    How can we adequately define "wedlock as being either normal or abnormal?

    And how does "wedlock" directly relate to an individuals physiological function?

    Pregnancy is not dependant on "wedlock". 

    Hopefully you're not going to start stoning unmarried women!.... But hey there are plenty of zealots around.

    This has conceptual implications well beyond the issue of base physiological function. Though that is not to say that concept doesn't greatly  influence social function, Social function (legislative power) being one of the primary concerns relating to the opening question.

    A third party is separate to the host. Therefore this is interference and not rejection,  which may or may not be relative to the individuals choice to reject.

    Ultimately it is the host individual that chooses to reject, irrespective of third parties.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    At what point does a law cease to be reasonable?

    Once upon a time Adolph Hitler thought his laws were reasonable.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @zedvictor4
    At what point does a law cease to be reasonable?
    When someone with enough power can change the rules.
    Once upon a time Adolph Hitler thought his laws were reasonable.
    Yes and then he was stopped.

    Are you a moral anti-realist? 
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @zedvictor4
    intent and reason is what differentiates most things imo

    miscarriages, spontaneous abortions happen for many reasons, biological ones not willful, not ones you can't choose or not choose.  
    You say intentionally which I don't find important as is the reason.
    "Hands down, the single most common reason that a miscarriage occurs is some a problem with either the egg or sperm's chromosomes during embryo formation."

    you can search more up yourself if you'd like but that is worlds different than having someone perform an abortion for non medical reasons which boils down to inconvenience.

    the woman's immune system is suppressed so it doesn't attack the fetus/embryo etc as a foreign body, much like what happens with organ transplants.

     in both instances the foetus is intentionally rejected by the host.
    the intention is to carry the pregnancy to term.  both instances would be similar if they are both for similar medical reasons, otherwise apples and grapefruit.


  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    The body decides in either case, either consciously or sub consciously

    And intent and reason are equally applicable, either conscious or sub-conscious.

    And in both cases the intention is clearly not to carry the pregnancy to full term.

    So when is normal physiological function not normal physiological function?  That is to ask, is thought not innate?
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    When someone with enough power can change the rules.
    Adolph Hitler and his cronies for example. 

    And stopped a tad too late. much to the detriment of approximately 80million people.

    And how might I be a moral anti-realist?   I don't understand the concept, so please explain.

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @zedvictor4
    the body does not "decide" it's a reaction.  I see no way to equate a conscious willful action to a reaction, unconscious action or uncontrollable reaction.  
    mentally unstable people make conscious decisions all the time as do the ignorant, illinformed and those who end up with regrets.  So what you have in this context, generally is a logical reaction made by the body vs. an emotional one made by the conscious mind.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    You're getting into semantics now.

    When is a conscious decision to terminate a pregnancy not a reaction?

    When is a bodies sub conscious reaction, and subsequent rejection of a foetus not a decision?

    Both decisions and/or reactions are nothing more than physiological capabilities.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @zedvictor4
    You're getting into semantics now.

    it's not actually, which is why people don't think twice about a natural miscarriage vs someone performing an abortion.
    one the body does, the other someone else does, huge differences.

    even if you consider the wilful act a reaction, the reactions are wholly different, as one is biological in nature (defects etc) the other is not, they just don't want it, financial or other inconveniences, it's called a decision because you have a choice over it unlike a natural occuring miscarriage.


  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    Are you implying that conscious brain function is not "biological in nature"?



  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @zedvictor4
    seriously?
    I'm not sure how else to explain this but I'll try.
    in general a miscarriage is not a choice - not conscious, purposeful etc
    a non medical reason abortion is a choice - conscious choice, purposeful, ASSISTED, done by someone ELSE.

    you can't choose to have a miscarriage without a purposeful action
    you can't stop a miscarriage without purposeful action or intervention

    to equate these 2 topics by saying they are biological is just being pedantic, because humans are biological, using your logic murder is a biological response.


    the topic "When is miscarriage not abortion."  isn't worded well to begin with since the words can be used in many context and can be synonyms of each other which is why I have specified them the way I have.
    worded another way, an abortion is not  miscarriage when it's done by someone else or something else not of the body.

    as you can see the terminology has changed

    "The conscious distinction by doctors of ‘miscarriage’ from ‘abortion’ (‘induced’ and ‘spontaneous’) may be seen to have reflected certain legal, technical, professional and societal developments. The distinction in language may also be read as part of the process of assigning meaning to those women to whom the language was applied, a process by which women who experience miscarriage could be defined as distinct from women who experience an induced abortion."

    "The importance of ensuring appropriate standards of care is underscored by the estimation that one in five pregnancies will miscarry, and most of these women will seek medical attention."
    (I didn't know the number was that high)

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,678
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    Seriously.
    Are you implying that conscious brain function is not "biological in nature"?

    I'm well aware of all the sociological fluff.

    It's the base reality of human function and how it might be interpreted within a zealous society, that is the concern.

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,360
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @zedvictor4
    the article already explains how and why they are used differently by doctors/medical community.

    regardless of if they are both biological functions they are not the same just like all mammals are not the same, they are similar, miscarriage and abortion are similar terms, but not the same per the article and how they are defined now.