Below is part of her letter to the editor of the Dayton Daily News in which she claims having a heartbeat is arbitrary in deciding whether the unborn are alive. Instead, having complete neural pathways is supposedly a completely non-arbitrary criteria for whether human beings are alive.
For more than 30 years, brain death, not heartbeat, has been used to denote life in medicine. Thorough neurological testing for basic reflexes and reaction to stimuli is used to test this.Margarette almost seems unaware that numerous children are born before 28 weeks. According to her ludicrous criteria, they're not alive because their brain supposedly hasn't begun communicating with their body.
Neurological pathways in the embryo are still developing at birth. After 28 weeks of gestation (third trimester) the fetal brain begins to communicate with the fetal body.
This means that a fetus would not have any basic reactions to stimuli until well after the current cutoff for non-medically indicated, elective abortion. These fetuses cannot feel pain, nor are they self-aware.
We should not limit people’s choices based on a non-medical, arbitrary marker of development such as a heartbeat.
Posts
Did she fail basic physiology class. I'm teaching 11th and 12th graders next year maybe she needs to join the class. I live in Dayton and hope she's never my doctor.
ReplyDeleteNo I got great grades in Physiology class. Actually I didn't say they were not alive. Many things denote life and many things are alive that don't have neural connections or a heartbeat, for example plants and bacteria. Yet medicine has used "brain death" to denote death for the last 30 years or so. Not heart death. This has lead to the increased use of pacemakers and ventilators, as well as more controversy when brain death can not be determined. I hold to my prior statement, the heartbeat law is arbitrary and non-medical. Less than 6% of premature babies (less than 1% of all born) are born before 28 weeks and of those most have serious life-threatening complications many related to lack of neural development at that time (March of Dimes). I am simply stating that heartbeat as a choice for limiting a woman's choice is not medical. I am currently a third year and would love to discuss this further. feel free to contact me - I'm on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteCause there is such a high number of babies who live full and happy lives who are born before 28 weeks?
ReplyDeleteThe data shows that those born before 28 weeks have more than a 98% chance of having some sort of serious health problems, and fewer than 20% live past the age of 2. And those who do tend to live lives in which they are unable to form into fully functional adults and instead have to relay on their parents and other family members for basic survival.
As the older brother of someone who has cornelia de lange syndrom, I have seen many children who are now adults that were born much later than 28 weeks and have struggled their entire lives to achieve those things that we take for granted...like breathing.
This is the same argument that goes into continuing care on comatose patients. It's expensive, but we can keep any tissue functioning or "alive." But do we really say that a liver or heart in a jar attached to some diodes really has life.
Margette,
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to follow your argument but I'm having some difficulties since you originally seemed to assert that neural pathways should be used to ascertain whether children were alive or not (as opposed to heartbeats). Now you assert you didn't say that? Do you believe that children (born and unborn) before 28 weeks are alive or not? If they are, then didn't you just abandon your own criteria?
So if premature children have health problems then they're not alive and it's okay to kill them? Is that your point?
You're confusing parts of organisms with whole organisms. No one is asserting that a liver is a living human being and deserves basic rights.
Whether or not the tissue is alive is irrelevant. The question is about person-hood. As you stated Jivin, a liver is not a human being that deserves basic rights. How much of a human body do you need to have before you ARE a human being that is a person?
ReplyDeleteMedicine defines this by brain activity. There are people that don't have hearts, or heart beats
and they are still alive.
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/latest-artificial-heart-doesnt-have-a-beat-20110616/
Do some babies survive before 28 weeks? Sure, but how is that relevant? If they aren't aware, and if they can't feel...if in fact tissues still have to develop to make them a person, are they a person yet? If any point before hand makes them a person, then is an unimplanted zygote a person with rights? If so, 50 percent of all people in the world are murdered:
http://www.babycenter.com/0_understanding-miscarriage_252.bc
Heartbeat means nothing in the development of an embryo or fetus. It is in fact an arbitrary line.
There are people that are not alive (brain dead) but still have a heartbeat, and there are people alive without a heartbeat. That tells me that the functioning of that particular organ is irrelevant.
Why did the anti-choice movement pick the heart as the marker anyways? Why not liver or kidney or lung? Because of symbolism, not scientific accuracy.
The question is still open: where do we draw the line? Heartbeat is simply not an appropriate response, regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice.
I was not saying that your liver deserves basic rights. I was illustrating the point that functional tissue that is able to continue to reproduce and grow does not qualify as life.
ReplyDeleteLet me take you in the other direction then. What about the person or child who has a heart defect, there heart stops functioning, but by use of modern medical technology we can save their life even though they are devoid of a traditional heartbeat. Their brain is able to continue to function and grow (only inhibited by any period lacking blood flow to the brain), and they can come up with independent thought. Would you classify those people as dead because they do not have a traditional heartbeat?
It is only because of our recent growth in medicine that we are starting to be able to distinguish which organs really are a person and which are only functional.
One more leap for you. Is a cyborg still a human being? It is becoming more and more possible for people to survive without most traditional organs. We have many in the prosthetic community who could be considered the first cyborgs. At our current rate of medical development we will (possibly within our lifetime) reach a point where only the brain will need to be surviving in a robotic host body. I know this is currently science fiction, but much of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact.
Margarette,
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to continue to comment here - please use your own name instead of using various different names. Or at least be consistent so I know who I'm talking to.
I was not saying that your liver deserves basic rights.
I never said that you did. I was pointing out how your comparison of a liver in jar vs. a human being in coma confuses parts and wholes.
Would you classify those people as dead because they do not have a traditional heartbeat?
No, they are still an integrated human organisms which are alive.
It is only because of our recent growth in medicine that we are starting to be able to distinguish which organs really are a person and which are only functional.
Huh? No organs are a person. Organs are part of a person. Some of them are more necessary than others at various stages of development.
Hi Stephan,
ReplyDeleteIt appears Margarette has invited you to help defend her. Welcome.
You claim personhood is the issue. The problem with that is Margarette never uses the word "personhood" in her letter. She claimed we should judge whether young human beings are "life" or not based on various neurological developments.
This is obviously a thoughtless position as she then has to claim that some born children aren't "life."
Medicine doesn't define personhood. Personhood is a philosophical category whose criteria changes depending on who's arguing.
Do some babies survive before 28 weeks? Sure, but how is that relevant? If they aren't aware, and if they can't feel...if in fact tissues still have to develop to make them a person, are they a person yet?
So some newborn children aren't persons? If not, then should we be able to kill them? If not, why not?
Heartbeat means nothing in the development of an embryo or fetus. It is in fact an arbitrary line.
What do you mean that it "means nothing?" Margarette's neural pathways and ability to feel pain are just as arbitrary.
Why did the anti-choice movement pick the heart as the marker anyways?
The group behind this measure recognizes that life begins at conception and I believe are using this bill to educate people about fetal development.
OK, quickly because I do have to go drop my gf off at school right now.
ReplyDeleteI find it cute that you think that Marg and I are the same, even when our writing styles are very different. In full disclosure I do know Marg, and only came across your blog because of her though. I just don't like to post my name on the internet if I don't have to, don't even have a facebook.
You never touched on my Cyborg comment. That I feel is the center of my argument at least, we as a human race are currently trying to define what that point is between life and tissue.
I disagree with Stephan about the heart being symbolic. At one point in time it was scientific fact that if a human did not have a heart that functioned on their own that was the end of life. We currently can though, and there for it is an antiquated method.
So Margarette told at least 2 people to come here and try to defend her? I thought you were Margarette since you commented just 1.5 hours after her originally and then commented just a minute after Stephan on a blog post that's 3 months old. Your arguments were also both based on how premature child have complications. That comes across as sock-puppetry.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
I'd say that adding things like robotic limbs, etc. doesn't make a human a non-human. I don't think replacing a heart with some kind device which pumps blood would make a human organism into a non-human.
Marg didn't ask me to come defend her. I found out about it from my gf who knows Marg, and then through her I saw your original post and nothing more than I can't keep my big mouth (or keyboard in this case) shut.
ReplyDeleteWhen I wrote my first two comments, I had no idea that Marg or Stephen had also commented since they had not been posted yet.
Our arguments are the similar because that was the logical connect we both made to babies being born before 28 weeks due to the research. I just quick googled "life expectancy of baby born at 28 weeks" followed a few links and there I was. Marg has a way more in depth background than I do on the subject, but that certainly doesn't stop me from putting in my two cents too! That's why the internet exists.
Now, back to Cyborgs, which really is why I keep coming back at this point. Do you feel that a human brain implanted into a robotic body is still human? The other examples were just a lead in to that argument.
At what point of taking away parts are you no longer left with a whole? If conversely that a fully functional human had it's brain replaced with a computer processer, would they too still be a human? I have seen way too many movies were that is not only not a human, but the first stages of us being wiped out as a species.
Now you made the comment that "life begins at conception," but at conception there is no heart beat at conception either. Why are you fighting on an issue you yourself do not believe. Just because it's the middle ground?
I'd say that adding things like robotic limbs, etc. doesn't make a human a non-human. I don't think replacing a heart with some kind device which pumps blood would make a human organism into a non-human.
ReplyDeleteGood, we are in agreement here. Therefore, the heart beat is not a definer of life. Thanks.
Oh, and as to your "sock puppet" charge, if you'd care to look up who I am for a minute, you'd find that isn't the case. This blog was posted elsewhere as insane things anti-choice people say, so I decided to reply. And yes I know Margarette personally.
But why would have you looked for evidence before leveling a sock puppet charge? You don't seem to care much for evidence.
Oh, and no Margarette did not talk about "personhood," but when she was talking about "life defined in medicine" this is about the life of an individual, not life as in the basic biological definition. This is implied if you are at all educated or aware of the topic at hand.
I drop living cells all day long, but we don't call them "life." She used the medical term which does in fact deal with person-hood, although you are correct in that there is definitely a philosophical component. However, doctors have to deal with these philosophical and moral issues all the time, and hence yes they get a say in the definition as they are the people educated in how the body works and in the best position to figure it out. They don't get the only say though, obviously, for this is an issue of active debate in the community.
As life beginning at conception...life began over 3 billion years ago and has continued since then. If you want to define person-hood at conception, we can have that argument, but then you have already abdicated on the issue that the heart beat is an arbitrary marker and therefore has no business being the law of the land.
So some newborn children aren't persons? If not, then should we be able to kill them? If not, why not?
Did I say newborn children aren't people? No. But fetuses before birth at that age? Nope, they aren't. They are still part of the mother. Once they are born, then they have rights. The act of birth is a very nice line here, and clearly defines the position. Is it arbitrary? Yep. And that's why I'm not for laws calling it such. The law that says if you are born, you have rights is fine by me, for we can all agree on it.
What do you mean that it "means nothing?" Margarette's neural pathways and ability to feel pain are just as arbitrary.
No, neural development is not arbitrary, as the brain is what and who we are. Believe in the soul may confuse the issue, but as far as objective reality is concerned, we are our brains, and hence if we have no developed neurology, we don't exist yet. The fact that our science allows us to take a fetus that is not yet a person, and allow them to survive when they should not and then allow them to become an person, does not change when they exist as an individual. It does, however, effect our laws. If you are born, you are protected.
Funny how a disagreement over a philosophical position has led you to try and ruin a person's life...although with all the pro-choice residency programs out there I highly doubt it will have the impact you are hoping for. Thanks for making a martyr. ;D
Stephan,
ReplyDeleteI never said the heartbeat was the definer of life (I recognize that human life starts at conception).
I merely pointed out how stupid it is for Margarette to think that child born before 28 weeks isn't alive. You know the assertion Margarette and her friends can't defend because it's so outlandishly ridiculous.
when she was talking about "life defined in medicine" this is about the life of an individual, not life as in the basic biological definition.
So then are individual children born before 28 weeks not alive? Because according to her criteria they wouldn't be.
I drop living cells all day long, but we don't call them "life."
You're confusing parts and wholes. Of course, parts of organisms (like skin cells) die all the time.
So personhood is philosophical and not defined by medicine as you asserted earlier?
As life beginning at conception...life began over 3 billion years ago and has continued since then.
We're talking about the lives of individuals.
They are still part of the mother.
Man, there are a lot of pregnant women with separate DNA codes, 4 arms, 4 legs, penises, etc. out there. Just because the unborn are inside the mother doesn't mean they are part of her.
But if they were part of the mother, when would they become an organism unto themselves and do you have any evidence to back up this position?
The fact that our science allows us to take a fetus that is not yet a person, and allow them to survive when they should not and then allow them to become an person, does not change when they exist as an individual. It does, however, effect our laws. If you are born, you are protected.
What? In the previous paragraph you said that you didn't say newborn children aren't people and then in the quote above you assert that some newborn children aren't people when they're born. Can you make up your mind? Why should these non-persons be protected merely because they're born? How did small journey down the birth canal suddenly make non-persons worthy of protection?
JIVIN J, Who are you and what is your background? What puts you in any place to properly judge whether she should be a doctor or not? Congratulations, you're a blogger... You have the ability to smear someone else's name from afar by permanently putting your personal opinion of a person's aptitude online for the rest of eternity. Based on what? 110 words you selected from a letter to the editor? Words that you twisted and turned for your benefit? She sites historical data for the basis of life that has been used to denote life. Even in your excerpt she never said that they were not alive. You just base your argument on the sensationalism that she called it arbitrary to consider heartbeat the sole factor to denote life. Especially, when history shows that a different standard has been used by the medical field for 30 years. Oh wait, you're going to argue that she didn't say sole... It was implied. It's little people like you that jump at the chance to base an argument on semantics, which is the lowest form and the last resort in an argument. Here's an exercise for you... Look up defamation. Then look up Libel. Both terms that you should get quite accustomed to. But wait, you're a blogger, which means you hide behind a name of a profile and give up nothing of your personal information other than your poor choice of location and even worse taste in music selection. No, that wasn't an example of a good argument for Margarette's defense. It was the same low characterization made about you from less than 100 words of content that you supplied to world. I see it fitting.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks that children born before 28 weeks aren't alive or aren't life has no business being a doctor. That's just a profoundly thoughtless position that should make anyone question her ability to treat patients.
ReplyDeleteI didn't twist and turn anything. She asserts children with heartbeats aren't "life" (please explain how that's different from being alive) according to "medical facts" until 28 weeks.
No one made Margarette write that letter and put her name on it. If she wants to publicly write something so incredibly indefensible and put her name on it then I have the right to quote that letter, link to and write about how her ridiculous her letter was. That's not libel.
What's even worse is Margarette's defense of herself. She basically tries to defend her position by pointing out that a lot of premature children have difficulties in life as if that's a good argument for asserting that children born before 28 weeks aren't alive.
If Margarette believes that children born before 28 weeks are life or alive then she should come out and specifically say that as opposed to trying to further dehumanize by pointing their medical difficulties. Then she should provide some explanation for why she argued that children aren't life (based on "medical facts") until 28 weeks.
You all have absolutely the wrong idea. Margarette is correct. Babies are born before 28 weeks don't have totally developed nervous systems. Heck, babies that are 1 YEAR old don't have completely developed nervous systems. Margarette never stated that such individuals are dead. It is true, though, that they are not self-aware, and they can't even feel pain.
ReplyDeleteWhile this doesn't make them dead because they do have a mostly-functioning brain and a beating heart, I would argue that they aren't truly living. It's a question of philosophy, but pain and self-awareness are necessary to live a full life, and babies are not capable. That statement isn't an opinion, it's not a crazy ploy to allow partial-birth abortion, and it's not a religious point of view. It is a hard, scientific fact, and you can dispute it until you are blue in the face but that fact, that babies aren't self aware and can't feel pain until (way) after 28 weeks will still be true after you pass out from hypoxia.
Touching on a previous point, there is a very big difference between life and being alive, and it stems back to your two-demensionality as a person and lack of abstract thinking skills. Life is what we do, we live and breathe and our hearts beat even if we sometimes don't want them to (just ask any person with depression or grief, and they'll tell you the difference). Living, really, living, is more of a philosophical issue than a scientific one. Living is participating fully in the experiences that our time on this planet offers us, and without an awareness of self or the ability to feel pain, I personally don't think preemies are really living in the philosophical sense (the biological sense, yes). Ask a patient with SMA or a paralyzing stroke or MS, Alzheimer's, Huntingtons, or a number of other conditions and they will tell you that they are alive, but not really living because they have been deprived of one or more basic functions that they feel make them human.
Babies are alive, Margarette never disputed this fact. However, they are NOT fully functional human beings. Toddlers aren't, either, but on a lesser plane. We can debate the semantics on this blog thread until the Browns with the superbowl, but for heaven's sake, please take Margarette's name out of this blog. Her reputation doesn't need to be soiled before she's even graduated by your slanderous remarks just because you all made some hasty, erroneous assumptions and needed someone to take out your frustrations on. Seriously. There are lots of genuinely stupid blog comments you can pick on instead.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'd want to say anonymous too if I wrote something like you did above.
Heck, babies that are 1 YEAR old don't have completely developed nervous systems. Margarette never stated that such individuals are dead. It is true, though, that they are not self-aware, and they can't even feel pain.
It's nice to know my 4-month old child who smiles and rolls around isn't "truly living" and can't feel pain. What a ridiculous statement.
You really must know next to nothing to think that babies can't feel pain. Why don't do some basic research into when human beings can feel pain (it's certainly not "way" after 28 weeks) before displaying your complete lack of knowledge again.
Living, really, living, is more of a philosophical issue than a scientific one.
But Margarette wasn't talking about "real living." She claimed "medical facts" were her source not the philosophical musings of someone so ignorant they think babies can't feel pain.
Babies are alive, Margarette never disputed this fact.
She argued that children aren't living until 28 weeks gestation. There are plenty of children born before 28 weeks so I beg to differ with your assertion.