|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
To the mother, yes - I am not questioning that. But take this to its logical extreme and noone would have children because it's too dangerous. Or everyone who could afford to would use a surrogate womb. Neither of those would be good things imo.
The risks to the baby in each procedure are entirely different of course...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
To the mother, yes - I am not questioning that. But take this to its logical extreme and noone would have children because it's too dangerous. Or everyone who could afford to would use a surrogate womb. Neither of those would be good things imo.
The risks to the baby in each procedure are entirely different of course...
Women who are willing and able to take on the risks will choose to have children. Those unwilling or unable will not.
And there is only a "baby" in one scenario in the other there is a zygote or fetus.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
Semantics don't change the issues.
To clarify, I am not against abortion per se. Like the George Bernard Shaw run-in with the society lady about whether she is a whore or not, I think most people are pro-abortion in certain circumstances and anti-abortion in others. What varies is where the boundary between those two positions lies.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
... I think most people are pro-abortion in certain circumstances and anti-abortion in others. What varies is where the boundary between those two positions lies.
Absolutely, with one caveat: the other variable is whether they want their boundary imposed on everyone else.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Invictus 88, when I'm pregnant, I need a lot of bed rest, and limited physical activity. My husband and I can cope with that between us. Also, my husband's salary is enough to pay for a cleaner for a few hours a week when I'm pregnant.
If I had an unwanted pregnancy forced on me, you don't think I should have the option of abortion. But if I didn't restrict myself in many ways for the pregnancy, I'd miscarry. Would that be equally culpable? To live a normal life, knowing that the baby would die?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Varicose veins, haemorrhoids, weakening of the pelvic floor, incontinence (single or double), fistula, prolapse of the womb, tearing of the perineum (cutting and stitching of the perineum), diabetes, eclampsia (possibly resulting in death), presentation of the baby at birth in a way which cannot emerge without medical help, excessive blood loss, incomplete passing of the placenta...
....'morning' sickness including hyperemesis, prolapse of not just the womb but also bladder and/ or bowel (happened to a friend of ours - whole lot came out with baby on the 'final push' ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ), post-partum infection, post-natal depression...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Varicose veins, haemorrhoids, weakening of the pelvic floor, incontinence (single or double), fistula, prolapse of the womb, tearing of the perineum (cutting and stitching of the perineum), diabetes, eclampsia (possibly resulting in death), presentation of the baby at birth in a way which cannot emerge without medical help, excessive blood loss, incomplete passing of the placenta...
....'morning' sickness including hyperemesis, prolapse of not just the womb but also bladder and/ or bowel (happened to a friend of ours - whole lot came out with baby on the 'final push' ), post-partum infection, post-natal depression...
I hope no one who is pregnant reads this thread. Makes me glad I am menopausal. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
On the other hand, either reading this thread or (IMO better) a visit to the local maternity ward might be just the thing to bring down the teenage pregnancy rate ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
Today, as the abortion rules in Spain were significantly tightened, protestors daubed themselves with the slogan "Abortion is sacred".
Does anyone here, regardless of their stance on this, consider abortion to be "sacred"? I'm not even sure what the slogan means.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Well, let's see. The pro-life* side says "All life is sacred." Monty Python says, "Every sperm is sacred."
With that sign, the Femen are asking why one side of the argument takes on the mantle of sacredness, and why they do it in this argument in particular. They are asking, if life and sperm are so fucking sacred, why isn't a woman's autonomy and freedom to do what she wishes with her body also sacred?
Looking at the headlines today, does the USA have a sacred obligation to meet its debts? Is the Canada Health Act a sacred obligation? Does Syria have a sacred obligation to get rid of its chemical weapons? On the other hand, marriage between a man and a woman is supposedly sacred, so discriminating against same-sex couples is sacred. Interfering in the doctor-patient relationship is apparently also a sacred act. Why is the word "sacred" arrogated only in arguments about sex and sexuality, and only by the (call it what you want) conservative side?**
*Offer expires at birth
**Yeah, I know people talk about a sacred obligation to soldiers and veterans, but the fact that there's an exception, and only one exception, and that both progressives and conservatives are generally supportive of the individual members of the military, I think sort of proves my point of how unique the "sacred" language is to one side of these debates.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Back in the UK (now there's a misnomer...):
A woman in Northern Ireland is 22 weeks pregnant with identical twins, both of whom are anencephalic (the neural tube doesn't close so there is virtually no brain - definitely no neocortex) and so cannot live.
However, the fundamentalist loons of the Province have ensured that legislation allowing termination is so restricted that foetal abnormality doesn't qualify - even in a case such as this.
So this poor woman, who is already having to deal with the devastating news that her TWINS cannot live now has to face coming to the mainland for a termination...
Grrr ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Slavery is unjust and immoral, but motherhood is not slavery.
And if the mother hates the idea so much, and still feels the same way once the child has been born, then that child could be put up for adoption.
Rather than dismembered in the womb and thrown away.
(...just sayin'.)
- being forced to carry an unwanted foetus through pregnancy is a form of slavery - the mother is being forced into work that she does not want to do and has her body and life taken over by that foetus for at least a year, even if the baby is given up at birth;
- a vanishingly small number of abortions require the dismemberment of a foetus in utero. The vast majority - over 90% in the UK - are carried out in the first semester when the aborted foetal sac is smaller than an inch across and does not require dismemberment. That particular bit of propaganda is just that - propaganda.
I agree with all you posted. In the case of rape the girl/woman did not even consent to the sexual act that impregnated her. I do not see how it is ethical to use another human being, against their will, as merely a means to an end.
Well, if we're being pithy and rhetorical: I do not see how it is ethical to end the offspring's life because of a crime of their father.
...knowwhatImean?
And it's not even as if abortion following rape is any significant part of the abortion industry's client base. In pretty much every case of procured abortion, it is someone who volunteered to have sex and then wishes to kill the natural consequence of that sex because the prospect of that consequence is too troubling for them (or their parents, grandparents, boyfriend, husband etc).
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
A drive by posting every 8 weeks? We could set a very slow clock by you...
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Well, if we're being pithy and rhetorical: I do not see how it is ethical to end the offspring's life because of a crime of their father.
...knowwhatImean?
In answer to your question. No Absolutely not. Again no. There's no such thing as rhetoric in such situations.
A rapist is not a father. Any product of rape is secondary or tertiary to the fact of the extreme and terrible violation of the woman or girl so assaulted. Anyone who does not understand this mustn't be female, or not have acquaintance with anyone who's been raped.
It is best to have rapid medical attention post-rape, do the appropriate medical clean-up of woman's genital tract after the appropriate evidence has been gathered, provide anti-viral medication and antibiotics in case the asshole has HIV, gonorrhoea or syphilis, and continue to test for infections that cannot be prevented, like possible hepatitus C, cervical cancer as caused by human papilloma virus infection. In this context, a pregnancy is far, far down the list, and only considered worthy of attention by the inhuman.
And then to obtain the best therapy and counselling available to try to manage the intense and terrible psychological effects.
Being forced to continue a pregnancy in such situations is a second and serious assault in itself. Thankfully, there are tablets than can be taken that will stop any possible pregnancy, and if the gov't in any jurisdiction is too backward and insensitive to have authorised it, I advise disregarding this regulation and having it available, laws be damned.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There's no such thing as rhetoric in such situations.
A rapist is not a father. Any product of rape is secondary or tertiary to the fact of the extreme and terrible violation of the woman or girl so assaulted. Anyone who does not understand this mustn't be female, or not have acquaintance with anyone who's been raped.
You do realise that your second paragraph here is almost entirely rhetoric, don't you? In particular, the first sentence of that paragraph can only be true in a rhetorical mode, because plainly a rapist who impregnates a woman is a father in the literal and biological sense. The ad hominem at the end is also classic rhetoric.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There's no such thing as rhetoric in such situations.
A rapist is not a father. Any product of rape is secondary or tertiary to the fact of the extreme and terrible violation of the woman or girl so assaulted. Anyone who does not understand this mustn't be female, or not have acquaintance with anyone who's been raped.
You do realise that your second paragraph here is almost entirely rhetoric, don't you? In particular, the first sentence of that paragraph can only be true in a rhetorical mode, because plainly a rapist who impregnates a woman is a father in the literal and biological sense. The ad hominem at the end is also classic rhetoric.
You may be technically correct, but you are psychologically and socially wrong. Fatherhood is more than biology. I am unwilling to accede to the technical fact that a rapist who impregnates someone is a father.
My last paragraph is articulation of a solution. I am unwilling to consider argumentation that leaves out the emotional wellbeing of a sexual assault victim. I am guilty of emotionalizing and politicising for certain.
The original post is about a third party interfering in the private decision making of a woman. This would have no standing in Canada because we have no abortion laws whatsoever, and I am glad of this.
[ 30. November 2013, 18:55: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
A father is someone whose relationship with the child is analogous to the relationship of God to any person.
You want to pursue that analogy? In the context you have applied it?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You may be technically correct, but you are psychologically and socially wrong. Fatherhood is more than biology. I am unwilling to accede to the technical fact that a rapist who impregnates someone is a father.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Of course the word 'father' has psychological and social connotations which it is inappropriate to apply to a rapist! The point is that by engaging those psychological and social connotations you are doing the thing that you were denying - using rhetoric. Employing psychological and social associations to reinforce the persuasiveness of an argument is pretty much the sodding definition of rhetoric.
And you were doing it to dodge Invictus_88's serious point. IF (big IF) the unborn entity is a human being with full moral rights, then you could argue that killing it in the case of rape is justified because the woman who has been impregnated by force has absolutely no moral duty to allow her body to be used for the support of the resulting child and can have it removed even though its death is a certain consequence. You could argue that, but it's a difficult thing to argue, because while it is true that the mother has no moral responsibility for the appalling situation, neither does the child.
Since you are pro-life in all cases, though, not just in cases of rape, surely you have an easier answer to Invictus_88: you can dispute the personhood of the foetus, rather than quibble about its paternity.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A father is someone whose relationship with the child is analogous to the relationship of God to any person.
You want to pursue that analogy? In the context you have applied it?
Believe me, you don't want to pursue this definition either. My father is certainly my father, and yet his relationship to me was so unlike the relationship of God the Father to ... well, anybody, that it makes the term "God the Father" all but meaningless to me in worship even today. Or perhaps I should say, it freights it with an entirely unjustified and improper weight of meaning. This is a struggle for a lot of us.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A father is someone whose relationship with the child is analogous to the relationship of God to any person.
You want to pursue that analogy? In the context you have applied it?
Believe me, you don't want to pursue this definition either....
This is a struggle for a lot of us.
Thank-you! Double and triple thank-you.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Invictus88, as I was quoted, I think you're using false equivalence here.
quote:
I do not see how it is ethical to end the offspring's life because of a crime of their father.
You are equating the potential offspring that could be born, should there be no spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or foetal difficulties, with a zygote or embryo which is not recognised as having personhood¹ in Biblical references to unborn babies².
The view you expressed gives women the status of "foetal incubators" which disregards many of the rights of women, so placing the value of that potential life above that of the woman - who does have full personhood under all definitions.
Those of us who accept abortion in some circumstances regard the personhood of women as more established than the potential life of a zygote. Personally, I believe any baby born should be given the best life chances and that would mean a mother who wanted that child and was prepared to nurture it, including in utero.
- Personhood seems to be recognised at quickening in the Bible and in many church traditions. Quickening is at around 19 weeks of gestation. Other legal definitions do not give a foetus personhood until birth.
- Exodus 21:12-14 and Exodus 21:22
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Invictus88, as I was quoted, I think you're using false equivalence here.
quote:
I do not see how it is ethical to end the offspring's life because of a crime of their father.
You are equating the potential offspring that could be born, should there be no spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or foetal difficulties, with a zygote or embryo which is not recognised as having personhood¹ in Biblical references to unborn babies².
The view you expressed gives women the status of "foetal incubators" which disregards many of the rights of women, so placing the value of that potential life above that of the woman - who does have full personhood under all definitions.
Those of us who accept abortion in some circumstances regard the personhood of women as more established than the potential life of a zygote. Personally, I believe any baby born should be given the best life chances and that would mean a mother who wanted that child and was prepared to nurture it, including in utero.
- Personhood seems to be recognised at quickening in the Bible and in many church traditions. Quickening is at around 19 weeks of gestation. Other legal definitions do not give a foetus personhood until birth.
- Exodus 21:12-14 and Exodus 21:22
Having a general responsibility to not end innocent human life is a long way from viewing women as "foetal incubators" without rights of their own. The only right being disputed is the right to end that life.
Obviously we all know that it has become mainstream to support a mother's right to end a human life provided it is in her womb, but the moral soundness of that position is not above question.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
No - a fertilised zygote or embryo is a potential life. Without a woman to act as a foetal incubator there is no life for that embryo, no chance of becoming a foetus or a baby.
How does your insistence that every fertilised zygote is sacred fit with the 1 in 2 spontaneously aborted foetuses?
quote:
Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby's heart beat is detected.
Source
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
... And, of course, a woman is a fully conscious human being.* ...
Consciousness is the measure of our humanity?
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...
No - a fertilised zygote or embryo is a potential life.
So what's a full life, when is that glorious stage reached?
Just as with someone whose changed genders, we give them the benefit of the doubt, we should extend the same grace to those who don't fit whatever definition of humanity we're appealing to.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...
No - a fertilised zygote or embryo is a potential life.
So what's a full life, when is that glorious stage reached?
In the context of IVF when it implants. A lot of fertilised eggs do not implant and do not reach their potential.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...
No - a fertilised zygote or embryo is a potential life.
So what's a full life, when is that glorious stage reached?
That's where the interesting debate is, both at the beginning and end of life.
balaam has suggested that life begins when the zygote implants, but I would say that this is still potential life, as that embryo could not maintain life without the human incubator in which it has implanted and that many spontaneous abortions still happen before 12 weeks gestation. This is the period in which 93% of all medical abortions take place.
Although foetuses at 20 week gestation have been known to survive, pre-term babies are known to have an increased risk of health and learning difficulties, and neonatal departments do not usually strive to keep a neonate alive unless it has reached 23-24 weeks gestation.
So currently, medical science seems to suggest that a foetus can maintain life at 23 weeks gestation, with medical intervention.
source
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Because I'm an idiot with insomnia, I post here (heh).
There's a logic problem with arguing that a high rate of spontaneous abortion aka miscarriage therefore means that we are free to go ahead and create an intentional miscarriage (aka abortion). The two matters are entirely different. To take a parallel example, there is a high death rate in nursing homes for the elderly, but try telling the judge that as an excuse for doing in one of the residents! I don't think it would fly.
There's also a logic problem with making dependence an argument against personhood. A newborn is not independent except perhaps in her ability to breathe on her own. She is wholly dependent on others to nurse her, diaper her, keep her warm and safe, carry her about... Truly, I found it easier to deal with my son's dependency when I was eight months pregnant than in the first six months after his birth. His dependency upended my life so much more thoroughly.
And we never fully outgrow this. It's a rare human being who's entirely independent of others (grow your own food? treat your own water? etc.).
I know it won't happen, but I'd like to see the dependency argument demolished and gone. If we give it credibility we open the door to horrors like euthanasia for the old and disabled, as well as infanticide. And that just isn't right.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, much as I would like to go with your argument I can't, because I believe it's actually indistinguishable from two other arguments which I believe to be untenable.
I believe your argument can be re-expressed in Job's prayer "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord", but you won't allow the Lord to take away. If the beginning of life must be in God's hands, then so must the end, and the argument for medical intervention becomes untenable. Either that, or we have the right to act exclusively to prolong life, even when it becomes a burden, whereas in other medical situations we are acting to relieve another equally acute burden, such as pain.
I am acutely aware that this is an absolute minefield, full of horrible stinking swamps which can explode all over everything. But I believe Pandora's box to be open, and I'm not sure that the lid can be clamped on in the way that you are advocating. Not least because the mother's life, on which the foetus is initially dependant, must be considered independently of the foetus from the moment of conception unless you are to reduce the status of the mother to that of biological incubator, which is every bit as dehumanising as the arguments you rail against.
ETA: This is offered as an argument, not as a conclusion. There's an awful lot in it which feels intensely awkward, but I don't see how it is to be avoided unless we just close all hospitals and become Christian Scientists.
[ 28. May 2017, 08:29: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped that's why I was looking at the point at which foetuses can survive with medical support as against in utero. And there is a discussion to be had at the end of life too, because that's where there are equally difficult decisions to be made. When there are so many more medical solutions keeping people alive in far more complicated situations than was possible in the past, then the ethics of medical interventions need to be considered.
Invoking God's will can be challenged because any baby born prematurely in Biblical times was unlikely to survive until born at longer gestation periods than are currently possible. The same is true for people who are at the end of life. So if medicine can play God, surely ethics comes into this.
Having worked with far too many children who are or have been neglected or maltreated, in utero and after birth, I am not sure the decrying of abortion for unwanted children is that great a policy, because the parents in this situation feel they cannot have an abortion because it is wrong.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That's where the interesting debate is, both at the beginning and end of life. ... increased risk of health and learning difficulties, ... medical intervention.
source
That seems a grim definition of personhood, normal (no learning difficulties) and past the point of medical intervention. I agree that it's an interesting debate, that's why I keep coming back to these type of threads in Dead Horses.
Theologically, God knows who we are (eg the whole naming theme in Scripture), so in a sense we only exist because God sees us, know us. But we're not divine so we can't know if that chatbot, human-animal hybrid or human on life support is a person know by God. I think common sense and generosity should be our rule of thumb. That little clump of cells, that decrepit dying thing were or could be human, we should treat them like that.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But if, without invasive and a huge amount of medical intervention, that person at the end of life or that foetus would not survive, where do we discern God's will? In the medical interventions, or God taking away life? When if we did not intervene there would be no life, when do we accept that it's God's will for someone to die?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Yes, I see what you're saying. Maybe a better approach to abortion (palliative care, self-defence and war) is to simply admit that in some cases "it's merciful to kill someone". Better to concede that it's a person who is dying (either at the beginning, middle or end of life) rather than defining away what it means to be a person. The tricky thing though is weighing up what 'merciful' is, in like you said a sophisticated world of medical interventions.
Most of the arguments for abortion over the years have been variations of the zygote/foetus is not a human ergo it's OK to terminate them. While that argument has been used to justify abortion it's easily defeated by asking the interlocutor what their definition of a person actually is. Sadly the answer is usually, 'whatever allows abortion to take place'.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Theologically, God knows who we are (eg the whole naming theme in Scripture), so in a sense we only exist because God sees us, know us. But we're not divine so we can't know if that chatbot, human-animal hybrid or human on life support is a person know by God. I think common sense and generosity should be our rule of thumb. That little clump of cells, that decrepit dying thing were or could be human, we should treat them like that.
What about tumors? Do they qualify as human? If you reject consciousness and dependence as criteria I'm not sure how your typical neoplasm (benign or malignant) doesn't qualify as a person. They've got human genetics and typically those genes are in some way different than those of their 'parent'. Needless to say (but I'm going to anyway) the implications for medical treatment here are pretty huge.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Theologically, God knows who we are (eg the whole naming theme in Scripture), so in a sense we only exist because God sees us, know us. But we're not divine so we can't know if that chatbot, human-animal hybrid or human on life support is a person know by God. I think common sense and generosity should be our rule of thumb. That little clump of cells, that decrepit dying thing were or could be human, we should treat them like that.
What about tumors? Do they qualify as human? If you reject consciousness and dependence as criteria I'm not sure how your typical neoplasm (benign or malignant) doesn't qualify as a person. They've got human genetics and typically those genes are in some way different than those of their 'parent'. Needless to say (but I'm going to anyway) the implications for medical treatment here are pretty huge.
Not sure what mean by dependance as a criteria for personhood. Do you mean it in the negative, so a person only becomes a human being when they are independent? (But that would make disabled people sub-human!)
By consciousness, do you mean brain activity? Or some sort of metaphysical activity? Either way I think it's a useful concept. And like I said earlier, that should be part of our common sense understanding of who and what a person is, and why your tumour is a straw man. We know roughly what a person should be, despite the ravages of sin, but the final measuring is God's.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Lamb Chopped, much as I would like to go with your argument I can't, because I believe it's actually indistinguishable from two other arguments which I believe to be untenable.
I believe your argument can be re-expressed in Job's prayer "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord", but you won't allow the Lord to take away. If the beginning of life must be in God's hands, then so must the end, and the argument for medical intervention becomes untenable. Either that, or we have the right to act exclusively to prolong life, even when it becomes a burden, whereas in other medical situations we are acting to relieve another equally acute burden, such as pain.
I am acutely aware that this is an absolute minefield, full of horrible stinking swamps which can explode all over everything. But I believe Pandora's box to be open, and I'm not sure that the lid can be clamped on in the way that you are advocating. Not least because the mother's life, on which the foetus is initially dependant, must be considered independently of the foetus from the moment of conception unless you are to reduce the status of the mother to that of biological incubator, which is every bit as dehumanising as the arguments you rail against.
ETA: This is offered as an argument, not as a conclusion. There's an awful lot in it which feels intensely awkward, but I don't see how it is to be avoided unless we just close all hospitals and become Christian Scientists.
I fear you've missed my point. I said nothing about a duty to prevent miscarriage, which is an entirely different kettle of worms. I merely said that the existence of miscarriage as a common occurrence in nature cannot logically be used to justify human-induced miscarriage aka abortion. To argue that way is akin to saying, if it happens in nature over there, it's okay for me personally to do it over here.
But nature is no guide for human morality. Whether you think God acts in nature or that everything is chance, still there are going to be plenty of examples to choose from that every rational person would abhor if done intentionally by a human being. Obvious cases include rape among dolphins and infanticide among lions. Yes, it happens in nature. That is no justification for us doing it. In fact, being rational and moral creatures, we have far less excuse.
That was my only intent for addressing the deathrate of zygotes--to remove the excuse.
I don't understand your other point. Why does saying "don't do abortion or euthanasia" translate into "don't do any medical care at all"? Or "prolong life but don't do anything about pain or function"? I don't get it. Interfere all you like (well okay, i could phrase that better); but first do no harm.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Of course tumors are human (well, unless they occur in fish or something. So are kidneys and livers and tongues. And some are genetically distinct from the rest of their hosts (in the case of kidneys etc we're talking chimerism or transplant). So a thing can be human and yet a proper subject for death, and a thing can have a unique genetic code ditto.
Those two conditions are important but not in themselves sufficient to designate a living thing that ought to be protected.
But perhaps we can add this. No tumor (or kidney) is, if and when it reaches its perfect destiny, going to take up residency outside the body in which it resides. Its proper end is different. Something may occur to frustrate that proper end, but that doesn't change the fact that it has one--and a very different sort from our two other human and genetically unique examples.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
@Luke - I wouldn't say it's better to kill someone but the quotation from Arthur Clough applies:
"Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive officiously to keep alive:"
Personhood is still a relevant concept, because the tests to check whether medical intervention should continue at the end of life check consciousness and brain function, which are part of personhood. Someone with advanced dementia or cancer may have a DNR (do not resuscitate) notice on their medical notes and that decision around dementia is likely to have been made on an understanding of their personhood being compromised by dementia. For cancer the decision will be made that the person is dying anyway and prolonging life when a crisis is reached may not extend life much.
Abortion is more complicated because there are several factors playing into the moral ethics and any foetus is still potential life until viable ex utero and cannot survive without impacting on the rights of another person.
- the rights, health and personal situation of the mother;
- viability of the foetus - a foetus is not viable ex utero until 23-24 weeks gestation;
- the situation of family - some abortions are carried out because of the effect on the existing family;
- information about the foetus;
- current societal expectations of consequence free sex.
Any point of view that insists that there is a sacred life from conception or implantation is disregarding any rights of the potential mother and the way nature spontaneously aborts many zygotes (50%) and foetuses (10-20%, 80% in the first trimester). If God regards all these lives as sacred, why the high occurrence of miscarriages?
Personally I would prefer that society did not sell everything on the basis of consequence free sex and when I teach sex education I make it clear that sex is not consequence free. Practically there are risks of both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. (A lot of the information written about the emotional consequences of sex come from anti-abortion organisations and is not backed up by research.)
But we are where we are, and I believe that an early abortion is less damaging than the alternatives. The UK Abortion statistics for 2015 (pdf) (most recent available) show 92% of abortions take place before 13 weeks gestation and 80% before 10 weeks gestation which suggests that most abortions are of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and abortion is being used as a form of contraception, which is not ideal. 55% were medical abortions - which will look and feel like a late and heavy menstruation. But the picture is more complicated than the stereotype of reckless young women having unprotected sex: 54% of those abortions were carried out on women who had previously had a live or stillbirth, 19% were carried out on women who had previously had a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. 38% of women had had a previous abortion - that percentage increases with age. And a tiny proportion of abortions was reduction of IVF pregnancies.
Only 2% of abortions were carried out under ground E, that the baby would be born 'seriously handicapped'.
Abortion is complicated with many factors to be considered when taking an ethical view.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
The debate over personhood is clearly fascinating to some, but it seems pretty irrelevant to me. We don't question the personhood of soldiers or criminals and have no problem killing them. At the same time, we have a passion for dehumanizing those that we see as "other" and killing them too. We kill people whether we believe they're human or not.
What's more interesting to me is who gets to make the decision to kill in our society. Whether it's soldiers or politicians or police officers or criminals, it seems to be mostly men making those kinds of decisions for other people. Abortion is a decision made by a woman for herself and her family. We're ok with allowing a lot of people to have life-and-death power over each and every one us, for better or worse, but we're in an endless debate over whether a woman can have control over her own life and the life(ves) inside her body. Why is that?
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Any point of view that insists that there is a sacred life from conception or implantation is disregarding any rights of the potential mother and the way nature spontaneously aborts many zygotes (50%) and foetuses (10-20%, 80% in the first trimester). If God regards all these lives as sacred, why the high occurrence of miscarriages?
Not sure that's a real argument. There are various estimates for mediaeval infant mortality floating around, but most seem to be somewhere in the 25%-30% range. Do we conclude from that that God doesn't care about babies, and so therefore exposing your unwanted infant is acceptable?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
This is the problem with many of these arguments. We used to live in a society when we accepted Job 1:21: "the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away" and it was God's will that many died. Nowadays, advances in medicine mean that we don't accept many die and we regard all life as sacred to be preserved at all costs.
I am trying to work out how to express theologically, badly, that when medicine allows many to live who would have died in the past, those choices are made medically rather than leaving it to God's will. We are already making many of these choices.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This is the problem with many of these arguments. We used to live in a society when we accepted Job 1:21: "the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away" and it was God's will that many died. Nowadays, advances in medicine mean that we don't accept many die and we regard all life as sacred to be preserved at all costs.
Accepting that lots of people die (babies, sick people, ...) is not, I think, the opposite of regarding life as sacred. It's perfectly consistent to regard all life as sacred and accept that people die and there's nothing you can do about it.
Consider how we treat the elderly now. We don't have a cure for old age. Old people are going to die. We accept that, and in many cases, accept that palliative care is the most appropriate care for a particular person. That doesn't mean that we think their life is less sacred than a healthy child's.
quote:
I am trying to work out how to express theologically, badly, that when medicine allows many to live who would have died in the past, those choices are made medically rather than leaving it to God's will. We are already making many of these choices.
Caring for our neighbours is God's will. Which means patching them up and helping them heal to the best of our ability. Learning how to do medicine better so we are better able to do that is also God's will.
We are God's hands. If we were mediaeval peasants, and a child got kicked by a donkey, we wouldn't leave him lying in the mud to see whether God would sort him out - we'd put him to bed, spoon broth into him, and do whatever we could to help him heal. We do the same now - we're just better at helping him heal.
But we're not "making a choice" - we don't look at a group of similarly-injured children, and pick a few to save and a few to kill off*. The medical choices we make are things like "can I save this child, or will I be putting him through a lot of expensive agony to no end?"
*Actually, we do, because we suck. We routinely chose to save rich white children and kill off poor brown ones, and we reaffirm that choice with our political system on a regular basis. But that's a tangent.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's more interesting to me is who gets to make the decision to kill in our society. Whether it's soldiers or politicians or police officers or criminals, it seems to be mostly men making those kinds of decisions for other people.
The supporters of anti-abortion focus on the things they cannot do, and never focus on things they can like adultery. They read an extensively abridged Bible, and in America, voted for a three-times married former casino owner who was recorded bragging about grabbing women by the genitals, playing the peeping Tom, and worshipping an unholy trinity of materialism, self-centredness and hedonism.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
The debate over personhood is clearly fascinating to some, but it seems pretty irrelevant to me. We don't question the personhood of soldiers or criminals and have no problem killing them.
This misses the point of the execution of criminals based on their actions - deeds being the marker of revoking state recognized personhood. It's an very red red herring.
Or are you saying personhood is always irrevocable?
I have always found it odd that extreem liberals stand for nearly unlimited abortions and also full prohibition of the death penalty at the same time. I cannot think of anything more inconsistent. There may be an explanation in the religion of State-ism. A fetus is not a state registered "person", therefore it is unrecognized and has no protection. Once you have a social security number registration, you are protected, and that somehow triggers the conscience of the Statist.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
The debate over personhood is clearly fascinating to some, but it seems pretty irrelevant to me. We don't question the personhood of soldiers or criminals and have no problem killing them.
This misses the point of the execution of criminals based on their actions - deeds being the marker of revoking state recognized personhood. It's an very red red herring.
Or are you saying personhood is always irrevocable?...
Gee, I don't know, is it? Is it even relevant? I'm not sure whether you understood my point because you just restated it: societies and individuals kill people when we think we have a good reason to, not because they're no longer people. The abortion debate is a very specific situational debate over what's an acceptable reason for killing another human being.
If it's ok for a politician to order killing and maiming millions of soldiers and civilians to protect "our way of life", or "our freedoms" or whatever fucking cliché is in style today, why is it not ok for one woman to abort one baby to protect her family's way of life?
quote:
I have always found it odd that extreem [sic] liberals stand for nearly unlimited abortions and also full prohibition of the death penalty at the same time. I cannot think of anything more inconsistent.
And I've always found it odd that a book that says "thou shalt not kill" has so many chapters and verses telling people who to kill and how and when. I've also found it odd that while some readers of that book say abortion is murder, the book actually says that a cash payment to the father is sufficient compensation for an induced miscarriage.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Or are you saying personhood is always irrevocable?
It has always been revocable. Don't delude yourself. There's a severely abridged bible which is read to force bringing pregnancy to term, but ignores post birth suffering. It is not acceptable to identify abortion as a sin and crime whilst ignoring all of the other. I see no effect of 'pro-life' attitudes on positive social policy and political goals to alleviate post-birth suffering. Rather the opposite. Profound disrespect and clear moves to increase suffering by cutting social welfare support, access to health and food, targeting the poor for law 'enforcement' yadda yadda.
quote:
I have always found it odd that extreem liberals stand for nearly unlimited abortions and also full prohibition of the death penalty at the same time.
This is one of the redder red herrings, which wants to compare execution to abortion. The correct consilience is access to social welfare and health benefits, including sexual health. If you want to prevent abortion, you provide proper family planning help and a full range of social supports, so that people have more responsible sex (preventing pregnancy), see their future lies in education and career versus making little humans. The social development index among countries is somewhat informative about this.
Just to be clear another issue, the legal side, NOT having an abortion law at all in Canada, and regulating it within health, has resulted in falling abortion rates, much less that in America. The teen abortion rate is 1/3 of the American rate in Canada, and the rate for all ages places the Canadian rate at 30% less. Supportive health care, including sexual health care (nonabortion) and social services make the difference.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes, the ineffectiveness and deliberate blindness of the US antiabortion movement forces one to conclude that they do not in fact care about babies. What they want is for you to be absolutely miserable if you have sex. Good to know.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
A fetus is not a state registered "person", therefore it is unrecognized and has no protection. Once you have a social security number registration, you are protected, and that somehow triggers the conscience of the Statist.
It is apperently satisfying to paint such a picture and demonise opposing viewpoints. But they are rarely accurate.
Canada doesn't regulate abortion, but they do support women in the health care system.
And has lower abortion rates than
America which regulates abortion, in some cases actively making them difficult and they do not support women in the health care system.
Pragmatically, then, which is more pro-life?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
If I was a cynic, I might amend to: quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
A fetus is not a state registered "person", therefore it is unrecognized and has no protection. Once you have a social security number registration, you ...
pay taxes.
But, I'm not. So, I won't.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
