quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Without the actual facts, I don't see a lot of point in us arguing in circles and upsetting each other.
Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ce:
partisan "spin", before entering what sometimes seems to be "dead horse" territory?
ce

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
Ms Jepson is probably the last person who should be involved in this case. She clearly identifies with the fetus

---

Who else then? There is no objective position possible in such things. Subjective identification with those who suffer - literally "sympathy" or "compassion" is all there is to go on. It's an incarnational principle.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Let me get this right, the feutus was aborted because of a cleft pallet and a cleft lip?



Ok, So was I. I was born with a cleft pallet, a cleft lip AND a freaking congenital heart complaint (several of the tube-things to and from my heart didn't work properly) and I nearly died.

Do I wish I had been aborted? No. I feel as worthy as life as anybody else (or as non-worthy maybe) and I can assure you that my quality of life is just fine. OK, so the operations are scary and stuff, but for goodness sake.

I have a scar above my lip and a slight speech impediment and a couple of other things that happened because the original operation was botched but that is it.

I am glad to be alive.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Not too long ago I officiated at the funeral of a baby with quite a severe cleft palate. The parents were not what I suppose Sasha would regard as ideal parents for a handicapped child; they were very young and very poor. They'd known their baby would be born with a cleft palate, that she'd require surgery, and that she might have other medical problems. They loved her, they wanted her, and I can't forget their grief--and all their family's grief--at her death. If anyone said 'It's better this way,'or 'It's Mother Nature's way,' or 'They've all been saved a lot of grief in the future,' or 'Now they can have a healthy baby,' they certainly didn't say it around the parents or around me. What troubles me about the case Ms. Jepson is looking into is that the deciding factor, as in many of these cases of third trimester abortion seems to be whether the baby is wanted.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
and I resent the implication that I am some sort of freak. OK, I probaly am in some ways (who isn't? ) but not because of my "deformities". Ok?
 

---

Posted by Ponty'n'pop (# 5198) on :
 
On the matters of review:

We will, of course, await the outcome, but it's worth noting that just because an action is possibly illegal, there is no obligation for the police (nor CPS) to pursue the matter further if, on the balance of probability, the quality of the evidence is insufficient to secure a conviction. At present, we don't know what to what lengths the police went before they came to that view. This is what is being reviewed.

It is also the case (I think) that a decision not to proceed can be taken if no public interest is served by prosecution. Given that the law requires each of these cases to be treated individually, I see no public interest in pursuing family or medical decision makers as criminals.

I do however see great value in the medical profession reviewing (as I'm sure they are required to) each and every case to ensure that guidelines are followed and that the principles enshrined in law are being upheld. IMO, that should be the focus of the review of the medical decision taken; the decision to refer the matter to the law courts may distract from this different review process which is the one which might make for different decisions in the future.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Amos - I never thought I would say this, ever but

Anyone who thinks it was "better that way" is not only insulting that family but insulting mine and, in effect, saying they wish I had never been born.

They are, I suppose, entitled to their view but I think my persepctive on this issue is important and that I have a right to strong views on it.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
I guess if we start bringing specific, known to us, examples into the debate then it will break down, because no one dare say any views for fear of offending others.

Papio, I hear you, that this is a very emotive subject. People are not talking specifically about you when they say aborting a fetus may be for the best, if it has a facial deformity. If you cannot participate in the debate somewhat calmly, rationally and objectively, then perhaps you should withdraw from it? Otherwise you'll end up getting extremely angry and upset, and possibly exploding on this thread. Which isn't a good thing for anyone, including you.

And so, on to the debate. I believe that abortion in the first two terms, so 0-24 weeks, should be performed if the mother requests it.

Why? Because it's a woman's right to choose, and because it's her body.

And yes, I say this in the full knowledge that people use abortion as a form of contraception, and I think that's wrong. But you cannot stop that, without stopping more licit abortions. So, in practice, I would allow all abortions up to 24 weeks. That's 6 months that a woman has to decide whether she can, or wants, to carry the baby to term.

Most women do not have abortions lightly and easily. It is always a painful choice, and there are usually plenty of bad feelings after the event. It's not a situation with any kind of winning outcome for the woman. So we should support and not condemn, offering counselling where wanted, and allowing the woman to make her own decision.

My initial thoughts

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Sarkycow - believe it or not I am not angry or about to explode. Honest. I am actually in quite a good mood.

I have said what I wanted to say about this topic now. Of course I realise that this thread is not about me, except possibly very indirectly. However, I felt that a healthy reminder that we are talking about people's lives and not soley or purely about some abstract point of law might be in order. I just wanted people to know how it might feel to have a cleft pallet and lip etc. Of course, I wish I didn't have those things but I am perfectly happy to be here and to be alive. That was my entire point really.

If I was coming across as angry or extremely upset that I can only say sorry and that I honestly, truly am not getting worked up. I agree with what Amos said, and the fact that I agree for personal reasons and not academoc ones does not strike me as a disqualification.

Will leave this thread alone now.
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Hey - anything that works for better looking and better behaved children *more* likely to be able participants in the economic life of the country is fine by me.

Otherwise we have to get into discussions about the intrinsic worth of people and like several of the more careful posters above have noted we'd require vertical yards of medical and police paperwork before we'd dare discuss something like this online.

Just think - one day - a whole crowd of tall perfectly formed young consumers and producers walking along the street. You'd think you were in heaven....

Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Sarkycow - Are you quite sure about your 24 week limit? As I have pointed out, foetuses over 22 weeks often survive if they are born: so how can we say of a pregnancy over 22 weeks that the only 'body' under consideration is the woman's? From that point on there is another life linked with hers that, if born naturally and properly nurtured, is quite independent. As far as I remember, the 24 week limit exists in UK law because some 'congenital abnormalities' are difficult to detect before this point. I quite agree with that. But if the only reason for an abortion is 'choice', why do we need 24 weeks? Can't such a decision be made in, say, 20?

Someone else questioned Ms Jepson's suitability for taking on this case. I disagree. Having discovered this case, she must have contemplated 'it could have been me'. She is the ideal advocate for this case, as Papio's thought-provoking (and compassion-provoking) posts also bear out.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Sarkycow - Are you quite sure about your 24 week limit? As I have pointed out, foetuses over 22 weeks often survive if they are born: so how can we say of a pregnancy over 22 weeks that the only 'body' under consideration is the woman's? From that point on there is another life linked with hers that, if born naturally and properly nurtured, is quite independent. As far as I remember, the 24 week limit exists in UK law because some 'congenital abnormalities' are difficult to detect before this point. I quite agree with that. But if the only reason for an abortion is 'choice', why do we need 24 weeks? Can't such a decision be made in, say, 20?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
I guess if we start bringing specific, known to us, examples into the debate then it will break down, because no one dare say any views for fear of offending others.

---

quote:

---

And so, on to the debate. I believe that abortion in the first two terms, so 0-24 weeks, should be performed if the mother requests it.

Why? Because it's a woman's right to choose, and because it's her body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
I guess if we start bringing specific, known to us, examples into the debate then it will break down, because no one dare say any views for fear of offending others.

---

Unfortunately, like religion, ethical choices and morality are things that happen to real people and have real consequences, so avoiding the specific is both impossible and, frankly, undesirable - would you suggest that female participation in the suffragist movements was wrong because they were too personally involved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
But philosophically, I don't really know what the difference is between aborting a 24 week foetus and killing a new-born baby. The more you think about it, the more difficult it is to see where the line can be drawn between abortion and murder. I don't mean that to sound emotive, because I am not totally against abortion, I just think it raises serious conflicts of interest that are almost impossible to resolve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
Ms Jepson is probably the last person who should be involved in this case. She clearly identifies with the fetus

---

Who else then? There is no objective position possible in such things. Subjective identification with those who suffer - literally "sympathy" or "compassion" is all there is to go on. It's an incarnational principle.

---

quote:

---

The parents were not what I suppose Sasha would regard as ideal parents for a handicapped child; they were very young and very poor.

---

quote:

---

The implication that abortion can rid our society of disability is a dangerous one. Both in the sense that it is simply not true, that it will put pressures on people to have abortions who find that morally impossible, and that it will increase the stigmas that those with disabilities face in our society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Why? Because it's a woman's right to choose, and because it's her body.

---

Oh, please. That old hackneyed slogan ignores the issue of just what is choosen in an abortion. And an unborn child is a bit more than just a part of a woman's body like an appendix.
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
Sasha -- just trying to understand your point here:

Are you saying that your friend in college would have been better off not having been born?

Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand how bringing up the pain and suffering is relevant...

[TYPO!]

[ 01. December 2003, 17:01: Message edited by: Jerry Boam ]
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Papio, I'm glad you're here! I valued your contribution to the thread.

I don't have any problem with people contributing personal background to a discussion--it takes discussion out of the ivory tower and into the streets--where people live. It gives us crucial information.

As to this particular case:

I personally think abortion is best avoided *if and where possible*. Only the people involved in the situation can decide if and how that applies.
 

---

Posted by Sasha (# 2832) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
Sasha -- just trying to understand your point here:

Are you saying that your friend in college would have been better off not having been born?

Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand how bringing up the pain and suffering is relevant...


[TYPO!]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Why? Because it's a woman's right to choose, and because it's her body.

---

Oh, please. That old hackneyed slogan ignores the issue of just what is choosen in an abortion. And an unborn child is a bit more than just a part of a woman's body like an appendix.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
so let me get this straight:

this woman had an abortion that was judged by two doctors (someone did say that was the requirement, right?) to be legal. she went through the abortion haivng the belief that what she did was warrented and totally legal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Sasha, in your first post you point out that Ms. Jepson's mother is 'a married nurse' and then say that the mother of the aborted child may be far less well-equipped to raise a child with a cleft palate. By putting the issue in this way you suggested that the qualities Ms. Jepson's mother brought to parenthood were a committed adult relationship (she was married) and a qualification in nursing. You said nothing about the necessity of parents' being prepared to love a child, something which doesn't require either marriage or a nursing certificate. And so, looking at the family I knew, it seemed to me that that mother would be exactly the sort of person whom you would have expected to seek an abortion.

---

quote:

---

even a twilight half-life like the babies with very severe retardation?

---

I used to work as a support worker for adults with severe learning disabilites. To describe the lifes of any of the people that I worked with as a twilight half life is very insulting. Most of my clients had a good standard of life, living with people that they knew and liked in small homes and being supported to do the things that they liked. Some of them, who had very little speech etc. even helped out at the local charity shop sorting clothes and took part in the life of the local communinty in other ways. I get the impression that you beleive people born with severe learning disabilites just lie there and do nothing. This is not true, most have a very good quality of life.

On the issue of womens choice, in the majority of cases doesn't the woman choose what to do with her body when she chooses to have unprotected sex? We all seem to forget that the foetus doesn't just appear.

Papio, I think I met you briefly at the ship meet in Durham and the only odd thing I can remember about you is your hair
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by watchergirl:
I'm a disability rights activist - or I was, when I had more time and wasn't an overworked teacher. I myself have experienced severe mental health problems. Although I am currently well, I'll always have long-term health problems. I've certainly caused some suffering to my parents, and there were times when I wanted to be dead (although with good treatment and an increasing understanding of my rights and the value of my life, that passed).

However, I no longer believe that the 'relieving suffering' argument is valid in this area. Disabled people are no less 'people' than anyone else. If you ask most disabled people, even those who have suffered a great deal, we will tell you that we would not have chosen not to be born. Unfortunately, no one can ask unborn disabled children what they want.

In my experience, the 'they will suffer' argument is one of the lack of understanding that many people have about disability and disability rights. I am stunned and appalled by the way that evangelicals often put their case against abortion in all cases except for disability. Surely these are the unborn people who need most protection? Our society is so prejudiced against disabled people and doesn't even know it. What kind of message does 'not good enough to be born' send to disabled people who believe that their lives have value?

Jesus reached out to the disabled in a society that barely noticed them. I believe we should do the same.

---

 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
I do not think that first trimester abortion is ever wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:


Yes, a foetus is more than an appendix. And that invalidates the argument that it's the woman's right to choose, how?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orinocco:
Sasha wrote:

quote:

---

even a twilight half-life like the babies with very severe retardation?

---

I used to work as a support worker for adults with severe learning disabilites. To describe the lifes of any of the people that I worked with as a twilight half life is very insulting. Most of my clients had a good standard of life, living with people that they knew and liked in small homes and being supported to do the things that they liked. Some of them, who had very little speech etc. even helped out at the local charity shop sorting clothes and took part in the life of the local communinty in other ways. I get the impression that you beleive people born with severe learning disabilites just lie there and do nothing. This is not true, most have a very good quality of life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
If the average life has, say, 10% pain 10% euphoria and 80% something inbetween, why bring a new life into the world if you know from the start it will have, 60% pain or even a twilight half-life like the babies with very severe retardation? I don't understand why a woman would want to deliberately bring a new life into the world if he wasn't going to have a fair chance at happiness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
the abortion has already taken place. what is she trying to do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Life begins at conception, any reputable physician will tell you that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
There are also cases (admittedly few) where contraception has failed or been improperly used.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Life begins at conception, any reputable physician will tell you that.

---

Only if we play "True Scotsman" and define a reputable physician as one who will tell you that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
If the average life has, say, 10% pain 10% euphoria and 80% something inbetween, why bring a new life into the world if you know from the start it will have, 60% pain or even a twilight half-life like the babies with very severe retardation? I don't understand why a woman would want to deliberately bring a new life into the world if he wasn't going to have a fair chance at happiness.

---

I don't understand what you mean here at all. What you seem to mean on the face of it is something that seems to me both absurd and evil, so I assume you don't mean that. But I can't otherwise see what you do mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
To be pernickety, if contraception has been used with confidence, the morning after pill wouldn't come into the equation as it would only be a missed period or early morning sickness that would alert a woman to the fact that she was pregnant.

But the morning after pill is indeed rising in popularity and availability.

OOT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So life is the presence of a soul? Hmmmm... that's a new biological definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
But the morning after pill is indeed rising in popularity and availability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sola Scriptura:
Surely when we attack and physically threaten another person we are in someway attacking our lord.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
If life begins at fertilization, then the morning after pill is abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So life is the presence of a soul? Hmmmm... that's a new biological definition.

---

So there are some people alive without a soul, and some people (on earth) with a soul but not alive?

Sorry to have misled, I wasn't intending to make a biological point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
But the morning after pill is indeed rising in popularity and availability.

---

Some sectors of society object to the availablity of the morning after pill - it causes a fertilized egg to be discarded, I believe. If life begins at fertilization, then the morning after pill is abortion.

I guess if there is going to be a line at all, it will be arbitrary where-ever we draw it.

Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
When my son was small he was in the hospital for something minor when an eight year old boy was brought in, in excrutiating pain from a rare genetic disease. He was well known by the staff because he was hospitalised during his worst episodes, several times a month. He wasn't expected to live much longer - his five older siblings had all died of the disease before they reached ten. He had younger siblings with the same disease and prognosis.

Someone asked his mother how she could bear to lose so many children and she proudly stated that she "enjoyed them while she could." I can't imagine what life was like for those chidren - enduring intense pain for days at a time, watching their brothers die, knowing that they too would die soon.

I really don't understand why their mother continued to allow herself to get pregnant, knowing what her children would face.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
the abortion has already taken place. what is she trying to do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By this "logic", there is no point in pursuing anything after the fact, including murder convictions, because it's "already taken place".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenny*:
This is an interesting point. Is the pill the same?

In one brand of pill it says it works by making sure 'the lining of your womb does not thicken enough for an egg to grow in it'

this would mean that the fertilized egg cannot actually grow, is this abortion too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
as far as i can see this only serves to drag the parents of the fetus and the doctors concerned with what had already been judged legal, through a really pointless morass.

---

quote:

---

Yes, a foetus is a bit more than an appendix. Well, after 12 or so weeks I'd guess, once it's got all the requisite physical bits. Before that it's a clump of cells.

---

quote:

---

Everyone knows that the key question here is when a bunch of cells become a person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
Clearly a wanted foetus is a precious gift of God whereas an unwanted foetus is a clump of cells. The status of the foetus is therefore, according to those on the pro-choice side, entirely contingent upon the subjective attitude of the mother towards it. The unborn child is reduced to a consumer durable with a sale or return guarantee should it prove inconvienient.

What is surprising is that pro-choice types tend to be on the left when the pro-choice position is clearly the reductio ad absurdum of free market capitalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenny*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
To be pernickety, if contraception has been used with confidence, the morning after pill wouldn't come into the equation as it would only be a missed period or early morning sickness that would alert a woman to the fact that she was pregnant.

But the morning after pill is indeed rising in popularity and availability.

OOT

---

ok, I understand what you are saying, but what do you say about a condom spliting?

J

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
What is surprising is that pro-choice types tend to be on the left when the pro-choice position is clearly the reductio ad absurdum of free market capitalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
The life of a human being ought not to be contingent upon being desired by another human being, upon being 'planned' or upon being 'wanted'. It has often seemed to me that since Roe vs Wade went through, with the slogan 'every child a wanted child' (Is your child on the Most Wanted List?) there has been a greatly increased tendency to view children as commodities.

---

Well that's the problem with Sasha's post about addign up the bad things and good things that happen in someone's life ansd saying that they should not have been born if the bad exceeds the good.

She's making exactly the same error as the woman she blames for "enjoying them while she can". Not thinking of the sick child as person in their own right but only as an object, something contemplated and desired by others.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Amos, I never do this, so understand the significance of it: That's my biggest problem in this whole thing -- the status of the unborn child rests solely on the mother's desires. If she wants it, it's a person; if she doesn't want it, it's a parasitical clump of cells. I can't get past the unbelievable selfishness of that position.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Erin, I only rarely do this: You have nutshelled my position precisely.
 

---

Posted by Sasha (# 2832) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Amos, I never do this, so understand the significance of it: That's my biggest problem in this whole thing -- the status of the unborn child rests solely on the mother's desires. If she wants it, it's a person; if she doesn't want it, it's a parasitical clump of cells. I can't get past the unbelievable selfishness of that position.

---

quote:

---

Barrea said:
I don't agree that it is a womans right to choose to get rid of an unborn child for any reason. It might be your opinion, but who gave her that right, Certainly not God.

---

quote:

---

DOD asked:
I think I believe that women should have a pretty absolute right to choose in the first trimester. It does not follow from this that all exercises of choice are equally morally praiseworthy.

---

quote:

---

DOD adds:
But I don't think it is self-evident that the woman's rights are determinative in the case of late abortions where we are plausibly dealing with a sentient entity.

---

quote:

---

Hel asks:
When do Ship Mates generally think that the woman's right to choose becomes less than a baby's right to live? I have come to believe each has a sliding scale, however.

---

quote:

---

Laura remarks:
However, from a personal ethical standpoint, you might say that it is morally wrong to abort a planned child that you could otherwise care for for being "defective". This would be more morally culpable (in the same way that there are degrees of murder) than aborting because you got pregnant accidentally and the father has said you're on your own. That's the distinction that I'm instinctively feeling needs to be made, from a personal standpoint.

---

Yes.

And yet no, sort of We will all disagree what is "defective" and what is "morally right". How severe must "defective" be before we agree that it's ok to abort?

quote:

---

Erin opines:
The status of the unborn child rests solely on the mother's desires. If she wants it, it's a person; if she doesn't want it, it's a parasitical clump of cells. I can't get past the unbelievable selfishness of that position.

---

And the status of a born child rests solely on the mother's (or care giver's etc.) wishes. If it is wanted and liked currently, then it gets attention, love, toys, needs met etc. If care giver is too busy, or tired, or involved in own life, or whatever, then the born child does not get good stuff.

Parents, heck, adults are fundamentally selfish creatures. Having children is a selfish thing, yet no one appears to be wanting to regulate parents who are keeping the kid. Lots in society argue that people should not abort, and should keep the child, but turn a blind eye to how it is dragged up.

Personally I'd go for contraceptives in the water supply, or forcible sterilization for everyone, and then allow a pregnancy when a person/couple have demonstrated good parenting skills

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
So? You can generalize from them to the entire group of people who support legal access to abortion? Do some people who abort at 8 weeks think of it as a clump of cells (or "products of conception", as it is known euphemistically at clinics)? Maybe -- I don't know. But that the supporters of legal access all think this is a straw man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
And the status of a born child rests solely on the mother's (or care giver's etc.) wishes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:

Personally I'd go for contraceptives in the water supply, or forcible sterilization for everyone, and then allow a pregnancy when a person/couple have demonstrated good parenting skills

Sarkycow

---

 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
So? You can generalize from them to the entire group of people who support legal access to abortion? Do some people who abort at 8 weeks think of it as a clump of cells (or "products of conception", as it is known euphemistically at clinics)? Maybe -- I don't know. But that the supporters of legal access all think this is a straw man.

---

If you don't view it as a clump of cells, then what do you see it as? You surely do NOT see it as a child, given that to do so would imply that you support infanticide. So what is it, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
That is NOT what I asked you. I asked you what it was, then, if it was neither a clump of cells nor a child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pants:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:

Personally I'd go for contraceptives in the water supply, or forcible sterilization for everyone, and then allow a pregnancy when a person/couple have demonstrated good parenting skills

Sarkycow

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
That is NOT what I asked you. I asked you what it was, then, if it was neither a clump of cells nor a child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
That is, the foetus is becoming a person (and as such deserves enormous respect and protection) but is not one yet (so does not have the full range of rights).

---

Let me get this straight, it deserves respect and protection EXCEPT protection against being killed in the womb if the mother decides she doesn't want the child. If an unborn child does not have that basic right to life, then any other right you arbitrarily assign to it is absolutely meaningless. If you do not have a right to life, then you have no other rights. If a fetus doesn't deserve a chance to live, then it deserves nothing else.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
wanderer:


 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
There's a huge gap between wishing that there was something that could be done to ameliorate bad parenting and the scheme proposed by Sarkycow! But this seems like a thread-worthy issue in its own right, so I started one--I would love to read an expansion of the thoughts you've expressed here on that that thread.

Back to this thread: I find myself agreeing with lots of comments, even when they are set in opposition to eachother (Laura-Erin-Sarkycow-Amos come to mind).

I still don't like what I think your arguing for Sasha, and the example of the woman with many suffering children doesn't help.

Does the experience of seeing the suffering negate the value of those moments of their lives in which these children were not suffering?

Is it fair to judge the mother by picking apart a short reply to whay may have seemed like a stupid and insensitive question? I can't go and ask her what she meant by saying that she "enjoyed" them while they were here, but I think this quote is a pretty thin basis on which to assume the worst about her and conclude that she thinks of her children as toys or treats... I pretty sure that this kind of judgement of others was not what Christ called for in the Gospels (sorry for the sanctimonious tone, but I can't thin of another way to say it just now)
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I keep forgetting to go back to this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
Putting aside for now the issue of being pressured or forced into having sex, it is my supposition that many acts of unprotected sex take place when drink or drugs have been taken or good sense has otherwise left the equation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
If the average life has, say, 10% pain 10% euphoria and 80% something inbetween, why bring a new life into the world if you know from the start it will have, 60% pain or even a twilight half-life like the babies with very severe retardation? I don't understand why a woman would want to deliberately bring a new life into the world if he wasn't going to have a fair chance at happiness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:


I still don't like what I think your arguing for Sasha, and the example of the woman with many suffering children doesn't help.

Does the experience of seeing the suffering negate the value of those moments of their lives in which these children were not suffering?

Is it fair to judge the mother by picking apart a short reply to whay may have seemed like a stupid and insensitive question? I can't go and ask her what she meant by saying that she "enjoyed" them while they were here, but I think this quote is a pretty thin basis on which to assume the worst about her and conclude that she thinks of her children as toys or treats... I pretty sure that this kind of judgement of others was not what Christ called for in the Gospels (sorry for the sanctimonious tone, but I can't thin of another way to say it just now)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by watchergirl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
If the average life has, say, 10% pain 10% euphoria and 80% something inbetween, why bring a new life into the world if you know from the start it will have, 60% pain or even a twilight half-life like the babies with very severe retardation? I don't understand why a woman would want to deliberately bring a new life into the world if he wasn't going to have a fair chance at happiness.

---

This, in my opinion, shows a very able-bodied-centric view of happiness. We don't know how much happiness a severely disabled person experiences. It may be far more than we do. God blesses the poor in spirit - whoever they are. We are arrogant and prejudiced if we believe that we can enter into the experience of those who are different from us and then try to judge them based on this imagined experience of their lives.

We can also be very patronising about them. Disabled people's lives are valuable. This fact is not recognised enough by a church which is suffering greatly from the subtle spread of the 'health, wealth and prosperity' gospel. Able-bodied (or -minded) people are not the only ones who are loved by God - yet to hear many preachers talk, you'd think that disabled people were incomplete or more fallen than most. And that, I believe, is rooted in the prejudice that leads people to think about disabled people only in terms of our suffering and pain. This view is inconsistent with the rest of our beliefs as Christians.

---

Watchergirl, I don't know what kind of church you've been going to but it certainly isn't anything like the United Methodist church I attend. If you have had the misfortune to encounter a minister who thought that disabled people were incomplete or more fallen than most then rest assured that he was a complete idiot and don't give him another thought.

Anyone who has ever read Luke, or any other Gospel for that matter, knows that Jesus had a very special love for children, the poor, the disabled and the sick. Of course disabled lives are just as valuable as anyone elses.

However, Jesus did often cure people of their illnesses and disabilities. He didn't seem to think of illness as such a desirable state that no one would want to be cured. When the woman asked him to cure her son he didn't tell her that she was wrong to want him to be healthy.

I don't agree with you that I am arrogant to try and imagine another person's life. I don't think anyone likes pain and if someone is moaning and grimacing in agony, I think it's safe to guess that they are not happy. I find it very, very hard to see a child moaning in pain for hours on end. If you think it's patronising for me to feel pity for him then so be it but it's not able-bodied centricism it's just plain old empathy.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Did you actually read watchergirl's post, Sasha?

What you seem to be saying is akin to "Oh, of course I think that disabled people are as valuable as others. It's just that they suffer so terribly that they shouldn't have been born." You really think you have the right to judge whether somone else's life is worth living without consulting them?

If so, I truly despair.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
I am entirely with Erin on this one. A fetus in a womb IS a human life. The only justifible reason for termination, IMO is danger to the mother's life. But as I said further back on this thread, the Christian community has responsibilities here. Some children are born in appaling conditions with parents totally incapable of caring for them. Some are born with deformities, physical or mental.

For the Christian community to say, which I do, that it is anti-abortion, it also has to say that it is willing to pick up the pieces in caring for unwanted or disadvantaged children. That sense of community within the church isn't what it once was. At my age(49) with my natural children almost grown up, I am considering fostering. Being anti-abortion without offering help isn't that realistic.
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
Dearest Shipmate Sasha,

I am sorry that I gave the impression that I was attributing those thoughts to you. I was responding not just to your post, but to several comments that were made in response, in particular:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
I think Sasha's story illustrates the fact that the discussion (wherever it leads) is often based around happiness and enjoyment rather than anything inherent about the nature of life itself. Frankly, a woman who thinks of children as something to be "enjoyeed" while they last deserve a good kicking whilst we shout, "Children are not cakes, you idiot".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Well that's the problem with Sasha's post about addign up the bad things and good things that happen in someone's life ansd saying that they should not have been born if the bad exceeds the good.

She's making exactly the same error as the woman she blames for "enjoying them while she can". Not thinking of the sick child as person in their own right but only as an object, something contemplated and desired by others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
I really can't imagine why you think that it would be a bad thing for a woman who carries a deadly genetic disease to decide not to have children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
I'm not suggesting that people with genetic diseases be prohibited from having children or forced to have abortions but I definitely think that they should have that option and not be judged as vain, frivolous, selfish, haters of the disabled by people like you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I keep forgetting to go back to this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
Putting aside for now the issue of being pressured or forced into having sex, it is my supposition that many acts of unprotected sex take place when drink or drugs have been taken or good sense has otherwise left the equation.

---

So by your reckoning, then, if they're drunk or high they're not responsible for their actions? In that case, you must be ok with letting drunk or otherwise impaired drivers off the hook, as well as not pressing charges against men who rape while they're drunk or high. After all, they're not responsible, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Sasha, I don't think anyone here would not respect her choice to not have children. You, however, have made it abundantly clear that you do NOT respect her choice to have children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
No, Erin, I didn't mean that people who are drunk or high are not responsible for their actions. I did mean that people who are drunk or high are more likely to make mistakes. And I don't believe that the 'punishment' for or consequences of having unprotected sex should be possible forced parenthood. Do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
I do think there are some people here who would think she was sinful to decide not to have children. I think there are people here who believe that the highest calling a woman can have is to bring as many new lives into this world as she possibly can without regard to the type of life they may have when they get here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:


What you seem to be saying is akin to "Oh, of course I think that disabled people are as valuable as others. It's just that they suffer so terribly that they shouldn't have been born." You really think you have the right to judge whether somone else's life is worth living without consulting them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
More importantly, why should that unborn child suffer the consequences of its parent's mistakes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
I don't believe that the 'punishment' for or consequences of having unprotected sex should be possible forced parenthood. Do you?

---

Uh, yeah, as a matter of fact I do.

---

quote:

---

However, this still makes no sense. Why is someone who gets knocked up because they're drunk any more deserving of an out than someone who kills someone because they're drunk? More importantly, why should that unborn child suffer the consequences of its parent's mistakes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
Even if you say the child could be adopted, there are still frequently problems that occur later in life for an adopted child.

OOT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
I don't believe that the 'punishment' for or consequences of having unprotected sex should be possible forced parenthood. Do you?

---

Uh, yeah, as a matter of fact I do.

---

Few 'crimes' let alone stupid mistakes bring a 'punishment' of such bodily discomfort and pain or commit a person to 16 years of childcare.

---

quote:

---

Why should a child be brought into the world that is utterly unwanted by its parents?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
I seem to have backed into fighting a position I don't really believe in. I know lots of people benefit from adoption but I was wanting to say that it's not just an easy solution. There are big implications of saying that every healthy fetus that is currently aborted should be carried to full term and given up for adoption.

Not least major additional strains on stretched social services.

OOT

---

quote:

---

Fabio: My college boyfriend was a very handsome, sexy football player with a cleft palate.

---

 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I noticed but I didn't really take it as an insult, Pres.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
No doubt she's not the first to confuse you with the flaxen-tressed Italian.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I hate posting on this thread, because it exposes just how low an opinion I have of my fellow humans. But that's the truth.

And, for some of us, it's also kind of the point.

Yeah, in an enlightened world, where people are these thinking beings, even Erin's method would make sense. But it's not. Humans are stupid, wreckless, thoughtless, instinct-driven animals that have the capability to pretend otherwise sometimes. Quite honestly, with regards to sex between the ages of puberty and 26, I doubt that such clearness of thought is in any way guaranteed. It's going to happen, a lot.

Bringing a human life into this world IS a matter of considerable magnitude. I don't think most people having children today give it adequate regard. If we don't have a means in our feeble intellectual arsenal to cull the ill-considered animal hormonal-urge mistakes from the pool, there will be increased social problems. Coincidentally, exactly like the social problems we seem to be facing in the West right now. We aren't talking about some magical, isolated fairy land. We're talking about that crowded, polluted, crazy mess you drive through every day.

Now wipe that twinkle out of your eye, and don't tell me that "a life is a life is a life" crap. Tell that to your dinner. If we're going to survive as a species, we'll have to use what little intellectual means we have to keep the resource-hungry billions we already have without arbitrarily increasing the birth rates in the most wasteful populations.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
No doubt she's not the first to confuse you with the flaxen-tressed Italian.

---

Well, I am somewhat better looking tbh

RooK - I will continue to believe that the disabled are as capable of living a fulfilling life as anybody else unless you can prove otherwise.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
I also think we should realize that
disabled people and people with terrible diseases were not put on this earth so that the rest of us could drop a coin in the March of Dimes jar and feel good about ourselves <snip> If medical science can relieve or prevent their suffering then I consider that a gift from God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
If we don't have a means in our feeble intellectual arsenal to cull the ill-considered animal hormonal-urge mistakes from the pool, there will be increased social problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
RooK - I will continue to believe that the disabled are as capable of living a fulfilling life as anybody else unless you can prove otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Humans are stupid, wreckless, thoughtless, instinct-driven animals that have the capability to pretend otherwise sometimes.

---

Unfortunately, they're not wreckless enough.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Fair enough RooK. I apologise for misunderstanding what you said.
 

---

Posted by Sasha (# 2832) on :
 
Papio: Thanks for apologizing for calling me stupid on this thread. Hee. I knew what you meant but it's not the usual thing to put a paraphrase of what you think someone means inside quotation marks. Trust Preslyterian to notice that I called you Fabio - Like Dyfrigs thread in Heaven,I had misread it all this time and it is a compliment.

Erin: I hadn't specifically meant people on this thread thought women should have as many babies as possible. It's just a guess I'm making about some of the more conservative Ship-mates. Maybe not.

I think there's a big difference in disagreeing with a person's decision and passing judgement on them.I don't have much respect for my neighbor's decorating taste but I'm not passing judgement on her. All I'm saying in the case of the woman with dying children is that if I was in the woman's position I would make a different decision.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
I also think we should realize that
disabled people and people with terrible diseases were not put on this earth so that the rest of us could drop a coin in the March of Dimes jar and feel good about ourselves <snip> If medical science can relieve or prevent their suffering then I consider that a gift from God.

---

Sasha, I don't want to put words into your mouth, or attribute to you something you didn't mean to say. So, would you mind clarifying something for me?

Among those ways that medical science can relieve or prevent suffering, are you including euthenasia? Or abortion-as-euthenasia? Either? Both? Neither?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
Looking at the abortion/adoption issue, around 150,000 first trimester abortions take place in the UK each year where the grounds cited are the physical/mental wellbeing of the mother. Government source. Around 5000 adoptions are registered each year. Government source. The feasibility of saying that all aborted children should be adopted is a bigger issue than I thought. Quite how many couples are on waiting lists to adopt babies is another matter and not one I could easily find out.

OOT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
That is, the foetus is becoming a person (and as such deserves enormous respect and protection) but is not one yet (so does not have the full range of rights).

---

Let me get this straight, it deserves respect and protection EXCEPT protection against being killed in the womb if the mother decides she doesn't want the child. If an unborn child does not have that basic right to life, then any other right you arbitrarily assign to it is absolutely meaningless. If you do not have a right to life, then you have no other rights. If a fetus doesn't deserve a chance to live, then it deserves nothing else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Unprotected sex has a good chance of getting you pregnant. That is a fact of nature. If your immediate gratification needs are such that you are willing to take that risk, then you live with the consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
The foetus is valuable, in my eyes, because it will one day become a human, not because it is one already. If I believed it was already human then every termimnation would be murder, in my eyes, and should not be allowed even to save the life of the mother. But it isn't, so it's not.

Personally I would not be happy if a group of doctors swooped down on me and put me under anaesthetic. Not even if the last words I heard were: "We're removing your heart - but don't worry, it will save your mother's life". Killing one human for the benefit of another seems morally dubious to me; sacrificing a potential human for the sake of an actual human could be justifiable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Let me get this straight, it deserves respect and protection EXCEPT protection against being killed in the womb if the mother decides she doesn't want the child. If an unborn child does not have that basic right to life, then any other right you arbitrarily assign to it is absolutely meaningless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Sorry, Erin, I misunderstood your question.

I do think it is something else that ultimately becomes a born human with full rights. I think there's a time frame the very early end of which it's more of a very special developing clump of cells (more important than "just a clump"), and toward the end of which is a full human being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
Looking at the abortion/adoption issue, around 150,000 first trimester abortions take place in the UK each year where the grounds cited are the physical/mental wellbeing of the mother. Government source. Around 5000 adoptions are registered each year. Government source. <snip>
OOT

---

Looking at your source, I'm guessing that you are looking at the stats for statutory ground C--but this states that there would be injury to the mother if the pregnancy were not aborted... I know there are extremist anti-abortion people who advocate a total ban on all abortions in all circumstances, but surely most people consider the protection of the mother an important factor? I'm not sure which part of the argument you are addressing here--because the comparison with adoption figures doesn't seem to make an argument, something is missing--or I'm being very dense and not seeing the obvious point that you're making...

Could you clarify this a bit?

---

quote:

---

C the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;

---

quote:

---

If there is a gradual process changing a single cell to a full human being (let us say for the sake of argument at the end of the first trimester), is there not also a sliding scale of "wrongness" to terminating the process at this point

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
What is the moral difference between stopping a pregnancy by preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted and stopping a pregnancy by removing an embryo from the womb? The former is accomplished by regular birth-control pills, the morning-after pill, and IUDs; the latter by a first trimester abortion. The only difference is that, in the case of the abortion, the egg has already implanted and (presumably) divided, thereby gaining the title "embryo."
[...]
What is the moral justification for killing a inconvenient child simply because it hasn't yet implanted itself in the uterine lining?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:


If there is a gradual process changing a single cell to a full human being (let us say for the sake of argument at the end of the first trimester), is there not also a sliding scale of "wrongness" to terminating the process at this point.

---

quote:

---

Erin: I hadn't specifically meant people on this thread thought women should have as many babies as possible. It's just a guess I'm making about some of the more conservative Ship-mates. Maybe not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So life is the presence of a soul? Hmmmm... that's a new biological definition.

---

So there are some people alive without a soul, and some people (on earth) with a soul but not alive?

Sorry to have misled, I wasn't intending to make a biological point.

---

So only people are alive? Nothing else is? I would imagine that just about every zoologist and botanist on the planet would dispute that assertion.

Dyfrig, no, I am not a vegetarian. If God had intended us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made steak taste so good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
I don't believe that the 'punishment' for or consequences of having unprotected sex should be possible forced parenthood. Do you?

---

Uh, yeah, as a matter of fact I do.

---

Few 'crimes' let alone stupid mistakes bring a 'punishment' of such bodily discomfort and pain or commit a person to 16 years of childcare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hel:
I was referring only to humans. I'm not sure why I'm replying though...you're obviously being pedantic for pedantic's sake, and I think my comments are probably a whole different thread...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
Many couples who have a family history of inherited disease are seeking genetic counseling before having children.
I think that can be a very good thing. I think some diseases, like breast cancer, deserve to die out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
In the US, and I would imagine most other civilized countries, if the mother decides to drown her born child, she's going to be brought up on the same charges she would be if she murdered a forty-year-old man (or found criminally insane, whichever applies).

---

quote:

---

If their parents object on religious grounds, tell them to get stuffed. Parents don't own their children. A teenager should be free to learn things their parents don't want them to learn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
We really, really need to tell young women that they simply must take charge of their own bodies and use reliable (99% effective) birth control. I think the main reason we're having so much trouble getting this point accross is that as soon as anyone brings this up, as I once did on this board, a huge backlash of anger errupts saying basically -Why put it all on the girl? It takes two to make a baby! You probably want to kick her out in the snow!

Well, yes it does take two but the girl pays the biggest consequences and only the girl has a reliable source of birth control that can be used in advance in the sober light of day. I think the false promise of condoms is one of the main reasons for those huge abortion numbers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
So is the idea that one can believe that some early abortions are immoral without believing that they should be illegal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Notwithstanding the common sense of your argument, what if the children object on religious grounds? Should a teenager be free to be ignorant about something they don't want to learn?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

We don't outlaw lying or prostitution or adultery or drunkenness or using bad language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

The real way to stop abortions would be to promote contraception.

---

quote:

---

If you've discovered a way to teach people things they don't want to learn I think you ought to let the schools know!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
We don't outlaw lying or prostitution or adultery or drunkenness or using bad language. Things would probably be better if we didn't outlaw heroin, but I don't want to be a junkie myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Few 'crimes' let alone stupid mistakes bring a 'punishment' of such bodily discomfort and pain or commit a person to 16 years of childcare.

---

It is not a punishment - it is a result.

If, however, you consider it to be "crime" and "punishment" - If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

And later...

General question: Why is it not OK to tell people not to have sex if they are not prepared to have kids? Sometimes I think the invention of "reliable" birth control was man's biggest mistake.

I wish someone would start a thread on taking responsibility for one's actions instead of blaming it on someone/something else.

---

quote:

---

I am pro-life AND pro-choice. Pro-choice in that I fully accept that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have sex knowing that pregnancy is the desired biological outcome of sexual intercourse. However, once she's made the choice, there are very few instances where an abortion is morally justifiable.

---

quote:

---

And I don't believe that the 'punishment' for or consequences of having unprotected sex should be possible forced parenthood. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, yeah, as a matter of fact I do.

---

quote:

---

Hand out condoms to 14-year-old boys in school.
Have giant boxes of them sitting around on street corners. They are wonderful things - they stop the spread of diseases, they prevent unwanted pregnancies, and silly little kids of all ages can have great fun blowing them up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

The real way to stop abortions would be to promote contraception. Abstinence is the only 100% solution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I hope we can agree that the couplet about doing the crime and doing the time is equally applicable in their case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
If you choose to bring a child into this world (and that DOES extend all the way back to making the choice to have sex in the first place) then said child is your responsibility. Period, end of story.

---

quote:

---

Scot wrote: My question still stands unanswered. How does this standard allow for the intentional destruction of a fertilized egg?

---

If that's the standard one has adopted, then I don't see how it could allow for the intentional destruction of a fertilized egg.

Oh, and Genie, now you're just bragging -- like my friend who complains that can't seem to gain any weight or that her eyelashes are so long that they're always brushing up against her glasses.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

I did quick search on the internet (I am supposed to be working after all) and could only find sites which discussed cleft palates in terms of something easily correctable in early childhood. However, on the radio last night a woman from the BMA said that the severity of the condition could range from this to having no roof to the mouth at all, leaving part of the brain dangerously vulnerable.* This would require repeated surgery throughout childhood and adolecence to adulthood. I would assume, from a position of only slight anatomical knowledge, that such a condition would make eating and speaking almost impossible until a lot of the reconstruction had been done

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
If you choose to bring a child into this world (and that DOES extend all the way back to making the choice to have sex in the first place) then said child is your responsibility. Period, end of story.

---

My question still stands unanswered. How does this standard allow for the intentional destruction of a fertilized egg?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Erm, nope, because birth control pills prevent ovulation, rather than implantation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I'll have to go read up. It's been some years since I was first instructed in such things, but I thought I remembered that they worked by preventing implantation. If I've remembered wrong, I'll go spend the day dragging my foot out of my mouth.

---

No need. I looked it up, as you can see, and you are right. This is why some very serious life begins at conception people oppose OCs and IUDs.
See here for support: Utah med school seminar on activity of OCs and GP notebook.

[adding support for contention]

[ 03. December 2003, 16:26: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Get some ketchup or maple syrup or something ready. From mayoclinic.com:

quote:

---

How does it work?

The birth control pill impedes pregnancy by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). If eggs aren't released, sperm can't fertilize them and pregnancy can't occur. The pill also thickens your cervical mucus, making it difficult for sperm to reach the eggs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I'll have to go read up. It's been some years since I was first instructed in such things, but I thought I remembered that they worked by preventing implantation. If I've remembered wrong, I'll go spend the day dragging my foot out of my mouth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
We know that the little white and probably the hispanic babies will be quickly adopted (since it has become nearly impossible to adopt such children in the United States right now), but the black and disabled will languish in the orphanages that will have to be built and supported by the state.

I realize that this is a separate issue from whether abortion is murder at any stage, but I think it's worth considering the likely side affects of the new law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
We know that the little white and probably the hispanic babies will be quickly adopted (since it has become nearly impossible to adopt such children in the United States right now), but the black and disabled will languish in the orphanages that will have to be built and supported by the state.

I realize that this is a separate issue from whether abortion is murder at any stage, but I think it's worth considering the likely side affects of the new law.

---

No, it's not. If you believe that it is murder (and, quite frankly, I do), then what you are proposing is some weird form of eugenics. "Let's let abortion happen because no one wants the little black and disabled babies"??? Please tell me that you did not seriously just say that!

---

No, no, no. I think abortion because of disability is generally reprehensible and morally wrong. I would not do it. And I think you know why.

No, I was just thinking out loud about the future warehouses of unplaceable children. I would hope that the government will pony up and make sure they get the love they need.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I didn't think you thought that, but that's how it came across to me, hence the "please tell me you didn't just say that!"

I just have a real hard time understanding the argument of "well, it's going to cost us a lot of money, so let's just kill it". That, to me, is a symptom of a culture whose priorities are out of whack.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Here's the Council of Catholic Bishops who seem to think OCs are abortifacients.

I shouldn't have made that crack about Mayo, but I've used their website, and they tend to report some but not all things about certain things -- of course, OCs work chiefly by preventing fertilization, but I just did a sweep google for "How do OCs prevent pregnancy" and came up with a million web-hits from college info pages on contraception, which all begin, "The Pill prevents pregnancy in three ways..." I don't think Mayo is lying, they're just leaving some information out.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
And the other thing to remember is that in practice, OCs have a failure rate of 3-7%, which means that fertilizations while on the pill do take place. Ergo, if fertilizations take place, pregnancies occur when those fertilized eggs get to implant, which they mostly don't.

Ugh, overcome by tiredness. Back later.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
As a practical matter, do you have any suggestions about what will be done with the millions of disabled and racial-minority children who will not be adopted after the implementation of the Human Life Amendment?

---

quote:

---

The main way the [Combined] pill works is:

It stops your ovaries releasing an egg each month (ovulation). It also:
thickens the mucus from your cervix. This makes it difficult for sperm to move through it and reach an egg.
makes the lining of your womb thinner so it is less likely to accept a fertilised egg.

---

quote:

---

How does the POP [Progesterone only pill] work?
The pill works in a number of ways:

It works mainly by thickening the mucus from your cervix. This makes it difficult for sperm to move through it and reach an egg.
It makes the lining of your womb thinner so it is less likely to accept a fertilised egg.
It sometimes stops your ovaries releasing an egg (ovulation).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
As a practical matter, do you have any suggestions about what will be done with the millions of disabled and racial-minority children who will not be adopted after the implementation of the Human Life Amendment?

---

The mother and the father raise them.

---

quote:

---

Unlike some people involved in this debate, I am not against abortion in all cases. There is a line to be drawn and I would find it hard to state with absolute certainty where that line should be. But I would argue that a cleft lip and palate is nowhere near that line. For a while, it is a serious inconvenience, no more and no less than that. This is not an adequate reason, legally or morally, to terminate an unborn child before or after the 24-week deadline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I just have a real hard time understanding the argument of "well, it's going to cost us a lot of money, so let's just kill it". That, to me, is a symptom of a culture whose priorities are out of whack.

---

1. Backstreet abortions go up. Casualty/ER units get to deal with all the consequences of these.
2. A heck of a lot more babies get put up for adoption. Sad but true fact of life - many adoptive parents want 'perfect' kids, or at least basically normal kids. So kids with obvious disabilities will be much less likely to be adopted, and will live in care. The UK government also has this idea that kids must be placed with parents of the same ethnic grouping, so coloured, mixed-race and indian kids (in UK) again have less chance of being adopted.
3. People will have kids that are "mistakes", or "not wanted, but the condom split", or simply kids that they cannot care for in terms of time, money, attention, love etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
As a practical matter, do you have any suggestions about what will be done with the millions of disabled and racial-minority children who will not be adopted after the implementation of the Human Life Amendment?

---

The mother and the father raise them.

---

Ha HA HA! Oho! Ha! Ha ha ha! (Ouch!)

In many cases, the father and mother are entirely unsuitable to raise children, and ought to, absolutely ought to put the child up for adoption. What about the fourteen year olds' kid? Both parents are still kids themselves? Oh, no. I don't think that's a good idea at all. I think in those cases, adoption is the right choice, assuming abortion is off the table.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Morally, it would be wonderful if everyone honestly thought "I don't want to look after a kid right now, so I won't have sex, and definitely won't have unprotected sex." Unfortunately people do not think like that. And criminalising the end point will not stop the process from being started.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Morally, it would be wonderful if everyone honestly thought "I don't want to look after a kid right now, so I won't have sex, and definitely won't have unprotected sex." Unfortunately people do not think like that. And criminalising the end point will not stop the process from being started.

---

The end point is the pregnancy, which is NOT being criminalized in the least.

---

1. A man and a woman, neither of whom wants kids yet, haven't even thought about kids or the possibility thereof.
2. Couple get together.
3. Couple have sex.
4. Woman discovers she's pregant.
5. Woman has abortion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
The UK government also has this idea that kids must be placed with parents of the same ethnic grouping,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Erin, you're a true-blue libertarian, do you agree with sharkshooter that fourteen year-old parents be forced to raise their unwanted kid, or that the state should track down the grandparents and make them do it?

Anyway, back to the central issue, what's the big problem with having a shaded understanding of fetal rights, based on biological realities, as Karl and I have suggested is appropriate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
The issue with the sliding scale is that I don't believe there is a sliding scale of personhood. Either you are a person or you're not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
The issue with the sliding scale is that I don't believe there is a sliding scale of personhood. Either you are a person or you're not.

---

How are you defining person?

I *think* (correct me if I'm wrong) you're defining person in terms of whether you have a right to life?

In which case, does this mean those on Death Row are no longer persons, as the State has removed their right to life?

Sarkycow

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Being a person confers the right to life, not the other way around. A person is a human, living organism with unique genetic components.

---

Really not picking on you Erin, it's just we appear to be the only two posting currently

But, your definition of a "person" excludes identical twins, as they don't have unique genetic components...

*shrug* Defining a person is nigh on impossible, yet we can mostly agree instinctively on what is/isn't a "person".
 

---

Posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist (# 4081) on :
 
Sorry Erin, I figured out too late that you were replying to Laura. But then, according to Sarky I must be invisible anyway.

OOT
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
Sorry Erin, I figured out too late that you were replying to Laura. But then, according to Sarky I must be invisible anyway.

OOT

---

Oh hush your mouth

We appear to be on the same side, so why would I be arguing with you?

There is no one else currently posting on Erin's side, hence my constant arguing with her, and so my disclaimer that I wasn't picking on her deliberately.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
i've spent most of this morning deleting old magazines. and as i was going through the stack, one of them opened to a full page ad encouraging adoption of foster kids, stating that there are currently 134,000 kids in foster care awaiting adoption. just something for the people who say "adoption, not abortion" to consider. people aren't adopting the kids we already have to deal with.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Yes, and I blame the state for that. There are huge wads of people who would love to adopt but are prevented from doing so because of their marital status, age and income.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
There is no one else currently posting on Erin's side, hence my constant arguing with her, and so my disclaimer that I wasn't picking on her deliberately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
My guess is that many 14 year olds, if pushed to go through a full unwanted pregnancy, would want to keep their babies.

[...]

Would emergency contraception not be preferable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Yes, and I blame the state for that. There are huge wads of people who would love to adopt but are prevented from doing so because of their marital status, age and income.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Yes, probably, but that's not the same as abortion.

---

quote:

---

And why "if pressed"? Quite a lot of underage mothers want their babies - the social pressure on them these days is in favour of abortion.

---

That is very true. I am of Germaine Greer's opinion* - 'choice' cuts both ways, nobody should be pressured or forced by circumstances into an abortion they don't really want. If that means that as a society we have to put our money where our mouth is to help support young/poor mothers (even if it means we wind up supporting some so-called 'undeserving' cases ) then good, lets do it.

Rat

*OK, that was GG's opinion the last time I heard her speak on the subject. I am aware she quite often changes her opinions (something I actually rather admire).
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Yes, probably, but that's not the same as abortion.

---

But I think we just established that several posters, most recently Erin, think it is the same, since emergency contraception works by causing the fertilised egg to be discarded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Yes, probably, but that's not the same as abortion.

---

But I think we just established that several posters, most recently Erin, think it is the same, since emergency contraception works by causing the fertilised egg to be discarded.

---

Then it is dishonest to call it "emergency contraception".

---

Well, that's hardly my fault, that's what its called! Unless there is some form of after-the-fact contraception I've not heard of that doesn't depend on discouraging the fertilized egg from implanting?

Rat
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
I thought we'd established that all methods of contraception, except barrier methods, work at least partly by preventing implantation.

And pace Erin, I've heard doctors cite implantation as the beginning of life, since a huge number of fertilised cells fail to implant at all.
 

---

Posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist (# 4081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
My guess is that many 14 year olds, if pushed to go through a full unwanted pregnancy, would want to keep their babies.

[...]

Would emergency contraception not be preferable?

---

Yes, probably, but that's not the same as abortion.

And why "if pressed"? Quite a lot of underage mothers want their babies - the social pressure on them these days is in favour of abortion.

There was a rather nasty press campaign in Britain a year or so ago criticising a couple for supporting their underage daughter in her decision not to abort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
But, your definition of a "person" excludes identical twins, as they don't have unique genetic components...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
It would be unethical of me to try to influence her towards or away from abortion based on my own moral stance (and potentially a disciplinary matter).

OOT

---

Under what system of ethics would this be considered unethical?

If one of your students came to you and said s/he was contemplating cheating on a test, serial rape or armed rebellion against the house of Windsor would you decline to counsel them "based on (your) own moral stance"?

Abortion is either: A) a morally acceptable choice or B) a morally unacceptable choice. Whichever you believe, surely it is self-evident that we have a positive moral obligation to counsel people to make morally acceptable choices and avoid morally unacceptable ones. Isn't this the very foundation of all ethics? If your position is correct, every ethics book ever written is unethical because they all are attempts to influence people to the author's moral stance!

If you truly think it is unethical to attempt to influence people to your moral views, you should quit posting and go sit in a cave somewhere.

St. C.

[ 03. December 2003, 23:44: Message edited by: St. Cuervo ]
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Originally posted by Erin:
the only reasonable reasons I can see for abortion after the first few weeks are:

1) The child will not live very long and will have an exceptionally low standard of life while it is still alive.
2) The mothers life is in genuine danger becuase of the pregnancy, according to at least 3 experts.
3) The woman became pregnant after being raped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

St. Cuervo, it would be considered unethical if OOT is supposed to act as an impartial entity.

---

quote:

---

If I may be permitted to delve off on a little perspective-revealing tangent before we are all bundled off to Dead Horses and pointed at from the future...

Consider a lump of human cells. Any old lump of living human cells. It is conceivable that in the future any old lump of living human cells could transformed into complete person by a cloning process. Does this mean that, at that time, we will have to gather every surgical remnant, every little shred of nerve from shed baby teeth, and every drop of spilt blood... and turn them into a human clone?

Isn't it the same?...
Doesn't it sound a little ridiculous?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Erin, Sharkshooter, I think I understand your point of view. I just feel that you're oversimplifying the issue. In doing that, I think you would force a great deal of suffering and harm on humanity as a whole. Like I said before, it wouldn't be so terrible in a perfect world, but in the world I see we are stuck with weighing sufferings.

---

And I think that you are oversimplifying the issue, too, and in the process encouraging a society where inconvenient life is completely expendable upon someone else's whim, forcing a great deal of suffering and harm on humanity as a whole.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Excellent post, St. Cuervo.
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Cuervo:
Every pregnancy, thus, contains the immanent potential for life, unless something happens to change that.

In the case of cloning, on the other hand, a positive action is required to create the life-to-be. If there is no such action (and we are still in the realm of science fiction here) there will be no life. If "nature take its course," my dandruff or toenail clippings are still going to be dandruff and toenail clippings nine month from now. My toenails, thus, do not contain an immanent potential for life unless something happens to change that.

So "...gather(ing) every surgical remnant, every little shred of nerve from shed baby teeth, and every drop of spilt blood... and turn(ing) them into a human clone" is not the same as saying someone should not have an abortion. A "lump" of cells, in essence, contains no immanent potential for human life. A fetus, in essence, does. Your comparison is, thus, invalid for you are comparing two unlike things.

Cheers,

St. C.

---

But I think you are dodging a real dichotomy here. A fertilized egg is not a pregnancy. As others have pointed out many--perhaps most--fertilized eggs do not implant, so no pregnancy results. My reading of RooK's post was that it came in response to a number of posts that seemed to argue that prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg = abortion = murder.

Arguing that every fertilized egg is a potential life is very much like arguing that every scrap of DNA bearing detritus is a potential life (and in some cases as much in the realm of science fiction as human cloning).

Given that some people must go to extreme lengths to try to encourage implantation of their fertilized eggs (ask people who are having fertility problems if you don't know what I'm talking about) and if nature takes its course no pregnancy will result from the fertilization of their eggs, RooK's comparisson is valid.

Why should we look at a morning after pill that prevents implantation as identical to a procedure that rips apart and kills a developed foetus, with limbs, nervous system, heart beat, reactivity to external stimuli? This makes no sense to me.

I think you have to look at that fertilized egg as a potential person but not an actual person, or as Papio suggested, a person in development. I can't agree with Erin's uncompromising black or white view. Maybe it's time we began saying "you can be a little bit pregnant" -- carrying a fertilized egg that has not yet implanted is far from being pregnant, but it's certainly far closer to being pregnant than if no fertilized egg were present, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Oh crap. I agree with Jerry Boam too.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
But Jerry I also think you kinda missed part of what Cuervo was saying. He didn't say "every fertilised egg is a potential life" he said every pregnancy. If you take pregnancy as beginning at implantation (which I do (currently and tentatively)), then everything else he says follows, unless you are appying it to the "morning after pill" or other implantation-prevention strategies.

In which case Rook's thing works better.
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
I totally Agree, MT...
 

---

Posted by St. Cuervo (# 4725) on :
 
Jerry,

MT is right. I wrote that a "pregnancy" and a "fetus" contain the "immanent potential for life." I was not considering the case of a fertilized egg.

We read RooK differently. I read him as making that comparison in an attempt to illustrate the absurdity of the anti-abortion position, in general, by arguing that in order to be consistent an anti-abortionist one would also have to support this absurd cloning thing as well. You are reading his comparison as referring specifically to opposition to methods of contraception that prevent implantation.

I shall have to think about this some more. I don't think about fertilized eggs very often.

St. C.
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
Of course, RooK will now come in and prove me wrong...

But I think you were reading his whole post as a comment on your post because it began that way... but I thought that he was commenting on the broader themes of the thread starting with his third line...

But I may be seeing it that way because a similar confusion lead Sasha to conclude that I was Sharkshooter's (or perhaps Erin's) sock puppet, earlier in this thread...

In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing more from you on this.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I know that it's an unspoken truth, but I want to say it. I'm just speaking my opinion, and the reasons why I think it. I wanted to say it because, even though I fervently want no sweeping anti-abortion law to ever be passed, I would hate for the people who view every potential human life as sacred to go away. It is honourable and beautiful, even if I find it foolish.

Jerry Boam, thanks to you for eloquently helping explain that I'm just trying to explain how it's possible to see a zygote as not fully human.

Erin, I am merely admitting that we live in a world where inconvenient life is expendable upon someone else's whim. Look at it this way:
If someone is shot on a battlefield, you first bind the wound to stop the bleeding - because that's the most helpful thing you can do. Yeah, that bandage actually hinders the removal of the bullet later, but that's only possible in some later state anyway. I see the option of early-term abortion the same way - in some enlightened state of society, it won't be needed any more. But, in the real world we live in, it's the most helpful thing we can do right now.

St. Cuervo, on the issue of abortion I think that the impartial position is akin to value neutral. It is so heated a topic that it would take something close to prescience to be able to really helpfully guide someone while using a decided moral stance regarding abortion. Moreover, in today's political culture, it would be foolish. For most other topics, however, I concede your point. I do deny, however, the existence of either "good" or "evil". But, that's a different and much more lighthearted topic.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Crosspost action!
To clearly confirm - the cloning analogy was primarily meant to compare to unattached fertilized eggs. I hoped it would open the door to seeing how some of us can bend our minds to imagine a grey scale from merely potential to fully human during the pregnancy.
 

---

Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 

quote:

---

Arguing that every fertilized egg is a potential life is very much like arguing that every scrap of DNA bearing detritus is a potential life (and in some cases as much in the realm of science fiction as human cloning).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJS:
Wouldn’t the theological question then be ‘is it God’s purpose that a fertilised human egg result in an adult human being?’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJS:
Adulthood is then not just a possible consequence of a fertilisation, but its divinely ordered purpose.
[...]
The question then is not one of potential, but of purpose. Wouldn’t the theological question then be ‘is it God’s purpose that a fertilised human egg result in an adult human being?’

---

quote:

---

Yes, a foetus is more than an appendix. And that invalidates the argument that it's the woman's right to choose, how?

The woman carries the foetus for nine months, goes through serious pain to squeeze it out, will probably be the primary care giver for the next 16 years*. Yes, it's her right to choose.

---

quote:

---

And I think that you are oversimplifying the issue, too, and in the process encouraging a society where inconvenient life is completely expendable upon someone else's whim, forcing a great deal of suffering and harm on humanity as a whole.

---

quote:

---

If that was God's purpose, then he/she ought to have arranged it a bit more efficiently, since the majority of fertilised eggs do not implant and are lost without any human intervention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
In fact there seems to me to be a very firm line-in-the sand for the pro-choice between born and un-born life, while it's the pro-life person who blurs the line when they say that a 4 week old embryo is exactly the same as four year old child but then say that it's okay to kill that embryo/child if the mother was a rape victim. I find that sort of thinking more dangerous.

I think an annual extra 150,000 children growing up in orphanages would also force a great deal of suffering on humanity. No matter how slack we get with adoption standards, and we really don't want to return to the place where old people were adopting boys for farm labor, there will be a huge number of children left over.

---

quote:

---

Moo, that's funny. I assume you're joking.

---

quote:

---

I would still find it difficult to opt for a termination of pregnancy, as I have a huge respect for life. But I would not condemn a woman who did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
But I also think we should realize that
disabled people and people with terrible diseases were not put on this earth so that the rest of us could drop a coin in the March of Dimes jar and feel good about ourselves for the rest of the day. They aren't here so that their mothers can win Mother-of-the-year awards or so that their pastor will have a special prayer to lead. They live with and endure their problems all day every day, long after Lord and Lady Bountiful have gone home. If medical science can relieve or prevent their suffering then I consider that a gift from God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
My own beautiful son has paronoid schizophrenia. Since the day he was born he has been the absolute light of my life, I loved caring for him and spending time with him when he was a "normal" brilliant student and since he became ill I love being with him and caring for him just as much; even when he is having his most violent and dangerous psychotic episodes. Caring for him gives my life purpose and I take satisfaction in all the ways I can help him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
it's not about us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
Erin, I thought my two posts re-inforced rather than contradicted each other. What I'm trying to say is that no matter how much satisfation she and I take in caring for our children, no matter much we love them, at the end of the day - it's not about us. It's about our sick children, and I honestly think, in all good conscience, it was wrong for her and would be wrong for me, to deliberately bring more such children in the world to suffer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The pro-abortion stance is "it is the mother's choice" - which is it's all about me . You are getting really confusing now.

---

quote:

---

As bad as I think abortion for sex-selection is, I'm not sure if (at least until such time as attitudes change) it isn't better than bringing them into the world and then drowning or starving them to death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
What else does "It is the mother's choice" mean? That seems to me to be saying it is all about the mother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Laura wrote

quote:

---

As bad as I think abortion for sex-selection is, I'm not sure if (at least until such time as attitudes change) it isn't better than bringing them into the world and then drowning or starving them to death.

---

Well I'm off to a shipmeet. Will remind myself as I'm battling the rush hour traffic that people are probably better than they appear to be.

RR

---

quote:

---

This research [on how women think about unplanned pregnancy] suggests that modern American women of childbearing age do not view the abortion issue within the same moral framework as those of us who are pro-life activists. Our message is not being well-received by this audience because we have made the error of assuming that women, especially those facing the trauma of an unplanned pregnancy, will respond to principles we see as self-evident within our own moral framework.... This is a miscalculation that has fatally handicapped the pro-life cause. While we may not agree with how women currently evaluate this issue, the importance of our mission and the imperative to be effective demand that we listen, that we understand, and that we respond to the actual concerns of women who are most likely to choose abortion.

---

quote:

---

The report suggests that women do not see any "good" resulting from an unplanned pregnancy. Instead they must weigh what they perceive as three "evils," namely, motherhood, adoption, and abortion.

Unplanned motherhood, according to the study, represents a threat so great to modern women that it is perceived as equivalent to a "death of self." While the woman may rationally understand this is not her own literal death, her emotional, subconscious reaction to carrying the child to term is that her life will be "over." This is because many young women of today have developed a self-identity that simply does not include being a mother. It may include going through college, getting a degree, obtaining a good job, even getting married someday; but the sudden intrusion of motherhood is perceived as a complete loss of control over their present and future selves

---

quote:

---

When these women evaluate the abortion decision, therefore, they do not, as a pro-lifer might, formulate the problem with the radically distinct options of either "I must endure an embarrassing pregnancy" or "I must destroy the life of an innocent child." Instead, their perception of the choice is either "my life is over" or "the life of this new child is over." Given this perspective, the choice of abortion becomes one of self-preservation, a much more defensible position, ...

---

quote:

---

If pro-lifers are willing to reframe the debate in a way that affected women can better understand and appreciate, the movement can regain the moral high ground in the mind of the American public, and begin to reach successfully the very women who most need the pro-life message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
As for the 'it's all about me' tag, I also refute that. I do think it's the mother's choice. That is because it is her body, her life, her ability to cope that we are considering. She alone has to make the decision whether the life now growing within her is to be cherished or destroyed.

---

quote:

---

All pregnant women realise very quickly how their sense of self becomes eroded and made secondary to that of the foetus. She is told she must eat this, do that, not do the other. She may be made to change jobs or give up work early. She doesn't realise it yet, but that's nothing compared to the sacrifices she will make once the child is born.

---

quote:

---

their perception of the choice is either "my life is over" or "the life of this new child is over."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I will make one last contribution to this thread based on one of your excerpts from the quoted article, and I will make it as calmly as I can.

quote:

---

their perception of the choice is either "my life is over" or "the life of this new child is over."

---

There is a difference between the end of a life and the end of a lifestyle (or a lifestyle).

---

Right! But the point of the writer of the article was that this is not how pro-legal-abortion people see it. He was illustrating the divide in perception between the pro-life position and the understanding of many pro-choice women. They see it as the end of their lives. And assertions otherwise from the pro-life side only highlight the judgmentality and incharity of the public-relations efforts of that movement. They care about the babies, is the message that comes across, they don't give a shit about women.

Actually, as a parent, I can say it is the end of life as you know it to be pregnant and mother a child. That's why we tell teenage girls not to get pregnant, so that their lives don't change completely before they are ready. In fact, in my case, it compelled me to do horrible things, like go to law school.
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
Sharkshooter, I was deliberately using those pronouns. Only the mother can make those decisions. No-one else is carrying the baby. She doesn't have to make selfish decisions if she doesn't want - most mothers don't, they want the best for their babies. All I contend is that they are they are her decisions.

And yes, pregnancy is the beginning of parenthood. That's why I said that the sacrifices one makes in pregnancy are as nothing to what comes later. However, once the child is born, someone else can make them if the child is adopted. In pregnancy, the mother must make those sacrifices herself.

I accept that if you truly believe that conception means that, suddenly, a new human springs into being, you must be always against abortion for anyone and against some forms of contraception. I don't believe that. As I said, I think it is a process, not an event.
 

---

Posted by St. Cuervo (# 4725) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
I do think it's the mother's choice. That is because it is her body, her life, her ability to cope that we are considering. She alone has to make the decision whether the life now growing within her is to be cherished or destroyed.

---

If an alcoholic destroys his liver by drink we do not say, "that liver was part of his body and it was his choice to cherish or destroy it." Even though the liver is part of his body, we do not endorse his decision but, rather, we look on him with pity and ask "what went wrong that drove him to do this."

If a teenager takes a knife and makes cuts up and down her arm we do not say, "that arm was hers to mutilate as she choose." Even though the arm is part of her body, we do not endorse her decision, rather, we try to reach out to her and determine why she was driven to the brink of suicide.

In the same manner we have the case of abortion. When a woman decides to destroy part of her body (the fetus) why do we suddenly turn around and claim that something different has occurred? As the case of the alcoholic and the suicidal teenager show, the mere fact that something is part of your body does not give you the right to destroy it.

Add to this the consideration that, as Christians, we know that our bodies are Temples of the Holy Spirit and we should be very careful in making the argument that people have the right to destroy parts of these Temples.

St. C.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Actually, I would say that each human has the absolute right to kill his liver by overdrink, or to commit suicide. More of a right to do this than to abort at 24 weeks, actually. Conversely, assuming what you say is true, then the distinction is that the liver does not grow into another human and require 16 years (or in the case of a severely handicapped human, a lifetime) of loving and monetary care. So that's what I think of your metaphor.

[ 04. December 2003, 22:07: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
My position, St Cuervo, is as one employed by the Local Authority to look after teenagers. As such I am required to act in a certain way, respectful of equal opportunities and other issues where people have different moral opinions. I am not supposed to promote any particular political or religious views either. I am required to act and encourage the young people to act within the law, but abortion is not illegal. It is a moral issue and people have demonstrated the varying views held by the population on this thread.

For this reason if I were chatting with a pregnant teenager I believe it would be unacceptable to say that abortion is wrong, it is murder and they were stupid to become pregnant (even if this was my opinion). Likewise I don't see that counsellors, nurses, doctors, teachers or social workers have a right to express such a view, unless pressed to give their personal opinion and even then I would expect it to be more tactfully put.

This is what I meant by unethical.

OOT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Conversely, assuming what you say is true, then the distinction is that the liver does not grow into another human and require 16 years (or in the case of a severely handicapped human, a lifetime) of loving and monetary care. So that's what I think of your metaphor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
So the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Cuervo:
If an alcoholic destroys his liver by drink we do not say, "that liver was part of his body and it was his choice to cherish or destroy it." Even though the liver is part of his body, we do not endorse his decision but, rather, we look on him with pity and ask "what went wrong that drove him to do this."

If a teenager takes a knife and makes cuts up and down her arm we do not say, "that arm was hers to mutilate as she choose." Even though the arm is part of her body, we do not endorse her decision, rather, we try to reach out to her and determine why she was driven to the brink of suicide.

---

quote:

---

St C adds:
Add to this the consideration that, as Christians, we know that our bodies are Temples of the Holy Spirit and we should be very careful in making the argument that people have the right to destroy parts of these Temples.

St. C.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
RR - I don't think rights are intrinsic. Or rather, whether or not they are, is immaterial. You do not have rights simply by virtue of being. You have rights because society gives them to you. If society removes those rights, you will not have them any more. So no, the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic. It is a right given by society, and one that I believe should continue to be given by society.

---

Ooooohhhh... let's throw in a cross-cultural difference just to make it a complete thread. Many people, myself included, firmly believe that you do have rights simply by virtue of being. I will refer you to the Bill of... wait for it...

Rights.


 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
RR - I don't think rights are intrinsic. Or rather, whether or not they are, is immaterial. You do not have rights simply by virtue of being. You have rights because society gives them to you. If society removes those rights, you will not have them any more. So no, the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic. It is a right given by society, and one that I believe should continue to be given by society.

---

Ooooohhhh... let's throw in a cross-cultural difference just to make it a complete thread. Many people, myself included, firmly believe that you do have rights simply by virtue of being. I will refer you to the Bill of... wait for it...

Rights.

---

But if they got amended, then you would no longer have those rights. So how are they intrinsic?



[Added smilie.]

[ 04. December 2003, 23:59: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
The whole basis for the american system is the "inalienable" rights among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with which we are "endowed by our creator". See Declaration of Independence. To secure these rights, goverments are instituted among us. See id. To the extent that a government takes away these rights, um, well, you know how that goes...

[ 05. December 2003, 00:09: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
To wit:

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
The whole basis for the american system is the "inalienable" rights among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with which we are "endowed by our creator". See Declaration of Independence. To secure these rights, goverments are instituted among us. See id. To the extent that a government takes away these rights, um, well, you know how that goes...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
You do not have rights simply by virtue of being. You have rights because society gives them to you. If society removes those rights, you will not have them any more. So no, the woman's right to choose is not intrinsic. It is a right given by society, and one that I believe should continue to be given by society.

---

quote:

---

Actually, we do allow the person to destroy their liver, or to slash their wrists (I assume you were going for suicidal slitting wrists rather and coping strategy self-harm). Neither action is illegal. They may be immoral, according to your personal views, but society neither bans people from damaging themselves, nor punishes them if they do.

---

quote:

---

Uh, close but no cigar. you're half-right in the context, and wholly wrong in the interpretation. The context is that since your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, you should not sin sexually. You can argue that a sexual sin is (in many cases) the antecedent to the abortion. However, this verse says nothing about therefore not damaging your body, or not removing foreign bodies from it, etc.

Sarkycow

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Or not. Perhaps these rights are not "inalienable", not intrinsic, simply given by society to those within society.

---

quote:

---

Destroying part of your body in this manner is not normal healthy behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
It seems quite evident that none of us are likely to change our current opinions about abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Rook, are you talking Bentham and the social contract?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Gee, Saint C, I quoted the Declaration twice. I guess I've become invisible again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

This thread is the first discussion of abortion that I've participated in for years. Still, I've been listening all that time. Based on what I've heard, I've come to a number of conclusions: There are well-intentioned, compassionate people on both sides of the debate There are raging nutjobs on both sides too. Whichever side wins, some people will be hurt badly. There is no single answer that fits every possible situation. There really are gray areas.

For those reasons and more, I can't tell someone else what decisions he or she should make on this issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So that strikes out capital punishment, as well as suicide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Destroying part of your body in this manner is not normal healthy behavior.

---

It is, when it's destroying you and it's you or it. Go back and read the thoughtful article which Laura posted.

I once read someone who described an unwanted pregnancy as like being an animal caught in a trap, prepared to gnaw its own leg off to escape.

Having had an unwanted pregnancy scare I can understand that feeling.

L

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I don't generally appreciate having other people make my moral decisions for me and I try not to make theirs for them.
[...]
There are well-intentioned, compassionate people on both sides of the debate There are raging nutjobs on both sides too. Whichever side wins, some people will be hurt badly. There is no single answer that fits every possible situation. There really are gray areas.

For those reasons and more, I can't tell someone else what decisions he or she should make on this issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Cuervo:
<snipped out bits I'm not replying to>
Good Christ Louise, a fetus is not destroying its mother! Only in extremely rare circumstances would a mother have to make a choice between her life and carrying a fetus to term. (And here it is important to note that 99% of all anti-abortion folks would allow an abortion if the mother's life were threatened in this manner.)

I don't understand what worldview would cause someone to see the fetus as a being that is "destroying" its mother's life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Cuervo:
<snipped out bits I'm not replying to>
Good Christ Louise, a fetus is not destroying its mother! Only in extremely rare circumstances would a mother have to make a choice between her life and carrying a fetus to term. (And here it is important to note that 99% of all anti-abortion folks would allow an abortion if the mother's life were threatened in this manner.)

I don't understand what worldview would cause someone to see the fetus as a being that is "destroying" its mother's life.

---

The fetus is not literally killing the mother, but it would destroy her lifestyle. No more parties. No more drink or smoking. No more unhealthy-but-fun foods. No more fitting into a size 6. Having to give up her job to look after the sprog, or fork out a fortune on childcare. That might not be a serious enough issue for you, and that's your choice, but to some people it is.

The fetus is (in such cases) violating the mother's Right To The Pursuit Of Happiness. And will be for at least the next 16 years. Adoption opens a whole 'nother emotional can of worms.

Understand yet?

[typo]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The fetus is (in such cases) violating the mother's Right To The Pursuit Of Happiness. And will be for at least the next 16 years. Adoption opens a whole 'nother emotional can of worms.

Understand yet?

---

Let's say, for instance, that I really really can't stand you. At all. The thought that you are still alive just sends me round the bend. Is your presence on this planet violating my right to the pursuit of happiness? Can I terminate YOU with a pair of scissors and a vacuum cleaner extension to the back of your brain in that case?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The fetus is (in such cases) violating the mother's Right To The Pursuit Of Happiness. And will be for at least the next 16 years. Adoption opens a whole 'nother emotional can of worms.

Understand yet?

---

Let's say, for instance, that I really really can't stand you. At all. The thought that you are still alive just sends me round the bend. Is your presence on this planet violating my right to the pursuit of happiness? Can I terminate YOU with a pair of scissors and a vacuum cleaner extension to the back of your brain in that case?

---

I sincerely hope not

Of course, my mere prescence on the same planet doesn't force you to pursue a completely different lifestyle to the one you would freely choose.

Is this getting back to the question of whose rights have priority? Does a foetus' right to life (if indeed rights apply to the unborn - have we established that yet?) outweigh the mother's right to the pursuit of happiness?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Sorry to DP, but:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hel:
I don't think any of us has the right to medical intervention to pursue the lifestyle of our choice surely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:



No more parties. No more drink or smoking. No more unhealthy-but-fun foods. No more fitting into a size 6. Having to give up her job to look after the sprog, or fork out a fortune on childcare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
You see the wholesome, fine, Christian mother went on vacation with her sister and, due to drink and that "out of time" feeling we sometimes have on holiday; she slipped and slept with another man, one of a different race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Granted. Actually I thought the 'partygirl' scenario was a little bit glib.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't know anybody who has had an abortion, so I'm working around this subject theoretically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't know anybody who has had an abortion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
Divine Outlaw Dwarf: I agree, the woman I knew was morally culpable. She knew that quite well, and she absolutely exhausted me and her priest with her remorse over this.

I'm just pointing out that an unplanned pregnancy can wreck the "lifestyle" of an entire family and not just the vain partygirl of the other scenario.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't know anybody who has had an abortion

---

I don't believe you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Cuervo:
When an alcoholic, for example, has decided that he wants to destroy his body (like a beast caught in the trap of life gnawing its foot off): how do we react?

We try to get help for him!

We talk to him or pray for him or refer him to AA or therapy or put him on anti-depressants or send him to a hospital or even to jail, but we don't let such a person destroy his body! We recoginze that something is going seriously wrong with his psyche that is leading him to want to destroy his body and we try to help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Cuervo:
<snipped out bits I'm not replying to>
Good Christ Louise, a fetus is not destroying its mother! Only in extremely rare circumstances would a mother have to make a choice between her life and carrying a fetus to term. (And here it is important to note that 99% of all anti-abortion folks would allow an abortion if the mother's life were threatened in this manner.)

I don't understand what worldview would cause someone to see the fetus as a being that is "destroying" its mother's life.

---

The fetus is not literally killing the mother, but it would destroy her lifestyle. No more parties. No more drink or smoking. No more unhealthy-but-fun foods. No more fitting into a size 6. Having to give up her job to look after the sprog, or fork out a fortune on childcare. That might not be a serious enough issue for you, and that's your choice, but to some people it is.

The fetus is (in such cases) violating the mother's Right To The Pursuit Of Happiness. And will be for at least the next 16 years. Adoption opens a whole 'nother emotional can of worms.

Understand yet?

[typo]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Cuervo:


This is why one of my earlier musings was on abortion and alcoholics/suicidal teens. When an alcoholic, for example, has decided that he wants to destroy his body (like a beast caught in the trap of life gnawing its foot off): how do we react?

We try to get help for him!

We talk to him or pray for him or refer him to AA or therapy or put him on anti-depressants or send him to a hospital or even to jail, but we don't let such a person destroy his body! We recoginze that something is going seriously wrong with his psyche that is leading him to want to destroy his body and we try to help.

Why is abortion so different?

In both cases a person wants to destroy part of their body. In both cases a person feels that their life is threatened unless this destructive act is carried out. Both cases disproportionately affect minority communities.

Yet "abortion" is a right and alcholism is a "disease."

I think women who want an abortion don't need more laws thrown at them, but they do need help. It is clear, when motherhood is compared to being an animal caught in a trap, that they are not getting that help. Whether it is your right or not, no one in a healthy state of mind would want to destroy part of their own body.

St. C.

---

quote:

---

I might get called to hell for what follows but, so be it.

There is something seriously wrong when I write (referring to a fetus), "destroying part of your body in this manner is not normal healthy behavior" and you respond with "it is, when it's destroying you and it's you or it."

Good Christ Louise, a fetus is not destroying its mother! Only in extremely rare circumstances would a mother have to make a choice between her life and carrying a fetus to term. (And here it is important to note that 99% of all anti-abortion folks would allow an abortion if the mother's life were threatened in this manner.)

I don't understand what worldview would cause someone to see the fetus as a being that is "destroying" its mother's life.

---

quote:

---

Unplanned motherhood, according to the study, represents a threat so great to modern women that it is perceived as equivalent to a "death of self." While the woman may rationally understand this is not her own literal death, her emotional, subconscious reaction to carrying the child to term is that her life will be "over." This is because many young women of today have developed a self-identity that simply does not include being a mother. It may include going through college, getting a degree, obtaining a good job, even getting married someday; but the sudden intrusion of motherhood is perceived as a complete loss of control over their present and future selves

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Alcoholics don't 'decide to destroy their bodies'. Alcoholics drink because it gives them a sense of control and because they think it will take away unpleasant feelings - but it doesn't. It happens that as a side effect it has various nasty physical consequences. It is a failed coping strategy like other addictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
Do you not have a more considered opinion on the balance of rights and welfare of the woman, her husband and children in opposition with those of the unborn child, Erin?

Or on my example of another stupid didn't keep her legs crossed teenager?

OOT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I was thinking that too. Alcoholism is a very odd choice of comparison, as the vast majority of alcoholics don't want to die of it. And most of them don't directly, though it might well shorten their lives through side-effects. It really isn;t anything to do with suicide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I was thinking that too. Alcoholism is a very odd choice of comparison, as the vast majority of alcoholics don't want to die of it. And most of them don't directly, though it might well shorten their lives through side-effects. It really isn;t anything to do with suicide.

---

No, I think the only comparison I can think of is cancer.

---

quote:

---

Now I would like to ask why adoption is scarcely mentioned in this thread. When we bring it into the picture, we find that abortion is not really the avoidance of bringing a new life into the world, with all its attendant responsibilities for some sixteen long years; rather it is the avoidance of pregnancy, morning sickness, vitamin-taking, and nine-plus months of increasing inconvenience and then a grueling delivery...after which the baby is off to a new home and the ordeal is just a painful memory.

---

quote:

---

Another myth Fessler exposes is the one propagated by the social workers at the homes: that the girls would forget their babies and move on.

''You have to move on, but [the baby] never leaves your heart,'' says Slosar, who for years has taken her son's birthday off from work, instead busying herself with physical labor to take her mind off that painful day.

Slosar, who has connected with other birth mothers through the Internet, says the extent of depression and alcoholism among that group is high.

---

quote:

---

Adoption, unfortunately, is seen as the most "evil" of the three options, as it is perceived as a kind of double death. First, the death of self, as the woman would have to accept motherhood by carrying the baby to term. Further, not only would the woman be a mother, but she would perceive herself as a bad mother, one who gave her own child away to strangers. The second death is the death of the child "through abandonment." A woman worries about the chance of her child being abused. She is further haunted by the uncertainty of the child’s future, and about the possibility of the child returning to intrude on her own life many years later. Basically, a woman desperately wants a sense of resolution to her crisis, and in her mind, adoption leaves the situation the most unresolved, with uncertainty and guilt as far as she can see for both herself and her child. As much as we might like to see the slogan "Adoption, Not Abortion" embraced by women, this study suggests that in pitting adoption against abortion, adoption will be the hands-down loser.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Adoption hasn't been brought up so much because it doesn't really have much to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Adoption hasn't been brought up so much because it doesn't really have much to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.

---

So what you're saying, Laura, is that anyone who (as many have done on this thread) argues for abortion because otherwise someone's life will be screwed up by having to raise a child for umpteen years is talking through his/her hat.

If adoption is irrelevant to the issue at hand, then so are arguments about the time and expense involved in raising the kid. What's sauce for the goose, and all that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Carrying a baby to term is "death of self"? In what bizarre world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
...in a bizarre world where some folk seem to think it's no big deal to carry an unwanted pregnancy, go through labour, face stuff like getting torn from vagina to anus and then face a choice of the bereavement and trauma of giving away a child delivered at full term, or struggling with motherhood whilst utterly frightened and unprepared for it.

If your beliefs lead you to think that you're dealing with something equivalent to a child lying in a pram from the moment of conception - then yes, that gives meaning to such suffering, but if you don't believe that, if you don't believe that a first trimester fetus is a person then it's all suffering for nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
...there is a non-frivolous good-faith argument that the fetus, though not "just a clump of cells" (though thanks for setting up that straw man again) is as a proto-human worthy of respect, but is SIMPLY NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME RIGHTS as the woman carrying it, and therefore that abortion can in certain circumstancesnot be the same as murder.

---

Since the odious analogy has been drawn elsewhere on these boards between those who once used the Bible to defend the practice of slavery, and those who now use it to object to the practice of homosexuality, it would seem more than fair that at this point I make a similarly odious analogy between those who think fetuses aren't normal people and don't have rights, and those who once thought black people weren't normal people and didn't have rights.

And now that I've probably pissed you off , I do sincerely apologize for setting up the "clump of cells" straw man, but quite honestly I wasn't aware that it was a straw man. Does "proto-human" mean something different to you than "clump of cells"? If so, what is the distinction? And what sort of practical difference does it make in one's decision about the rightness or wrongness of abortion?
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Host

Odious is the correct term Kyralessa. You are not entitled to state that persons who support a woman's ability to have an abortion are the moral equivalent of persons who support slavery when you are posting in Purgatory. The smilie does not take away from the evil analogy of the remark. Please apologize. If you desire to continue making personally insulting remarks you may do so in Hell.

/Host

[Edited for Freudian slip.]

[ 06. December 2003, 03:59: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Okay if I call you an asshole? See how inoffensive that is when I put the big grin?? You festering intolerant pustule!

Okay, back to the debate, I think it fair enough to make the analogy to slavery -- that is, that it's legal doesn't make it right. But that's not what I'm saying. Again, the distinction between abortion and slavery is that the slaves were born humans. I understand that you, Kyralessa, and others do not recognize this as a distinction, but there are lots of people of good will and intelligence and ethics who believe this to be a meaningful distinction.

[ 06. December 2003, 16:51: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Host

You don't get to do it either, Laura.

/Host
 

---

Posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist (# 4081) on :
 
When I read Kyralessa's post I don't see her to be comparing abortion to slavery at all. I see her quoting an analogy that she doesn't like (comparing homosexuality and slavery) and then bringing in her own analogy comparing the querying of rights of a fetus to the querying of rights of a black person.

She knew she was using a controversial analogy. But I don't think anyone has actually addressed it yet.

I started writing my own analogy comparing abortion issues to issues around vegetarianism and animal rights. But it was difficult to explain what I meant and I'm sure some people would have accused me of being heartless.

So I'll keep thinking about it.

OOT
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Okay if I call you an asshole? See how inoffensive that is when I put the big grin?? You festering intolerant pustule!

---

"Festering intolerant pustule"?



Now that was a good tension breaker.

Sorry, Laura. While my analogy might actually have had some degree of validity if couched in more general terms, its specificity made it rather obviously offensive. It was as odious as the other analogy I referred to, and I hope the Purgatorial Hosts will move to squelch both in the future.

But in the meantime, two wrongs don't make a right, so please forgive me. *extends olive branch to Laura...while glancing in the mirror to make sure I'm not really festering*
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Thank you Kyralessa.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Kyralessa,

(picturing now a festering olive branch)

Peace.

I'm sorry for responding to apparent insult with further insults.

OOT, actually, I did separate out and address the comparison with slavery, if you read my post.

[ 07. December 2003, 15:15: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by pants (# 4487) on :
 
(not that it makes any difference.. but i have just realised who this curate is!! i went to school with her, and the difference between her at school and her a few years ago (when i last saw her) is amazing. both looks and personality. she went through a great deal, even to changing her name becuase of her insecurities before her operations.)
 

---

Posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist (# 4081) on :
 
Laura,

I had read and have re-read your post. I was seeing the view of slavery being ok (odiously or not compared with homosexuality being wrong) as being separate from the issue of the limited rights of fetuses being compared (odiously or not) with the limited rights of black people, say under apartheid.

OOT
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Ophelia's Opera Therapist, what are you disputing? There has been a host warning and an apology on both parts. If you want to discuss the topic at hand, please do so. If you want to discuss the ruling and the posts that led up to it, please do so in the Styx.

Tortuf,
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pants:
she went through a great deal, even to changing her name becuase of her insecurities before her operations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pants:
she went through a great deal, even to changing her name becuase of her insecurities before her operations.

---

Now that does seem odd.

Do you mean changing name as in using a nickname, or actually changing name entirely, as if thrying to be anonymous?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Ophelia's Opera Therapist, what are you disputing? There has been a host warning and an apology on both parts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Like is she saying a cleft palate is something you can live with, or something that requires lots of (probably very expensive) surgery? She seems to freely admit that her life was hell until she had her face rebuilt, so what would she recommend for those who can't afford such measures? Learn to live with the abuse and name-calling?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
I wasn't so much querying hosting policy as whether we'd got what Kyralessa meant. But the fact that she hasn't jumped in an said 'ah OOT, at last someone understands me' suggests that I may have got the wrong end of the stick/olive branch too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo's is:
Thats why we have the National Health Service - it treats people on the basis of need not on the basis of how much they can afford. So any baby born in England will get the medical care it needs.

---

quote:

---

Most human embryos die in their first eight weeks of life, often before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant. It has been estimated that as many as three quarters of all human embryos perish during this critical phase.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:

quote:

---

Most human embryos die in their first eight weeks of life, often before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant. It has been estimated that as many as three quarters of all human embryos perish during this critical phase.

---

If these are all fully human lives, as some have suggested, wtf is God doing?

---

But one could just as easily ask why anybody dies at all. Some people accidentally drown, for instance, but that doesn't make it OK for us to hold people underwater. (Unless, of course, going back to square one, they're not real people.)

Personally, seeing these sorts of reports on how precarious life is in the womb makes me that much more puzzled that we'd terminate pregnancies; don't these poor embryos have it hard enough as it is without us deliberately snuffing them out?
 

---

Posted by Belle (# 4792) on :
 
My feeling on abortion is that where the rights of two ‘people’ conflict (as they can be argued to do in varying degree during the pregnancy in terms of a foetus and its mother) – the rights of the independent, born person should take precedence. (Unless the mother chooses to give up her rights in favour of her unborn child).

This is only my opinion, but I feel that the idea of a foetus from the moment of conception as being a mini person with exactly the same right to live as any born person is a notional one, and one that we assign based on the knowledge of the future potential of that clump of cells as opposed to what rights may be reasonable at the stage the foetus actually is. Essentially, we’re projecting backwards the rights of a born person onto a potential person. I feel this partly due to my understanding of how random the process of reproduction is. I’ve read that 1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage (this often at a very early stage) and the programme on C4 last night estimated that 1 in 8 of us was initially part of a twin pregnancy but that only 10% of these pregnancies ends in the birth of live twins. As a baby develops in the womb and comes closer to viability it seems to me that morally the rights that the mother chooses to assign to it should grow – but that as a part of her body and totally dependent on her for life, these rights come via her and should not be assigned from any other source (such as the father/the court). This is because the risks attached to pregnancy are borne by the mother and are to her alone – whether we’re talking about high blood pressure, diabetes, pre-eclampsia – whatever. It’s rare, but let’s not forget that women do still die in childbirth.

In a Christian framework I think that sex needs to be within the context of responsibility and respect –for yourself, your partner, and for any children you may have – born or unborn. Ideally this will mean that ‘unnecessary’ abortions are vastly reduced in any case. In the case of failure of contraception – one would hope that this could also be dealt with very early on in a pregnancy should the mother decide that she really could not go through with it. As to issues of disability or illness that may be spotted during the pregnancy – I would not presume to judge any parents on a decision they made within the law and with the help of skilled medical professionals. Hopefully their decision would not need to be affected by whether or not they would get the support and medical treatment they might need for their baby once it was born – but in this imperfect world, I fear that this might also be a consideration – above and beyond the problems the child might be born with.

At the end of the day - I can't believe there is anyone who thinks abortion per se is desirable - but it's sometimes an option people are forced to consider. I don't think it's an option that should be removed.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Belle, if the fetus was unproblematically a person, then your assertion that the mother's rights should take precedent is counter-intuitive. There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life surely comes pretty near the top of this. The fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother, and that its existence is costly to her, shouldn't make a difference - in relevantly similar cases (e.g. born children, the severely disabled) we don't allow such factors to trample over the dependent person's rights.

Of course, this just poses the question of the status of the fetus more urgently. It is this question which is key to the abortion debate.
 

---

Posted by Belle (# 4792) on :
 
I agree that the status of the foetus is problematic - however I don’t feel that you can compare a baby in the womb with a born person.

However heavy the costs may be to another person of caring for a born person, they are not ‘one flesh’. We as a body can all participate in the costs of caring for a disabled person if the burden is too great for one person to bear. We can take on the role of the carer. We can become substitutes. We cannot take the place of a mother carrying the baby in her womb. We can’t bear the physical or mental risks for her. Surely this is why the debate is so tricky? A foetus is part of its mother’s body. It exists only in relation to her - at least for the first few months of its existence.

Irrespective of the 'status' of the foetus - if for instance, science tells us that in the first few weeks it's 'just a clump of cells' - I don't believe abortion should be treated lightly - and nor do I believe it is in the vast majority of cases.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
A foetus is part of its mother’s body.

---

quote:

---

It exists only in relation to her - at least for the first few months of its existence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
A foetus is part of its mother’s body.

---

quote:

---

posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Untrue

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Originally posted by Erin:
the only reasonable reasons I can see for abortion after the first few weeks are:

1) The child will not live very long and will have an exceptionally low standard of life while it is still alive.
2) The mothers life is in genuine danger becuase of the pregnancy, according to at least 3 experts.
3) The woman became pregnant after being raped.

---

How about:

4) The mother's health will suffer because of the pregnancy.

I think there is at least a grey area when considering the potential life of the developing foetus against the quality of life of the mother.

Some medical complications might injure the mother without killing her, and I can't see it as a moral choice to force someone to experience such injury...

[Edited for UBB.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
This is only my opinion, but I feel that the idea of a foetus from the moment of conception as being a mini person with exactly the same right to live as any born person is a notional one...

---

quote:

---

Essentially, we’re projecting backwards the rights of a born person onto a potential person. I feel this partly due to my understanding of how random the process of reproduction is.

---

quote:

---

My feeling on abortion is that where the rights of two ‘people’ conflict (as they can be argued to do in varying degree during the pregnancy in terms of a foetus and its mother) – the rights of the independent, born person should take precedence. (Unless the mother chooses to give up her rights in favour of her unborn child).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
Um - frankly this baffles me. Obviously it's not permanently part of your body... help me out here. You must mean something different to what I mean.

---

quote:

---

With reference to the carer analogy - are you saying that the baby needs what only the mother can provide to survive and therefore she is morally obliged to provide it - whatever the cost to herself? I would agree that she has an absolute right to pay whatever price necessary to ensure the survival of her child if that is what she chooses, but I would disagree that she should be required to do so. It seems to me that that would be to elevate the right to life of the unborn child over hers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
Hmmm. So how do we define 'person'?

---

quote:

---

As Bentham said "the question is not "can they think? but can they suffer?"

An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I would define a "person" as a human being capable of living independently of any other human. Say at about 24 weeks.

And yes, I realise that this leaves me open to questions like "do you consider someone on a life support machine a person?" That's another argument, but if anyone wants to start it in Purg I'll join in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
My instinct is that children are less human than adults,

---

 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
I know, ken, that's why I disclaimed it by the end of the sentence. I'm a very abstract person and find children very alien. But that's clearly my problem, rather than relevant to how the world outside my head actually is. So how do you define 'person'?
 

---

Posted by Herminator (# 5250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A foetus plucked from the womb, however, has zero chance of survival. Nil. Zip. It is not capable of independence, therefore is not yet a person.

Right, I've nailed my colours to the mast. Anyone else going to say where they'd draw the line (if at all)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
But, Marvin, anyone with a potentially life threatening chronic illness, diabetes, asthma, cystic fibrosis, and so on, could not survive without other people - at least without those people who manufacture their medicines. What about someone who needs kidney dialysis? What about someone who is immobile and therefore can't buy food for themself? Etc. etc. etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.

---

quote:

---

penetration of the cortex by the thalamic fibres

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


I believe the line has to be drawn somewhere. That is where I draw it and why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Though the Declaration and Constitution carry soaring words about right to life and no deprivation thereof without due process, anglo-american legal common-law precedent confines these to born humans, so that's where the distinction comes from. There is no evidence that the Framers intended Constitutional guarantees to apply to an 8-week fetus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's not paint with too fine a brush here. My position isn't intended to be specifically applied to any one person, but in general terms.

---

quote:

---

All web sites that deal with abortion are written by people who have specific beliefs about two different, but related, questions:

Under what conditions they would personally choose to have an abortion, and

Under what conditions they feel that other women should be free to make this choice.


This web site, ReligiousTolerance.org is an inter-faith group staffed by individuals who have diverse beliefs about these topics. Almost all other sites on the Internet are either strongly pro-life or pro-choice. Some are seriously lacking in objectivity and accuracy. Some distort data; others ignore information that contradicts their views. We try to present both sides to all topics clearly, completely, objectively and accurately.

---

quote:

---

In most jurisdictions in North America, Europe, and elsewhere, the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. If this is the end of human life, one might use the same criteria to define the start of human life. One might argue that fetal life becomes human person when electrical activity commences in the cerebral cortex. Human personhood, would then start when consciousness begins and ends when consciousness irrevocably ends. One could then argue that a fully-informed woman should have access to abortion at any point before the point that human personhood begins.

According to author Richard Carrier: "...the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."
...

Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, perhaps as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then we could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks. Abortions could then be requested up to the start of the 20th week for normal pregnancies, or at a later time if unusual conditions existed. Many state and provincial medical associations in North America have actually adopted this limit, probably using a different rationale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
Papio:

quote:

---

As Bentham said "the question is not "can they think? but can they suffer?"

An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.

---

But so can a dog. Or a horse. Or a cow or pig. So we can't ask 'do they suffer' unless we're going to equate human and animal life. I don't think we want to?

Marvin: Yes, I think a thread about 'what is a person?' would be good. Probably start one later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.

---

I think you are presenting something highly dubious as if it was a fact.

From the BMJ

Anti-abortionists hijack fetal pain argument The consensus seems to be that precautions against a fetus feeling pain are taken from 20 weeks onwards and that is erring on the side of caution. The key event is generally reckond to be the

quote:

---

penetration of the cortex by the thalamic fibres

---

which happens at about 22 weeks.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology paper on fetal awareness


It's a big difference from your '12 weeks' contention


L.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

The point is that after a baby can feel pain it is clearly a sentient life-form and NOT simply "a part of the mother's body".

---

quote:

---

A day-old baby lying in its little criblet in the hospital. The nurse walks up and notices that it doesn't appear to be breathing. Does she (a) shrug and say, "Well, so much for that one"

---

quote:

---

Papio:

As Bentham said "the question is not "can they think? but can they suffer?"

An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.

---

quote:

---

Chestertonian:
But so can a dog. Or a horse. Or a cow or pig. So we can't ask 'do they suffer' unless we're going to equate human and animal life. I don't think we want to?

---

quote:

---

So we don't care whether someone suffers or not because animals can suffer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:

quote:

---

Papio:

As Bentham said "the question is not "can they think? but can they suffer?"

An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.

---

quote:

---

Chestertonian:
But so can a dog. Or a horse. Or a cow or pig. So we can't ask 'do they suffer' unless we're going to equate human and animal life. I don't think we want to?

---

Papio:

quote:

---

So we don't care whether someone suffers or not because animals can suffer?

---

No, I'm saying how do you decide that a foetus is a person, when the criteria you're presenting hold good for non-persons?

---

quote:

---

I actually happen to think that (assuming it can be established, and I think it has been) the initiation of complex cortical activity minus about a month is probably the best ethical bright-line I've heard so far for setting a point beyond which abortion should not be legally available. And it's something a court could adopt, and something that isn't likely to change over time, the way viability does.

---

quote:

---

Hence the discussions about personhood. They may be abstract, but they are necessary.

---

quote:

---

FWIW, viability has only been pushed earlier and earlier because of improved incubation machines.

Independent viability hasn't changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
I think we can only talk meaningfully about the subject if we decide how to view the foetus.

---

quote:

---

Personhood is more of a legal term. Doesn't really make any difference to the general debate only a legal one. We're talking about whether it's right or wrong to kill an unborn human universally (I think this is a better term since it encompasses both embryo & human).

---

quote:

---

To kill something that you aren't sure is human or not seems to be a morally risky act.

It's up to those who want to propose the easy availibilty of abortion to demonstrate that a foetus is not human, not the other way round. Doubt on the matter is enough to make it morally safer not to use abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
I don't think a 'pro-choice' person would agree that 'unborn human' is a good term, since it presupposes that the foetus is human, which is exactly the point they would object to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
Nobody can 'demonstrate that the foetus is not human' until we decide what 'human' means. Otherwise they could say, "it's not human," and you could say, "yes it is," and there would be no way of deciding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
What is that definition?

---

quote:

---

a rational sentient intelligent soul-freighted creature

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:


That's much more complicated & also more relevant here. There may be things that are human that don't count as people. And there may be people who aren't human.

It's not a question that needs to be answered to decide about abortion.

---

quote:

---

That's much more complicated & also more relevant here. There may be things that are human that don't count as people. And there may be people who aren't human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Exactly. And while there is no way of deciding, the morally safest thing to do is to oppose abortion, just in case.

---

Also incredibly difficult. It seems odd to take a wager on the possible personhood of a foetus, but also strangely, poignantly, important to do it.

On a slight tangent, lots of Shipmates have posted that no-one sees abortion as itself desirable, though it may be the only option in certain circumstances. Is this the view held by most people? I seem to recall reading that Marie Stopes or some such clinic decided most abortions were not in fact stressful and did not lead to long term consequences. Is this true, does anyone know? does anybody actually treat the subject as a trivial one? I realise this may sound offensive but I am asking out of a sense I get from the way the subject is treated in most media discourse, as it seems to me.

[Edited to fix UBB quote codes]

[ 17. December 2003, 08:41: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 

---

Posted by Hari Seldon's Walking Stick (# 5293) on :
 
dammit.

Sorry about my total ineptitude, but you get the idea. I need preview practice, etc etc....

[HSWS - Practice makes perfect, as they say. The easiest way to quote another post is the use the big 'quote-marks' icon at the top of the post, and then to carefully delete any unwanted words (customarily indicating the deletion in some way). At all cost avoid the square-bracketed UBB commands unless you understand what you are doing!

There is a thread in The Styx (Practice UBB ...) where you can play to your heart's content without anybody sneering at your efforts.

The 'Preview post' button will show you how your post will look - I use it virtually every time!

Initial thread fixed: duplicate attempt deleted.

Edited as described above]

[ 17. December 2003, 12:17: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
My first post on this very interesting thread. I think you are missing the point trying to put a rizla between 'human' and 'person'.

---

quote:

---

The whole person thing is a way to allow killing live people by defining them nonpersons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Yes. but are they alive? If you can define 'live' then you can define 'not live'. That's the trouble with the whole debate life is so dammed hard to pin down. For reasons of practicality we must define death at some stage, now we need to define life. Legally and metaphysically.

---

Then why not use the same criteria? Maybe we can get to a reasonable definition of where life starts by deciding where it ends?

[ballsed my code ]

[ 17. December 2003, 09:44: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
but the whole entire idea of using rationality as the sole criteria is just so much BS. It is. Honestly.
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
Why?
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
because you then open the door to all sorts of unpleasent and yukky stuff involving murder and maltreatment of the "feeble minded" and those not able to live independantly.

If someone you loved became unable, for whatever reason, to think rationally then you would be perfectly happy to say that your brother/mother/friend/lover/neighbour/co-worker etc was no longer a person?

would you? honestly?

I wouldn't. The whole idea makes me feel ill.
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
As I've said elsewhere, "I don't like it" is not the same as "this is not true". You appear to be defining 'person' as 'something I care about' which means the same as 'something I want to think of as a person'. This leads to dogs, horses, children's toys and people's cars as being 'people'. This is untenable. I assume you don't mean this, so how would you define 'person'? Just very roughly.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
person = human being = person = human being.
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
1. Can you define it in terms which allow us to determine whether borderlines are or aren't persons?
2. What is a human being?
3. The Holy Spirit is a 'Person'. Is the Holy Spirit a 'human being'?

[ 17. December 2003, 13:59: Message edited by: chestertonian ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
from the OCED.

human being n. any man or woman or child of the species Homo Sapiens
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
1) in my view, there are no borderline cases at all.
2) to call any of the hypostaseis a person it problematic. Augustine said he only used the word person because he couldn't think of a better word apart from "it" or "them".

(mispelt because)

[ 17. December 2003, 14:05: Message edited by: Papio ]
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
You say there are no borderline cases, so either there is no line (everything's a person) or you have a clear person/non-person divide. I assume it's the latter, I just don't know where the divide is or how you're drawing it.
Would you regard a computer that could pass the Turing test as a 'person'? How about an animal (an alien, or a terrestrial creature, as you prefer) which could do the same?
I don't see why you regard a foetus as a person. It doesn't do anything 'persony'.
 

---

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
This is a strange and complicated case. Speaking as a medical student and therefore a future doctor I have many concerns over the issue of abortion and find myself in a minority by being against abortion in almost all situations.

While the law stipulates certain requirements, in practice we have abortion-on-demand upto 24 weeks and beyond that for 'severe disability.' As a technical matter, I think it inconceivable that a cosmetic and easily correctable abnormality could be considered a severe disability. As a practical matter, I'm not sure what this case can achieve, though I am watching with much interest.

I think it is clearly morally wrong to end a life for this reason; this is clearly a eugenic practice. Similarly we are regularly revisiting the issue of doctor-assisted suicide. Within medicine in the UK at the moment there are many ethical battles being fought.

This may be an old issue but it is one not resolved and thus it will be revisted again and again. Either all life is valuable (as every individual is created in the image of God) or not. And if not, thus some individuals are expendable... for severe disabilty or even cosmetic reasons? I find that very scarey indeed.

One final thought; no-one talks about what late-term abortions involve. The kindest technique involves foeticide and inducement, so the baby is still-born. It is very traumatic for all involved.

[ 17. December 2003, 14:24: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
This just in ... soon it will be even easier.

alienfromzog said in relation to late-term abortions:

quote:

---

The kindest technique

---

quote:

---

To kill something that you aren't sure is human or not seems to be a morally risky act.

It's up to those who want to propose the easy availibilty of abortion to demonstrate that a foetus is not human, not the other way round. Doubt on the matter is enough to make it morally safer not to use abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Sharkshooter,

What you posted made me think the CNN link was going to be about abortion. It's only about the availability over the counter (rather than by prescription) of the combination pack of four birth control pills that have been used as "morning after birth control" for at least the last twenty years. So it's hardly new. And it isn't RU-486.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
You say there are no borderline cases, so either there is no line (everything's a person) or you have a clear person/non-person divide. I assume it's the latter, I just don't know where the divide is or how you're drawing it.
Would you regard a computer that could pass the Turing test as a 'person'? How about an animal (an alien, or a terrestrial creature, as you prefer) which could do the same?
I don't see why you regard a foetus as a person. It doesn't do anything 'persony'.

---

quote:

---

Would you regard a computer that could pass the Turing test as a 'person'? How about an animal (an alien, or a terrestrial creature, as you prefer) which could do the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
When I said,

quote:

---

Would you regard a computer that could pass the Turing test as a 'person'? How about an animal (an alien, or a terrestrial creature, as you prefer) which could do the same?

---

that's what I was doing. Leaving aside the obvious point that the personhood of a foetus is questionable, hence this whole discussion.

---

quote:

---

If someone you loved became unable, for whatever reason, to think rationally then you would be perfectly happy to say that your brother/mother/friend/lover/neighbour/co-worker etc was no longer a person?

---

pappio, my father died,or, rather, his body finally gave out, last year after quite a long time of being essentially mindless due to alrzheiners disease. and i assure you, there is no doubt in my mind that the person that was my father died long before the rotting hulk that once held him stopped breathing.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Nicolemrw - I am truly sorry about your loss and I have no reason to doubt what you say about your father. I remember your original post and I was genuinely moved that by that whole thread.

On Christmas day last year my grandmother died after a similar process of mental degeneration (she always was an awkward bugger as she admitted herself ) . If I am honest, I had mixed feelings about it. The fact that she was no longer around versus the fact that she was no longer suffering.

I have no doubt that the energy, personality traits and other things that you loved most about your dad were no longer in evidence by the time that he died. I have seen it happen to my gran and to others (I once had a summer job in a nursing home although I know that that is nothing like the same).

Your post is one of a handful on this thread that stand a chance of changing my views on this subject. So I can say that my gran was less than the person I remember from childhood but I cannot, personally, bring myself to say that she was not a person. not yet anway.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I'm sorry, I just think this is absurd. We've actually got people here arguing about whether preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum is abortion. It makes my head want to explode. This would mean that the surgery to remove an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. I can only hope that some of the doctrinaire anti-abortion folks here would at least support that. To pretend that there isn't a difference between killing a newborn and killing a two week along undifferentiated proto-human or even between either of these and the just-pre-viability fetus(even if those lineds are hard to draw) is to oversimplify the status of the developing fetus in an extreme way that is as far as I can see unjustified by convinving theology or ethics.

I can't take this any more.

---

Sorry about what this is doing to your head, Laura, but yes, I for one do think that ending an ectopic pregnancy is abortion; it ends a pregnancy, and abortion is what we call that. In fact, even miscarriages are called, medically speaking, "spontaneous abortions" (though obviously we don't judge miscarriages on a moral scale).

However an ectopic pregnancy is obviously a form of "pregnancy" that, if allowed to proceed, would kill both mother and fetus. The fetus would die anyway, so the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life.

For someone to suggest, Laura, that any abortion opponent would be against this procedure is a caricature on par with the "clump of cells" one you railed against. But you weren't suggesting that, right?
 

---

Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 

quote:

---

What you posted made me think the CNN link was going to be about abortion. It's only about the availability over the counter (rather than by prescription) of the combination pack of four birth control pills that have been used as "morning after birth control" for at least the last twenty years.

The so-called morning after pills are taken, usually two immediately, then two twelve hours later, starting dose within 72 hours of unprotected sex, and act (in the same way regular birth control pills can) to prevent implantation should conception have occurred. The chances of conception from one act of unprotected intercourse are low, and so as a practical matter, it provides peace of mind after the condom blows; it has for years been given after a rape as part of the standard hospital follow-up. It ought not be any more or less controversial than other oral contraceptives, in my view. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

And if preventing implantation is abortion, then OCs are definitely abortifacients although this is not their primary mode of intended action.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I just think this is absurd. We've actually got people here arguing about whether preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum is abortion. It makes my head want to explode. This would mean that the surgery to remove an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion

---

quote:

---

It's logical isn't it? Life blatantly starts at conception and its illogical for someone pro-life to randomnly choose any other point.

---

Start's or, becomes a posibility? Defining life as starting at any particular point in time is tricky, what would be your criterion for defining life? How would you then define death?.
This is important as we might agree that you can't kill what is not alive. Or we might not,
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:


Also it hasn't been around for the last 20 years. Furthermore it's only been regularly used in recent years with the development of, what in the UK is known as, levonelle-2. The previous form was fairly lethal so it wasn't really recommended.

Paddy

---

quote:

---

The treatment has been remarkably safe though a common side effect was nausea and vomiting. There were also theoretical, but unfounded, concerns over possible thrombotic side effects of the oestrogen component.[3]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Defining life as starting at any particular point in time is tricky, what would be your criterion for defining life?

---

quote:

---

This is way off-beam. The previous version of the 'morning-after pill' was the Schering PC4 which was licensed in the UK in 1984. It was superceded by Levonelle 2 a few years back.

---

quote:

---

The treatment has been remarkably safe though a common side effect was nausea and vomiting. There were also theoretical, but unfounded, concerns over possible thrombotic side effects of the oestrogen component.[3]

---

quote:

---

Defining life is actually fairly straightforward, albeit that there are some borderline cases such as viruses. The fetus is clearly living tissue. Moreover it is clearly a distinct organism, with a different genotype from the mother. But these are not the morally relevant issues

---

quote:

---

Life, in itself does not demand absolute respect - never mind the question of whether or not you are a vegetarian, have you ever used antibiotics, which kill bacteria?

---

Strangely enough I don't consider bacteria to be on a par with human life forms. This is also a slightly peculiar argument since we're supposed to be arguing about the rights of a foetus not whether or not its comparable to bacteria.

The comparison is slightly insulting to us former embryos...

Paddy
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
and please elucidate a case where someone is "borderline" between a person and an object. I can't think of one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:

quote:

---

This is way off-beam. The previous version of the 'morning-after pill' was the Schering PC4 which was licensed in the UK in 1984. It was superceded by Levonelle 2 a few years back.

---

That's not exactly 20 years and it's usage was minimal. I'm interested that you were a nightline officer - were you only expected to have knowledge of it or did you give it out?

The PC4 MAP was also not recommended due to its high failure rate. It was only 57% "successful" in comparison to Levonelle-2 which is 85% "successful" (though readers ought not to rely on those statistics too much since its success actually depends on how long after you have had sex you take the drug). (Schering Health Care Ltd leaflet on Levonelle-2 entitled Tell me about emergency
hormonal contraception)

quote:

---

The treatment has been remarkably safe though a common side effect was nausea and vomiting. There were also theoretical, but unfounded, concerns over possible thrombotic side effects of the oestrogen component.[3]

---

Whilst the Ethics for schools website is generally good it is slightly outdated. I don't have the PC4 summary list with me so you'll have to believe me that it was more dangerous (or alternatively have a better look around the web).

However the side effects for Levonelle-2 are fairly vicious:

Effect Percent of women with effect
(n=977 women)*
Nausea 23.1
Low abdominal pain 17.6
Fatigue 16.9
Headache 16.8
Dizziness 11.2
Breast tenderness 10.8
Vomiting 5.6

All other undesirable effects 13.5**

*Lancet, 1998, 352, 428-433;
**mostly diarrhoea, irregular bleeding and spotting

As one can see the chances of those side effects are rather high in comparison to most medication and I know a lot of girls who having used the MAP once will never go back to it due to their own experiences. It's therefore ridiculous to claim this is a completely safe drug.

One must remember that the Chief Medical Officer also recently issued guidelines demonstrating that the MAP increases a woman's chance of ectopic pregnancy by 6%. That again is extremely serious as ectopic pregnancy is a major cause of infertility. Considering that over 1 million doses of the MAP are taken each year we ought to be concerned. Still, it's a nice little earner for Schering.


Paddy

---