|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pro-Life* Laws In Action
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
In the comments under the Michigan story I noted one which spoke about Christian beliefs as though all Christian beliefs about the case could be expected to be identical. When they were clearly not. It doesn't help evangelical outreach much.
The poster didn't even use "all", just implied it.
[ 05. December 2013, 15:16: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
In the comments under the Michigan story I noted one which spoke about Christian beliefs as though all Christian beliefs about the case could be expected to be identical. When they were clearly not. It doesn't help evangelical outreach much.
The poster didn't even use "all", just implied it.
This is typical. The angriest, craziest, least-compomisingest get treated as if they're the only. It's why some Christians have stopped calling themselves "Christians." The word has become twisted in the media to mean a narrow subslice of the far right.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Bumping this up to add this poster in response to the abortion/illegal children arguments.
Why is it an evangelical virtue to be two-faced about the sanctity of life?
Then we have these videos to make the same point.
Coming soon to a place near you, wherever you are, if the evil genius of fundamentalism can manage it. It is definitely creeping into Canada.
Oh, and why can't people who want you to read their signs make some faint small effort to spell in a known language?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Because they don't know they are not spelled correctly because something went wrong during their education? For which who knows who may be responsible. Teacher, parent, person themselves.
But it's not just the spelling, is it? The whole effect is counter productive. He should take lessons from Westboro.
And who is organising these bad adverts for the US? I gather the coaches had been organised by some charity. Who spread the word round to get the ignorant there? I can't believe it was done on the internet.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Persephone Hazard
Ship's Wench
# 4648
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What surprises me is the number of acquaintances I've had who oppose abortion for any reason even to save the mothers life, and have had to end an ectopic pregnancy in themselves or their daughter, and don't see any conflict in those two positions.
Hmm. Not convinced. It's my understanding that ectopic "pregnancies" are never viable - it's not a pregnancy, it's a tragic accident. I've never been at all sure why they're *ever* included in the arguments of the so-called pro-life brigade.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Because Nebraska requires parental consent, and because she is in foster care, the state - well, actually a group of judges - gets to decide for her. And they decided, in their great wisdom, that she is not mature enough to make life-or-death decisions about her own body, but she is mature enough to have custody and responsibility for a baby imposed upon her.
I have never been able to get my head around these cases, of which there have been several. Even if she *is* young enough and foolish enough to make a decision she later regrets, there's no WAY that's going to make the difference to her psyche or life that being a mother would. There's no coming back from having HAD AN ACTUAL CHILD.
--------------------
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it's a lot easier to make up a thousand words than one decent picture. - ken.
Posts: 1645 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What surprises me is the number of acquaintances I've had who oppose abortion for any reason even to save the mothers life, and have had to end an ectopic pregnancy in themselves or their daughter, and don't see any conflict in those two positions.
Hmm. Not convinced. It's my understanding that ectopic "pregnancies" are never viable - it's not a pregnancy, it's a tragic accident. I've never been at all sure why they're *ever* included in the arguments of the so-called pro-life brigade.
If you define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization, then it is by definition a pregnancy. Most pro-life types define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization. Ask them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What surprises me is the number of acquaintances I've had who oppose abortion for any reason even to save the mothers life, and have had to end an ectopic pregnancy in themselves or their daughter, and don't see any conflict in those two positions.
Hmm. Not convinced. It's my understanding that ectopic "pregnancies" are never viable - it's not a pregnancy, it's a tragic accident. I've never been at all sure why they're *ever* included in the arguments of the so-called pro-life brigade.
If you define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization, then it is by definition a pregnancy. Most pro-life types define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization. Ask them.
Most doctors too, to be fair. It is the only place to draw the line.
Where people differ is in their moral attitude to it.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There are other points within a pregnancy to regard life as beginning:
- Fertilisation - but a huge percentage of fertilised eggs never come to term;
- implantation - when the fertilised egg is implanted into the uterus wall - but that often goes wrong too, with ectopic pregnancies and mole pregnancies;
- development of heart and brain - that's about 6 weeks into a pregnancy - although the risk of spontaneous abortion remains high until 12-13 weeks gestation;
- quickening - about 5 months into pregnancy and when the Bible seems to regard life as starting and also about the point of viability outside the womb.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
I should have made a clearer caveat perhaps. I was referring to medically credible, scientifically defensible opinion.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Implantation is a far more obvious point than fertilization. Fully half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted. Relatively few implanted eggs are spontaneously aborted. If you define life as beginning with fertilization, God is a murderer on a grand scale.
There's also the question of hypocrisy. If life begins at fertilization and half of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, where is the hue and cry from the so-called pro-lifers for research into diagnosing and stopping this gruesome and life-robbing phenomenon? Clearly they do not really think life begins at fertilization, or have given no thought to the practical outworkings of that belief.
Actually now that I think about it, "giving no thought" is a not uncommon attribute of pro-lifers in many areas. They give no thought to the feelings and predicaments of the women going into Planned Parenthood clinics that they scream at and bodily threaten, for instance. Or indeed to the fact that there are other reasons to go to a PP clinic than getting an abortion. And that there are other reasons to use birth control pills than to prevent pregnancy.
There is a huge contingent of so-called prolifers in this country who don't give much thought. It's a problem.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Implantation is a far more obvious point than fertilization. Fully half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted. Relatively few implanted eggs are spontaneously aborted. If you define life as beginning with fertilization, God is a murderer on a grand scale.
There's also the question of hypocrisy. If life begins at fertilization and half of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, where is the hue and cry from the so-called pro-lifers for research into diagnosing and stopping this gruesome and life-robbing phenomenon? Clearly they do not really think life begins at fertilization, or have given no thought to the practical outworkings of that belief.
Actually now that I think about it, "giving no thought" is a not uncommon attribute of pro-lifers in many areas. They give no thought to the feelings and predicaments of the women going into Planned Parenthood clinics that they scream at and bodily threaten, for instance. Or indeed to the fact that there are other reasons to go to a PP clinic than getting an abortion. And that there are other reasons to use birth control pills than to prevent pregnancy.
There is a huge contingent of so-called prolifers in this country who don't give much thought. It's a problem.
Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
This comes perilously close to saying that "lives which end" have no value.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
OK, I-88, let's try this question: A 9-year-old was impregnated (by her stepfather, if that matters), and started a set of twins. The simple act of attempting to deliver would almost certainly kill her, even if she survived carrying the twins.
Does your morality run to ensuring three deaths or two?
Or does your morality insist that, because she carried the Mark of Eve, she should be punished for her many-times-great ancestors once ate an apple, regardless of any other circumstance?
(This case was discussed on the Ship not many years ago, FWIW)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization, then it is by definition a pregnancy. Most pro-life types define pregnancy as beginning with fertilization. Ask them.
Most doctors too, to be fair. It is the only place to draw the line.
Not really. Pregnancy (as opposed to "life") is held to begin at implantation by most in the medical community. Using fertilization as a standard creates some interesting twists in certain modern reproductive methods. For instance, if pregnancy begins at fertilization, then who exactly becomes "pregnant" when an egg is fertilized in vitro? The genetic mother? The petri dish? If the egg is frozen, is the genetic mother still considered "pregnant", even if the "pregnancy" stretches on for several years? What if the egg is implanted in a surrogate mother? Do we still hold that the genetic mother is the one who is "pregnant", despite the fśtus being gestated inside another woman (who is not considered "pregnant")?
[ 18. August 2014, 15:07: Message edited by: Crśsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Ireland's done it again. Forced C-Section for a suicidal rape victim after denying her an abortion at 8 weeks.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
"She discovered she was expecting about eight weeks into the pregnancy, and immediately sought an abortion because she had been the victim of a traumatic rape. "
Heartbreaking and infuriating that she was denied remedy.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The Irish situation gets better/worse:
A panel of three doctors agreed she was severely traumatised and that she was suicidal - but the same panel of doctors, having determined she harboured suicidal thoughts, still didn't agree to recommending a termination.
Denied a termination the woman concerned - unable to leave Ireland for reasons of immigration law, residency status, etc - went on hunger strike.
At this point she was hospitalised where the doctors - two from the original panel - applied for an obtained a court order to permit forcible hydration. The woman was kept in hospital under threat of imposed hydration and feeding until the baby was delivered by C section at 25 weeks.
What is it with these people?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What is it with these people?
The Catholic Church?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
I remember seeing a female head of some Catholic organisation praise the current laws on television after the last atrocity.
So badly want to point fingers, but so compelled/trained not to.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Seems to me that we went through this whole cycle of proving that abortions do happen, legally or otherwise; that there are cases where there is a clear medical need to deal with a situation in many cases, regardless of one's religious belief; and that women are people who can make rational decisions just as well as men can.
This was why the evangelicals of another generation allowed for abortion to become legal, and why the general population of the US/Canada/etc. came to accept that abortions should be legal and supervised properly.
Do we have to sacrifice another generation of women to prove the same stuff to the next bunch of mouth-breathers?
Second question is related to the goings-on in Ferguson: why are certain groups allowed to get away with threats and intimidation while other groups are told to behave? Being black or associated with blacks makes you in danger of being shot by "law-and-order" people: being a woman with an opinion on abortion makes you in danger of being harassed or assaulted by so-called Christians acting in non-Christian ways.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
This comes perilously close to saying that "lives which end" have no value.
No it doesn't! Odds are that I will die naturally and In due course, and not be killed by anyone (let alone my own mother). That doesnt devalue my life, it just makes my life not relevant to discussions about the morality of taking life.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
OK, I-88, let's try this question: A 9-year-old was impregnated (by her stepfather, if that matters), and started a set of twins. The simple act of attempting to deliver would almost certainly kill her, even if she survived carrying the twins.
Does your morality run to ensuring three deaths or two?
Or does your morality insist that, because she carried the Mark of Eve, she should be punished for her many-times-great ancestors once ate an apple, regardless of any other circumstance?
(This case was discussed on the Ship not many years ago, FWIW)
I should think the most appropriate first instinct would be to pray for all those concerned.
As for a solution? There is no solution to rape, so there is no 'answer' I or anyone can give in that sense.
You frame the mother's death in childbirth as almost certain without saying why. Other factors would be relevant in deciding the appropriate treatment, and double-effect may apply.
But killing the twins is not a cure (in practical terms) and is not a Christian act.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
You frame the mother's death in childbirth as almost certain without saying why.
To recap this is a nine year old pregnant with twins.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
This comes perilously close to saying that "lives which end" have no value.
No it doesn't! Odds are that I will die naturally and In due course, and not be killed by anyone (let alone my own mother). That doesnt devalue my life, it just makes my life not relevant to discussions about the morality of taking life.
Attitudes toward spontaneous abortion are relevant in a thread about attitudes toward elective abortion, surely.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I88: the stated position of the doctors, in a country where all abortion is illegal, due to RC teachings, was that an abortion was the only way to save the life of the child (the 9-y.o.). The death of the twins was almost certain, given that the mother was simply not mature enough to carry them past a certain point.
Oh, and the abortion happened and even the 9-y.o. child was excommunicated, not to mention the doctors and other workers involved. The child was, in the end, allowed back in to the church, only after some pretty vigorous protest and publicity.
But you will retreat into obfuscation rather than deal with the issue, so carry on, enjoy your refusal.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Let's not be so eager to demonise pro-lifers that we forget to ethically distinguish between A) 'lives which end' and B) 'lives we end'.
This comes perilously close to saying that "lives which end" have no value.
No it doesn't! Odds are that I will die naturally and In due course, and not be killed by anyone (let alone my own mother). That doesnt devalue my life, it just makes my life not relevant to discussions about the morality of taking life.
Attitudes toward spontaneous abortion are relevant in a thread about attitudes toward elective abortion, surely.
In so far as attitudes toward accidental or natural death is relevant to attitudes toward killing people, you are necessarily correct. I'm not sure how great a relevance exists though.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I88: the stated position of the doctors, in a country where all abortion is illegal, due to RC teachings, was that an abortion was the only way to save the life of the child (the 9-y.o.). The death of the twins was almost certain, given that the mother was simply not mature enough to carry them past a certain point.
Oh, and the abortion happened and even the 9-y.o. child was excommunicated, not to mention the doctors and other workers involved. The child was, in the end, allowed back in to the church, only after some pretty vigorous protest and publicity.
But you will retreat into obfuscation rather than deal with the issue, so carry on, enjoy your refusal.
I'm sceptical, do you have the evidence? I'm not really comfortable quibbling when it's such a sensitive matter, but the above doesn't seem right somehow.
1. Children much younger than nine have given birth before; were there other factors other than the presence of a sibling? The prediction of death is a famously imprecise art, so I wonder if there were other health factors to give such a confident belief that the mother would not survive.
2. It seems strange that there would have to be any public protest to overturn the latae sententiae excommunication, because such excommunication is resolved by private confession and penance, not by public lobbying. Either way, it sounds like these people were readmitted to the sacraments, whoch is good to hear.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Much younger than nine? That "much" would, presumably mean younger than eight? Where? When? What happened to the health of all involved? Who was responsible for what was, presumably, a non-consensual process leading to conception?
Children of nine do not have pelvises developed enough to bear the weight of a developing baby. Younger than nine? Have you looked at nine-year-olds at all?
Do you think this is OK? That as soon as a child goes through the menarche it is OK to have sex with her and push her into child-bearing? Occasionally a girl will have early onset menarche - I knew of one while I was teaching. She developed breast tissue and body hair, but she still had the stature of a nine year old child. Making her pregnant would have been abuse, and compelling her to bear a child to full term worse.
Female humans are not just for gestation. Female children deserve to live through their childhoods without that being imposed on them.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The relevance is that if you take life beginning at fertilisation:
As another aside - apparently if a heartbeat can be detected at 6 weeks gestation there is 78% chance that that baby will be carried to term. Which says that 22% of all babies will not. I assume this figure is greater than the 1 in 7 quoted above as not everyone will realise they are pregnant at 6 weeks gestation.
When so many fertilised embryos are not implanted and/or are spontaneously aborted, I actually don't have a huge problem with the 79% of terminations carried out under 10 weeks gestation and 91% of terminations carried out before 13 weeks gestation.
In the light of scripture and tradition, your perfectly rational assessment of the figures is clarified as perfect psychopathy.
"X% of people die from Y, Z, P, & Q illnesses, accidents, and reactions. Ergo, if some people elect to kill a certain number of those people, of whom so many would statistically certainly have died anyway, I really don't see the problem."
The natural death of innocents does not, in a Christian - or even merely sane - worldview, justify the intentional killing of innocents.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I have now researched on Wikipedia. Some of the dates make the reports a bit dubious.
Youngest birth mothers
Most of the pregnancies were due to rape and/or unequal age incest or near incest (step relations), forced marriage or forced prostitution by the family. A high proportion of births were by caesarian section.
Once age 10 is reached, a very high number of the cases are from the USA, rather than less developed countries.
I really don't see that this is a situation which should be held up as a model for what should happen.
One wonders just how many more children have been saved from this situation by being in places where the pregnancy going to full term would have been prevented. Why are there men who do this horrid thing?
[ 21. August 2014, 13:15: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Much younger than nine? That "much" would, presumably mean younger than eight? Where? When? What happened to the health of all involved? Who was responsible for what was, presumably, a non-consensual process leading to conception?
Children of nine do not have pelvises developed enough to bear the weight of a developing baby. Younger than nine? Have you looked at nine-year-olds at all?
Do you think this is OK? That as soon as a child goes through the menarche it is OK to have sex with her and push her into child-bearing? Occasionally a girl will have early onset menarche - I knew of one while I was teaching. She developed breast tissue and body hair, but she still had the stature of a nine year old child. Making her pregnant would have been abuse, and compelling her to bear a child to full term worse.
Female humans are not just for gestation. Female children deserve to live through their childhoods without that being imposed on them.
Six I think, maybe younger. Peruvian girl I think, and others up from that record up to nine and ten. Look It up if you're interested. It's not a nice topic though as conception that young is usually the result of incest or rape or both. Horrible.
Anyway, you're asking inappropriate questions about sex with children now. OF COURSE it's not ok to have sex with children, why even ask?
All I am maintaining is that killing in the womb is not Christian, and that abortion is not a salve for rape.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I really don't see that this is a situation which should be held up as a model for what should happen.
Nor should the millions of babies, mostly girls, killed In the womb. We're not in the game of utopias here, just the business of trying to do God's will and respect His creations.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
One wonders just how many more children have been saved from this situation by being in places where the pregnancy going to full term would have been prevented. Why are there men who do this horrid thing?
Well, in situations of abuse the very easy and relatively safe abortions in developed and pro-abortion countries often functions as a way of hiding the evidence of abuse. Some women have been forced into multiple abortions to keep an abusive relationship hidden, for example.
The question of the men is key. They should be the focus of any retribution.
[ 21. August 2014, 13:50: Message edited by: Invictus_88 ]
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
In so far as attitudes toward accidental or natural death is relevant to attitudes toward killing people, you are necessarily correct. I'm not sure how great a relevance exists though.
It's the attitude towards death. If some deaths are ignored or passed over, and some made a big deal of, that may say something about what's really at issue with the ones made a big deal of. We do not know why 50% of fertilized ova spontaneously abort. If we did, we might prevent them, or at least some of them, from doing so. If one really and truly thought that life began at fertilization, one might be expected to have some curiosity, if not desire to prevent, concerning these spontaneous abortions. If they really are deaths.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by mousethief quote:
We do not know why 50% of fertilized ova spontaneously abort. If we did, we might prevent them, or at least some of them, from doing so. If one really and truly thought that life began at fertilization, one might be expected to have some curiosity, if not desire to prevent, concerning these spontaneous abortions. If they really are deaths.
Go back 30 or more years and if a woman had had a number of miscarriages the procedure was to insert sutures (so-called Shirodkar stitch) into the cervix when next she became pregnant to stop spontaneous abortion.
Trouble was that a fair number of 'saved' pregnancies ended in either stillbirth or children with severe malformations that died at or soon after birth.
The procedure was quietly dropped for all except those few cases of so-called incapable cervix.
Other cases of multiple spontaneous abortion often turn out to be a problem with antibodies or clotting and women are helped to have babies by injecting themselves with an anti-coagulant until just before the birth.
The old-wives view is often correct: spontaneous abortion or miscarriage is 'nature's way' of ending a pregnancy where something is wrong.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Invictus 88:
quote:
Children much younger than nine have given birth before; were there other factors other than the presence of a sibling? The prediction of death is a famously imprecise art, so I wonder if there were other health factors to give such a confident belief that the mother would not survive.
Have any aged 9 or under given birth to twins? There's none in the Wikipedia list. Twin pregnancies carry more risk than single pregnancies.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Invictus 88:
quote:
Children much younger than nine have given birth before; were there other factors other than the presence of a sibling? The prediction of death is a famously imprecise art, so I wonder if there were other health factors to give such a confident belief that the mother would not survive.
Have any aged 9 or under given birth to twins? There's none in the Wikipedia list. Twin pregnancies carry more risk than single pregnancies.
I don't know, maybe.
I know twins are a relatively greater risk, I just wondered if there were other factors involved for there to have (allegedly) been a near certainty of maternal death.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
IANAD, but I don't think it takes much of a stretch of the imagination to realise that a nine year old girl (nine!) carrying twins (twins!) is in a high risk situation.
Surely a nine year old isn't a disposable life, worth risking for the sake of possibly the first recorded case of such a young child having twins? The average 9 year old in the UK (where girls are well nourished) weighs five stone. She could be carrying one-quarter to one third of her body weight extra with two babies and amniotic fluid, which in turn would put a strain on her heart and other organs.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Not to mention a psychological burden that would probably be debilitating.
I88: quote:
It seems strange that there would have to be any public protest to overturn the latae sententiae excommunication, because such excommunication is resolved by private confession and penance, not by public lobbying. Either way, it sounds like these people were readmitted to the sacraments, whoch is good to hear.
The girl was readmitted to the church, on the grounds (amazingly!) that the situation was out of her control. So, why excommunicate her in the first place?
And all the other agents (doctors, nurses, caregivers) were left as excommunicate. The attempt to save the girl's life was not seen as mitigating the offence. So spare me the crocodile tears. the local officials of the RC church had absolutely no clue beyond attempting to punish several people for their attempt to help a distressed person.
You think this is OK
I think that the church has many sins to answer for in this situation.
Assuming that the 9-y.o. girl was at fault because she was female and is therefore automatically at fault is just the first on the list. Would you care to explain why this particular offence is always at the head of the list in that church?
The guy who did his part in impregnation did go to jail, and, I presume, received his due punishment from the secular side, but the church did not excommunicate him. Would you have any opinion on this part of the story?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Double-posting to add this comment from Slacktivist: quote:
The Doctors of WHO say: “Improvements in breastfeeding could prevent the deaths of 800,000 young children every year. It is the most effective strategy we have to protect babies’ lives.”
Meanwhile, the director of the anti-abortion group Personhood Ohio is campaigning for a law making the public exposure of breasts a crime because exposed breasts are “an offense to God” and “an offense to the public morality.”
You read stuff like that and you might almost start to think that maybe these anti-abortion guys are actually more interested in policing female sexuality than in actually protecting “life” …
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Six I think, maybe younger. Peruvian girl I think, and others up from that record up to nine and ten. Look It up if you're interested. It's not a nice topic though as conception that young is usually the result of incest or rape or both. Horrible.
Anyway, you're asking inappropriate questions about sex with children now. OF COURSE it's not ok to have sex with children, why even ask?
All I am maintaining is that killing in the womb is not Christian, and that abortion is not a salve for rape.
I have been away from the Ship for months due to having been attacked OTJ with a long recovery afterward, still in progress.
If "killing in the womb" is not Christian, then how should we handle all the pre-born death CK mentions in statistical form above? Are these embryos committing suicide -- and if so, isn't suicide a sin?
Are these embryos being murdered? If so, by whom?
And as to this -- "abortion is not a salve for rape" -- who here has suggested that it is? An abortion does nothing to remove or even lessen the trauma of rape. Abortion obviates the necessity of a woman -- or in the case under discussion, a female child -- from spending 9 months of her life (that is, one-tenth of a 9-y.o.'s entire existence) gestating her attacker's offspring.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I have been away from the Ship for months due to having been attacked OTJ with a long recovery afterward, still in progress.
Yikes!! Hugs and prayers for what it is worth. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:
If "killing in the womb" is not Christian, then how should we handle all the pre-born death CK mentions in statistical form above? Are these embryos committing suicide -- and if so, isn't suicide a sin?
Are these embryos being murdered? If so, by whom?
If they are not human beings at that stage, then well and good.
If they are human beings at that stage, then they'd be in the same boat as the countless infants and children who have died very young over most of human history due to things like disease and such. With my understanding of Christianity, it would be a result of the Fall, but nothing startlingly different from all of the other terrible things in our world. Even now, in non-high-tech nations, the infant and child mortality is startlingly high.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
...maybe these anti-abortion guys are actually more interested in policing female sexuality than in actually protecting “life” …
Well, duh.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And as to this -- "abortion is not a salve for rape" -- who here has suggested that it is? An abortion does nothing to remove or even lessen the trauma of rape. Abortion obviates the necessity of a woman -- or in the case under discussion, a female child -- from spending 9 months of her life (that is, one-tenth of a 9-y.o.'s entire existence) gestating her attacker's offspring.
But if you believe that the child in the womb is made in the image of God also, then why should its life be deliberately terminated due to anothers sin? That child has committed no sin either. That's the root of the whole objection to abortion, even in such cases.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
In the light of scripture and tradition, your perfectly rational assessment of the figures is clarified as perfect psychopathy.
Turning that sentence round, in the light of real world evidence, scripture and tradition turn out to be a terrible moral foundation.
If anyone genuinely believed that foetuses were children and abortion was killing people then they'd be acting as if spontaneous abortion was the greatest medical problem in history. The research into preventing spontaneous abortion would utterly eclipse the research into preventing all cancers combined. After all, if the pro-Lifers believed what they claim, as many people die of spontaneous abortion as of all other causes combined. And these "people" are all supposedly children. So we're, according to the pro-life narrative, losing half the world's children to something they can't even be bothered to try researching. I therefore conclude, if they can't be bothered to do a thing about a killer of half the world's children, pro lifers do not believe that a foetus in the womb is a child made in the image of God.
And if the pro-lifers want me to believe otherwise they should put their money where their mouth is. Pro life actions are almost 100% consistent with the idea that the entire pro-life movement is about slut shaming and they do not in fact give a damn about the foetus. Creosus is being generous in his "Offer expires at birth".
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If they are human beings at that stage,
Precisely. Let's note especially the "being" aspect of that phrase. I'm recalling dimly a long-ago high school biology class, where 'life' has various properties: some form of respiration, reproductive capacity, locomotion (? maybe ?) and I don't remember the rest. Does a biological product which is incapable of existing independently of the maternal body really qualify? Which of the two most intimately involved -- nubile human female or zygote-embryo-fetus attached to her uterine wall -- is actually performing the life functions here?
Calling a blastocyst (or whatever the term is) a "child" seems a stretch, especially when roughly half of these routinely get discarded through perfectly natural processes (or, if you prefer religious terminology, are deposited in some waste stream somewhere through the will, apparently, of God). This, to me, suggests that God, if one exists, does not actually find human life particularly precious or worthy of protection.
Beyond this, assuming the existence of this God, is human life (standing now at what? About 7.2 billion?) so much more valuable than the lives of the assorted species [I]also[I] allegedly created by this deity currently being driven into extinction every single day by [I]our[i] species' needs for water, food, and Lebensraum (sorry; living space)?
If human life IS so much more valuable that it’s being urged by its alleged creator to displace and destroy all these other species, what was the point of creating May flies, mussels, poison ivy, boars, coral colonies, assorted varieties of deadly mushrooms, and a whole host of other items humans either can’t eat or use, and/or are forbidden to consume as food in the OT?
[ 22. August 2014, 21:53: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Invictus 88:
quote:
Children much younger than nine have given birth before; were there other factors other than the presence of a sibling? The prediction of death is a famously imprecise art, so I wonder if there were other health factors to give such a confident belief that the mother would not survive.
Have any aged 9 or under given birth to twins? There's none in the Wikipedia list. Twin pregnancies carry more risk than single pregnancies.
I don't know, maybe.
I know twins are a relatively greater risk, I just wondered if there were other factors involved for there to have (allegedly) been a near certainty of maternal death.
There's nothing certain in medicine, as you well know. There is nothing uncertain about the RISKS of being pregnant and giving birth at the age of 9. Trivializing a little girl's life and health by calling these very real risks "alleged" AFTER accusing another poster of psychopathy makes for a nice set of black cooking utensils.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
... All I am maintaining is that killing in the womb is not Christian ...
And that's an interesting exclusion, given that there are soooo many Christian justifications and examples of killing outside the womb. The death penalty is acceptable to many Christians. War is acceptable to the vast majority of Christians (just look at the pounding pacifists take on these boards). Christians have killed people for heresy, witchcraft, demonic possession, etc. Christians murdered millions of indigenous peoples around the world. Christians invented the blood libel and the pogrom. A Christian can say, "Kill them all, God will choose His own" and still become a saint.
The only difference between killing inside and outside the womb is that wombs belong to women, and it's "not Christian" to allow women to make their own life-and-death decisions.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
... All I am maintaining is that killing in the womb is not Christian ...
And that's an interesting exclusion, given that there are soooo many Christian justifications and examples of killing outside the womb. The death penalty is acceptable to many Christians. War is acceptable to the vast majority of Christians (just look at the pounding pacifists take on these boards).
Apart from the Inquisition end of the spectrum, a key difference between killing in war and executing criminals, and abortion, is that in wartime it is self-defense, and in execution it is killing people who (in theory) are not innocent and deserve it. The whole idea of abortion being a sin is that it is killing an innocent human being.
(My own position is over on the "Different Take on Abortion" thread, but I thought I'd point that out.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Apart from the Inquisition end of the spectrum, a key difference between killing in war and executing criminals, and abortion, is that in wartime it is self-defense, and in execution it is killing people who (in theory) are not innocent and deserve it. The whole idea of abortion being a sin is that it is killing an innocent human being.
(My own position is over on the "Different Take on Abortion" thread, but I thought I'd point that out.)
So if one believes we are all born in sin and deserve Hell, abortion should be no problem.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
