homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion? (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion?
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Credit to Laura for some very rational and reasoned posts....

Hey...I like Bryonic..she makes me happier about my own position on SoF! Contrary to what may be most people's perception, I don't take any great pleasure in being the "fundamentalist fringe" in most debates!

Laura, you're american right?? When I think about that...it sorta makes more sense that you would be pro-choice.

I'm english, and here, there really is no political debate about abortion. It is unthinkable that any front-bench Member of Parliament would openly declare themselves "Pro-Life" with respect to political policy.

Having looked at how Pro-choice/Pro-life is cynically used as a political football in the states, I can well imagine that I would probably withdraw from the debate altogether and refuse to state an opinion. (Which I guess would make me pro-choice by passive default).

So, if I have been unfair on you in not giving enough weight to the cultural gap with which we are both coming to this, I apologise.

Likewise, I hope you should appreciate that I come from a country where, since there is no significant political debate on this subject, my views are probably arrived at with a good deal less "political baggage" than your average american pro-lifer, and I'm certainly not wild eyed, spitting fire and standing outside abortion clinics with billboards.

Mutual points for consideration there I feel.

quote:
1. I respect the principled pro-life position, although I disagree with it. I have been engaging these issues for many years, and my position is also principled. I have yet to hear a pro-life representative on this thread acknowledge my principle, behind which lies much thought, on this score. Maybe today will be my lucky day.
I don't doubt your pinciples on the ethics of this in the slightest.

I differ with you about the facts of the matter which determine which ethics and principles come into play.

Consider the following:

"Given the facts of the situation are X therefore we ought to do Y"

In such a statement, everything before the "Therefore" is factual, everything after the therefore is ethical. (A matter of principle).

It seems to me, that the main area of disagreement in the abortion argument is about the X clause, not the Y clause.

Hence, we are disagreeing principally about facts, not ethics, eg:
Step 1 "Is the fetus a full human being? Yes/No" (A question of fact)

Step 2 "Therefore we can/cannot abort it." (The Ethical implication.)

Now, given that we believe each other mistaken about the facts of the matter, I have absolutely no problem with your ethical principles which you then apply to your understanding of the facts.

I am not in any way morally questioning logical ethical implications of the factual conclusion you have reached Laura. One must, of course, follow through on the logical conclusion of one's understanding of the facts, and I respect the fact that is what you do.

If I held the same view of the facts, I would hold to the same ethical conclusions and principles and come to the same conclusions.

Which I think is the same thing as saying I respect your principles?

Does that make today your lucky day? [Love]

quote:
4. But, (and I think I'm saying this for the fifth time, at least), whether or not abortion raises the risk of breast cancer does not and never will affect my view of whether abortion should remain legally accessible.
I agree. My argument is not that ABC link should make abortion illegal. It's that, if it exists, it should be made in high profile public awareness.

this is because:

1) A woman's right to accurate unbiased information on health care procedures she volunteers to undergo. I think we would both agree that the politics of both the pro and anti abortion lobby are hindering this at the moment.

2) Were an ABC links proven and publicised it would probably lower abortion rates by, lets say, 5 or 10% and (from my pro-life viewpoint) that would be a benefical by-product, because it would be 10,000 babies a year not being aborted who otherwise would have been. I consider that a good thing.

A word of caution on the ABC link though: I feel the pro-life lobby could shoot themselves in the foot. Most experts agree the effect would be limited to 1st trimester abortions. One could imagine a situation where doctors recommended women wanting an abortion to put it off having it until well into the second trimester to avoid the hormonal problems.

Horrible thought. Not something anyone wants to see I'm sure.

quote:
Because, as I see it, the first and most important question is: is abortion morally right/wrong? Yes? No? Under certain circumstances? Never?
Actually, I'd say that's the last question. The final decision "is it right or wrong?" is the last step in the chain of reasoning, it's not the starting point...but I know what you are getting at.

quote:
The second question is: Assuming it's right/wrong how ought society to treat demand for it?. E.g., should it be legal? Until when? What rights has a fetus? By itself? As against a grown woman? What responsibilities does a woman have toward the fetus? What rights/responsibilities has a man?
I'd say questions such as "What rights has a fetus?" comes before what you have listed as the first question. Surely it is in answer to the question "What rights has the fetus?" we reach the conclusion as to whether abortion is morally right or wrong? If the fetus has no rights, then clearly abortion is not intrinsically morally wrong.

If it does have rights, then it is the interplay between the rights of the fetus and the mother that make the decision of the morality of abortion.

quote:
The third to millionth questions are: What else do we know about abortion? Does it causes other conditions? Does it hurt women? Psychologically damage? Help? Etcetera.
On one level, (the intrinsic morality level), I agree entirely with you Laura. However, they play a part in the legal question to some extent, because they may play a part in the extrinsic morality of the situation.

After all, Heroin is illegal, but it isn't intrinsically immoral it's just considered so bad for you as an individual, and bad for society as a whole, that the government bans it for the protection of the people.

Likewise, I suppose you could suggest abortion was so bad for you / bad for society that it ought to be illegal. It's a whole different approach to the debate of course, maybe it's an interesting debate all of it's own.

quote:
I formally apologize to Matt the Mad Medic for not taking his suggestion to drop the whole bloody ABC thing ages ago. He was absolutely right that this is not a good forum in which to *debate* the state of medical research. In contentious issues, this means that both sides end up waving studies in each other's faces, and criticising the methodology of the other's studies. And that this is especially unfortunate when the scientific argument is a major distraction from the main point at issue. Matt, you were right.
Yes, it panned out pretty much as I predicted. The discussion was exclusivist to those of us with experience of scientific journals etc, and ended (as I thought it would) in waving journal references at each other.

I kinda figured it would probably end up in an excruciatingly dull debate over whether Scientist Smith would have been better off using a t-test instead of a Chi Squared and other such diversions. Still, we live and learn.

I critisised comments in the papers Laura referenced and Laura said:
quote:
But, Matt, IIRC you made the same unfounded contentions about the RCOG, that they must be biased, and their study is no good.
Yes Laura, but I made that statement in an informal context on a discussion board. If I was going to publish a paper I wouldn't dream of writing what I wrote about RCOG in the informal manner I did here.

quote:
I'm not saying that Brind is wrong because he's biased. I'm saying he's wrong AND he's biased. It's okay to be biased if you don't color your work with it.
I'd admit his biased. Everyone is biased one way or the other, but I simply do not see anything to suggest he is "wrong". IF you said you found him "Not yet fully convincing"Yes..ok..I'd let you have that.

quote:
I understand your point regarding the meta-analysis and Mabye's study. I certainly concede that PP's article could be regarded as misleading on that specific score, if you read it in the manner described. That does not mean that Brind is right, though.
Agreed, it doesn't make Brind right, but as you must appreciate, my point was that PP were (to be polite) less than transparent? It made me feel the whole tone of the article was one of "spin" rather than in the spirit of a balanced scientfic review.

What's worrying is that I think it's symptomatic of BOTH sides whole attitude to this issue. As I stated at the top of this post, the "political football" nature of the abortion debate in the states renders any meaningful scientific study impossible.

For my money, it looks like there is an ABC link of some sort. Of what magnitude? Very hard to say, and at that point everything becomes mired in deception, politics and propaganda on both sides.

matt

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I'm english, and here, there really is no political debate about abortion.
What a curious comment. ISTM that abortion is always being debated somewhere, periodically breaking into the political arena. Certainly there was a lot of heated discussion when the legal limit was revised downwards from 28 weeks to 24, as there were strong arguments put in favour of 18, as well as abolition. (Hmmmm - that was in 1990, which only seems like yesterday to me, but probably feels like a long time ago to the youngsters on board.)

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636

 - Posted      Profile for fatprophet   Email fatprophet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow, is this thread still going?! Like all debates on abortion it is has long since departed company with reason and logic. This horse has been well and truly flogged. Whether to death or not is up to our lovely host of course.

First to put my cards on the table, I am not a pro-lifer and accept abortion is necessary in some circumstances. However the arguments used by the pro-choice lobby, often have little to commend them.

Listen up you abortion defenders - there is only one primary moral issue in the abortion debate viz has the "fetus got any legal or human rights?". The issue of freedom of choice is irrelevant - yep, irrelevant, to the whole debate. Why? because society routinely does not allow us to choose what is immoral, thus the question of morality is divorced from the question of choice or freedom of action.

Morality concerns the question "What should I choose to do?". Face the moral issue and then you know how you should choose. If something is immoral, no argument about freedom of choice can make it moral. To say otherwise is really because very many pro-choice supporters appear to try and avoid and duck the moral issue of fetus rights. But in my opinion they should not be afraid to do so.

All debates about the morality of abortion should focus only on two questions:
a) does the fetus have human rights?
b) if a is answered positively, do those fetal rights or needs always outweigh the needs of the mother, family or society?

Individuals in the above debate implicitly take their own moral stance to the question of "is abortion morally right" as either a "Never" - i.e. they answer question a) above positively; if "Always" - they answer question a)above negatively; or if their stance is "Sometimes" - they are agnostic about question a) and/or say no to question b).
Simple as that.

I thought someone should be arrogant enough to cut the gordian knot after 400 posts. And we can safely say that the actual question posed by the OP is absurd as Anglicans have no more of a contribution to make to the abortion debate than anyone else. "do enough"? - doing what exactly? Quite silly, I must say.

--------------------
FAT PROPHET

Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fatprophet is right that, I think partially because of the OP, this thread has not really gotten into the central questions very much. I'm starting a new thread in which to debate these issues more cleanly and without the ABC discussion, and in fact, I'd like to stipulate that there be no discussion on the new thread of anything like ABC. In order that we not end up whacking each other over the head with scientific papers.

What we're looking for here, is a thread which will be worthy of the Dead Horses board. That helps me refine the questions, which for inclusion in DH must be a vexed issue with polarized positions and these positions must be at heart mutually exclusive. A DH debate must drive a significant number of people insane, including several hosts.

DH Questions:

Is the fetus a legal "person" for the purposes of legal rights and legal protection, such that to abort ought to be outlawed in the same way that we outlaw unjustified killings of persons?

Matt, if the UK formulation needs to be different, please restate the question as needed. In the US, only a "person" has Constitutional rights. A fetus has been held not to be a "person".

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Kevin   Author's homepage   Email Sir Kevin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am happy to hear that the new Archbishop opposes abortion. Unfortunately I live in the US and official lack of respect for life (Episcopal church seems to think abortion and euthanasia are acceptable while having some opposition to capital punishment) is a major reason for my departure. I converted to Roman Catholicism in the year 2000.

--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.

Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would argue that voluntary euthanasia shows far more respect for life than keeping people 'alive', against their will, without any quality of life at all - but thats another issue.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Kevin   Author's homepage   Email Sir Kevin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Basically, I'm the 'anti-homicide candidate', Mike (although I am not actually running for anything) and I think people should not be put down (as our 15-year-old dog with inoperable cancer was) just because of extreme pain or old age. Kevorkian is a serial killer and should have life in prison with no parole.

--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.

Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I would argue that voluntary euthanasia shows far more respect for life than keeping people 'alive', against their will, without any quality of life at all - but thats another issue.

I'd agree with you, if it weren't that under the US system, one might be choosing suicide because one's insurance wasn't adequate to provide necessary palliative care, or in some cases, necessary treatment. What I don't want is people "choosing" euthanasia, rather than beggaring their families with care they ought to receive. When we have a just-er system of medical care, then I'll consider legal euthanasia.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

 - Posted      Profile for multipara   Author's homepage   Email multipara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is also the issue of pressure from other parties...and there is a very real concern that a chronically ill or disabled individual and /or his medical attendant(s) might be subjected to (not always) covert pressure from family members to hasten the demise of that individual.

No, I'm not speaking in jest or hypothesising-these scenarios are very real and the motives of family in requesting/pushing for euthanasia may not necessarly be as base as desire for gain-carer fatigue can be enough.

--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

 - Posted      Profile for multipara   Author's homepage   Email multipara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for the double post,but the above is definitely other-thread material-and someone else can start it!

cheers,

m

--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Sorry for the double post,but the above is definitely other-thread material-and someone else can start it!

cheers,

m

Agreed, and I'll start one when I can find the energy -- or maybe someone else will.

I, too, have heard anecdotal accounts of disabled persons being urged to sign DNRs when in the hospital for unrelated things like pneumonia.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gambit

London Shipmeet King
# 766

 - Posted      Profile for Gambit   Author's homepage         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for my late two cents but having read this entire thread the one thing that bugs me is

quote:
Ms Bryonic declaimed:
Take out the mote from your own eye.

Surely that is

Remove the beam from thine own eye, before removing the mote from your brothers.

Sexist is my translation from the Greek admittedly, but no-one is told to remove the mote from their own eye.

Sorry.

--------------------
There is a little bit of my mitral regurgitation that is forever yours.

Wiblog: Now being updated less than regularly (again).

Posts: 1105 | From: the best bar in Heaven | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Kevin   Author's homepage   Email Sir Kevin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the response, all, but I am not up to starting a new thread right now.

--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.

Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I, too, have heard anecdotal accounts of disabled persons being urged to sign DNRs when in the hospital for unrelated things like pneumonia.

[tangent alert]

I heard a story about a severely disabled man who had just undergone surgery. While he was in the recovery room, a social worker came in and wanted him to sign a DNR. He yelled, " I'm thirty years old, and I don't want to die yet."

The head nurse came in and asked him why he had verbally abused a staff member. He replied, "Because I couldn't reach anything to throw at her."

[/tangent alert]

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools