|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion?
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Duchess wote: quote:
I have looked at the guidelines into being an on-call consoler and in the written requirements for this organization it says "must listen without non-judgemental attitude".
Is that the same non-judgmental attitude without which our original poster is speaking? Aside from what I'll assume is a little double negative problem, yours was a thoughtful post, Duchess. Thank you.
Welcome Presleyterian. What I mean even in bad English is that a someone on the other end of the phone is suppose to listen without casting stones of judgement on the person calling. Yes, try to talk her out of it is a given in a pro-life organization...but not by bad mouthing her...
I think you know what I mean. I think my diet restricting my calories lately is messing up my speech [trying to find some reasonable excuse].
What an uncomfortable topic. I usually am too weary to deal with it...but Logician hit the nail on the head in his post. I feel too many pro-choice organizations have not fought fair (not to say that pro-lifers who harrass clinics are any less culpable).
What I mean is I receive mail from some left leaning groups I won't name...and with that comes pro-choice pamplets. I don't know how I got on their list, I suppose it's because I am kinda green and some automatically think if you are environmental aware, than you must be left in your thinking...I dunno. I have read statements I strongly disagree with...I have written several times too politely asking to be taken off their lists...but I still get their pamplets talking about how all pro-lifers are extreme (when it is the fringe, as these groups are the fringe of the left).
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
Tubbs:
"Northern Ireland is part of the UK - so the statistics for NI would only refer to abortions performed in that region"
Northern Ireland opted out of the 1967 abortion act and as such abortion is illegal there. If a woman wants an abortion (except in rare circumstances) she therefore has to 'travel' to England and is therefore treated as a foreigner under statistics.
Thanks for your figure of 2,000 by the way. I don't have the number as such only the percentage of abortions in terms of live births. For 2000 for England and Wales it was 29%, for Scotland 23%, Republic of Ireland 11.7% and for Northern Ireland 7.1%. Moreover that year represents a blip since it had been constantly around 6% (in 1999 it was 6.2%). In that respect pro-lifer should be more concerned about the Republic of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland.
Paddy
If you had read both articles properly you would see that abortion is available in NI - but because they didn't accept the 1967 act it is unclear about when it can and cannot be provided. The articles also state that abortions do take place in NI - and quotes a figure of approx 70 in 1999. But, unless they split out NI specifically, it would not be included in figures for "outside the UK" as it isn't. And, as MM so rightly pointed out (bet you never thought you'd hear me say that!) many women in NI give address of relatives and friends so the figures quoted aren't accurate.
One thing you seem doomed to fail to do here is actually debate the issue and engage with any of the points made. If I actually wanted to read pro-life propoganda then I can look on the website - I don't need you to post great globs of it here. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's late and I'm tired, but from what I can tell, you haven't actually answered the main question - just what do you expect the church to do?
Here's a suggestion:
The early church stance on abortion was that wasn't right. But it backed that stance up with practical help - wealthy Christians were encouraged to take unmarried mothers into their homes and provide a job and support for the mother and the child. Maybe many more people would take anti abortion campaigners more seriously if they learnt from the early church's example.
And, although it's not a choice I'd make, I think it should be remain legal.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
This "not fighting fair" concept: what do you mean Logician and duchess? The only thing I can think of along those lines is the perennial chant "keep your hands off my body." Even in my unqualified pro-choice support days I sometimes said that I thought it was an obviously deceptive slogan that was just going to give a weapon to the other side. I got killed for even asking.
Is that what you guys are talking about?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
part of an earlier post by Paddy:
jlg:
"I've been seeing those "horror" pictures for roughly 30 years now. They didn't stop me from having my abortions, and they don't cause me any emotional grief now. Contrary to pro-life rhetoric, having an abortion does not automatically lead to "psychological trauma"."
I'm sorry to hear you felt abortion was the only solution to your problem. May I ask why you think the pictures don't have any affect? I'm interested to learn your views.
Why are you feeling sorry for me? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough the first time. I have no regrets.
I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?
And when you ask "...why [I] think the pictures don't have any affect?" you are again putting words in my mouth. I stated (please note that I didnt "think") that the pictures didn't affect my decisions in the past nor my current lack of regret.
You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!"
Here's my view: I made my decisions and I am still at peace with myself about those decisions 25 years later. What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893
|
Posted
hi everyone
I'm new to the website but what I've seen of the website it looks great. well done to whoever masterminded it.
I was recently doing work experience with one of the national newspapers and one of the journalists, who is an atheist, commented to me that the Raelians (the sect who have claimed this week to have cloned a baby and believe that human beings were created from aliens coming to earth in a spaceship) had no less strange beliefs than Christians.
I was stunned by this as the Raelians' beliefs are fantasy, - (they have no qualms about cloning which is condemned universally as barbaric experimentation on a child) - How can this be compared to Christ who laid down his life to save us? I couldn't at the drop of a hat point out the difference.
It seems to me that our secular world may struggle with the concept of a mighty creator but what they can't fail to be inspired and impressed by are the great Christians who spoke out about injustice and laid down their lives like Christ for the sake of others.
My understanding of the Christian faith is that it is not about political compromise. If a human life is created in the image of God, if it is wrong to kill, then it is always wrong to kill. If Christianity is not opposed to abortion then I would find its claims and teachings far harder to follow.
The more I have seen of the prolife movement the more I think they have got it right - I've seen the dedication of people who give time, money and energy to a cause that seems collosal who will never give up as long as abortion continues. Prolife isn't about saving the child at the expense of the mother's life, but helping both, finding a better way forward that doesn't involve taking human life.
Christ ultimately doesn't choose.
here is some text that puts this far better than I can:
When we accept Christ, we accept the whole Christ. To accept the whole Christ also means we accept all His brothers and sisters. If we accept Christ, we also accept all those whom He accepts. This is true even when those He accepts do not seem so acceptable to us. Maybe they're different. Maybe they're annoying. Maybe they have offended us.
Or maybe they're just too small. A whole group in our society today, the boys and girls in the womb, are often rejected. When their mothers feel they cannot provide for them, many are led to abortion, without being given other, better choices. Somehow we think we can love and accept the mother while rejecting her child. Why do we do this? Christ accepts them both; Christ loves them both. Why can't we? Why can't our society?
To accept Christ means to accept the whole Christ, to accept and love all those He loves. If we support abortion, we are rejecting those whom Christ loves, and in that respect, are rejecting Christ Himself!
Love and acceptance are not always as easy and pleasant as they sound. If we truly love our neighbor, we will begin doing more to eliminate abortion. We never eliminate problems by eliminating people. We never serve women by destroying their children. We never improve society by rejecting society's future members. We never build up the Body of Christ by killing Christ's future disciples. Yes, there is an alternative to abortion. It's love...love that accepts and nurtures not only some people, but all. Amen.
Interested to hear your response and I will keep exploring your site. Best wishes.
Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Welcome, Dorothy. Your fervent belief is evident and has moved you to speak and quote eloquently on the sanctity of human life. How indeed can any person who purports to value individual rights support the taking of innocent, helpless human life? It is not possible.
But it is possible for Chrisitians and those of strong secular morals to support aborting the development of an incomplete or potential human life that is possibly harming the welfare of a fully developed human life. That is the debate. The rigid pro-life stance says, "fertilized single cell, human life, to kill is murder, even in a test tube." But is that cell a human whose right to exist outweighs the mother's economic freedom or even her convenience? How so?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
My opening contribution: the issues of rape, incest, and life of the mother are important in the philosophical discussion, but are rare enough to remove them from the practical side of the discussion. My request would be that people keep that distinction in mind in their arguments.
Er...no.
Rape statistics from US Dept. of Justice survey- (Site: RAINN.org)
(And I believe those are just the *reported* cases.)
Rape isn't rare. Nor is incest. Nor, for that matter, is adolescent fumbling around, failed birth control, unprotected sex while under the influence of a drug, etc.
I'm basically middle of the road about abortion. I think it's best avoided *when possible*. It's not just about the woman, or just about the fetus--which is why it's so darn complicated.
I can't tell another woman whether or not she should abort--I'm not her, with her circumstances. And I'm damned sure not going to tell a rape or incest victim that they *have* to carry their abuser's child for 9 months. And, for many reasons, women and girls can't/don't always report the crime, so you can't leave the legal loophole "except for cases of rape or incest".
If you want to cut down on abortions, provide better birth control and sex education, work to stop rape and incest, and work on treatments for the abusers.
That would put a good-sized dent in the statistics.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I believe he meant that pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are pretty rare and, well, they are. So dragging those into an abortion discussion is a version of Godwin's Law.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy: (in reply to Laura)
And not only in the bible but in most major religious' texts. Several examples: Genesis 1:27, Exodus 20:13, Job 10:8-11, Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 49:1-5, Judges 13:7, John 1:14 etc
I think you missed the point that Laura was making here. Where, in any of those texts, does it say anything specifically about abortion?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893
|
Posted
hi Jim
thanks for your reply. I've read your previous posts regarding the development of the baby and I respect any one who has thought seriously about the baby's development and status.
I read this fascinating book about craniometry by Steven Jay Gould called "The Mismeasure of Man". In the nineteenth century, there was a serious school of scientific and philosophical thought that believed that human worth was determined by the size of the person's head and scientists devised all sorts of measures to weigh skulls in order to prove that whites had larger heads and were therefore more intelligent than blacks. Amusingly one of the leading proponents of this had a very small head.
Nowadays it's easy enough to laugh at this. But Gould points out that the scientists didn't even take into account the fact that some of the skulls would be smaller because they were from smaller or younger people. Inevitably my head has grown along with me, but my worth as a human being has not changed. I believe it is self-evident that the size of the human body does not determine worth. Hence the embryo is unsurprisingly small, but no less precious than the older child.
I started like you by seeing that abortion must be wrong at say, 16 weeks. It shocked me that human rights were dependent solely on whether you could make it to 24 weeks gestation without being aborted, and I wondered how it could make any sense that you could abort a baby at 23 and a half weeks, but not at 24 weeks and one day. Human beings it would seem from Gould's book can get it seriously wrong when we try to depend on reason. When the implications at the very least might be that we are killing a child made in God's image, isn't it far better to leave it to God?
If you pick a point at which you believe abortion to be wrong and then ask yourself if a day or a couple of weeks earlier would make a substantial moral difference, (isn't the being the same? isn't the outcome, termination of life the same? the baby won't be born if it aborted at any stage) it becomes difficult to justify abortion at any point. Last week, or at 4 am this morning, I had no less human rights than I do now.
Having said this - I do recognise how entrenched abortion is and I would welcome any opposition to abortion at *any* stage as a first step. We don't have to solve the whole caboodle at once. To save one baby would be incredible.
I checked the national abortion statistics for the UK recently and over 2,000 babies were aborted at 21 weeks or above, the stage at which the baby can survive outside the womb. Our law (abortion up to 24 weeks, and up to birth for disability) is based on fetal viability and is out of date. You may have seen the image of Malachi at 21 weeks which is well known and heart breaking. Malachi is clearly a baby, no different from a baby born prematurely. Surely we can put aside our differences and this is something that Christians and anyone with a love of human beings can unite behind?
Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I believe he meant that pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are pretty rare and, well, they are. So dragging those into an abortion discussion is a version of Godwin's Law.
I've been told that the pregnancy rate from rape is higher than that for consensual sex. Something about stress and hormones? The person who told me mentioned rape of women in wartime having a higher conception rate as evidence (where they got the info re: the higher rate I don't know)
Anyone got any hard info or refs on the matter?
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus (The Coot):
I've been told that the pregnancy rate from rape is higher than that for consensual sex. Something about stress and hormones? The person who told me mentioned rape of women in wartime having a higher conception rate as evidence (where they got the info re: the higher rate I don't know)
Anyone got any hard info or refs on the matter?
That is counter-intuitive on the surface, because stress and hormones decrease the opportunities for conception. However, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (very well-respected) says that women give rape or incest as the reason in seeking an abortion approximately one percent of the time. (It's an awkward format, but go to slide 10.) I found several references on the Internet to the extremely low/virtually non-existent rate of pregnancy resulting from rape and incest, but chose not to include them because of the virulent prolife stance of the websites. The statistics countering those claims are notable for their absence.
[ 04. January 2003, 15:37: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
quote:
women give rape or incest as the reason in seeking an abortion approximately one percent of the time.
I believe most rape victims are given the immediate option of the "morning-after pill", so they would not need to "seek an abortion" at a clinic.
Therefore the statistic you quote is not very relevant.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Well then abortion due to rape and incest will not need to enter into the discussion at all, since the morning-after pill PREVENTS pregnancy in the first place.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
Sorry for the double-post, but it just occurred to me that some "pro-life" partisans might be in favor of outlawing the morning-after pill.
In that case, we need to consider the morning after pill as "probable abortion", & include it in discussion.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
I was about to ask about that; I was wondering about the mechanism of the Morning After Pill; I thought it inhibited a fertilised ovum to embed itself into the womb lining. If that is the case, that may prove problematic for some.
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
One of the girls I used to know at Univ worked in the abortion unit at a large North London hospital and she said that women seeking abortions divided up to the following fairly board types:
The unlucky – women who’d done their best to avoid pregnancy but whose contraception had let them down on the night. And who, after careful consideration of their circumstances and options, had decided that abortion was the best answer to their situation. Most were never seen again and, the majority seemed to be at peace about what they were doing.
The horror stories – mercifully rare. Victims of rape or incest or the incredibility young. Who’d decided that carrying a child to term and then either bringing it up (with whatever support was available) or adopting it and risking it turning up later in their lives was another trauma that they just didn’t feel able to cope with. (She said that workers at the unit found these kind of cases the hardest to handle because it just seemed that these women were just going from one horror to another – in a situation where all the options were just terrible ![[Frown]](frown.gif) )
The regulars – also rare and despised by the staff. Women who just couldn’t be bothered with contraception and used the unit instead.
Weirdly enough, she had little time for the people who stood outside the clinic hassling patients and staff and handing out anti-abortion leaflets. She felt their energies could be better spent by backing up their principles with practical action – like joining local schemes to help support first time or lone parents with advice or even the odd bit of babysitting. And their financial support to charities that supported parents – especially single or vulnerable ones (So well done Duchess!) She did, however respect people like the RC Bishop who died last year (please would someone remind me of his name!) who spoke out against abortion but also provided homes and long term support for mothers who’d decided against it.
So, Paddy, I ask you again – just what do you think is “enough”?.
Just waving around pictures and quoting statistics in the hope that this will encourage more women to reject abortion as an option? Or should that campaign be backed up with long term practical support for women who decide against abortion? And what about sex education in schools? Should that be restructured in some way (made compulsory?) to help young people be more aware of the risks and how to protect themselves?
Writing as a shipmate and not a Host – not my board you see:
I do hope you’re going to actually engage with the questions I and other posters have asked instead of just spouting statistics and factoids at us … These are, in case you haven’t noticed, Discussion Boards. The clue is in the title. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And Commandment 8 is there for a reason - to prevent anyone with a “special interest” or a “cause” from just pitching up and refusing to discuss anything but that. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) To make the boards interesting for those that run and read them. So, if none of the other threads interest you – then start one that does! Go back to your welcome thread in All Saints and say thank you to those posters who’ve greeted you so far. But if you’re just here to talk about abortion (which is a single, although multi-faceted, issue) and win converts to the pro-life cause, then you are a crusader. And will be treated accordingly. Louise is a Host of this board, and she has explained, as a Host, how things work on this board. You may wish to go back and re-read it.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
coffee jim
Shipmate
# 3510
|
Posted
I think it's Cardinal Thomas Winning, Mrs Tubbs.
Posts: 367 | From: Belfast | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
JimT -- You asked about fighting fair. I'll only pick on one local girl. How about Mrs. Tubbs, who keeps saying that all those activists should be giving practical aid instead, obviously not knowing and not willing to find out that they do. Hang out with these folks, Mrs. T, and you'll find a surprizing number of children-adopters, home-providers, and donators of food and clothing.
The extended accusation, made by political figures such as Barney Frank, is that prolifers only care about babies until they are born (and I am not accusing you of that extremity, Mrs. T). In view of who is actually doing the work in the trenches, this is vile.
Another favorite, though it's old: The ad campaign complaining about crisis pregnancy centers because they "bring young women into darkened rooms and show them movies about fetal development." What other kind of room do you show movies in?
I might add in things from time to time, Jim, but it gets me hot under the collar and I stop listening, so it's not appropriate to do too many at once.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
He called me a girl ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) Why thank you Logician. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Actually, I don’t doubt that many of them do – and backing up pro-life principles with practical help is the way to go. (But you knew I thought that already ). But there are pro-lifers who do only care about the baby until it’s born. One of the saddest interviews I ever read was with a very young girl who’d been persuaded by her local pro-life group to keep her baby and promised all sorts of help once she’d had the child. But once the child was born she never heard or saw any of them again.
My argument is not with you Logician – but with our new friend Paddy. A young man with strong views – who seems unable to answer a straight question, “What exactly is “enough”? Are we talking prayer for those making that decision; writing letters to the government about changes in the law; standing vigil outside clinics as people enter; firebombing clinics and shooting their staff … Just where do we draw the line between "enough" and "the ends doesn't actually justify the means". And where does practical support and help fit in with this? And education?
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Dorothea, we call your acknowledgement of the legitimacy of other opinions, and your willingness to discuss options and alternatives being “engaging” and we like it a lot. It is the opposite of what we call “crusading.”
In engaging me on the issue of when human rights begin, you summed up your position this way:
quote:
I believe it is self-evident that the size of the human body does not determine worth.
I agree. It is not the size of the body at all, but the presence or absence of mind that most of us associate with "humanity." It is very telling that you made your example the size of the head and not the heart or reproductive organs. What are the rights of a developing human being who has no head at all or a head that is more like a fish than a human being and is attached to a neck with gills? Does it have a human mind?
You have not engaged me yet on the issue of the rights of a mother who has a developing, but not yet complete human being living inside her parasitically. Has the mother no rights at all to assert against this parasitic and incomplete human life on the condition that she did not intend to create it? Before it becomes fully human can she not choose to prevent it from becoming so in the same way that she can prevent her eggs from becoming fertilized? By what right does the State or the father compell her to complete a process that she did not intend to begin? Because God really wanted that life to be created even though she did not? No one can prove God's intent or desires. The mother can seek it, but she can only know her own. We cannot tell her what God intends for her or her developing embryo. Can we?
Logician, given that you’ve revealed your adoption of Romanian children elsewhere, I can see how you would become upset at the generalization that “pro-lifers” are more interested in forcing others to make sacrifices for the sake of tiny or unborn children but are unwilling to make sacrifices of their own because that's how all conservatives are. I don't read that into Tubbs myself but see how perhaps you could. I have heard it said, though.
[PRIVATE ASIDE]I rankle in the same way when I sense that a knee-jerk anti-“capitalist” is defining me as a selfish and lucky thief who obviously achieved financial independence at the expense of starving Third World children. I feel myself slipping into anti-“anti-‘capitalist’” mode, sputtering that they know nothing of capitalism or me. On bad days I rub a little Libertarianism in their face just to piss them off. Nonetheless, I don’t think that any particular group has more “unfair” people in it than any other (RooK’s school of kinder, gentler cynicism) and I recognize that my “anti-anti-ness” is a knee-jerk rebellion against my rebellious youth, when I was myself a knee-jerk anti-just-about-anything-ist. Perhaps the source of your own “anti-anti-ness” is different. Ah, youth. Ah, the 60's.[/PRIVATE ASIDE]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
As to heads, what about the termination of a pregnancy where the mother is carrying an anancephalic foetus? One of my friends had one, and chose to abort it; she reckoned it was kinder to the child to do so as it would not have to go through birth and then die.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
JimT wrote:
quote:
Logician, given that you’ve revealed your adoption of Romanian children elsewhere, I can see how you would become upset at the generalization that “pro-lifers” are more interested in forcing others to make sacrifices for the sake of tiny or unborn children but are unwilling to make sacrifices of their own because that's how all conservatives are. I don't read that into Tubbs myself but see how perhaps you could. I have heard it said, though.
Now I didn't know that - and reacted accordingly. Thank you JimT for pointing this out as it does give me a better idea about where Logican is coming from. I would like to apologies for any misunderstanding that my comments caused
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Apologies accepted and reciprocated. I was intemperate and insulting.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I rather wish some of the energy directed towards forcing women not to have abortions could be spent working for the many unwanted, abused and neglected children who are already here, though. Banning abortion would no doubt just increase that number
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
I read this fascinating book about craniometry by Steven Jay Gould called "The Mismeasure of Man".
An excellent book. I have it on my shelves. It is really worth reading. And re-reading after the execrable "Bell Curve", which I also have.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
A test for those of us who hate abortion.
Do we support large-scale, publicly-funded sex education where it counts, i.e. of pre-pubertal boys?
Do we support the universal availibility of the means of contraception - including (but nbot limited to) givng condoms out to anyone and everyone (why not put dispensing machines on street corners?)
If not - why not?
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Ken,
I do support all that you suggest.
Sex education should start from when children are tiny and want to know where babies come from; they need age-appropriate accurate answers whenever they ask questions. (I remember being asked by my 4yr old son's friend, in a queue at a bus-stop, "How do babies get out from their mummies?")
Sex education should not just be biology and anatomy, but relationships and appropriate boundaries too.
Of course condoms are better than abortions; if we provide free NHS abortion, we ought to provide free condoms in easy to access places.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893
|
Posted
hi Jim and anyone else...
I've heard the idea that humanity depends on what you call "a presence of mind" or an ability to reason, but my stumbling block with that is in order to have reason the baby has to be allowed to develop these faculties. We all passed through this phase of development so in terms of equality, it seems to me that we ought not to deny the right to develop to others and that the aesthetic look of a human being (whether black or white or a developing embryo) does not affect a human beings moral worth. If development of rationality endows humans with greater rights, then arguably any one cleverer than me would have the right to do anything to me....
Brain activity (as I notice someone pointed out earlier) in fact exists at an early stage (after all, presumably this directs all development, brain waves can be detected at 40 days, and the baby can feel pain and hear music and responds to loud sounds before it is born. I would assume that sensory perception is part of brain activity). If you're talking about more sophistocated brain activity (the ability to do calculus) then under that definition a new born baby doesn't have a great deal of rationality, but neither given my maths inability do I !
I've never been fond of brains as an indicator of human worth. It might have something to do with my coping strategy at school. I found out early on that if you do well in exams the best thing to do was to pass it off as a fluke or an accident. Any one who didn't was considered arrogant. But I also genuinely counted myself lucky to get into a good university. It doesn't make you better than anyone else. It's just a case of being in the right place at the right time. (ideally 18 and just passed a few A levels. No matter how virtuous you are, if you are 6 years old you won't get into university).
In the same book I cited earlier by Gould, all non-whites were considered morons or imbeciles. This was mainly because they performed poorly on IQ tests on arrival in America. Gould points out that their poor performance was directly attributable to their inability to speak English and their lack of knowledge of everyday life in America.
I realise that you may be tut tutting at this point thinking that I have deliberately misinterpreted what you've said. But I genuinely believe that the acquisition of mental ability in an unborn baby is inevitable and dependent on the passing of time, just as black immigrants would have acquired the knowledge to perform well on IQ tests given a chance. Rationality is an acquired ability, not an indicator of human worth.
When it comes to the rights of the mother, I do not see the conflict between adult woman and unborn baby as equal. The woman is an adult with resourcefulness, courage, rationality and a voice to ask for help, the baby is weak and defenceless. Without playing down the difficulties of pregnancy and birth, 9 months is by definition a limited and temporary space of time to carry a child for. The baby on the other hand will lose its life. On a time comparison alone this is 9 months versus 70-80 years. Who has the worse deal? Abortion is not a pleasant way to die. (neither incidentally is it a necessary or desirable procedure for women. Going into hospitals and undergoing an operation is not something I am willing to do and in no way feels liberating. Why can't the state help women rather than insisting that "it is their choice, get on with it") In terms of equality, we all enjoyed the protection of unmolested development in the womb, how can we deny this to others?
In terms of law when there is a conflict of rights we have to establish
which party suffers more and protect them. In the case of drink driving and smoking in public places for example, the mere risk of harm to others is sufficient to curtail these liberties, so when we have an operation that is specifically designed to attack and kill, there is no question which party should be protected. The point is that the state does not intervene to keep the individual pregnant, but the state should not intervene to kill the child. With abortion paid for by the taxpayer on our National Health Service, the state currently facilitates
and legitimises abortion.
It may be presumptious to assume to know the mind of God but extrapolating on a general principle that God is good and loving, I can't see abortion fitting into this.
If you advocate allowing some limited abortion on the grounds that the baby is not "fully human", then I think you would have to define an exact day when the baby becomes fully human so fully human babies are not killed. And you'll see this is a rather fraught process. If you fix a day, how morally different would it be to kill the baby a minute, an hour or a day before?
Finally, as a newcomer, I'd like to point out that I love your section on heaven, especially Rosencrantz (one of my favourite plays). It seems from numerous comments that Paddy has taken a lot of stick, but perhaps that's because you've inundated him with questions and comments?! He has tried to answer them after all. I've tried to be brief but these questions tend to require lengthy responses.
If abortion is a human rights abuse of unparralleled proportions, then it is surely important to discuss it. There are a million and one things that can be done to save human life and help women (advertising counselling support, training people, providing equipment, providing housing, lobbying for better maternity benefits) but all this can only be done if we have enough hands and enough money to make it happen. If people see abortion as a choice, then why campaign to provide an alternative? It is only if abortion is perceived as undesirable that people will be motivated to put themselves out to help. None of this comes without generous donations and volunteers. Without discussing the issue, we won't have enough people to make the social changes a reality or to provide the moral imperative to inspire people to campaign.
Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893
|
Posted
I thought you might be interested in this article I remember reading about contraception increasing the unplanned pregnancy and abortion rate:
Morning-after pill, lessons in family planning and early puberty are all blamed for soaring pregnancies
Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday March 17, 2002
The Observer
The number of under-age abortions has risen by more than a fifth in the past 10 years, fuelling fears that the greater availability of sex education and the morning- after pill is encouraging young people to have unprotected sex.
Figures compiled by the Office of National Statistics for 2000 reveal that 4,382 girls under the age of 16 had abortions, up 200 on the year before. The same figure for 1992, the first of the last Conservative Government, was 3,510. There has been a rise of 20 per cent since then.
Experts in teenage pregnancy and abortion say poorly defined sex education policies and the Government's decision to allow the morning-after pill to be freely available at chemists is increasing the awareness of sex and leading to more unwanted pregnancies.
Some argue that because sex is illegal under the age of 16 the official figures reveal only a small part of the problem. 'It is clear that providing more family planning clinics, far from having the effect of reducing conception rates, has actually led to an increase,' said Dr David Paton, a leading expert on teenage fertility at the University of Nottingham.
'The availability of the morning-after pill seems to be encouraging risky behaviour. It appears that if people have access to family planning advice they think they automatically have a lower risk of pregnancy.'
for the full article:
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,668849,00.html
Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Precisely. This faith that "education" is going to fix this somehow is misplaced. People choose not to know what they know. When you talk to these girls (and boys, when you can get them), you find that they know the biology but think there were certain exceptions, like "if it's the first time," "if we were standing up," etc. Children believe they are bulletproof.
It is one thing not to know that pre-ejaculate fluid is dense with sperm, so that "just fooling around on the outside" can make you pregnant. But it is quite another to convince yourself that the one thing that can make you pregnant can't really make you pregnant.
This better education mantra keeps coming up, but it doesn't have a track record of success. It's one of those things adults imagine is going to help, so we do it to make ourselves feel better. To rephrase Ken: are we really interested in doing what is necessary to stop unwanted pregnancies? If so, why do we ignore the evidence that something doesn't work?
Heresy, I know.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A test for those of us who hate abortion.
...don't really hate abortion as such, just see the fact that it exists saddening, but to continue...
quote:
Do we support large-scale, publicly-funded sex education where it counts, i.e. of pre-pubertal boys?.
Depends how you define support. If you mean do I give time or money, then the answer is no. Do you mean do I support sex education in public schools, then yes. Teach the kids about the mechanics of reproduction, and as morally neutral a tone as possible, the consequences of sexual activity. Particular attitudes to aspects of sexuality should come from the likes of parents, churches, and other third party "stakeholders" outwith school. Sex education needs to be a part of general citizenship education, and the responsibilities of individuals in society.
quote:
Do we support the universal availibility of the means of contraception - including (but nbot limited to) givng condoms out to anyone and everyone
Yes. Ideally only as a means of family planning among married couples, but despite holding a very trad view of human relationships, I'd still prefer to give the sexually active access to contraception to minimise STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Ideally a programme of education would empower individuals to take control of their sexuality responsibly.
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
so, a question for all the anti-abortion folks here.
how would you react to having a group home for the mentally handicapped set up next door to you?
i ask this because my brother lives in such a group home, being severly autistic. and my mother was for many years extremly active in a group which existed to set up such group homes. and i know full well the amount of vitriolic hatred thats spewed forth whenever theres an attempt to set one up. up to and including burning down buildings that have been purchased for the purpose.
so i want to know... does that respect for all human life extend to when theres a not very attractive, obviously abnormal bunch of men and women living next door to you?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Dorothea, you've done a good job and have prompted me to review the fetal development process. An excellent description with beautiful pictures is found here. The brain is fully formed at 12 weeks and in my view begins its life as a "human being." Just opinion. Thank you very much for yours. It has gotten me off the fence on the second trimester: good job!
It would probably be best if a woman took up the debate from here about the mother's reproductive rights, but I will say that it is not a given that the child will suffer more by not being born than the mother will if the child is born. Women also suffer when in good conscience they give up the child and it "finds" them in their middle age. No doubt there are other dimensions to explore on this.
But we've had enough of a polemic for now. Thanks!
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Dorothea, you've done a good job and have prompted me to review the fetal development process. An excellent description with beautiful pictures is found here. The brain is fully formed at 12 weeks and in my view begins its life as a "human being." Just opinion. Thank you very much for yours. It has gotten me off the fence on the second trimester: good job!
It would probably be best if a woman took up the debate from here about the mother's reproductive rights, but I will say that it is not a given that the child will suffer more by not being born than the mother will if the child is born. Women also suffer when in good conscience they give up the child and it "finds" them in their middle age. No doubt there are other dimensions to explore on this.
But we've had enough of a polemic for now. Thanks!
I agree vis-a-vis the second trimester; the systems are all pretty much up and running by that point. Also, the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.
--------------------
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
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
nicolemrw, a very fair question, and one that prolife folks -- and everyone -- should answer. It is inconsistent to say that Life is Valuable, and then act as if some lives are Not Really Valuable.
The inconsistency can cut both ways, however. If we wish to allow the abortion option for those carrying damaged babies -- because they have little to look forward to but a life of hardship, dependence, and ostracism, then we should also allow families to kill them off when they are two or three years old, because they have little to look forward to but a life of hardship, dependence, and ostracism.
After some research and thought, I would like to open up the discussion about use of language in the public debate. There is much that troubles me there.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Nicole, I think every person serves a purpose and God loves them...I used to live near a house of handicapped adults and it was not a problem. They are people too. I used to love the episodes of Touched by An Angel where there was a handicapped angel, played by a handicapped (mild enough to act) actor in real life.
Logician, do you mean the terms used by both sides in the debate about the language thing? The anti this and that when using Pro for their side?
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
After some research and thought, I would like to open up the discussion about use of language in the public debate. There is much that troubles me there.
Yes, it always troubles me when I hear that a way has been found to 'prevent' X, Y or Z condition, when what is actually meant is a way has been found to detect foetuses with X Y or Z so they can be aborted.
There is an assumption among many medical staff that most couples would chose to abort a foetus with a detected gentic disorder, I have also met people who have made this assumption when pregnant. If abortion is seen as a 'solution' to disability then this implies that disabled people do not have as much right to exist as the rest of us. Of course not all disability is due to genetic conditions so we cannot eradicate it anyway.
I think I am personally anti-abortion at the moment, but I would not make abortions illegal. I cannot possibly judge what another person should do, only God can judge us.
The obverse of the argument about the foetuses humanity however small is that however small when aborted it has still had a significant life in God's eyes - cf Psalm 139. I am not proposing this as any sort of theological answer but I think the theology of 'God hates X Y or Z' is not helpful. If we are aware of the complexities of the situation, I am sure God is as well.
We had friends whose baby had an incurable and fatal condition that was so rare that they do not routinely test for it antenatally. They looked after her devotedly and she lived much longer than expected - nearly two years as opposed to nine months predicted when she was born. They were given a test during their next pregnancy and would definitely have aborted if it had been positive. Would God understand or hold them guilty of murder if that had happened?
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
Don't worry guys, I haven't forgotten about this thread.
I just got a new computer yesterday so have been playing round with that for a while (plus was out all day Saturday).
Will write later today hopefully.
Paddy
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
so, a question for all the anti-abortion folks here.
how would you react to having a group home for the mentally handicapped set up next door to you?
i ask this because my brother lives in such a group home, being severly autistic. and my mother was for many years extremly active in a group which existed to set up such group homes. and i know full well the amount of vitriolic hatred thats spewed forth whenever theres an attempt to set one up. up to and including burning down buildings that have been purchased for the purpose.
so i want to know... does that respect for all human life extend to when theres a not very attractive, obviously abnormal bunch of men and women living next door to you?
I don't have the slightest problem with it. I don't see what this has to do with the subject at hand, though, unless you have some conclusive proof that all of those people who have so virulently protested in the past are also ALL pro-life.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
I don't think anyone here is pro -abortion. It is something, I would hope never undertaken ligthly or with anything but a heavey heart. I think some of what we are discussing is under what circumstances it may happen.
I am not pro the British Army, but I am pretty glad it's there.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Logician,
Here's a language misuse that drives me to distraction. People who describe abortion as "murder" are themselves guilty of libel or slander, both of which are illegal and arguably immoral.
Here's another. It is a foetus, NOT a "baby".
While I am fairly certain that I would never have had an abortion (with the possible exceptions of a rape-induced pregnancy or the likelihood of my life being endangered}, and while this certainty is fomred by princiles that might be described as moral, I would not support any weakening of the right to personal privacy as applied in Roe v. Wade. Until the foetus is viable, it is not a person, and the state cannot constitutionally interfere with a woman's fundamental right to make her own private medical decisions.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I take issue with the libel or slander remark, Greta. If I regard the fetus as human life, and I DO, then I regard the deliberate taking of human life as murder.
You may choose not to consider a fetus human life (though to be honest I have no idea what legitimate biological basis you use to make that decision), but just because YOU don't think it is doesn't mean that it isn't.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Along the language lines, and just to clarify Erin, "fetus" is after "embryo" which is in turn after a bunch of other stuff that starts with "zygote" meaning "fertilized egg cell that has not yet divided." Do you support full rights beginning with conception ("zygote").
Forgive me, I'm a biologist.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893
|
Posted
well put Erin.
for those who think abortion is unacceptable when the baby is formed, and have put this point at 12 weeks, it's worth clarifying that the baby is fully formed at 8 weeks:
"At 56 days all organs functioning - stomach, liver, kidney, brain - all systems intact. Lines in palms. All future development of new life is simply that of refinement and increase in size until maturity at approximately age 23 years."
Anyone using the formation of the baby as a guide would therefore presumably regard abortion after 8 weeks as unacceptable, though how much difference would a couple of hours before 8 weeks make?
I've also come across one of the most incredible websites about abortionists who tell their story about how they turned away from abortion. It makes compelling reading:
http://www.prolifeaction.org/meet_the_abortion_providers.htm
Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Along the language lines, and just to clarify Erin, "fetus" is after "embryo" which is in turn after a bunch of other stuff that starts with "zygote" meaning "fertilized egg cell that has not yet divided." Do you support full rights beginning with conception ("zygote").
Forgive me, I'm a biologist.
I know what the continuum is, thanks. I recognize life as beginning at implantation.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Erin,
The penal codes define murder {and slander and libel). Some people may wish that abortion (performed according to legal standards} be defined as murder, but in law it is not. It is assuredly libel or slander to falsely label someone as a murderer.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Erin,
Your points about human life are really the crux of the matter in my opinion, and I assure you that I can see merit in your view.
What is human life, and when does it begin? I'm not sure I can supply an inconstestable answer. Why do you pinpoint fertilization as the relevant event?
The language of the Constitution further complicates things in that its guarantees apply to "persons" or "citizens". Do either of these terms include fertilized ova?
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Erin,
Sorry, I misread your post. I should have said implantation rather than fertilization.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
