|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Pro Life" Activists Drop Pretense, Endorse Murder
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To North East Quine,
quote:
But surely, scripturally, the purpose of sexual intercourse may well be pregnancy with complications? Does Gen 3 -16 not say "And God said to the woman "I will increase your trouble in pregnancy and your pain in giving birth."?
Well thats because of the fall, not the way God created, what God created was good.
And I cant hold God to account by what some Victorians thought.
I don't see how you can say that something which exists by explicity divine decree is "not the way God created". If God did this, then obviously it was his intention.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This idea that a man should be able to control the actions of any woman he impregnates runs counter to about a century and a half of Western thought on the question of slavery.
Just as a woman shouldn't be allowed to control the life or death of the person she is bearing, because that also would be a form of slavery.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But Luke, your argument gives absolutely no value to the woman's emotional well-being, health, career prospects, social life or anything of the woman, except her ability to carry a foetus to term. Can't you hear that in what you're saying?
All the value is weighted to the zygote or foetus. For a baby to be born, a woman really does have to be affected, - happily in the case of a wanted baby, but adversely in the case of an unwanted baby. The woman is a sentient being, which is a damn sight more than a zygote is.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Luke, like it or no, a foetus is not a person; a potential person, yes, but not a person until delivered. I won't go down the "immortal soul" pathway, this time.
The WHO definition ( 20 weeks gestation or 400 grams weight whichever applies) of foetal viability still stands.
Not that I expect you to reconsider your POV....
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Curiosity Killed, all those things a woman risks to bring an unborn to term, the whole list still isn't worth more then someone's life! I find your position shocking and you find my shocking because of what we believe about the status of the zygote, again it all seems to boil down to who is and isn't a person.
You claim the zygote isn't a sentient being although I doubt you have a clear definition of whatever a sentient should be. And this is understandable in a way because if you picked consciousness, I'd ask about an unconscious adult or if you picked intelligence/rationality I'd ask about a retarded person etc. We were debating something similar up-thread, you were suggesting a continuum and I was asking against what you measured such a continuum.
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Luke, like it or no, a foetus is not a person; a potential person, yes, but not a person until delivered. I won't go down the "immortal soul" pathway, this time.
The WHO definition ( 20 weeks gestation or 400 grams weight whichever applies) of foetal viability still stands.
Not that I expect you to reconsider your POV....
Everyone seems pretty firmly entrenched but its good we're arguing about it.
Multipara, why should I accept the WHO definition, if I have theistic presuppositions and an epistemology defined by Scripture? But more interestingly why is birth the beginning of a person? (I'm not sure what you mean by the "immortal soul route," I hold personhood is primarily defined by God's recognition.) It's interesting that birth is such a clear demarcation, what about being a person does a child gain at birth that they didn't have as a zygote?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Personality, Luke, and yes, after birth it develops mighty fast.
By the by, you need not accept the WHO definition of foetal viability , and as a sky pilot it is probably outside of your brief. However, it does you no harm to be aware that it exists, and this scrap of knowledge might be pastorally useful to you one of these days.
Always happy to oblige,
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
To begin with, let's clarify the meaning of sentient:
sentient verb conscious, capable of sensation, aware; responsive to stimulus
noun a sentient being or mind.
Technically that zygote doesn't become a foetus until 10 weeks gestation. The rudimentary brain and spinal column development begins at about 5-7 weeks gestation. The startle reflex develops at around week 23 of gestation, and the full development of the nervous system to control bodily functions occurs by week 27 of gestation.
A zygote cannot possibly be sentient by the definition as it doesn't have the capacity.
I'm comfortable with terminations in the zygote stage or within the first trimester, and I've said that repeatedly. That's quite a few weeks before the traditional time for quickening (around 19 weeks) and some weeks before the zygote or foetus is sentient by normal dictionary definitions.
But then as a woman I think women should be seen as fully functioning human beings.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Mutlipara, is your "pastoral" advice given in lieu of an argument? And is personality (dramatically acquired at birth), however it is measured, your defining characteristic of who is and isn't a human? It doesn't seem any less arbitrary then having a theological definition.
Curiosity Killed, I haven't doubted your clear support of abortion prior to 19 weeks. However like most of those on the ship who support abortion you dispute the personhood of the unborn child. In your case you define personhood alot earlier and differently to multipara. Although making sentience your benchmark for defining humanity still leaves you with problems. For example, would an unconscious leper still be considered a person?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
You're reading me wrongly, Luke. I'm saying a zygote does not have capacity for sentience as it does not have a brain at all. A leper in a coma does.
Where did I say 19 weeks? The first trimester ends at 13 weeks. After 13 weeks gestation is also the recommended time for prospective parents to tell people that they are expecting as the highest risk of spontaneous abortion has passed.
I did say that I would have preferred our legal abortions without major medical reasons to have changed to 18 weeks when it was last up for debate as that was the earliest option on the table.
[ 01. January 2010, 10:58: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Luke, scroll back and read my post: I said "sentient"; the humanity of the foetus goes without saying.
No point is arguing ; you are operating from a fixed point so "pastoral advice" (gee, thanks, I don't do pastoral) may after all, be the way to go in dialogue with you.
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Croesos,
quote:
I don't see how you can say that something which exists by explicity divine decree is "not the way God created".
I am not saying that. I have said what god created was good, the complications are due to the fall, is that what the Bible implies?
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Curiosity killed...
quote:
... I'm saying a zygote does not have capacity for sentience as it does not have a brain at all. A leper in a coma does.
Ok I can see that, but again that only applies if one thinks sentience is important, as sentience just comes as does cognitive thought or puberty at some stage during a life on what grounds should sentience determine whether a life should proceed or not, why not cognitive thought or puberty?
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But Luke, your argument gives absolutely no value to the woman's emotional well-being, health, career prospects, social life or anything of the woman, except her ability to carry a foetus to term. Can't you hear that in what you're saying?
But an abortion can have effects on a woman's emotional well-being and health too. A character in a series of books I'm reading is unable to have children as a result of an earlier abortion -- not sure how likely this is medically, but it wasn't something the character had considered at the time she had the abortion.
An unintended/unexpected pregnancy has impacts on a woman's emotional well-being etc whatever decision she reaches about abortion. Personally, I think that I would be more affected by the what might have beens of having an abortion than by those of carrying the baby to term.
One question that needs to be asked is why are there so many unintended/unexpected pregnancies in our society.
I like Obama's statement that he would like abortion to be 'safe, legal and rare'. I don't ever think it is a good thing to do, but accept that it can be the least bad thing given the non-ideal circumstances and would rather that an abortion is done safely and legally than risking the mother's health in a back street abortion.
Rather than picketing abortion clinics and threatening the lives of those carrying out abortions, I think people would be better off working to support those who are in difficult situations, promoting safe sex and considered decisions about sex.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Carys, I would have to look for a while to find them, but the articles I've seen discussing the effects of an termination of pregnancy on a woman have depended on the starting point of the researchers. Researchers who believed it would adversely affect women have concluded that, those who believed women wouldn't be affected have also proved their ideas. I suspect it varies depending on the woman concerned.
What is probably more important is making the best decision at the time that can be lived with. I have refused to get involved with local pregnancy counselling that has an agenda, as that's not best serving the girls and women concerned. They need to know all the options realistically and to have time to think what is the best solution for them in their situation at that time.
I've addressed your other points about education before - here most recently. I take it as read that we want to reduce the number of terminations, but get bored of saying the same thing over and over again on different threads.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Going back to original topic, Scott Roeder has just been convicted of murder in the first degree. Jury deliberations took approximately forty minutes, according to CNN.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
27 years old and lives with his parents; is acting as his own attorney.
Nutbar.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Well, yeah, obviously a nut job. Still, it does seem to be the obvious progression from Scott Roeder.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm not sure if it's a progression, or just more of the same old thing. New generation being passed the torch from the old. As has been said, what biblical moral injunction will these nutjobs decide needs to be defended with firepower next? A vigilante is a wannabe dictator.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I am also comfortable with terminations before 12 weeks. After that I really struggle with the idea - especially now that pregnancy is detected so early.
It's about weighing and choosing the 'least worst' solution imo, and should be totally in the woman's hands to choose (before 12 weeks)
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Sorry - hasty reply to the wrong bit! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
My reply to this bit - how dare this man even begin to judge other's pain ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Despite his "nutbar" status, Mr. Lo seems to have a fairly clear grasp of mainstream anti-abortion teachings.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
There’s much I don’t understand about this debate, especially the religious aspects of it, and much of it seems rooted in paradox.
As has already been pointed out, making an exception to an absolute ban of abortion on the basis of rape (and, presumably, incest) makes no moral sense – until or unless we recognize that, in making the exception, we weigh the mother’s presumed emotional pain, and/or her (possible) condition of servitude to a being she did not seek to conceive, and find that killing the foetus in those circumstances may be a lesser evil than forcing the mother to give birth.
ISTM this stance gives houseroom to two ideas: 1, that the value of one human life can sometimes outweigh the value of another, morally speaking, and 2, that the value of one human’s suffering can sometimes exceed the value of another human’s life (that is, provided we’re assuming both that the foetus is human and has life).
For Christians, Idea # 1 seems to me to be contradicted by basic Christian teaching: equality in Christ. I don’t know what to say about Idea # 2, except that, for those claiming a Christian pro-life position, it looks like an untenable stance.
On the other hand, an absolute ban on all abortions, ISTM, makes the implicit claim that the value of a foetal life, morally speaking, always outweighs the value of the life upon which the foetal life depends (which, frankly, makes no practical sense to me); and also always exceeds in value any pain or suffering involved for either being. What’s more, this greater value appears to derive, in part, from the inability of the foetus to have, express, and/or act on its own wishes. (This in turn raises the question of whether a moral agent can morally accept or reject life, but that’s another thread.) But nobody here sees the foetus as a moral agent, do they? So it falls to others to act on the foetus’ behalf.
Here’s where I get lost.
Who has the moral authority to speak for a foetus? Given that the woman carrying the foetus has the fullest and most intimate knowledge of that foetus’s current circumstances and future prospects, why is she not automatically assigned this moral agency (given that the foetus has none)?
Imagine that you are the foetus in the womb of a drug-addicted, HIV-infected mother, and know that you face premature birth, a period of severe withdrawal, and probable death within days or weeks. A moral agent with the capacity to act might reject this ordeal and choose not to undergo it. If suffering sometimes outweighs human life in value (see above), doesn’t this rejection spare a great deal of suffering for both mother and foetus?
Why assume that any third party has more moral authority, or can somehow assume more legitimate moral agency, than the one moral agent most intimately involved?
The mirror, of course, is the moral agent who takes the life of the doctor who performs abortions; he take not only that life, but also that person's moral agency from him. In addition, he removes any possibility of the good that practitioner does in performing other medical services (I am assuming that, for most doctors, perfomring abortions is not in itself a full time job).
[ 11. April 2010, 14:49: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
There’s much I don’t understand about this debate, especially the religious aspects of it, and much of it seems rooted in paradox.
Personally, I don't see abortion as a religious issue at all - I start from the other direction. The fact that so many Christians are opposed to the bloody practice is a powerful argument for the truth of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
As has already been pointed out, making an exception to an absolute ban of abortion on the basis of rape (and, presumably, incest) makes no moral sense –
Why do they always talk of "rape and incest"? I'd think most of the time the latter is part of the former, and if it was instead consensual, what are you complaining about?
And you're right - it makes no moral sense. I cannot imagine how anyone could look at a little girl born of rape and tell her "It's nothing you did, so don't take it personally, but because who your father was, you should have been killed six years ago".
That said, I would certainly rather have laws with said exceptions than nothing at all, and hopefully some years later people's hearts would be changed enough to close the last crack in the doorway for good.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
That said, I would certainly rather have laws with said exceptions than nothing at all, and hopefully some years later people's hearts would be changed enough to close the last crack in the doorway for good.
So under your preferred law, what would be the legal penalty for a woman who gets a medical abortion?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So under your preferred law, what would be the legal penalty for a woman who gets a medical abortion?
And what may I ask is a "medical" abortion?
Your question seems to get asked an awful lot, for some reason. I'm not a legislator or a criminal law expert, so it's hardly my job to make such decisions, but here are my general ideas.
The guilt of the women depends a lot on circumstances. If she is underage or coerced into the abortion, then there need be no punishment. And as I said, I don't think we can reasonably hope for an outright ban in the near future (USA-wise), so a "life of the mother" hole will probably hafta stay. But I would like to see it gone. I would say then that if the doctor or the mother believed that she would have died had the abortion not occurred, then punishment might be mitigated somewhat, but not altogether removed.
What should that punishment be? Again, I don't know. I've no interest in needlessly making people suffer. But there needs to be serious consequences to deter anyone contemplating an abortion from going through, and to convince those who've had one they don't want to return there. At least five years in prison, I'd think.
And the doctor? Well, for stomping on the basic principles of the Hippocratic Oath, he should be stripped of his license and forbidden to practice medicine for the rest of his life, then locked up as well.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
So a woman raped and left pregnant by a mugger should carry the child to term, at whatever emotional and economic cost to her, or be punished by no less than 5 years in prison.
This ia a reaonable statement in just what manner?
A 9-year-old girl, left pregnant with twins by her stepfather should be forced to carry the babies to term even though this would kill the girl, or she would be forced to be imprisoned for no less than five years.
In other words, you have absolutely no concept that a woman is also a human being, rather she is just a brood mare for men who have no moral control at all, and she should be punished for the sins of the men as some sort of expiation.
I'm really glad that you aren't a member of a theocracy that my daughters would have to grow up in.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So a woman raped and left pregnant by a mugger should carry the child to term, at whatever emotional and economic cost to her, or be punished by no less than 5 years in prison.
This ia a reaonable statement in just what manner?
A 9-year-old girl, left pregnant with twins by her stepfather should be forced to carry the babies to term even though this would kill the girl, or she would be forced to be imprisoned for no less than five years.
I will fully concur that that's a horrid situation. But don't blame me, don't blame the law, and certainly don't blame the unborn child. Blame the rapist!
And as I said before, no girl of a such tender age as you refer to would ever be punished.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
In other words, you have absolutely no concept that a woman is also a human being, rather she is just a brood mare for men who have no moral control at all, and she should be punished for the sins of the men as some sort of expiation.
That argument would sound quite compelling if the question was only about the woman. But it's not - it's also about the child who happens to be carried by the woman. If you'll forgive me for using your words, sadly many have "absolutely no concept that a women is also a human being" before she is born, rather than one who "should be punished for the sins of the men" who wrongly begat her.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm really glad that you aren't a member of a theocracy that my daughters would have to grow up in.
Again, I really wish people would stop calling protecting innocent life "theocracy". ![[Confused]](confused.gif) It's not about religion, it's about justice.
But whatever you call it, I'd much rather have my daughters grow up there, where they would at least have a decent chance of making it out of the womb alive and seeing it with their own eyes.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So under your preferred law, what would be the legal penalty for a woman who gets a medical abortion?
And what may I ask is a "medical" abortion?
An abortion brought about by medical means, as opposed to a spontaneous miscarriage. Technically both qualify as an aborted pregnancy.
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So a woman raped and left pregnant by a mugger should carry the child to term, at whatever emotional and economic cost to her, or be punished by no less than 5 years in prison.
This ia a reaonable statement in just what manner?
A 9-year-old girl, left pregnant with twins by her stepfather should be forced to carry the babies to term even though this would kill the girl, or she would be forced to be imprisoned for no less than five years.
I will fully concur that that's a horrid situation. But don't blame me, don't blame the law, and certainly don't blame the unborn child. Blame the rapist!
And as I said before, no girl of a such tender age as you refer to would ever be punished.
Unless you count dying in horrible agony as a form of punishment. To wit:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
And as I said, I don't think we can reasonably hope for an outright ban in the near future (USA-wise), so a "life of the mother" hole will probably hafta stay. But I would like to see it gone. I would say then that if the doctor or the mother believed that she would have died had the abortion not occurred, then punishment might be mitigated somewhat, but not altogether removed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
so a "life of the mother" hole will probably hafta stay. But I would like to see it gone. I would say then that if the doctor or the mother believed that she would have died had the abortion not occurred, then punishment might be mitigated somewhat, but not altogether removed.
What should that punishment be? Again, I don't know. I've no interest in needlessly making people suffer. But there needs to be serious consequences to deter anyone contemplating an abortion from going through, and to convince those who've had one they don't want to return there. At least five years in prison, I'd think.
And the doctor? Well, for stomping on the basic principles of the Hippocratic Oath, he should be stripped of his license and forbidden to practice medicine for the rest of his life, then locked up as well.
Are you for real?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
(I'm not sure what you mean by the "immortal soul route," I hold personhood is primarily defined by God's recognition.) It's interesting that birth is such a clear demarcation, what about being a person does a child gain at birth that they didn't have as a zygote?
I really don't even begin to understand your point of view. I believe abortion should be available before 12 weeks - we are not talking about a child or a person here, we are talking about a potential person. Millions are lost naturally before the woman even knew the egg was fertilised.
I think God is pro-choice. He gives us choice in absolutely everything. That's the point of life isn't it? That we make free choices. If God controoled things there would be no freedom or choice. I thank God that He isn't in control.
The situation of the mother can not be left out of the equation. To ban abortion would lead us backwards - women losing all choice over their own bodies and lives.
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
so .... blah, nutty, not-of this earth stuff... then locked up as well.
Are you for real?
No, of course not. Either a troll, or living in some kind of bubble since puberty. Either way, best leave it alone.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
so .... blah, nutty, not-of this earth stuff... then locked up as well.
Are you for real?
No, of course not. Either a troll, or living in some kind of bubble since puberty. Either way, best leave it alone.
Hosting
Accusations that someone is trolling or has been 'living in a bubble since puberty' are personal insults, which are banned by Commandment 3. If you're so riled by what someone posts that you want to personally insult them, then you need to post on the Hell Board, not here. That includes all people who want to pursue whether another poster is 'for real' or not.
thank you.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
But whoever you are that's saying "life of the mother" is not an adequate reason--do me a favor please and don't identify yourself with pro-life. That's a position I've never heard from ANYBODY on that side.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But whoever you are that's saying "life of the mother" is not an adequate reason--do me a favor please and don't identify yourself with pro-life. That's a position I've never heard from ANYBODY on that side.
You're just not paying attention. Some countries have even been convinced to adopt such pro-life* positions.
quote:
In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.
If you can convince a democratic nation to enact laws like this and, more importantly, enforce them, I'd say there's a pretty good number of people on the pro-life* side that have that position.
*Offer expires at birth.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I don't think we can reasonably hope for an outright ban in the near future (USA-wise), so a "life of the mother" hole will probably hafta stay. But I would like to see it gone.
I'd like to see ectopic pregnancies gone, too, but they still happen.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ectopic pregnancies are God's punishment or getting laid, perhaps. Maybe St Paul didn't go far enough. God really does hate sex.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
so a "life of the mother" hole will probably hafta stay. But I would like to see it gone. I would say then that if the doctor or the mother believed that she would have died had the abortion not occurred, then punishment might be mitigated somewhat, but not altogether removed.
What should that punishment be? Again, I don't know. I've no interest in needlessly making people suffer. But there needs to be serious consequences to deter anyone contemplating an abortion from going through, and to convince those who've had one they don't want to return there. At least five years in prison, I'd think.
And the doctor? Well, for stomping on the basic principles of the Hippocratic Oath, he should be stripped of his license and forbidden to practice medicine for the rest of his life, then locked up as well.
Are you for real?
I will rephrase, though Bran appears to have lost interest in the thread after dropping his statements.
I'd love to see some clarification of what brought you to these conclusions, Bran. How do you stand against saving a current life by taking another, when the option otherwise is to have two deaths? How do you then add 5 years of jail-time for the mother who already had to make this horrific choice already? And then add 5 years for the doctor who is following his Hippocratic oath?
I'm generally anti-abortion. I don't see any sensible arguments supporting it. Privacy rights here just seem like a category error, etc. That said, I do stand against the pro-life establishment in the US, since I think their approach to the issue is typically at least as bad as the problem, and hurtful to boot.
That said, I don't see any rational way to be against a health of the mother provision.
Please do explain, if you are lurking.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
I will rephrase, though Bran appears to have lost interest in the thread after dropping his statements.
I'd love to see some clarification of what brought you to these conclusions, Bran. How do you stand against saving a current life by taking another, when the option otherwise is to have two deaths? How do you then add 5 years of jail-time for the mother who already had to make this horrific choice already? And then add 5 years for the doctor who is following his Hippocratic oath?
I'm generally anti-abortion. I don't see any sensible arguments supporting it. Privacy rights here just seem like a category error, etc. That said, I do stand against the pro-life establishment in the US, since I think their approach to the issue is typically at least as bad as the problem, and hurtful to boot.
That said, I don't see any rational way to be against a health of the mother provision.
Please do explain, if you are lurking.
Never fear, I'm still here - just was tramping around Baltimore this weekend without any computer around.
It all comes down to this: Is there a moral difference between killing a baby one hour before he is born and killing a baby one hour after he is born? I say no. And everything else, however unpleasant it may seen to the modern mind, is, I think, the inescapable result of that conclusion.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But that's not what is being argued by anyone who thinks that abortion can be allowed for any reason. The arguments are more to do with whether you count a zygote just after conception or implantation, when it is a non-viable bundle of cells, as fully alive as a foetus at some months gestation, say 22 weeks gestation, when that foetus could be viable without the mother. And where that grey line falls.
Also how much you see the potential mother as being valued - if you value a bundle of cells at conception as being more important than the woman carrying that zygote.
[ 03. May 2010, 23:23: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Also how much you see the potential mother as being valued - if you value a bundle of cells at conception as being more important than the woman carrying that zygote.
They are equally valued - it would be just as wrong to kill the mother to save the child as it would bet to kill the child to save the mother, if such a situation could ever arrive.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Also how much you see the potential mother as being valued - if you value a bundle of cells at conception as being more important than the woman carrying that zygote.
They are equally valued - it would be just as wrong to kill the mother to save the child as it would bet to kill the child to save the mother, if such a situation could ever arrive.
So you think we should kill both by inaction then? Wonderfully sensible!
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
They are equally valued - it would be just as wrong to kill the mother to save the child as it would bet to kill the child to save the mother, if such a situation could ever arrive.
So you think we should kill both by inaction then? Wonderfully sensible!
As a solution it certainly has the value of efficiency.
quote:
A policy that criminalizes all abortions has a flip side. It appears to mandate that the full force of the medical team must tend toward saving the fetus under any circumstances. This notion can lead to some dangerous practices. Consider an ectopic pregnancy, a condition that occurs when a microscopic fertilized egg moves down the fallopian tube — which is no bigger around than a pencil — and gets stuck there (or sometimes in the abdomen). Unattended, the stuck fetus grows until the organ containing it ruptures. A simple operation can remove the fetus before the organ bursts. After a rupture, though, the situation can turn into a medical emergency.
So this policy makes sure that women face the maximum possible risk from a pregnancy that cannot possibly be brought to term, but let's not underestimate the importance of Bran maintaining a moral high ground on the back of the suffering of others.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Better that we condemn a mother and fertilized ovum to die, than that we directly kill the fertilized ovum.
Yeah, that makes all sorts of sense.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
it would be just as wrong to kill the mother to save the child as it would bet to kill the child to save the mother, if such a situation could ever arrive.
Do I detect an implication in your last phrase that you think it very doubtful that such situations can arise?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Better that we condemn a mother and fertilized ovum to die, than that we directly kill the fertilized ovum.
Yeah, that makes all sorts of sense.
A couple of points.
1) It's not a fertilised ovum at any stage at which it might be perceptibly endangering the mother's life. To assimilate the fertilised ovum to a human being so that it obtains full human value at conception is consistent if counter-intuitive. To assimilate a fifteen week foetus to a fertilised ovum is neither intuitive nor consistent.
2) Usually we are iffy about killing people even if they'll die anyway. Consider: shipwrecked sailors offered the choice between cannibalism and starvation. (Or Scott in the Antarctic: if they had killed Oates before he 'volunteered' the rest might have made it.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If you wouldn't call it a fertilized ovum, what would you call it? Let's let "X" stand for the term you'd prefer. Let me recast my sentence:
"Better that we condemn a mother and an X to die, than that we directly kill the X."
Are we happy now?
quote:
Usually we are iffy about killing people even if they'll die anyway.
So the mother's life doesn't enter into it for you?
[ 04. May 2010, 22:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I wondered where the 15 weeks came from too. The UK statistics show that over 70% of terminations of pregnancies occur before 10 weeks gestation and over 90% occur before 13 weeks gestation, so a tiny minority of terminations would occur at 15 weeks. Those figures come from the National Statistics Office and are for 2008.
And those 10% of later terminations are more likely to be where the difficult questions are decided, because that's after the first scans.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The study linking abortion and mental illness does not comment on causation.
