 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: North Dakota, abortion, and Down Syndrome
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Jospehine, surely the unborn baby isn't merely an extension of the mother's body? For most of history and in much of the world the woman continues to sacrifice her body, her sleep, her energy and in some cases her job prospects for the infant, who for a while, is completely dependant on her care, just as he or she was inside the womb.
No, post-birth an infant is dependent in a very different way than it's parasitic attachment inside the womb. For starters, despite your obvious assumption that child care is inherently "women's work" there's no actual necessity that the birth mother be the one who "continues to sacrifice her body, her sleep, her energy and in some cases her job prospects for the infant".
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
In addition what you're saying seems ethically dubious: 'That someone dependent on another has fewer rights than the person they are dependent on.' To put it another way, autonomy should not equal preeminence over another's rights.
I think it's even more ethically dubious to claim that one person has a "right" to the use of someone else's body, and that this right can be legally enforced by the state. For whatever reason this kind of thinking only seems to apply the uterus. The ethical problems inherent in the government enforcing a kidney patient's "right" to some else's healthy kidneys seem a lot more obvious for some reason. Perhaps it goes back to the assumption of what constitutes "women's work".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Porridge
Beyond that, I fail to see why, when a parent makes a decision we disagree with, we should take our anger out on the kid. If client's mom were smart, had had tests, knew her baby would never be self-supporting, and decided to go forward anyway, what happens to the baby when mom, 2-3 years later, abruptly realizes it's all much harder than she expected?
Do we really want to penalize the child for the parent's lousy judgment?
I agree its a tough call, but if a situation is that Mum has tests, is bright enough to take on board the results show a severely damaged foetus, and decides to go ahead anyway then why should "society" pick-up the pieces when she wants to bail out.
It's not about "taking out anger" but rather not succumbing to moral blackmail.
The key word here is CHOICE. Don't forget that before any woman has this sort of test she will receive counselling about the possible results.
More so, when a test result is given that the foetus is catastrophically damaged the psych/counselling team will have several sessions with any woman - especially is she says she is going ahead with the pregnancy - to point out in graphic terms just what is wrong, what the consequences will mean for the foetus, and what the reality of daily life will be.
We all of us face choices every day: most are trivial but some aren't. And we all of us can face situations where the bad choice we made earlier comes back to bite us.
As for penalising the child, well the children of willingly-married violent alcoholics are penalised every day by the bad choice of their parent. Its not FAIR but its FACT and sometimes the consequences of our lousy choices impinge directly on others - and the maker of the lousy choice has to cope with that too.
If all the ardent pro-lifers out there had more balls and less mouth they could prove how pro-life they are by running a no-strings total package rescue service for instances like this. Now wouldn't that be great and, IMHO, rather more to the point that terrorising people who work in women's clinics or hand out free contraception.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Luke
I’m sorely tempted to respond to your reply to Josephine with a simple “Yes” but ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Surely the unborn baby isn't merely an extension of the mother's body?
Yes, it is exactly that: the foetus is attached to the host (mother) by a cord. That remains the case until after delivery when the cord has to be cut.
quote:
For most of history and in much of the world the woman continues to sacrifice her body, her sleep, her energy and in some cases her job prospects for the infant, who for a while, is completely dependant on her care...
(ignoring your Patience Strong-like tone) We all know that women have to make huge sacrifices to care for their infants; that is why in many societies woman work together to share the burden. In better-off or more hierarchical societies the childcare may be hived off with people using wet-nurses, nannies, childminders and then teachers. What is your POINT?
quote:
...just as he or she was inside the womb.
Actually no. In utero a foetus is ultimately portable and incapable of independent movement away from the mother: in layman’s terms, it doesn’t require feeding (breast or bottle), nappies, clean clothes, amusement, constant watching to stop it wandering off, housing, etc, etc, etc
quote:
...In addition what you're saying seems ethically dubious: 'That someone dependent on another has fewer rights than the person they are dependent on.' To put it another way, autonomy should not equal preeminence over another's rights.
How so? My child (living, born) has fewer rights because it is not autonomous but dependent – I decide what car we have because (a) I’m paying and (b) I can drive. It can remark that it doesn't want to be a passenger in a cat-sick coloured deeply uncool Vauxhall but no more: if that's the car I get then that's the car it travels in. Before birth the situation with a foetus is the same because it has no existence without the existence of the mother.
If we take what you are saying to its logical (!) conclusion than a child can take an autonomous decision that it wants to go to Eton and, notwithstanding parental views on private education or ability to pay fees, demand the “right” to go there.
Your last, throwaway line is deeply worrying:
quote:
I'd also want to see less of the first trimester scan for Down-syndrome.
WHY? Even if all terminations were made illegal tomorrow, surely even you can’t be so monstrous as to deny parents as much time as possible to get to grips with the idea that they are having a child who may have special needs. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
This line of yours is not something clever and pro-life, it is SICK. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I agree its a tough call, but if a situation is that Mum has tests, is bright enough to take on board the results show a severely damaged foetus, and decides to go ahead anyway then why should "society" pick-up the pieces when she wants to bail out.
You know, I'm interested in this word "damaged," which you've applied more than once to people with disabilities. I currently have 44 clients on my case load, and while they're none of them what anybody might consider "normal" (whatever THAT means), only one is what I'd call "damaged." Originally "normal," he sustained a traumatic brain injury in his early teens, through foolhardy behavior.
Should we chuck him off our rolls? It was his own fault, after all.
As to the others, they arrived in the world with a variety of challenges.
I myself have a moderate-to-severe hearing impairment and vision issues, dating from birth.
Shall I chuck myself overboard too?
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Porridge
Sorry to use "damaged" - what other term would you prefer: impaired? affected? handicapped? challenged?
It is blindingly obvious that I'm not talking about people who suffer catastrophic injury, either at birth or after.
Similarly I'm not talking about infants who after an incident-free birth prove to have something majorly out-of-the-ordinary in developmental terms which didn't show up in pre-natal testing.
What has been at issue is a proposed scenario where a pregnant woman is told after pre-natal testing that the foetus she is carrying will never be capable of independent life through something going wrong in its development in utero - for example Anencephaly - : if a decision is made by the woman to proceed with the pregnancy even after the full extent of the problem has been explained, why should there be an expectation that "society" should give a blank cheque to cover the costs of looking after this infant, if it survives birth?
No, I am not suggesting that you "chuck yourself overboard" because I'm not talking about various things that many of us have wrong that can be sorted out post-natal. I'm talking about things for which there is not and cannot be any remedy or curative therapy.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm talking about things for which there is not and cannot be any remedy or curative therapy.
Well, there's a basic problem with assumptions and predictions of this nature.
The problem is this: we have barely any idea about what can be remedied or cured. This is a field whose surface we've barely scratched.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the client who yelps "Ma!" will never learn to read or hold a job or toilet, feed, or dress herself. If we're justified in making assumptions like these, then we'd also be justified in withholding, say, educational services from this person. Why send her to kindergarten to learn her ABCs when it's obvious she'll never be able to read? What would be the point? Why pour vast quantities of money, time, effort, and energy into an endeavor doomed to failure from the get-go?
In fact, up until the first version of the I.D.E.A. passed in the U.S., this very assumption kept thousands of kids out of public school -- and most of them could -- and did -- learn and progress, once they got the chance.
The thing is, research goes on out there in fields which attract funding. New compensational methods are discovered. New drugs are created. New technology develops into assistive devices. New strategies or new understandings of atypical responses help us design new training/teaching techniques. Of course, this all takes money.
When we describe people as "incurable" or "hopeless" or "not worth the investment needed," our efforts on their behalf either dry up, or shift in focus from actual amelioration to simple maintenance: keep them fed, clothed, sheltered, and alive. We create a self-fulfilling prophecy thereby. We cadge up some jerry-rig scrapbag of services, throw them in the general direction of the client, and when the client fails to turn miraculously "normal," we say, "See? Pointless. Not worth doing. Cut the budget."
When I was born, my parents were advised to institutionalize me, as I was sure to experience physical and mental limitations.
I do have a serious hearing deficit. I needed some accommodations in school. Yet I also have a graduate degree in my field, work full-time (well, OK, more than), and manage to live a fairly satisfying life.
At the same time, I get paid crap for what I do. When my old hearing aids went belly-up, the new ones I needed cost a third of my annual gross income and were not covered by any insurance. I became a charge on the public purse: I went to Vocational Rehabilitation, was evaluated and assessed, and got new hearing aids (which together cost about 5 times what I paid for my current car, bought used) so I can continue to work.
It would have been simpler and cheaper (maybe) to write me off as hopeless and incurable (in fact, nothing can be done about my hearing [I]at present[/].
The truth is, very few of us -- maybe none -- are truly independent beings who get on without help. And all of us have reason to hope for a future in which our limitations can be eased.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I agree its a tough call, but if a situation is that Mum has tests, is bright enough to take on board the results show a severely damaged foetus, and decides to go ahead anyway then why should "society" pick-up the pieces when she wants to bail out.
If someone decides to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and crashes and is brain damaged, why should "society" pick up the pieces?
If someone decides to smoke, and develops lung cancer or emphysema or any of the other chronic diseases caused by smoking, why should "society" pick up the pieces?
If someone decides to go mountain climbing, or sailing, or hiking in the wilderness, and doesn't come home on time, why should "society" send out search and rescue teams, and fly the lost and injured ones out on helicopters, and take them to a trauma center for treatment?
The reason "society" picks up the pieces in all of these cases is exactly because we are a society. We are our brothers' keepers. We can encourage each other to behave in a safe and sensible way, even pass laws to prevent the riskiest things, but if someone makes bad choices and is injured by them, the rest of us take care of them.
Or we should. As Christians, in particular, we owe them that care, because they bear the image of Christ.
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
There's also the simple fact that society necessarily includes all its members -- these fallible, misguided, foolhardy, abnormal, funny-looking, funny-acting, limited beings: us.
--------------------
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
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
L'organist,
quote:
I'm talking about things for which there is not and cannot be any remedy or curative therapy.
Our son was diagnosed as having gross skeletal deformities in utero. Specifically, we were told our son's arms would never be long enough for him to be able to wipe his own bottom, etc etc. We were stongly advised to terminate the pregnancy. In the event our son was still-born. But someone else with the same initial diagnosis as our son won Golds at the Paralympics in both Beijing and London, was awarded first an MBE and an OBE and is by any definition extremely successful.
quote:
More so, when a test result is given that the foetus is catastrophically damaged the psych/counselling team will have several sessions with any woman - especially is she says she is going ahead with the pregnancy - to point out in graphic terms just what is wrong, what the consequences will mean for the foetus, and what the reality of daily life will be.
It wasn't quite as formal as that, but we did have to regularly sign a piece of paper that we understood that our baby would be born with gross skeletal deformities, would never be able to wipe his bottom, walk for any distance, wear normal clothes, would have a restricted nasal passage which meant that a normal cold could prove catastrophic etc etc. But we were also put into contact with a family who had a son with the same condition, whose son was swimming at international level in disabled sports, and was in mainstream education.
An in-utero diagnosis is not always clear-cut; as our consultant pointed out there is (or was then) no way of measuring our unborn son's cognitive level.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I am not talking about whether or not people have the right to do ahead with a pregnancy after a test has shown malformation or developmental problem.
What I am saying is that there has to be serious debate about how far we - "society", you and me, taxpayers all - are prepared to go if a decision is made in North Dakota to halt terminations.
In the case of Anencephalic foetuses, most do not survive but some do. Since they have no neo-cortex there can never be cognition: but if just enough brain develops there can be instances where these foetuses have a breathing reflex and so they survive birth. There are some other, granted very rare, conditions with similar distressing results.
What are you going to do in this instance: it can be argued that, with no possible chance of cognition or consciousness, these foetuses are never actually alive? What is your view.
As for seeming unfeeling: my partner and I suffered a late-miscarriage which proved to be a foetus with only very partial brain development, and other physical malformations. But there was sufficient neocortex for it to have breathed if the pregnancy had been nearer to full term. There was also the possibility that any future pregnancy would have resulted in the same malformations and there were then no fool-proof tests to conclusively show whether or not this was the case before 24 weeks. I saw the foetus that was miscarried - it is not something that I'm ever likely to forget.
No, don't say sorry: think about the situations that face people and for which there cannot be a remedy and then pronounce that all "life" is sacred. And, if so, decide on the "who, how, where, how long, etc" of care.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
. . . think about the situations that face people and for which there cannot be a remedy and then pronounce that all "life" is sacred. And, if so, decide on the "who, how, where, how long, etc" of care.
L'organist, I have no quarrel with couples who decide to terminate a pregnancy, whether on the basis of "this is not the right time for us to become parents" or on the basis of "we just can't cope with the outcomes we apparently face." A foetus is not a person, pace Luke.
Once a living, breathing baby is involved, though, we do have a person, and a new member of society. That person may be extremely atypical, but is still a person, with the rights that pertain to personhood. That person may lack functions or abilities most others have, or may have functions or abilities the rest of us lack. S/he is still a person, and a member of our society, and we owe it to that person to see to it that s/he has the opportunity to access whatever our society can offer by way participation.
Anencephaly is rare and tragic. At the time of this writing, there's little which can be done for a person with anencephaly beyond basic maintenance. We don't currently have skills or technology to "cure" this person.
Not all that long ago, we likewise could have done nothing for a person whose heart, lungs, or kidneys failed. Now it's fairly common for some of these people to get transplants. Science moves forward. Will brain transplants ever be possible? I don't know; it certainly looks unlikely from where we stand at the moment -- just as unlikely as heart or kidney transplants once looked. We're now able to build electronic "eyes" that help blind people see. Could we at some point develop electronic "brains" to help an anencephalic person function?
All I'm saying is that assuming the future will be exactly like the present is nearly always a mistake. I have seen people "incapable" of reading begin to read. I have seen people "unable" ever to walk again walk anyway. I have seen people deemed "unemployable" settle into jobs and become at least semi-independent.
That's what keeps me in a profession that pays so poorly, that is rife with risk, that is often frustrating, that includes miles and miles of the reddest bureaucratic tape you ever saw, that can be exhausting, and that ultimately is all about realizing, now and again, real, palpable, astonishing human potential.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think we (society as a whole) SHOULD pick up the pieces, if not for the sake of the child's humanity, then for the sake of our own.
It's just wrong to look for return-on-investment from a person. That's appropriate for inanimate objects.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think we (society as a whole) SHOULD pick up the pieces, if not for the sake of the child's humanity, then for the sake of our own.
Exactly.
quote:
It's just wrong to look for return-on-investment from a person. That's appropriate for inanimate objects.
And not even always for inanimate objects. We spend enormous sums of money preserving and curating objects in museums, solely because they are unique and precious. ROI isn't the point there. And ROI shouldn't be the point in our dealings with each other, either.
But that's not what I was coming back to this thread to say. I was coming back because the idea that we wouldn't help with expenses for a disabled child if the mom could have gotten an abortion has been haunting me. That is pure and unadulterated economic coercion. I suspect all of us are dismayed or revolted by the idea of a boyfriend telling a woman that she has to have an abortion or he'll leave her, or some such something. "Have an abortion or we'll make sure you live in abject poverty for the rest of your life" hardly seems different.
And if it is the mother's sincerely held belief that the fetus is a human person, and she would be murdering her baby if she had the abortion, what, then, are we asking her to do? I know that most women do not suffer psychological harm from abortion -- but I think a woman in that situation surely would.
Besides, if you are for choice, choice should include the choice to keep the baby. If we agree that real choice means that the rest of us must share responsibility for the choices that result in no baby (e.g., providing free or low-cost access to contraception and abortion), it seems that real choice means that the rest of us must also share some responsibility for the choices that result in a baby.
Pro-lifers, of course, should embrace shared responsibility for that choice as well. I'm not sure why we don't hear more from them, demanding expanded access to low-cost medical care for all, demanding that Congress not hold Head Start hostage to the sequester, and indeed insisting that Head Start and related programs be expanded, and so on with other programs and policies that make it easier for women to "choose life."
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, I'm saying and doing the kind of supportive type stuff you mention, but there's no likelihood any media type is ever going to want to interview me. And I'm not the only one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
L'organist, you wrote earlier:
quote:
"autonomy" - generally taken to mean freedom and/or independence: a creature attached to another by an umbilical cord which is its sole source of nutriment and life-sustaining substances cannot be said to be autonomous. We're not talking "freedom to breath and eat" as if this is an exercise in choice but as an ability to breath and eat without the intervention of another - human being or machine.
From what you said there it seems like your reducing a human person to their ability to eat and drink independently.
Adding the word "potential" only complicates your position, potential what ... ?
If you're feeling sick you should take a bex and have a nap.
Crœsos :
quote:
No, post-birth an infant is dependent in a very different way than it's parasitic attachment inside the womb.
So cutting the umbilical cord turns a parasite into a human? (By your reasoning here infanticide is merely an extension of abortion!)
But more significantly this business of "personal autonomy" and "parasites" wrongly focuses our attention on the unequal relationship between the mother and the unborn child in her womb and obscures the fact that there two actual human beings involved. Yes, two people in an unequal relationship, but people nonetheless. Their relationship does not does define their humanness and it definitely does not give the person with more power, the right to kill the other.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Luke, so far, you seem to be evading any real engagement with what others are saying here. So please answer two simple, direct questions:
First, when my father was dying of liver failure, had you been a perfect match, would it have been morally right to take a lobe of your liver and give it to him against your will? Why or why not?
Second, what public policies do you advocate in order to make it easier for a woman carrying a disabled child to choose to carry the pregnancy and deliver and keep the child rather than to choose an abortion?
--------------------
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
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
It fascinates me that there are Christians out there who support abortion. Mind blowing stuff.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
loggats: It fascinates me that there are Christians out there who support abortion. Mind blowing stuff.
You learn something every day ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I came across a not unrelated issue in the letters page of the Guardian last week. There had been a report that babies did much better when, at birth, the people responsible for the delivery (midwives or obstetricians) waited until the cord stopped pulsing to clamp it off, allowing all the blood to enter the baby. This seems obvious, really. There was an account of two babies born to the same woman, one with the cord severed early, one allowed to complete its task, the first looking blue for a while, the second looking much healthier.
The letter, from a representative of the Anthony Nolan Trust, was against this procedure being followed, as they depend on the storage of cord blood for helping the children they support.
It seemed from the way that this was expressed, that they felt they had an ownership of the blood that overbore the ownership of the baby whose blood it was. And that seems wrong to me.
And it seems related to the way in which some people argue that the baby has an ownership over its mother's body which overbears hers. It is not an easy situation, ever, but
I'm not sure where that sentence was going. I can't help thinking, however, that the adult woman does have a value which cannot be diminished by her becoming pregnant. Which must not be diminished, or transformed into a motherhood which denies her individuality as a person.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
It's fascinating to me that some Christians seem willing to remove from women the free will that Christians claim God grants human beings. Or does God only grant that to people with penises?
I don't happen to claim "Christian" as one of my personal labels. Nevertheless, it's choice I actually support, not abortion itself.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
It's fascinating to me that some Christians seem willing to remove from women the free will that Christians claim God grants human beings. Or does God only grant that to people with penises?
I don't happen to claim "Christian" as one of my personal labels. Nevertheless, it's choice I actually support, not abortion itself.
Sure sure. Anyway, if you're not a Christian then you're not one of the Christians supporting abortion I'd be shocked by.
"Supporting" a woman in making the terrible decision to kill her baby is pretty sick for anybody though.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Sophie?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
It fascinates me that there are Christians out there who support abortion. Mind blowing stuff.
I'm fascinated that someone's mind could be blown by this. Given the well known statistics of how many women have abortions and how many profess to be Christians, simple mathematics dictates that there has to be some overlap. Of course, maybe they're all exceptional cases.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
"Supporting" a woman in making the terrible decision to kill her baby is pretty sick for anybody though.
So if she makes that decision we should what? Cut her off? Shoot her? Report her to some authority? Why must religions advocate killing their own wounded?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
This thread seems to be straying off topic towards a general discussion of abortion. Can I remind posters that there is a large general thread for that? May I also suggest that posters new to the board read more widely in the abortion threads on the board and get a sense of the range of views here. If you just want to lob insults at people who think differently from you, we have a Hell board for that.
Many thanks
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
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
"Supporting" a woman in making the terrible decision to kill her baby is pretty sick for anybody though.
So if she makes that decision we should what? Cut her off? Shoot her? Report her to some authority? Why must religions advocate killing their own wounded?
We should do everything in our power to change her mind, we should pray for her and for her unborn child, and we should create a community that is open to supporting her and her child - where having the baby is not a terrifying and lonely prospect and the only resolution she can see is death.
And if she's already had an abortion we should commit ourselves to easing her wounded soul and psyche, assisting in whatever small way we can in reconciling her with the Living God.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
This thread seems to be straying off topic towards a general discussion of abortion. Can I remind posters that there is a large general thread for that? May I also suggest that posters new to the board read more widely in the abortion threads on the board and get a sense of the range of views here. If you just want to lob insults at people who think differently from you, we have a Hell board for that.
Many thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
Understood, thanks.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
We should do everything in our power to change her mind, we should pray for her and for her unborn child, and we should create a community that is open to supporting her and her child - where having the baby is not a terrifying and lonely prospect and the only resolution she can see is death.
Be specific, please. If a woman is pregnant, and the doctor tells her the child will be severely disabled, what, exactly, are you prepared to do to support her and her child? What policies are you prepared to advocate, and what, exactly do you do, and have you done, to encourage your elected representatives to enact those policies?
What level of taxation are you willing to endure to pay for the medical and educational needs of her child? What level of job protection are you willing to insist that her employer provide her, given that she will miss work far more frequently than other employees, often with little or no notice, because of her child's medical needs?
Besides being shocked, what are you going to do?
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Luke
If you're feeling sick you should take a bex and have a nap.
1. What the hell is a "bex"? The only Bex I know is a small place in Switzerland with a salt mine.
2. Your implication that someone whose views you don't share must be feeling unwell is just rude.
WHY NO ANSWER TO MY EARLIER QUESTION ABOUT YOUR EXPRESSED WISH TO BAN SCANS?
Cat got your tongue?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by loggats
It fascinates me that there are Christians out there who support abortion. Mind blowing stuff.
Yes. I was fairly mind-blown when I learned that Augustine of Hippo and his mistress had practised "post-natal abortion" - thats infanticide to you and me.
quote:
"Supporting" a woman in making the terrible decision to kill her baby is pretty sick for anybody though.
As is "supporting" someone who is struggling to come to terms with news that their longed-for pregnancy has not got a brain by telling them that they must carry the foetus to full term.
It all depends on your point of view.
I'd reiterate what Josephine asked:
What would you be prepared to do to "support" someone who is expecting a child with, say, Down's Syndrome. I don't mean "society" - I mean you personally.
Are you prepared to pay increased taxes so that proper financial support can be given to the family?
Are you prepared to look after the child to give respite care, perhaps even adopt the child?
Are you prepared to foot the bill for these committments to be open-ended and limitless.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
You're both asking whether I could somehow equate a human life with money... never, because human lives are more precious than any amount of cash.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
You're both asking whether I could somehow equate a human life with money... never, because human lives are more precious than any amount of cash.
Government policy is full of calculations like this, though. To claim otherwise, you're saying infinite money should be spent on, for example, research into gene therapy to treat conditions like Down's Syndrome in utero.
Infinite money is clearly not available, though, so the question remains: what concrete proposals are you making regarding the support and treatment around conditions like Down Syndrome?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I don't think that is what is being asked. It is not what amount of money would equate to a human life. It is what should be invested into making that life worth living.
A life spent, mercifully briefly, in intense pain beyond any relief, was what was chosen against by a friend of mine, who did choose not to bear the foetus full term. The being was already, apparently, suffering.
I would not have wanted to bear a child with Down's syndrome who would also have inherited the family tendency to depression, but fortunately never had to make the decision either way.
The question asked above was about whether a society which insisted on that child being born would also provide enough support to her or him to live a life that developed the full potential for happiness and taking a valuable part in that society. That isn't about equating human life with money.
There are many people whose lives may well be of infinite worth, but whose lives are not worth living because of the society around them. Litter pickers on rubbish tips, for instance. The sewing woman employed at the collapsed building who has lost her hands and can no longer work for her family's living for another. It is not very helpful to say that they have life, which is worth more than money, and walk away with no money being offered.
That is what that question was about.
[ 03. May 2013, 10:29: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
You're both asking whether I could somehow equate a human life with money... never, because human lives are more precious than any amount of cash.
If policy were framed this way we'd reduce the speed limit on all roads to 10mph and take the hit to the economy
[ 03. May 2013, 10:32: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
Even framing the value of human life in terms of usefulness seems wrong. Isn't there intrinsic value to human life?
Can't our suffering, united to the Cross, become redemptive?
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Even framing the value of human life in terms of usefulness seems wrong. Isn't there intrinsic value to human life?
Of course there is. But feeding a baby costs money. Doctor visits cost money. Feeding tubes, physical therapy, occupational therapy, MRI scans, orthopedic appliances, they all cost money. Respite care, if you can get it at all, costs money. It costs money for a school district to put in ramps and elevators, to hire special education teachers and paraeducators, to buy scientific calculators with a large screen and large buttons and other equipment that is modified for use by someone with visual and motor impairments.
And then there are the indirect costs. Giving up a management job that pays $150K a year to take part-time work because your child requires so many medical visits and so much at-home therapy, that's a real cost. And can you pay your rent, buy health insurance, and buy food and clothing and books and other necessities on your part-time salary for yourself and your other children and your disabled child?
If you are horrified at the idea of a woman aborting her child because the child is going to be disabled, you should realize the cost you are asking her to bear.
The child's value is immeasurable. How much of YOUR money are you going to put towards this infinitely valuable little human being, to make it possible for the mother to keep her child? How much are you willing to have your city, your state, and your country raise YOUR taxes to pay for things the child and the child's family need? How much of YOUR time are you willing to spend writing letters and meeting with YOUR elected officials, arguing with them that the amount of the budget being spent for the needs of people with disabilities is too small, and must be increased?
That's not asking you what value you put on the child. That's asking you whether you are willing to share the burden that you are shocked that another person might find too hard to bear.
quote:
Can't our suffering, united to the Cross, become redemptive?
Of course it is. But insisting that someone else should suffer, without lifting a finger to help them, is not redemptive but damnable.
So how much are you willing to suffer for the disabled child and the child's mother, how much of their suffering are you willing to take on, for your redemption and the salvation of your soul?
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by loggats
You're both asking whether I could somehow equate a human life with money... never, because human lives are more precious than any amount of cash.
No, I didn't and I'm not.
But the issue I did raise was whether you as a member of society were prepared for society to give a blank cheque on a limitless number of occasions. Unpalatable though that question may be, it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
I note you didn't answer the other question: would you personally be prepared to look after/offer respite care to/foster/adopt a baby or child with complex needs.
You see, priest friends have in the past spoken in much the same terms as you until faced with the issue of the WHO comes up: then they shuffle feet and mumble something about "wonderful" and "saintly" people who are prepared to "sacrifice" their lives/time etc, etc, etc.
But where are these saintly people and is there a limitless supply of them to go with the bottomless pit of cash.
So, loggats: assuming you don't get ordained, how do you fancy shouldering the lifetime care of an individual with such complex problems they have no physical independence, cannot communicate, and where cognitive function is doubtful - in fact they may not have the capacity for consciousness?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Can't our suffering, united to the Cross, become redemptive?
Not an idea I've grown up with, but, I'm prepared to accept that someone may take that attitude to their own suffering, and admire them for it.
I am not prepared to accept a society in which people insist that others, without any choice, or in some cases even the ability of mind to make a choice, should suffer pain which they themselves have not experienced and cannot experience.
It's not a toothache we are talking about. Nor, and I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is intended, is it six hours of torture. Life in agony (whether physical, emotional or mental) is of questionable value, unless the person concerned has chosen it, knowing what they have chosen. It is not for others to inflict, however holy their intentions.
Religions with a belief in reincarnation have ways round this, of course. The saintly can chose such a life before rebirth to help others. Not Christians, though.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
You're both asking whether I could somehow equate a human life with money... never, because human lives are more precious than any amount of cash.
Nope. Not what we're asking. We're informing you that taking care of a human life costs money, and asking how much you're willing to chip in.
Your refusal to recognize the question, much less answer it, makes it seem that you believe that human lives are more precious than any amount of cash, as long as it's not your cash that's required.
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Luke
If you're feeling sick you should take a bex and have a nap.
1. What the hell is a "bex"? The only Bex I know is a small place in Switzerland with a salt mine.
2. Your implication that someone whose views you don't share must be feeling unwell is just rude.
Hosting
My apologies, I was unsure about this expression, because I was unfamiliar with it, but have checked it and realise that I missed a personal attack.
Luke, this is a Commandment 3 warning, do not make personal attacks on other posters
quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.
L'organist, I'm sorry for missing this, but it doesn't mean you may reply in kind - all personal conflicts must be taken to the Hell board.
Thanks,
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
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
You're both asking whether I could somehow equate a human life with money... never, because human lives are more precious than any amount of cash.
Nope. Not what we're asking. We're informing you that taking care of a human life costs money, and asking how much you're willing to chip in.
Your refusal to recognize the question, much less answer it, makes it seem that you believe that human lives are more precious than any amount of cash, as long as it's not your cash that's required.
You have no idea how much of my money, time and prayer life is centred around others in need and I don't think justifying myself in that way on an online forum means very much.
At the end of the day I don't think that it's acceptable to say that since some people aren't willing to shell out cash, then realistically we've got to consider abortion. Nope - I can't look at this kind of thing in that way.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads
And recks not his own rede.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
God has given you one face and you make yourselves another. You jig and amble, and you lisp, you nickname God’s creatures and make your wantonness your ignorance.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
You have no idea how much of my money, time and prayer life is centred around others in need and I don't think justifying myself in that way on an online forum means very much.
No, we don't. And you still don't answer the question.
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
At the end of the day I don't think that it's acceptable to say that since some people aren't willing to shell out cash, then realistically we've got to consider abortion. Nope - I can't look at this kind of thing in that way.
False dichotomy. The decision isn't between cash vs. abortion. The decision is actually about whether all members of a given society deserve that society's help; it's also about who gets to determine what is actually helpful in a given situation, who is actually a member of society, and, ultimately, a question of group rights and individual rights.
--------------------
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
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
You have no idea how much of my money, time and prayer life is centred around others in need and I don't think justifying myself in that way on an online forum means very much.
No, we don't. And you still don't answer the question.
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
At the end of the day I don't think that it's acceptable to say that since some people aren't willing to shell out cash, then realistically we've got to consider abortion. Nope - I can't look at this kind of thing in that way.
False dichotomy. The decision isn't between cash vs. abortion. The decision is actually about whether all members of a given society deserve that society's help; it's also about who gets to determine what is actually helpful in a given situation, who is actually a member of society, and, ultimately, a question of group rights and individual rights.
It's a question of whether it's ever acceptable to end the life of an unborn child, for whatever reasons you might imagine are justifiable.
I don't think it's ever right to do that.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Can people knock it off with the point-scoring literary quotes please? They're easily seen in this context as sly personal attacks. Posting a Shakespearean insult also does not get around Commandment 3 and 4 which ban all personal insults/conflicts on boards outside of Hell.
As I have noted to other posters, if you want to insult other people, you need to take it to the Hell board. If people with strongly expressed views annoy you and you want to have a go at them rather than the issue - you must either post a thread in Hell or not post about that at all.
If you feel offended or personally targetted by someone's post - please do not make a personally insulting reply on this board - start a Hell thread to take issue with them. Hosts will deal with any personal attack here. If you think we've missed one - feel free to PM us. Tony is away, and I am hosting on my own, so please contact me if I've missed something.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses host
hosting off
[ 03. May 2013, 22:27: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
This was reposted today on Facebook by a friend from Church.
It reenforces the issues that families have supporting children with issues.
'Exhausted' parents leave autistic son at government office.
I have four brothers and three sisters. The middle girl, M, has Down syndrome. The youngest was born three years later.
My mother told me one time that she had no memory of the youngest as a baby, because she was so focused on caring for M, who had real feeding issues. Care of the youngest was shared among my grandmother, my father and the six older brothers and sisters.
I can't imagine what it would have been like for my mother to try to do it alone, on a minimum income.
The fact of the matter is that abortion has little to do with the question of societal support. Without support you're going to have much worse outcomes -- abandonment (see above), divorce, suicides, family murders, and who knows what else.
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
It's a question of whether it's ever acceptable to end the life of an unborn child, for whatever reasons you might imagine are justifiable.
I don't think it's ever right to do that.
Even to save the life of the woman? Even to save the life of the woman when the fetus is already doomed but not yet dead?
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
It's a question of whether it's ever acceptable to end the life of an unborn child, for whatever reasons you might imagine are justifiable.
I don't think it's ever right to do that.
Even to save the life of the woman? Even to save the life of the woman when the fetus is already doomed but not yet dead?
Cos that's why women generally have abortions, right?
However, if the death of fetus comes about as a result of procedures to save a mother's life, that's not the same thing as an abortion. Also there are some very heroic women who have laid their own lives down that their children might live. I guess many of you would think that's tantamount to child abuse cos the kid would grow up without a mum - though knowing their mother was a sainted woman who died that they might live is something to think about too.
--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
