|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Restricting abortion is an extreme limitation which affects all women, not just those that happen to oppose abortion.
#
So what?
Surely no reasonable person would say that any women had a moral right to abort any feutus for any reason, with no restrictions? That is an absurdly extreme and utterly immoral position and should always be opposed by everyone. There simply isn't a case for it. Period.
Abortion is ok if the feutus stands no, or very little, chance of life, if the women has been raped or for some other reason giving birth to the child would prove an endurable burden to the mother.
In no other case, no other case whatsoever, does abortion even begin to be acceptable and it is, in my view, legitmate for the state to enforce that opinion. Legitimate, but not wise, because some women would go to backstreet butchers.
So, I am in the position of thinking that abortion should be legally available to all women, but is very seldom morally acceptable.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Well obviously this being the dead horse derby I’d disagree and say you only asserted people didn’t begin at conception and didn’t actually prove your assertion. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
It is almost impossible to prove a negative. Thus the onus of proof is on the person advocating the positive case (eg "Prove that humans aren't psychic!" vs "Prove that humans are psychic!").
However, pro-abortionists come to the debate with an idea of what a human ‘looks’ like because they would agree with the anti-abortionists that killing a human in most circumstances is wrong, and so would see an embryo/zygote/etc as non-human. My question is where does the pro-abortionist definition of humanness come from, upon what is it based?
To rephrase the same question: a pro- and anti- abortionist look at the same embryo/zygote/etc and come to different conclusions about the whether or not it is human. What standard of humanness is the pro-abortionist applying?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Papio, I'm a bit puzzled by why you would respond to a post from last July by quoting one sentence out of context and replying "So what?"
The context of the discussion was to what extent the rights of the individual can be restricted in Canadian society. To paraphrase from my original post, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society ... restrictions must be motivated by an objective of sufficient importance and be limited to the smallest possible extent.
The point that I was trying to make with the sentence you quoted is that any restriction on abortion can hardly be considered "limited" since it will affect all women (yes, half the population), regardless of their personal beliefs and circumstances.
You seem to have very definite ideas about the circumstances in which a woman would be allowed to have an abortion. Why do you expect the state to enforce your particular beliefs? There may indeed be people who believe "that any women had a moral right to abort any feutus for any reason, with no restrictions." How would you justify your restrictions to such a person based on the grounds in bold above? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I'm also a bit puzzled when people ask me why I expect that the state to enforce my opinions. I don't expect the state to enforce my opinions. Having an opinion and expecting the state to enfore it are two different things.
I think that both the feutus and the mother have rights. The mother's rights trump thatose of the feutus, in circumstances where it would be dangerous to the mother, or pointless for the feutus, to have the fuetus carried full term.
I do think that abortion is morally wrong in the vast majority of cases. I'm not at all sure why the fact that half the population are women is relavent in any way whatsoever.
To abort healthy feutuses, esp late in the pragnancy, strikes me as beyond the requirements you put in bold. Perhaps that is because I do not accept that there is ever a time when something is a healthy zigot, or a healthy feutus, but not a form of human life.
I did put my last post a bit strongly - but then again as someone who was born with a cleft lip and a cleft pallet I find the title of this thread completely contemptable.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I did put my last post a bit strongly - but then again as someone who was born with a cleft lip and a cleft pallet I find the title of this thread completely contemptable.
I agree, Papio. It started out about that one case, caused a big upset based on our various experiences with drastically different cleft conditions, went on to all sorts of birth defects and then, for about the last 14 pages has been simply about abortion.
Also; it's misleading to newbies who want to talk about abortion and are sent to "Dead Horses."
Frankly, I would love to see this thread burnt to a fine crisp and a new "Abortion" thread started.
Let's go to Styx and ask.
You first.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Actually, I do perhaps owe Olivia an apology. I suspect, even more so in the cold light of a december afternoon, that I was reacting more to the thread title (which, frankly, pisses me off each and every time I see it) then to anything which she said.
Sorry.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
's OK. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I'm not at all sure why the fact that half the population are women is relavent in any way whatsoever.
Whether or not abortion is legal and accessible is a very significant factor in the choices many women make regarding their lives (availability of contraception and child care are two other biggies). How (or if) a state restricts abortion has an effect on all those women's lives too, not just the women that have or are denied abortions. What I'm trying to say is that if the state wants to take measures that will have a very significant effect on the personal lives of half its citizens, there should be a clear rationale and a significant benefit to society. And I'm sorry, but in a religiously diverse democracy, "The Bible says..." just won't do. (Heck, it won't even do on the Ship.) For example, in the new Battlestar Galactica, the President is pressured by religious leaders to ban abortion, and she does so, but on the grounds that it is necessary to ensure the survival of the human species. (And because she needed the votes of the religious faction... hmm, where I have I seen that before? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
If the rationale for banning abortion is to protect the life of each and every human being, then allowing exemptions for rape or certain foetal conditions seems inconsistent to me. If the benefit to society is increased population growth, well, IMO some societies could do with a little less growth. I understand why most Christian thought is strongly opposed to abortion. I don't (yet) understand how that can be justified and applied in a society in which most people are not Christian. OliviaG
PS Twilight, I thought there used to be two threads down here - one on abortion in general, and, as you pointed out, this more specific one. However, I couldn't find the other thread, so it may be a figment of my imagination.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I understand why most Christian thought is strongly opposed to abortion. I don't (yet) understand how that can be justified and applied in a society in which most people are not Christian.
It is because they see it as being the same thing as murder. You wouldn't let a woman get away with killing her born babies, so why would let her get away with killing the unborn? Or so the line of reasoning goes.
The argument is whether an early term foetus is the same thing as a baby. And their argument is that the foetus has potential of becoming a baby. Which is pretty hard to dispute. They also argue that the only non-religious reason we don't kill babies is because they are potential adult humans of full intellect and sentience. So not protecting a foetus because it is not an adult human "logically" leads to not protecting children and "abnormal" adult humans.
So if you don't "protect and respect" all human life, then people can pick and choose what is a form of human life worthy of protection.
I am sympathetic to these views, but don't necessarily believe they are completely accurate (I think it is possible to have abortions and still respect the rights of the mentally handicapped). I don't believe God condemns people to hell who were never born, so I think not being born actually spares them from the crap of this world.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Raptor, ‘potential’ is one way of looking at abortion and humanness but not the full picture, because being human isn’t about being in the prime of life. It is wrong to a kill an innocent human at any stage of their life, because we are human at every stage of our life. We don’t live in ‘potential’ waiting for the next stage. So I would say the ‘potential’ argument is not as strong as arguing that we are human from conception to death and then beyond.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Raptor, ‘potential’ is one way of looking at abortion and humanness but not the full picture, because being human isn’t about being in the prime of life. It is wrong to a kill an innocent human at any stage of their life, because we are human at every stage of our life. We don’t live in ‘potential’ waiting for the next stage. So I would say the ‘potential’ argument is not as strong as arguing that we are human from conception to death and then beyond.
What is the difference between the cluster of cells in a foetus and a cluster of cells from my arm? One has the potential to naturally become human, the other is part of a human.
And that is where the argument is. If foetuses where separate from their mothers I think it would be impossible to use the "potential" argument. But a foetus can not survive without the mother, and is therefore arguably part of the mother (which is generally what the legal argument for abortion is).
And no you can't use a simplistic argument like "foetuses have different DNA" because there are many situations in which an adult has different DNA (not that commonly though).
I don't actually subscribe to this view much, just putting it forth.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bittersweet
Shipmate
# 10483
|
Posted
I have never understood the distinction that Papio has made recently between an unwanted pregnancy which may be allowed to be terminated, despite the health of the foetus, and that which may not, even if the foetus has a grave "defect".
quote:
Abortion is ok if the feutus stands no, or very little, chance of life, if the women has been raped or for some other reason giving birth to the child would prove an endurable burden to the mother
(bold mine)
Why allow for rape cases? Why on earth does it matter how the damn parasite got in there?
Basically, you are saying that, however poor the quality of life prediction, abortion is wrong and bad - unless the poor innocent woman didn't actually have SEX willingly...then anything goes.
Patriarchal nonsense at its best. And from you Papio...really....
If you truly believe that abortion should NOT be the woman's choice (not my opinion, but hey), at least be consistent and not base things on creepy puritanism.
Posts: 237 | From: Here and Now | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
The thing about rape is entirely consistant with the view that abortion may be allowed if it effect the women's mental health. If not, why not? And what is sexist about that? I genuinely don't understand.
And to call it a "parasite" is just offensive.
And I think abortion is always wrong, unless the feotus has very little chance of a decent life or giving birth would severely endanger the mother physically and/or mentally. It is even more morally wrong if the pregnancy is late term/
Because I don't accept that a feutus is not a form of human life. Sorry.
I simply don't understand why that is either sexist or inconsistant. Sorry, but I genuinley don't. Perhaps someone could explain that to me?
ETA: Also, did you miss the fact that I said that abortion should be legally available on demand, whatever the reason? i think it should be legal, so i am not trying to stop women from excersising their so-called "right" to abort a late term feutus for a cruddy reason. I just think that it is immoral. Not murder. But not in any way moral.
[ 29. December 2006, 21:24: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
(Dropping by) Surely there is a distinction between the argument about whether abortion can be justified;
- if there are physical/mental health reasons for mother or unborn child
- if the mother does not want to carry the pregnancy to term for some other reason
Versus
An argument for, or against, eugenics regardless of whether or not we act before or after birth.
In other words, the argument about whether to abort or not is usually about whether you consider the feotus to be sufficiently alive enough to have whatever level of rights which may or may not trump the mother's choices.
So when people broadly anti-abortion say only for health reasons (mother or child) - the argument for aborting disabled unborn child is supposed to be that their life will so filled with suffering that the action is merciful rather than a pro-eugenics position. The rape bit is about the mother's mental health.
I don't think that Papio's position is inconsistent.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Doubleposting to add: the OP seems to beg the question whether CLP constitutes a severe defect as defined in British law, I used to work in a service serving this population and would say usually not - but some kids are born with CLP as part of much more complex and disabling conditions, some of which kill within months of birth.
I am broadly anti-abortion (though again I wouldn't want to make it illegal), but if I knew I were carrying a child with Trisomy 13 I don't what I would choose to do. (For a more human explanation see the S.O.F.T. UK website.)
[ETA Certainly not intending to imply Papio is pro-eugenics, rather that the 'level of defect' matters for that reason.]
[ 29. December 2006, 21:50: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
(OK sorry for triple post and tangent - owing to over-exaggerated sense of responsibility.)
For the other view on Trisomy 13 + some hope, in case anyone reading this has a family member affected by the condition, see this site on living with Trisomy 13.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Like most things, abortion becomes a very different issue from different standpoints. No, I wouldn't regard cleft lip and palate as reasons to abort if that was the sole problem, for example, if the child was going to be brought into a supportive family, who could deal with the health issues.
I work in a secondary school, what about the teenage girl from a dysfunctional family? Who feels that abortion is wrong, whatever? That child is under pressure from her alcoholic mother and wants someone to love her unconditionally. How many of you have worked with the 14 year old girl, or her children 5 years, 10 years, 12 years, 15 years later?
Have you seen what living in a dysfunctional family does for kids? How many core group meetings and case conferences have you sat through with social services trying to help families that can't cope? These are the kids we feed breakfast, sort them out in the morning and protect against detentions for no homework or incorrect uniform because they go home to beatings or being locked in rooms with no food, again.
How many meetings have you sat through with foster carers who you wouldn't send a vulnerable child to? And felt guilty as you read the adverts for foster carers as the local authority is desperate.
And do you know how many adoptions break down? It's around 30% around where I work. We also work with the kids whose adoptions aren't working, because the parents haven't got what they wanted, or can't deal with the damage that these kids have endured.
And then we have people pontificating against abortion as they need to preserve life - like this? I think abortion wouldn't be as bad as some of the lives some of these kids are living.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I am probably biased.
I was born with a cleft lip, cleft pallet and a congenital heart syndrome. This was life threating. My mother was originally told that I would not reach the age of two (I am about to turn 30) and, in fact, I owe my life to the fact that my mother changed doctors (the original GP had told her I had a virus, the second GP diagnosed me accurately according to the science of the time but told my mother that I had roughly 48 hours to live) and to the fact that another toddler had flu so couldn't have an operation. I hope that toddler survived but, of course, I cannot know this. If I had not had the op, I would be dead. No doubt at all. None whatsoever. My mum was called on the telephone at 3AM with no notice or warning and told to come to the hospital immediately if she wanted me to live. Seriously. You can imagine how she felt at the time...
I may have Di George Syndrome. I may not. I don't know. It is certainly possible. It wasn't known about when I was born.
But I do know that some people think that I should have been aborted.
Fuck those people. Arseholes.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bittersweet:
Why allow for rape cases? Why on earth does it matter how the damn parasite got in there?
Basically, you are saying that, however poor the quality of life prediction, abortion is wrong and bad - unless the poor innocent woman didn't actually have SEX willingly...then anything goes.
Patriarchal nonsense at its best. And from you Papio...really....
Rape is psychologically damaging. Being constantly reminded of the rape for at least nine months compounds the injury. I would say such a pregnancy poses a direct risk to the life of the mother (through direct suicide, self harm, and substance abuse).
If you believe that abortion to save the life of the mother is acceptable, than papio's position is perfectly reasonable and not patriarchal in the least.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Like most things, abortion becomes a very different issue from different standpoints. No, I wouldn't regard cleft lip and palate as reasons to abort if that was the sole problem, for example, if the child was going to be brought into a supportive family, who could deal with the health issues.
I work in a secondary school, what about the teenage girl from a dysfunctional family? Who feels that abortion is wrong, whatever? That child is under pressure from her alcoholic mother and wants someone to love her unconditionally. How many of you have worked with the 14 year old girl, or her children 5 years, 10 years, 12 years, 15 years later?
Have you seen what living in a dysfunctional family does for kids? How many core group meetings and case conferences have you sat through with social services trying to help families that can't cope? These are the kids we feed breakfast, sort them out in the morning and protect against detentions for no homework or incorrect uniform because they go home to beatings or being locked in rooms with no food, again.
How many meetings have you sat through with foster carers who you wouldn't send a vulnerable child to? And felt guilty as you read the adverts for foster carers as the local authority is desperate.
And do you know how many adoptions break down? It's around 30% around where I work. We also work with the kids whose adoptions aren't working, because the parents haven't got what they wanted, or can't deal with the damage that these kids have endured.
And then we have people pontificating against abortion as they need to preserve life - like this? I think abortion wouldn't be as bad as some of the lives some of these kids are living.
Since you asked--I work with these kids.
I wouldn't abort them.
And I don't believe they would wish for it, either.
--------------------
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
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Curiosity...
I say this not to shock anyone or gain any sympathy, but because it is true...
I was beaten every day by my alcoholic father. He put me into hospital a number of times. My younger brother has asperger's syndrome and schizophrenia and was also physically violent. I found my mother's near lifeless body after she attempted to kill herself. More than once. I was bullied at school for not being able to talk properly. My father was found guilty of "profound and systematic mental, physical and emotional abuse of his two sons" (I.E - my brother and I). I had to undergo numerous operations in my childhood. My father had never wanted me, and told me so regularly. By age 7, i was already so mentally ill that I was placed in a schooling unti for disbaled children. Although my father made a good wage, he spent it all on drink and my mum, brother and I dressed in rags and sometimes went hungry. That is just a glimpse of what i went through. i have friends who had it worse. I know what it like to be a child and to suffer.
I know that it is like to wish I had never been born.
But that isn't the point.
The point is this - you have no fucking right, no fucking right whatsoever, to decide that my brother and I should not have been born. Not even if you went through similar shit yourself. You have no right, no right at all, to pass judgement on whether I should have been born, and still less right to imply that I have no idea what it is like to be an abused child.
Fuck you. Fuck off and die.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Mate, don't post when you are over wrought.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Mate, don't post when you are over wrought.
Your right. I should not have sworn at Curiosity. Sorry.
However, the fact remains that I suspect that I have more idea what it is like to be an abused child than s/he does, and nothing that person posted shifts my opinion in the smallest iota.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Papio - thank you for apologising so promptly and saving me from harsher comment.
I can understand (a little bit at least) where you are coming from on this and can sympathise with your outburst.
But Doublethink was right.
No further comment needed.
Host Mode <DE-ACTVATE>
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Papio,
I wasn't saying that you shouldn't be born.
What I was saying was that the argument that abortion is wrong, full stop, means that many pregnant teenagers will not countenance having an abortion, whatever their circumstances. And working with families that are not coping, in a situation where the solutions are not working (adoption, foster care) makes me think that this absolute abhorrence of abortion is not helpful.
You have not said that abortion is wrong whatever the situation, so I wasn't actually directing my comments at you.
And, fyi, I come from a background of physical abuse too.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bittersweet
Shipmate
# 10483
|
Posted
Papio - I realise that this is a topic which has personal overtones for you. But suggesting that a child of rape may be aborted because of the mother's suffering, whilst suggesting that those women who abort because of the mental and societal anguish of disability (I'm not saying that is how it IS, I'm saying that is how it may feel to the mother) is completely inconsistent, and based on a fallacy - that rape is worse than other suffering because of the lack of choice.
Sometimes suffering which occurs because of choices is worse...
Posts: 237 | From: Here and Now | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Well, firstly, I never said that women who got preganant as a result of rape must have an abortion.
Secondly, whether my life is worth living or not is not my mother's decision, frankly, and this principle extends to others. I have already said that abortion is permissible if the child would have no real chance of life anyway.
If the child is likely to be mildly disabled, or even severely disabled in certain ways but still have a shot of a decent stand of life than I think that abortion is morally unacceptable, and the later it is is carried out, the more unacceptable it becomes.
And a person's quality of life is for them to judge. No-one else. Not even the mother.
I really don't see the slightest inconsistancy, I'm afraid, in that position. Perhaps I just have a blind spot.
[ 30. December 2006, 17:23: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bittersweet
Shipmate
# 10483
|
Posted
But your argument for allowing/permitting abortion in rape cases hinges solely on the mother's mental state - which is also what is affected by a disabled child...I cannot see any true distinction here...
The rights of the child to determine their quality of life in the case of rape are ignored why?
No, it is not consistent
[ 30. December 2006, 17:27: Message edited by: Bittersweet ]
Posts: 237 | From: Here and Now | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
The mother has to take precendence, but she can't know, esp not in advance, whether the child's life will be worth living. She has the moral right to abort if she will be seriously harmed by giving birth, but not to decide before the fact that someone else's life will not be worth living - unless that is beyond all doubt. It is about motivation.
And i still don't see the inconsistancy.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bittersweet
Shipmate
# 10483
|
Posted
But in our current society, many women would be mentally ruined by giving birth to a "subnormal" child.
How is that different from making them give birth to a child of rape?
I'm not saying that this is right, just that there is no difference. If the mother is not free to choose whether to carry in the case of overwhelming difficulty due to disability, she cannot legitamitely be free to choose to abort a healthy child just because it is a product of an unchosen act.
Posts: 237 | From: Here and Now | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
If you are suggesting that a mother has the right to abort because have a less then perfect child may inconvienance her, all i can say is "well, boo hoo".
Children do inconvienance their parents. All children do. If it is that much of an issue, give the child up for adoption. I certainly wouldn't want parents who could only accept me if I were perfect.
I'm not pro-eugenics, so I don't think prospective parents have the right to decide the charecteristics of their child in minute detail. Sorry.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bittersweet
Shipmate
# 10483
|
Posted
Papio - that was not what I was saying. Please do not assign me a viewpoint I have not stated.
My point is that you allowed for a woman to choose not to carry a child of rape due to mental distress. Why is that mental distress more privileged than the mental distress caused by a child's disability?
Posts: 237 | From: Here and Now | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bittersweet
Shipmate
# 10483
|
Posted
That's where I'm at. I don't think either situation should be more "privileged" - it just isn't logical. Thanks for working that through with me.
Posts: 237 | From: Here and Now | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Point taken Bittersweet, but I think that it would be difficult to argue convincingly that giving birth to a child with a mild to moderate disability would cause the same level of mental distress to the mother, as birthing a child of rape.
And it is the level of the mother's distress rather than it's existence that is the issue for this position in the debate.
Also, and this is a tangent I realise, one of the ongoing issues for those of us who are mostly anti-abortion is the lack of promotion of adoption as an alternative solution. If you couldn't face raising a child with a disability - you wouldn't have to. There is a waiting list to adopt children in the UK.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bittersweet
Shipmate
# 10483
|
Posted
Doublethink - if you say that the distress to the individual mother may vary, that's fine - it's the blanket statement that worries me.
For some women, rape may be easier to handle than the thought of being "responsible" for producing an "imperfect" child. We can't know. We are not them (as it were, forgive the poor English and quote marks - I can't think of a better way to put it).
I think that I personally would find it so, as I find the blame I lay upon myself to be harder to bear than that I ascribe to others. But one example does not a theory make.
Posts: 237 | From: Here and Now | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Indeed, but this would be covered by health reasons for the mother - I guess if the doc thought that she was coping so well with the trauma of the rape that it wouldn't compromise her mental health that would be different.
I still say the possiblility of adoption is relevant, people often pose the abortion question as if it is a choice between having to bring up the child or not. It isn't, it is a choice about whether to carry the pregnancy to term or not, the next nine months (or less by the time you find out). The choice about whether to raise the child or not, is a different descision.
Re you reflection on your likely response to the situation: if you are that harsh on yourself - do you think it would be any easier for you, that you were choosing to terminate a pregnancy because the chld would be imperfect ?
I don't imagine any of these choices would be easy to make, or without emotional consequences.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
A frighteningly high percentage of adoptions break down, I was told 30% or 50%, but that was by someone in Social Services and I can't find it to confirm. This is possibly because the children now being adopted are older and have either been removed from difficult situations, or have been put up for adoption as they have disabilities.
We are currently dealing with a situation where the adoptive parent has decided nice child turned into nasty teenager, return to sender,
I have also worked with other situations where the only reason that things are held together are from the external glue that is being applied.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The statistics are skewed at least partially by the poor kids who suffer multiple placement breakdown. Also, as you say the kids are older - and usually emotionally damaged by abusive or traumatic experiences, all in all not a useful guide as to the out come for a new born baby being adopted.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Smudgie
Ship's Barnacle
# 2716
|
Posted
That number is about right for adoption breakdowns.
[Tangent]
Please don't view it dismissively as "return to sender" - as an adoptive parent myself and part of a support group I know the impact that parenting a child with attachment disorder can have upon a family and needing social services intervention to help with an emotionally damaged child is not something that any of them/us have undertaken lightly. I am in a dark place myself at the moment as regards my much-loved son and in the midst of my struggles the suggestion that I might be thinking "this one's not up to standard - send it back" is not particularly helpful.
If in coming late to this conversation I have misinterpreted your comment, then I apologise. But please don't dismiss people's feelings and actions until you have walked a mile in their shoes. [/tangent]
On the other hand, I do agree with the general sentiment of your post, that adoption is not an easy answer for children born into families that do not want to care for them.
--------------------
Miss you, Erin.
Posts: 14382 | From: Under the duvet | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Certainly not an easy option, but I think we could agree that none of the choices after an unwanted pregnancy has begun are going to be easy.
[ 30. December 2006, 22:22: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bittersweet:
But in our current society, many women would be mentally ruined by giving birth to a "subnormal" child.
Bullshit. This is not the fucking middle ages, the stigma against disabled children isn't that bad. A mother might be mentally ruined from trying to care for a difficult child with minimal support. But are you suggesting that we should abort ADHD (or other difficult personality disorders) kids?
And wouldn't a better idea be to put the mechanism's in place to support such mothers?
quote:
Originally posted by Bittersweet:
How is that different from making them give birth to a child of rape?
Because of the massively increased risk of self-harm and suicide.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
[tangent]Apologies Smudgie - I have every admiration for people taking on these difficult children: I work with enough to realise quite how testing they are.
I don't deal directly with the child I mentioned, but I understand he was adopted as a baby. His behaviour has deteriorated with adoptive mum's desire to move on, as far as I know.
I think part of the problem is that adoptive parents were expected to take home their lovely child and bring them up without support. I know that for one family I was working with, and will be again, it was the school pushing that got post-adoption social services involved.
Unlike fostering, where social services support, and pay, the carers to "parent". But that's not ideal either, having worked with one child who had 5 foster carers and 3 social workers in the 18 months I worked with him. One of the moves was to remove all children with no notice as there were concerns about the foster parent - who still fosters different children, one of whom I currently work with, and the schools involved continue to have concerns about this carer.[/tangent]
Basically, the argument that children who are born to parents who don't want them have good places to go is what I am arguing against here - I've seen more problems with adoption and fostering than I have happy settled children (and I have seen some of those too).
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bittersweet
Shipmate
# 10483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
[Bullshit. This is not the fucking middle ages, the stigma against disabled children isn't that bad. A mother might be mentally ruined from trying to care for a difficult child with minimal support. But are you suggesting that we should abort ADHD (or other difficult personality disorders) kids?
And wouldn't a better idea be to put the mechanism's in place to support such mothers?
Because of the massively increased risk of self-harm and suicide. [/QB]
Raptor - you may not have much experience with day-to-day life with familial disability, or indeed Disability Rights advocacy. Let us just say that the struggle is far from over. And yes, it would be nice to fix society so it wasn't an issue. But that isn't what we were discussing.
And the risks of post-natal depression, leading to self-harm and suicide are huge for the parent of a child with disabilities - again I ask: why create this artificial line?
Posts: 237 | From: Here and Now | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
What is the difference between the cluster of cells in a foetus and a cluster of cells from my arm? One has the potential to naturally become human, the other is part of a human.
Your confusing catagories, or maybe we are arguing at cross purposes here! I agree that humans and toes are made of generally the same substances, but that isn't a good argument for their status as humans, but neither is surviablity.
quote:
And that is where the argument is. If foetuses where separate from their mothers I think it would be impossible to use the "potential" argument. But a foetus can not survive without the mother, and is therefore arguably part of the mother (which is generally what the legal argument for abortion is).
Yes, survivability seems to be the key argument for the beginning of life, for those not opposed to abortion. However there don't seem to be strong Biblical or philosphocial arguments for setting survial outside the womb as the beginning of life. Anyway, survial outside the womb isn't a universal benchmark because some abortions occur after this point.
quote:
And no you can't use a simplistic argument like "foetuses have different DNA" because there are many situations in which an adult has different DNA (not that commonly though).
I wasn't aware of this argument and don't plan on using it.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Anyway, survial outside the womb isn't a universal benchmark because some abortions occur after this point.
Although that was, I think, the main argument that had the legal limit in the act reduced from 28 to 24 weeks in the UK. (i.e. the change in survival rates among premature neonates).
Abortions beyond that gestation would get done under common law rather than the act (and I guess must be tiny numbers) where there is an overwhelming evidence of the mother's life being at risk, and where delivery isn't an option.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bittersweet:
And the risks of post-natal depression, leading to self-harm and suicide are huge for the parent of a child with disabilities
I would dispute that, risk for PND is around one in 10 for women overall. There are a number of factors that increase the risk of having PND.
Risks of suicide and self-harm are a related but different issue. The most recent data on maternal death, 2000-2002 in the UK are contained in this report.
"The Enquiry considers all deaths of women that are directly related to pregnancy (Direct), those due to pre-existing maternal disease aggravated by pregnancy (Indirect), those in which the cause was unrelated to pregnancy (Coincidental) and those occurring between six weeks and one year following delivery (Late).
During this triennium, 391 maternal deaths were reported to the Enquiry. Of these deaths, 106 were classified as Direct and 155 as Indirect, representing 27% and 40% of reported cases, respectively. Thirty-six (9%) deaths were classified as Coincidental and 94 (24%) as Late. The total number of Direct and Indirect maternal deaths reported to the Enquiry, 261, is slightly higher than the 242 reported in the previous triennium. As also seen in the last Report, the number of Indirect deaths exceeds the number of Direct deaths, pointing to the importance of providing coordinated multidisciplinary care for women with intercurrent medical or psychiatric conditions.
The overall maternal mortality rate for the United Kingdom for this triennium from deaths due to both Direct and Indirect causes is 13.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 maternities."
(My emphasis added.)
So of 100,000 maternities, approximately 1000 women may develop PND (some of whom will be the same individuals counted twice). Six women may die of an indirect cause, some of whom may be suffering from PND. These figures probably include post-natal psychosis which is almost certainly a primarialy biologically caused condition - rather than psycho-socially generated as PND is thought to be. Also, these figures are for pregnancy, which will include terminated pregnancies. The number of these women giving birth to disabled children is not given, but nor is it listed as a risk factor for indirect psychiatric causes of death post partum.
If you read further in the report, you will see that the mental health aspects specifically identified, are for woman at risk of relapse or recurrence of serious mental illness, who disclose experience of domestic violence, or who are engaged in substance misuse.
To prove I am not completely sieving the evidence I would point out that this article on the BBC news site suggests that women who terminate unwanted pregnancies are not at increased risk of depression. (Though they do note a confound of deprivation in their findings, in that those women aborting tend to have better social circumstances. One of the biggest predictors of depression is social deprivation) The article states that only 1% (1,600) of Britain's 185,400 abortions last year were stated to have been carried out because the baby would be born disabled.
This site gives the directly caused death rate for early abotion, which would appear to be safer than giving birth. (Though given they do not include later abortions and indirect causes of death, probably slightly less safe than they state overall - but we are splitting very small hairs here.)
All of which boils down to the fact that your risk of dying as an imediate result of pregnancy or abortion is very small. Severe psychiatric complications post partum are much more likely for people with pre-existing serious mental health problems, such as a history of bipolar disorder or any form of psychosis.
By contrast, approximately half rape survivors develop post traumatic stress disorder. Roughly 13% of rape survivors with PTSD attempt suicide at some point. (All sources will have slight variations of figures, but this is not unusually high or low quoted percentage.)
The mental health of carers is not great. The statistics do not differentitate parents from carers in different family relationships.
"Women providing care were more likely than men to report mental health problems: 21 per cent of the women in the sample had a score on or above the threshold of 12 on the CIS-R ...
• Taking account of age, female carers were found to be more likely to have high levels of neurotic symptoms than women in the general population but for men no significant difference was found.
• People who spent 20 or more hours per week caring had worse mental health than those spending less time providing care; the former group were about twice as likely to have scores of 12 or more.
• Carers looking after someone living in the same household had worse mental health than those looking after someone who did not live with them - 25 per cent had scores on or above the threshold compared with 15 per cent of those who cared for someone living elsewhere."
Of all the 6.5 million carers, only 9% were looking after their own child, only 4% were looking after a minor. Approximately a third of those looking after someone under 16 reported mental health problems. However, only 9% of carers were receiveing treatment for mental health or emotional problems.
"6% were receiving medication only, 1% ounselling or therapy only and 2% were receiving both. Carers who had CIS-R scores of 12 and over were significantly more likely to be getting treatment; 29% were receiving at least one form of treatment compared with 5% of carers with lower CIS-R scores."
So in other words, 30% of people caring for a child (mostly women) suffered measurable levels of emotional distress. 30% of that 30% - (i.e. 10% of those caring for a child) - had distress reaching a level where they were accessing some kind treatment. The majority of that care was provided through primary care - so most of the 10% are probably not at risk of self-harming and/or suicidal behaviour.
So, a complex picture but I still think rape presents a a greater elevated risk of mental distress.
That is before you look at the effect of bearing a child of rape, it is estimated that about 5% of woman become pregant follwing a rape.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bittersweet
Shipmate
# 10483
|
Posted
Doublethink - you can throw statistics around all you like, but each woman is an individual, and distress, possibly life threatening, is a possibility in either case.
I still cannot condone, nor see how any rational caring human can condone, an artificial distinction between "types" of distress in an individual based upon statistics! ("There are lie, damn lies...)
This is, of course, independent of whether your preference would then be to ban all abortion (including in cases of foetal abnormality and rape), or allow early, information based terminations. It's the artificial line that seems to get drawn here that worries me...
Posts: 237 | From: Here and Now | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
