|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
|
Jen.
Godless Liberal
# 3131
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
There are also cases (admittedly few) where contraception has failed or been improperly used.
Not as few cases as you think. but this is steadily decreasing thanks to the availability of the Morning After Pill.
J
--------------------
Was Jenny Ann, but fancied being more minimal.
Posts: 5318 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081
|
Posted
To be pernickety, if contraception has been used with confidence, the morning after pill wouldn't come into the equation as it would only be a missed period or early morning sickness that would alert a woman to the fact that she was pregnant.
But the morning after pill is indeed rising in popularity and availability.
OOT
--------------------
Though the bleak sky is burdened I'll pray anyway,
And though irony's drained me I'll now try sincere,
And whoever it was that brought me here
Will have to take me home. Martyn Joseph
Posts: 979 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Life begins at conception, any reputable physician will tell you that.
Only if we play "True Scotsman" and define a reputable physician as one who will tell you that.
Or if we play "let's see which physician paid attention in Biology 101".
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
No, seriously. I don't see any justification for the "life begins at conception" position. The egg is alive before it is fertilised, as is the sperm. Nothing "comes alive" at that point.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Did the parents choose abortion because of the child's presumed quality of life or because they felt they couldn't handle the situation?
If they thought they couln't handle it, why not let the baby go to term and be put up for adoption? There are many couples so eager to adopt a baby that they will welcome a severely handicapped one.
I have a friend who takes in foster children. She had one little girl from birth to five months of age. The baby had fetal alcohol syndrome and a severe seizure disorder. A couple was found who were eager to adopt her.
My friend had another foster child for more than eleven years. She had such severe brain stem damage that she had virtually no control over her body. She could not hold her head up.
She apparently had normal intelligence. The only aspect of her mental ability that could be tested was her ability to understand what was said to her. She understood as much as the average child her age.
My daughter Jan was a substitute teacher in her Sunday School class one day. Jan said, "Well, shall we get started?" The child made a sound which her foster sister interpreted as, "No". Jan was so glad she was capable of mischief.
She also had a great zest for life. When she was eleven years old she suffered a prolonged serious illness which almost killed her. She fought hard for her life and won. I remember seeing her in church the first Sunday she was back. She looked around, obviously very happy to be there and very proud of herself. It occurred to me that she probably valued her life more than anyone else in that church valued theirs, because she had fought so hard for it.
She loved to laugh and was constantly on the lookout for things to laugh at. She taught me that the way to enjoy life is to be on the lookout for things to enjoy.
I have described her at length because she is the kind of child that many would say would have been better off dead. She didn't see it that way. She finally lost her battle for life when she was thirteen. There were more than two hundred people at her funeral, and almost everyone cried at some point, including the priests.
If the parents of that baby with a cleft palate couldn't handle the situation, why couldn't they have given the child to someone who wanted it?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hel
Shipmate
# 5248
|
Posted
When do Ship Mates generally think that the woman's right to choose becomes less than a baby's right to live?
I have come to believe each has a sliding scale, however, I know some people beleive the woman's right always comes first, and some people beleive the baby's right always comes first.
Also - how can life begin at conception, when twins can potentially be formed days later? Does the soul split, so twins efefctively only have half a soul each?
Posts: 667 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
So life is the presence of a soul? Hmmmm... that's a new biological definition.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
If the average life has, say, 10% pain 10% euphoria and 80% something inbetween, why bring a new life into the world if you know from the start it will have, 60% pain or even a twilight half-life like the babies with very severe retardation? I don't understand why a woman would want to deliberately bring a new life into the world if he wasn't going to have a fair chance at happiness.
I don't understand what you mean here at all. What you seem to mean on the face of it is something that seems to me both absurd and evil, so I assume you don't mean that. But I can't otherwise see what you do mean.
When my son was small he was in the hospital for something minor when an eight year old boy was brought in, in excrutiating pain from a rare genetic disease. He was well known by the staff because he was hospitalised during his worst episodes, several times a month. He wasn't expected to live much longer - his five older siblings had all died of the disease before they reached ten. He had younger siblings with the same disease and prognosis.
Someone asked his mother how she could bear to lose so many children and she proudly stated that she "enjoyed them while she could." I can't imagine what life was like for those chidren - enduring intense pain for days at a time, watching their brothers die, knowing that they too would die soon.
I really don't understand why their mother continued to allow herself to get pregnant, knowing what her children would face. Maybe the answer is obvious to you Ken but I certainly don't think my "enjoyment" of my children would offset the agony of seeing them live and die in pain and fear. I would never call her evil because I don't presume to cast judgement on other people as freely as you do but I definitely don't understand her choice.
I believe as Christians and as decent citizens we should provide lavishly with church and government funds to help and support people with disabilities as much as we possibly can. I also believe that we should take extra care, patience and kindness when dealing with disabled people.
But I also think we should realize that
disabled people and people with terrible diseases were not put on this earth so that the rest of us could drop a coin in the March of Dimes jar and feel good about ourselves for the rest of the day. They aren't here so that their mothers can win Mother-of-the-year awards or so that their pastor will have a special prayer to lead. They live with and endure their problems all day every day, long after Lord and Lady Bountiful have gone home. If medical science can relieve or prevent their suffering then I consider that a gift from God.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jen.
Godless Liberal
# 3131
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
To be pernickety, if contraception has been used with confidence, the morning after pill wouldn't come into the equation as it would only be a missed period or early morning sickness that would alert a woman to the fact that she was pregnant.
But the morning after pill is indeed rising in popularity and availability.
OOT
ok, I understand what you are saying, but what do you say about a condom spliting?
J
--------------------
Was Jenny Ann, but fancied being more minimal.
Posts: 5318 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hel
Shipmate
# 5248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
So life is the presence of a soul? Hmmmm... that's a new biological definition.
So there are some people alive without a soul, and some people (on earth) with a soul but not alive?
Sorry to have misled, I wasn't intending to make a biological point.
Posts: 667 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
But the morning after pill is indeed rising in popularity and availability.
Some sectors of society object to the availablity of the morning after pill - it causes a fertilized egg to be discarded, I believe. If life begins at fertilization, then the morning after pill is abortion.
I guess if there is going to be a line at all, it will be arbitrary where-ever we draw it.
Rat
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I admire the courage of this curate.
As a christian we believe that life is precious and a gift of God. In fact it is so precious that God became incarnate. Surely when we attack and physically threaten another person we are in someway attacking our lord.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I think Sasha's story illustrates the fact that the discussion (wherever it leads) is often based around happiness and enjoyment rather than anything inherent about the nature of life itself. Frankly, a woman who thinks of children as something to be "enjoyeed" while they last deserve a good kicking whilst we shout, "Children are not cakes, you idiot".
Erin, are you a vegetarian?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sola Scriptura:
Surely when we attack and physically threaten another person we are in someway attacking our lord.
Your statement is too loaded.
Everyone knows that the key question here is when a bunch of cells become a person.
I'm not going to pretend that I know, but I do object when people pretend that their opinion is fact.
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
If life begins at fertilization, then the morning after pill is abortion.
Yes.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
So life is the presence of a soul? Hmmmm... that's a new biological definition.
So there are some people alive without a soul, and some people (on earth) with a soul but not alive?
Sorry to have misled, I wasn't intending to make a biological point.
So only people are alive? Nothing else is? I would imagine that just about every zoologist and botanist on the planet would dispute that assertion.
Dyfrig, no, I am not a vegetarian. If God had intended us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made steak taste so good.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jen.
Godless Liberal
# 3131
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
But the morning after pill is indeed rising in popularity and availability.
Some sectors of society object to the availablity of the morning after pill - it causes a fertilized egg to be discarded, I believe. If life begins at fertilization, then the morning after pill is abortion.
I guess if there is going to be a line at all, it will be arbitrary where-ever we draw it.
Rat
This is an interesting point. Is the pill the same?
In one brand of pill it says it works by making sure 'the lining of your womb does not thicken enough for an egg to grow in it'
this would mean that the fertilized egg cannot actually grow, is this abortion too?
J
--------------------
Was Jenny Ann, but fancied being more minimal.
Posts: 5318 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
When my son was small he was in the hospital for something minor when an eight year old boy was brought in, in excrutiating pain from a rare genetic disease. He was well known by the staff because he was hospitalised during his worst episodes, several times a month. He wasn't expected to live much longer - his five older siblings had all died of the disease before they reached ten. He had younger siblings with the same disease and prognosis.
Someone asked his mother how she could bear to lose so many children and she proudly stated that she "enjoyed them while she could." I can't imagine what life was like for those chidren - enduring intense pain for days at a time, watching their brothers die, knowing that they too would die soon.
I really don't understand why their mother continued to allow herself to get pregnant, knowing what her children would face.
There is a very big difference between allowing yourself to get pregnant, knowing that your child will have a severely life-limiting disease, and carrying a pregnancy about 10 weeks longer, even if at that point you know the disease will be disabling.
My cousin who was born just before Christmas has cystic fibrosis - as does one of her two older brothers. Her life expectancy is about 30 and, aside from regular physio, her older brother leads pretty much the same life as any other child his age. His parents could have chosen not get pregnant for a second or third time at all - the limitations on her life are not nearly as great as the case you describe, but many parents who carry the CF gene decide that in any case. I think this could be termed a positive decision - that would seem to be an appropriate decision in the case of the second through fifth children in the family you describe.
If the disease you describe had been diagnosed in utero, that would be analogous to the case under discussion - only not really so, as the chances of cleft palate reducing lifespan are pretty slim. Obviously we don't know the exact features of the case but given Jeff's description of the "care" given to potential parents of a disabled child, it doesn't sound like the medical workers concerned ever mentioned "this is the risk of severe health problems, these are the other problems a child with cleft palate can have, you are definitely going to find it distressing to terminate a pregnancy at this stage, have you thought about carrying it on and having your child adopted if you are not in a situation where you can care for a disabled child". I don't think parents not terminating a pregnancy if the child is disabled is the same as deliberately choosing to conceive a child with a severe life-limiting disease.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
erin:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
the abortion has already taken place. what is she trying to do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By this "logic", there is no point in pursuing anything after the fact, including murder convictions, because it's "already taken place".
no,its not. its an attempt to criminalize, retroactively, something that was judged to be legal at the time, for apparently no purpose. if the abortion had not yet been performed, then there might be some purpose in preventing it, to save the fetus. if this were a more generalized attempt to change the law to prevent future occurances, then there mmight be some purpose, to prevent future deaths. however, as far as i can see this only serves to drag the parents of the fetus and the doctors concerned with what had already been judged legal, through a really pointless morass.
you can not equate prosecuting an illegal activity with retroactively prosecuting an activety that was judged legal at the time it took place. thats a stupid argument.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
Nicole - IIRC the logic that you use was used precisely to prevent actions that changed the law on abortion to allow terminations in some cases, until the case of Roe vs. Wade eventually was allowed to continue beyond the end of the pregnancy - before that the argument was used that "you can't take this case to court as the child has been born/the pregnancy has ended in some other way and the case is moot".
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jenny*:
This is an interesting point. Is the pill the same?
In one brand of pill it says it works by making sure 'the lining of your womb does not thicken enough for an egg to grow in it'
this would mean that the fertilized egg cannot actually grow, is this abortion too?
I think that's correct, but its not the primary purpose of the pill so people don't get so worked up about it.
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
as far as i can see this only serves to drag the parents of the fetus and the doctors concerned with what had already been judged legal, through a really pointless morass.
I believe the intention is to change the law so that it specifies exactly what qualifies as a severe condition. According to a doctor on Radio 4 yesterday, this definition was left vague on purpose originally. They didn't want to list particular diseases because medical knowledge tends to move forwards - today's severe disability is tomorrow's easily treatable condition. Probably exactly what happened with cleft palates. Also, because the severity of any particular condition may vary hugely from case to case. So the decision as to what qualified was to be left to two doctors in possession of all the facts to make in each individual case.
The curate wants to change this. I am not sure if she also wants the doctors to be prosecuted retrospectively - since she is challenging the police's decision not to do so, this seems likely.
Rat
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
No, Nicole, what she is asking is for someone to look at whether or not an action was illegal. Clearly there are some instances where the abortion would not have been legal because the police wouldn't have even bothered in the first place. If I believe a crime has been committed and I do not believe the police did their damnedest to investigate thoroughly then I will avail myself of every avenue possible to redress that particular injustice.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ponty'n'pop
Shipmate
# 5198
|
Posted
Erin - it's not just about whether the police did enough to investigate, but also the basis on which they came to their decision as to whether to proceed further. As far as I understand it, that is what is under review.
Whether we agree with the termination or not, I sincerely hope that the medical and police records both show that full consideration has been given (for different reasons, obviously). For my part, if the police records show that it is likely that an offence was committed but unlikely that a prosecution could be secured, then I am content that the law has done its job. A part of that contentment is that the mother is not subjected to further trauma - a genuine concern expressed by nicolermw.
However, in this situation, I would wish to see a review by the British Medical Association also. Therein lies the hope of better decision making in the future, not through the courts.
--------------------
"....creeping around a cow shed at 2 o'clock in the morning. That doesn't sound very wise to me"
Posts: 236 | From: South Wales | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
"Judicial review" is a mechanism in the UK to challenge in a court a decision taken by a public body, like a council, or a police force or a minister of the crown.
What the review does is ask whether that body took the decision properly - i.e. that it was within its legal power to do so, that it did so within applicable guidelines and that it did so reasonably, taking account of all relevant facts and ignoring everything that was irrelevant.
Now, what the court doesn't do at this stage is determine whether the decision was right - what it's reviewing is whether the body acted properly in coming to that decision.
If the court finds that the body acted improperly in some ways, it can do one of several things.
It could tell the body to go away and do it again properly - this could mean that the same decision gets reached, but that the process is clearly done as it should have been done in the first place.
It could decide to give the body a slapped wrist but determine that, ultimately, nothing is served by enforcing or changing a decision.
It could recommend that the point on which this decision turned is one of such public importance that it issues guidance on how to take it or suggest that, say, the House of Lords look at making a formal ruling on it.
Or it could tell the police that the decision they took was wrong and that they should have taken the investigation further. Only in this latter scenario will there be any risk of criminal action (and that would be against the doctors, not the mother) and that would only occur if the courts found that the police had improperly taken the decision - the police themselves had breached the legal framework governing public decision making, i.e. the court would have found that there was serious wrong-doing in the process of handling this matter, a wrong-doing that was serious enough to merit censure. Call it, if you will, the equivalent of finding police activity "unconstitutional".
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
quote:
Yes, a foetus is a bit more than an appendix. Well, after 12 or so weeks I'd guess, once it's got all the requisite physical bits. Before that it's a clump of cells.
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:
Everyone knows that the key question here is when a bunch of cells become a person.
I must say that I find the rhetoric about a foetus being a "bunch of cells" unconvincing. One does not cease to be a multi-cellular organism when one reaches 12 weeks in the womb or passes through the birth canal.
Clearly a wanted foetus is a precious gift of God whereas an unwanted foetus is a clump of cells. The status of the foetus is therefore, according to those on the pro-choice side, entirely contingent upon the subjective attitude of the mother towards it. The unborn child is reduced to a consumer durable with a sale or return guarantee should it prove inconvienient.
What is surprising is that pro-choice types tend to be on the left when the pro-choice position is clearly the reductio ad absurdum of free market capitalism.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
From a logical standpoint, if you support abortion being legally available for however long it is so in whatever state or country in which you happen to reside, then you can't quibble about why people choose to do so.
However, from a personal ethical standpoint, you might say that it is morally wrong to abort a planned child that you could otherwise care for for being "defective". This would be more morally culpable (in the same way that there are degrees of murder) than aborting because you got pregnant accidentally and the father has said you're on your own. That's the distinction that I'm instinctively feeling needs to be made, from a personal standpoint. That said, it is clear to me that there are some things, such as anencephaly or Tay Sachs disease, which absolutely justify abortion, as they are hopeless conditions.
I happen to support continued legal access to abortion, though I would limit that access to up to 16 weeks (viability has crept backward in such a way as to make the 24 month mark anachronistic). I think simplistic equations of abortion with the Holocaust overlook that many cultures operating under recognizable ethical principles have from allowed abortion and clearly differentiated legally between the born human and the unborn human.
In the end, the first question has to be whether abortion per se is ever justified, and the rest follows. Even the strongest opponents of abortion I know would authorize it only for severe fatal fetal anomalies, and so (except for those who would not support this sort of abortion) we all really agree, it's just a matter of where upon the spectrum we fall.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Callan:
Clearly a wanted foetus is a precious gift of God whereas an unwanted foetus is a clump of cells. The status of the foetus is therefore, according to those on the pro-choice side, entirely contingent upon the subjective attitude of the mother towards it. The unborn child is reduced to a consumer durable with a sale or return guarantee should it prove inconvienient.
What is surprising is that pro-choice types tend to be on the left when the pro-choice position is clearly the reductio ad absurdum of free market capitalism.
Sorry to piddle in your beer, but you vastly oversimplfy the so-called "pro-choice" position. I would be, as one in favor of continued legal access to abortion, technically "pro-choice", though I don't like to use such euphemisms, and I would agree with most so-called "pro-life"rs that the fetus is not "just a clump of cells," but rather a unique human organism imbued with the necessary characteristics and programming to become an entirely unique human individual. Is it exactly of the same value as a born, grown up human woman? I believe it is not -- it cannot live without placenta and womb. Does it have some intrinsic moral value? I would say that it does.
Further, you belittle the women who have made the decision to terminate by casting the decision in solely commercial terms. I can assure you that though it might be this way for some women, it is certainly not for all.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jenny*:
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
To be pernickety, if contraception has been used with confidence, the morning after pill wouldn't come into the equation as it would only be a missed period or early morning sickness that would alert a woman to the fact that she was pregnant.
But the morning after pill is indeed rising in popularity and availability.
OOT
ok, I understand what you are saying, but what do you say about a condom spliting?
J
Indeed, this is the obvious case when the morning after pill would be recommended. I am not a condom expert and could not tell you how often they split. But I wouldn't have thought it can be that often as they're still pretty popular (and promoted as the next best method to avoid sexually transmitted diseases after abstinence).
I have thought through the case of the morning after pill and think I would recommend it to teenagers I work with. Although such a dose of hormones is not great for the body, I personally think that someone who is pretty young to have a baby would do better to avoid pregnancy, even with the option of giving a baby up for adoption. The thing with the morning after pill is that there will never be a knowledge if a pregnancy was imminent or not. It is effective before the embryo (if present) has reached that 14 day splitting date for twins which was debated here recently. It is similar to the other brands of the pill which work by stopping the embryo attaching to the womb.
But I don't have a firm opinion on when the cells/embryo/fetus has life and rights or how these balance with the woman's rights. And I get by with this being pretty hazy to be honest. My main priority is for care and concern for all involved whatever decisions are made.
OOT
--------------------
Though the bleak sky is burdened I'll pray anyway,
And though irony's drained me I'll now try sincere,
And whoever it was that brought me here
Will have to take me home. Martyn Joseph
Posts: 979 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Callan:
What is surprising is that pro-choice types tend to be on the left when the pro-choice position is clearly the reductio ad absurdum of free market capitalism.
?
Its more taking individual liberty and equality very seriously - which despite the bletherings of conservativces has always been more of a left-wing than a right-wing thing.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Mr. Callan: that was the point I wished to make, only you put it much better than I did. The life of a human being ought not to be contingent upon being desired by another human being, upon being 'planned' or upon being 'wanted'. It has often seemed to me that since Roe vs Wade went through, with the slogan 'every child a wanted child' (Is your child on the Most Wanted List?) there has been a greatly increased tendency to view children as commodities. They may be the most desirable accessories, they need to be perfect, people who want one have a right to have one, they can, indeed, be bought and sold. The 'wanted' baby who is miscarried at 24 weeks is given a funeral; the unwanted one is medical waste.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The life of a human being ought not to be contingent upon being desired by another human being, upon being 'planned' or upon being 'wanted'. It has often seemed to me that since Roe vs Wade went through, with the slogan 'every child a wanted child' (Is your child on the Most Wanted List?) there has been a greatly increased tendency to view children as commodities.
Well that's the problem with Sasha's post about addign up the bad things and good things that happen in someone's life ansd saying that they should not have been born if the bad exceeds the good.
She's making exactly the same error as the woman she blames for "enjoying them while she can". Not thinking of the sick child as person in their own right but only as an object, something contemplated and desired by others.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Amos, I never do this, so understand the significance of it: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) That's my biggest problem in this whole thing -- the status of the unborn child rests solely on the mother's desires. If she wants it, it's a person; if she doesn't want it, it's a parasitical clump of cells. I can't get past the unbelievable selfishness of that position.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Erin, I only rarely do this: You have nutshelled my position precisely.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Well that's the problem with Sasha's post about addign up the bad things and good things that happen in someone's life ansd saying that they should not have been born if the bad exceeds the good.
She's making exactly the same error as the woman she blames for "enjoying them while she can". Not thinking of the sick child as person in their own right but only as an object, something contemplated and desired by others. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Number one: I was using the percentages as an examle of parents and doctors trying to predict the expected quality of life of a fetus so I could hardly be adding up the bad and good things in retrospect to say that someone should never have been born.
Number two: Objects don't feel pain. Why would I be so concerned about the quality of life and the expected amount of pain a disease might cause if I looked upon the child as an object? "Contemplated and desired by others"? What on earth are you even talking about? Who wants other people to desire their child?
This ridiculous insistence on the part of some of you to make this discussion (which BTW left "cleft palate" a page and a half ago) into a case of people wanting tall blond children with high IQ's is very silly. This is not a science fiction movie about creating the perfect specimen. We are talking about whether or not it is morally right to abort babies who face a life of serious disability or disease. It's not about appearance at all.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Gosh, my posts were completely invisible! Or the points I made in response to these very charges so poorly made that they weren't worth addressing!
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Amos, I never do this, so understand the significance of it: That's my biggest problem in this whole thing -- the status of the unborn child rests solely on the mother's desires. If she wants it, it's a person; if she doesn't want it, it's a parasitical clump of cells. I can't get past the unbelievable selfishness of that position.
Again, this completely oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the position of every person I know who favors legal access to abortion, for the reasons I set forth above.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I'm not so sure it does -- after all, several people have stated on this very thread that it's nothing but a clump of cells.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
So? You can generalize from them to the entire group of people who support legal access to abortion? Do some people who abort at 8 weeks think of it as a clump of cells (or "products of conception", as it is known euphemistically at clinics)? Maybe -- I don't know. But that the supporters of legal access all think this is a straw man.
I'll even hang it out there and say that I think it's a baby once it can live on its own, and I still think that termination can be proper under very limited circumstances.
Anyway, both the "clump of cells" and the "baby from day 1" crowds are wrong.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Ok, lots to answer.
quote:
Barrea said:
I don't agree that it is a womans right to choose to get rid of an unborn child for any reason. It might be your opinion, but who gave her that right, Certainly not God.
Who gives us most, if not all of our rights? Society. Us, collectively. God does not give us the right to own property, for example, that right is given to society by society. Rights are agreed in a social contract, between all those who go to make up a society.
E.g. In this society (UK) adults have the right to own property. If someone removes my property, society punishes them for violating my right.
Ask most people out there, and God does not give them a right to life, society does. Just like it gives them the right to self-defense, and to decide what happens to their own body.
quote:
DOD asked:
I think I believe that women should have a pretty absolute right to choose in the first trimester. It does not follow from this that all exercises of choice are equally morally praiseworthy.
Yes, I agree. Legally right does not necessarily equal morally right. Unfortunately there is precious little way of telling whether a person is having an abortion for morally right reasons, even if we could all agree on what is morally right. Shades of grey are so darned hard to divide into black or white. And, since we cannot tell, I support allowing people to choose. It's not an easy decision, and choosing either way has serious consequences.
quote:
DOD adds:
But I don't think it is self-evident that the woman's rights are determinative in the case of late abortions where we are plausibly dealing with a sentient entity.
This is why I disagree with abortions after a certain period of time. The foetus is viable, is pretty much recognisably a person, is sentient in some degree, etc. etc.
quote:
Hel asks:
When do Ship Mates generally think that the woman's right to choose becomes less than a baby's right to live? I have come to believe each has a sliding scale, however.
The sliding scale continues after birth - in the UK a mother who kills her less than 6 month old baby receives a reduced sentence. Not entirely sure the reasoning, but I believe that it's partly because she is considered to be less-than-rational due to hormones and changes and whatnot, and partly because the baby is still considered to be a less than full rights-bearer.
Then again, children are less-than-full rights bearers. From conception to 18 (in UK; 25 in USA; similar ages elsewhere), humans are gradually accorded more and more rights, until the magic, arbitrary age of maturity when they are accorded full rights.
quote:
Laura remarks:
However, from a personal ethical standpoint, you might say that it is morally wrong to abort a planned child that you could otherwise care for for being "defective". This would be more morally culpable (in the same way that there are degrees of murder) than aborting because you got pregnant accidentally and the father has said you're on your own. That's the distinction that I'm instinctively feeling needs to be made, from a personal standpoint.
Yes.
And yet no, sort of ![[Biased]](wink.gif) We will all disagree what is "defective" and what is "morally right". How severe must "defective" be before we agree that it's ok to abort?
quote:
Erin opines:
The status of the unborn child rests solely on the mother's desires. If she wants it, it's a person; if she doesn't want it, it's a parasitical clump of cells. I can't get past the unbelievable selfishness of that position.
And the status of a born child rests solely on the mother's (or care giver's etc.) wishes. If it is wanted and liked currently, then it gets attention, love, toys, needs met etc. If care giver is too busy, or tired, or involved in own life, or whatever, then the born child does not get good stuff.
Parents, heck, adults are fundamentally selfish creatures. Having children is a selfish thing, yet no one appears to be wanting to regulate parents who are keeping the kid. Lots in society argue that people should not abort, and should keep the child, but turn a blind eye to how it is dragged up.
Personally I'd go for contraceptives in the water supply, or forcible sterilization for everyone, and then allow a pregnancy when a person/couple have demonstrated good parenting skills
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
So? You can generalize from them to the entire group of people who support legal access to abortion? Do some people who abort at 8 weeks think of it as a clump of cells (or "products of conception", as it is known euphemistically at clinics)? Maybe -- I don't know. But that the supporters of legal access all think this is a straw man.
If you don't view it as a clump of cells, then what do you see it as? You surely do NOT see it as a child, given that to do so would imply that you support infanticide. So what is it, then?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
And the status of a born child rests solely on the mother's (or care giver's etc.) wishes.
Erm, what the hell are you talking about? In the US, and I would imagine most other civilized countries, if the mother decides to drown her born child, she's going to be brought up on the same charges she would be if she murdered a forty-year-old man (or found criminally insane, whichever applies). However, if she doesn't want the child while it's still in utero, it's just a pesky inconvenience that can be taken care of with a trip to the physician.
If she DOES want the pregnancy and decides to carry it to term, then suddenly the child begins to count. I seem to recall more than one case where someone has stood trial for killing an otherwise viable fetus in utero. What the hell is the difference?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pânts*
Ship's underwear
# 4487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Personally I'd go for contraceptives in the water supply, or forcible sterilization for everyone, and then allow a pregnancy when a person/couple have demonstrated good parenting skills
Sarkycow
--------------------
I'm not here any more. Dial 999 to get me. (No. Please don't really. Bit you could PM me on my new number cos I never get PMs!)
Posts: 8380 | From: The Stables | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
So? You can generalize from them to the entire group of people who support legal access to abortion? Do some people who abort at 8 weeks think of it as a clump of cells (or "products of conception", as it is known euphemistically at clinics)? Maybe -- I don't know. But that the supporters of legal access all think this is a straw man.
If you don't view it as a clump of cells, then what do you see it as? You surely do NOT see it as a child, given that to do so would imply that you support infanticide. So what is it, then?
Wow. There's nothing between "just a clump of cells" and "baby". Are you seriously asserting that there's no moral difference between shooting an adult person and aborting at 6 weeks? Why don't we have funerals for fertilized eggs that fail to attach to uterine walls?
If you, Erin, who are not hesitant to recognize moral grey areas in other matters of concern that the Church may not entirely agree with you on, really sees no such distinction, then I am at a loss.
Anyway, go black and white if it pleases you. I'll bite. Yes, if abortion is is infanticide, then I find it acceptable up to 16 weeks under a legal doctrine I'll invent for the purpose, derived from the defenses that already exist to killing -- in war, in self-defense, in mistake, in accident.
[ 02. December 2003, 19:05: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
That is NOT what I asked you. I asked you what it was, then, if it was neither a clump of cells nor a child.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Proto-human.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
That is NOT what I asked you. I asked you what it was, then, if it was neither a clump of cells nor a child.
It's a zygote and since I had an IUD for a few years (works by preventing zygotes from implanting in the uterus) I guess that makes me a mass murderer. No wonder Ken thinks I'm evil.
Whenever these discussions get going and then men start passing judgement on the women who are pro-choice I always wonder:
If a zygote is so much more than a bunch of cells because of it's human potential, then why does no one care if a man wastes hundreds of sperm on a nightly basis? Isn't each sperm a bunch of cells with human potential?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Sorry, Erin, I misunderstood your question.
I do think it is something else that ultimately becomes a born human with full rights. I think there's a time frame the very early end of which it's more of a very special developing clump of cells (more important than "just a clump"), and toward the end of which is a full human being.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pants:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Personally I'd go for contraceptives in the water supply, or forcible sterilization for everyone, and then allow a pregnancy when a person/couple have demonstrated good parenting skills
Sarkycow
Please tell me you are both being sarcastic here...
Otherwise I am absolutely horrified.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pânts*
Ship's underwear
# 4487
|
Posted
have you met some of the parents of some of the children i teach. will you meet the children of children who are having children when they are 13 or 14. it is a completley different issue to the one being discussed here though. so we wont go there. dunno about sarky, but i think there should be something done. dunno wat. but there should be.
--------------------
I'm not here any more. Dial 999 to get me. (No. Please don't really. Bit you could PM me on my new number cos I never get PMs!)
Posts: 8380 | From: The Stables | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
That is NOT what I asked you. I asked you what it was, then, if it was neither a clump of cells nor a child.
For once I like thr French answer: personne en devenir. That is, the foetus is becoming a person (and as such deserves enormous respect and protection) but is not one yet (so does not have the full range of rights).
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
