homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion) (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  18  19  20 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote from Sasha
quote:
Erin: I hadn't specifically meant people on this thread thought women should have as many babies as possible. It's just a guess I'm making about some of the more conservative Ship-mates. Maybe not.
Making guesses about what other people think can lead to furious arguments.

It's really not a good idea.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20263 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Moo -that's why I didn't name, names.

OOT's amazing statistic of 150,000 abortions and 5000 adoptions makes me think we really do have the wrong end of the stick when we get worked up over exactly what justifies an abortion and exactly when it's okay, although I do think Karl's sliding scale is the right way to go.

We really, really need to tell young women that they simply must take charge of their own bodies and use reliable (99% effective) birth control. I think the main reason we're having so much trouble getting this point accross is that as soon as anyone brings this up, as I once did on this board, a huge backlash of anger errupts saying basically -Why put it all on the girl? It takes two to make a baby! You probably want to kick her out in the snow!

Well, yes it does take two but the girl pays the biggest consequences and only the girl has a reliable source of birth control that can be used in advance in the sober light of day. I think the false promise of condoms is one of the main reasons for those huge abortion numbers.

Scot; I found this site yesterday when the same question came to my mind. It indicates that the newer IUD's work mainly through hormone secretions that prevent the sperm from traveling up to the egg.

It's ironic that since the fairly recent development of the pill, unwanted pregnancies have soared. If women could keep this figure low before the new birth control methods they should have no trouble at all now, but we do have to hold them responsible and quit encouraging them to take a passive role and blame the guy later.

Posts: 6723 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hel
Shipmate
# 5248

 - Posted      Profile for Hel   Email Hel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
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.

I was referring only to humans. I'm not sure why I'm replying though...you're obviously being pedantic for pedantic's sake, and I think my comments are probably a whole different thread...
Posts: 667 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
I don't believe that the 'punishment' for or consequences of having unprotected sex should be possible forced parenthood. Do you?

Uh, yeah, as a matter of fact I do.
Few 'crimes' let alone stupid mistakes bring a 'punishment' of such bodily discomfort and pain or commit a person to 16 years of childcare.

It is not a punishment - it is a result.

If, however, you consider it to be "crime" and "punishment" - If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

--------------------
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: 7758 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hel:
I was referring only to humans. I'm not sure why I'm replying though...you're obviously being pedantic for pedantic's sake, and I think my comments are probably a whole different thread...

I'm not "obviously" being anything -- life is a very distinct biological definition, and you were throwing around the word like you had no idea what you were talking about.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Erin: I'm sorry, I didn't see that you had already used the line in my last post.

General question: Why is it not OK to tell people not to have sex if they are not prepared to have kids? Sometimes I think the invention of "reliable" birth control was man's biggest mistake.

I wish someone would start a thread on taking responsibility for one's actions instead of blaming it on someone/something else.

--------------------
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: 7758 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
Many couples who have a family history of inherited disease are seeking genetic counseling before having children.
I think that can be a very good thing. I think some diseases, like breast cancer, deserve to die out.

But what's that got to do with abortion?

Contraception, yes, fine.

Have family planning clinics in every town that hand out free contraceptives to everyone who walks in, no questions asked.

Hand out condoms to 14-year-old boys in school.

Have giant boxes of them sitting around on street corners. They are wonderful things - they stop the spread of diseases, they prevent unwanted pregnancies, and silly little kids of all ages can have great fun blowing them up.

Make sure no-one gets to the age of puberty without having had a serious amount of sex education. Every 12-year-old shoudl know not only ewxactly where babies come from, but half-adozen ways to prevent it. If their parents object on religious grounds, tell them to get stuffed.
Parents don't own their children. A teenager should be free to learn things their parents don't want them to learn.

All that's nothing to do with abortion, killing a foetus already concieved. Someone who has the good snese to go to genetic counselling and makes a rational decision npt to hav children because they don;t want to pass on a disease, is surely the last person who is going to look for abortion for an unplanned pregnancy?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
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).

Pure pedantry, but that's not the case in England. There is - and has been for centuries AFAIK - a charge of infanticide which is not the same as murder. Only applies to mothers killing their own babies I think.

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 03. December 2003, 18:16: Message edited by: Tortuf ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ponty'n'pop
Shipmate
# 5198

 - Posted      Profile for Ponty'n'pop   Email Ponty'n'pop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Ken:
quote:
If their parents object on religious grounds, tell them to get stuffed. Parents don't own their children. A teenager should be free to learn things their parents don't want them to learn.

Notwithstanding the common sense of your argument, what if the children object on religious grounds? Should a teenager be free to be ignorant about something they don't want to learn?

--------------------
"....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
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081

 - Posted      Profile for Ophelia's Opera Therapist   Author's homepage   Email Ophelia's Opera Therapist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:
We really, really need to tell young women that they simply must take charge of their own bodies and use reliable (99% effective) birth control. I think the main reason we're having so much trouble getting this point accross is that as soon as anyone brings this up, as I once did on this board, a huge backlash of anger errupts saying basically -Why put it all on the girl? It takes two to make a baby! You probably want to kick her out in the snow!

Well, yes it does take two but the girl pays the biggest consequences and only the girl has a reliable source of birth control that can be used in advance in the sober light of day. I think the false promise of condoms is one of the main reasons for those huge abortion numbers.

I agree that we should be strongly advising effective birth control for any woman who is sexually active but not wanting to become pregnant. However, the rates of STDs in the UK are even higher than the abortion numbers. More statistics can be found at source but adding up totals for Syphillis, Gonorroea, Chlamydia, Herpes(first attack),Warts (first attack) and HIV and AIDS gave me a figure of 202,123 new cases in 2002. (Chlamydia, while still relatively unknown counts for 81680 of these cases and can cause Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) which can lead to infertility.)

For these reasons safe sex does require the use of condoms unless you are positive your partner is 'clean'. So we should be promoting condoms to everyone in addition to other methods of contraception.

I have no idea if the 'false promises' of condoms are responsible for many abortions but as I said above, I'd think they are pretty reliable if used properly.

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      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
So is the idea that one can believe that some early abortions are immoral without believing that they should be illegal.

Yes of course. There is no automatic reason that every bad thing should be made illegal. And even if a thing is illegal there is no reason to think that everyone who does it should be prosecuted.


We don't outlaw lying or prostitution or adultery or drunkenness or using bad language. Things would probably be better if we didn't outlaw heroin, but I don't want to be a junkie myself.

It is arguable that making abortion illegal wouldn't significantly reduce the numbers of abortions - in which case there is no point in changing the law. The real way to stop abortions would be to promote contraception.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Notwithstanding the common sense of your argument, what if the children object on religious grounds? Should a teenager be free to be ignorant about something they don't want to learn?

If you've discovered a way to teach people things they don't want to learn I think you ought to let the schools know!

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 03. December 2003, 18:18: Message edited by: Tortuf ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

We don't outlaw lying or prostitution or adultery or drunkenness or using bad language.

Lying is illegal in certain circumstances (in a police investigation, in court, etc.). Prostitution is illegal in some countries (like Canada). Drunkenness is illegal in some countries (at least in public).
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

The real way to stop abortions would be to promote contraception.

Abstinence is the only 100% solution.

--------------------
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: 7758 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ponty'n'pop
Shipmate
# 5198

 - Posted      Profile for Ponty'n'pop   Email Ponty'n'pop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken says:
quote:
If you've discovered a way to teach people things they don't want to learn I think you ought to let the schools know!
I'll rephrase. Should exposure to information be compulsory, regardless of religious conviction (of the parents or children)?

(Perhaps that is now at too much of a tangent from the OP....?)

--------------------
"....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
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We don't outlaw lying or prostitution or adultery or drunkenness or using bad language. Things would probably be better if we didn't outlaw heroin, but I don't want to be a junkie myself.

Maybe not in England, but all of those things, with the exception of adultery, are illegal in at least some circumstances in the United States. And I'm sure there are one or two jurisdictions with archaic anti-adultery laws on the books.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081

 - Posted      Profile for Ophelia's Opera Therapist   Author's homepage   Email Ophelia's Opera Therapist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Few 'crimes' let alone stupid mistakes bring a 'punishment' of such bodily discomfort and pain or commit a person to 16 years of childcare.

It is not a punishment - it is a result.

If, however, you consider it to be "crime" and "punishment" - If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

And later...

General question: Why is it not OK to tell people not to have sex if they are not prepared to have kids? Sometimes I think the invention of "reliable" birth control was man's biggest mistake.

I wish someone would start a thread on taking responsibility for one's actions instead of blaming it on someone/something else.

There was a reason why I introduced the 'crime' and 'punishment' terminology. On Erin's first post on this thread she wrote:

quote:
I am pro-life AND pro-choice. Pro-choice in that I fully accept that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have sex knowing that pregnancy is the desired biological outcome of sexual intercourse. However, once she's made the choice, there are very few instances where an abortion is morally justifiable.
and later she clafiried when I asked...

quote:
And I don't believe that the 'punishment' for or consequences of having unprotected sex should be possible forced parenthood. Do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, yeah, as a matter of fact I do.

And both Erin and Sharkshooter used the 'if you can't do the time don't do the time' quote, though Erin seemed to back off once I made it clear it was not my own tendencies to shag mindlessly that I was defending.

I think it would be ridiculous and wrong to implement a policy that denied the right to emergency contraception to people who have foolishly had unprotected sex. In practical terms no-one would admit to having had unprotected sex and the condom industry would do dreadfully out of the rising numbers of inexplicably split condoms.

And likewise I cannot support the refusal of abortions to people who have made similar mistakes, regrettable though the situation is. As RooK said, people are stupid. It happens. The other point about the practicalities of increased population, need for adoption and social provision just gives more reason not to stubbornly insist that people have children they never wanted to serve them right.

Back to Sharkshooter's final points. It's fine to tell people not to have sex I guess, but is unlikely to have much effect. And aren't you infringing on some human right or other? As for starting a thread on taking responsibility for your actions, go for it.

OOT

[ 03. December 2003, 13:40: Message edited by: Ophelia's Opera Therapist ]

--------------------
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
Irish & Proud
Shipmate
# 4825

 - Posted      Profile for Irish & Proud     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Regarding the OP, the Rev Jepson is concerned that the definition of a severe disability has been abused.

When the amendments on abortion were debated in the House of Commons several years ago, concerns were raised from many MPs that this clause could be open to abuse and that even something as mild as a cleft palate may be used as grounds for a 3rd trimester abortion. At the time these concerns were rubbished. Miss Jepson, from what I have read regarding the case, is concerned that this was what happened in this case and believes that there should be better definition.

On the whole the police will be reluctant to prosecute the doctors in a case like this as will the courts. A judicial review is probably the best place to review a situation like this, due to the scope of judgements open to them as detailed by Dyfrig (I think).

Regarding the morality of Abortion, I would be pro-choice in that I do not believe I can impose my beliefs on the matter on anyone else.

However, I do not understand how anyone could make the decision to terminate a pregnancy unless the mother's life was in immediate danger. I understand that it is a very emotive choice and is not one that can be taken lightly. As a result of this my wife and I discussed quite some time ago, our opinions and therefore what our decision would be if we were ever in the situation where someone offered an abortion to us.

We did use an IUD as a method of birth control prior to having our daughter. After reading some of the posts above, we will be careful to choose the type which prevents sperm & egg getting together rather than allowing conception.

I struggle with the concept of a sliding scale. What, for example, is the difference between 24 weeks and 23 weeks 6 days? If you say nothing, then all I need to do is keep sliding the scale back (or forward) until I come to the 2 extremes of the moment of conception and the moment of child birth. When it comes to this choice I will go with the moment of conception.

Regarding the quality of life in a profoundly disabled person, I would recommend that anyone reads 'The Path to Peace' by Henri Nouwen and look at the descriptions of Adam, one of the residents at L'Arche. I would also recommend that you go and spend some time with someone who is profoundly disabled, and discover how much quality they have.

Posts: 221 | From: Somewhere with not enough rain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ken quote;
quote:
Hand out condoms to 14-year-old boys in school.
Have giant boxes of them sitting around on street corners. They are wonderful things - they stop the spread of diseases, they prevent unwanted pregnancies, and silly little kids of all ages can have great fun blowing them up.

Thank you ken for demonstrating exactly what I mean by the false promise of condoms. This enthusiasm for condoms has been the backbone of sex education for the past twenty years and the teen pregnancy rate has been soaring the whole time.

Girls hear this message in the classroom and from their magazines so that when they go to a party with their boyfriend and he says, "Don't worry about getting pregnant, I have a condom", she believes him. Never mind that, good disease protection that they are, they do not have good birth control statistics at all, nevermind that later in the evening when he's drunk he will probably either use it improperly or forget to take it out of his pocket in the first place.

Yes, boys should still be told to use condoms and disease prevention is important but as birth contro it's simply not working. We need to wake up from this mind set. Girls should be strongly encouraged to take protection into their own hands. If she is sexually active, she should be taking the pill or getting a tri-monthly shot or some other method that is at least 99% effective and that is in her own hands in the sober light of day.

Posts: 6723 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373

 - Posted      Profile for Rat   Email Rat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Do you have any reason to think that other countries (Holland springs to mind) where teenage pregnancy rates are not rising promote other methods of contraception over condoms?

If not, then I think your emphasis on the unreliability of condoms may be overstated. They are, after all, pretty effective (94-96%?) and do provide the only available protection against STDs. There may be other reasons why UK sex education policy is not working (I agree that it isn't at the moment).

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
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A married couple I know are aware that they both carry the gene for a certain very serious lifelong disability that has a 50% chance of occurring in every child they have and is detectible early in the pregnancy. They learned about the problem after the birth of their seriously handicapped first child. However, rather than considering adoption or calling it quits, they went ahead and had a second child, who is similarly afflicted. The last time I spoke with them they complained roundly about the lack of free daycare, the fact that their health insurance doesn’t cover all of expensive procedures these kids will need for the rest of their lives, and the exorbitant cost of residential placement should something happen to them. Oh, and they mentioned the possibility of “trying again” with a third baby.

I hope we can agree that the couplet about doing the crime and doing the time is equally applicable in their case.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

The real way to stop abortions would be to promote contraception. Abstinence is the only 100% solution.

For the parents, yes.

But we're not them - we're trying to stop other people aborting their babies.

You get dangerously near thehypocritical attitude that it is better that sinners kill their babies than that saints dare to condone contraception.

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 03. December 2003, 18:20: Message edited by: Tortuf ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sasha:


Girls should be strongly encouraged to take protection into their own hands. If she is sexually active, she should be taking the pill or getting a tri-monthly shot or some other method that is at least 99% effective and that is in her own hands in the sober light of day. [/QUOTE]

Well of course. Did I say otherwise?

But our society constructs sex as part of the female realm and encourages males not to think about it as other than entertainment. Boys are, I think, much more likely to be ignorant of such things than girls. And much more likely to assume that its her business than vice-versa.

The main reason that condoms should be promoted is to get over the embarrassment factor so such things can be talked about openly.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385

 - Posted      Profile for Flying_Belgian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The discussion seems to be getting focussed on the general issue of abortion. From what I have seen of the coverage, and of this debate, most of the defence of the abortion seems to be on a general "woman have a right to an abortion and other people should not get involved" type view.

Is anyone willing to justify the abortion on different grounds? Is there a shipmate out there who doesn't believe that individuals automatically have the right to decide, who would limit abortions to certain cases- but who thinks that the cleft palate is an example of such "acceptable" circumstances?

I find it hard to think of a perspective other than "a woman has a right to an abortion if she wants one" that could justify carrying out the abortion.

It seems that the debate has focussed on the normative issue- i.e. whether abortion is morally acceptable or not; rather than the positive issue- what does the law say on this particular case.

As I understand it, the case was brought because the Rev Jepson was unhappy with the interpretation of the law; rather than as part of a wider crusade against abortion.

Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I hope we can agree that the couplet about doing the crime and doing the time is equally applicable in their case.

Absolutely. If you choose to bring a child into this world (and that DOES extend all the way back to making the choice to have sex in the first place) then said child is your responsibility. Period, end of story.

OOT, I haven't backed off, you have. You admitted you were fighting a position you didn't actually endorse. However, just to reiterate my stance: I still believe with every fiber of my being that it is beyond reprehensible to kill an unborn child just because his/her parents are irresponsible.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Genie
Shipmate
# 3282

 - Posted      Profile for Genie   Email Genie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Condoms are not that effective if the, ahem, appendage in question is not of a fairly standard dimension, even taking into account the different sizes available. Whilst waiting for a suitable time in the monthly cycle to begin the tri-monthly injection, we used condoms a few times. Every single one split. (And can I say that it's really quite painful when that happens!) These were bought especially for the purpose at the time of a reputable brand from a reputable chemist, so there was no issue of perishing and we were careful in application (particularly after the first surprise). The only thing we could think of to explain it is that my husband is a tall man with large hands and I'm a very lucky woman.

--------------------
Alleluia, Christ is risen!

Posts: 762 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081

 - Posted      Profile for Ophelia's Opera Therapist   Author's homepage   Email Ophelia's Opera Therapist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The position I was fighting but didn't endorse was an anti-adoption stance. I still believe whole-heartedly that, regrettable though I believe abortion is, it can be the right decision and should be supported in certain circumstances.

My definition of these circumstances includes foolish lack of contraception if the mother makes an informed choice to have an early termination, though I would much prefer emergency contraception to be used.

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
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If you choose to bring a child into this world (and that DOES extend all the way back to making the choice to have sex in the first place) then said child is your responsibility. Period, end of story.

My question still stands unanswered. How does this standard allow for the intentional destruction of a fertilized egg?

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9513 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373

 - Posted      Profile for Rat   Email Rat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can only reiterate that we don't know the circumstances of this particular case. I think that is why the discussion keeps moving over to generalities.

I did quick search on the internet (I am supposed to be working after all) and could only find sites which discussed cleft palates in terms of something easily correctable in early childhood. However, on the radio last night a woman from the BMA said that the severity of the condition could range from this to having no roof to the mouth at all, leaving part of the brain dangerously vulnerable.* This would require repeated surgery throughout childhood and adolecence to adulthood. I would assume, from a position of only slight anatomical knowledge, that such a condition would make eating and speaking almost impossible until a lot of the reconstruction had been done.

We don't know whether this was the situation in this case. Personally I find the whole issue of 'abortion for disabilty' and pre-judging quality of life fraught with difficulty, so I'd be reluctant to pronounce on the acceptability or otherwise of this particular abortion even if it did turn out to be the worst possible scenario.

During the course of this thread, I've slowly come round to the idea that a judicial review of this case may be no bad thing - presumably whoever carries it out will have all the facts available to them.

Rat

* I'm paraphrasing, obviously.

[This was in answer to Flying Belgian, I crossposted with loads of people]

[ 03. December 2003, 15:57: Message edited by: 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
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Scot wrote: My question still stands unanswered. How does this standard allow for the intentional destruction of a fertilized egg?

If that's the standard one has adopted, then I don't see how it could allow for the intentional destruction of a fertilized egg.

Oh, and Genie, now you're just bragging -- like my friend who complains that can't seem to gain any weight or that her eyelashes are so long that they're always brushing up against her glasses. [Biased]

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I did quick search on the internet (I am supposed to be working after all) and could only find sites which discussed cleft palates in terms of something easily correctable in early childhood. However, on the radio last night a woman from the BMA said that the severity of the condition could range from this to having no roof to the mouth at all, leaving part of the brain dangerously vulnerable.* This would require repeated surgery throughout childhood and adolecence to adulthood. I would assume, from a position of only slight anatomical knowledge, that such a condition would make eating and speaking almost impossible until a lot of the reconstruction had been done
I realise that this thread is not all about me but:

My complaint was somewhere in the middle of this dichtotomy. What happened in my case (and I admit this is a bit gross) but food used to go inside my nose - sometimes coming down ny nose and sometimes back into my mouth. My nose, teeth, palet and lip have all been disfigured and I am still (at nearly 27) undergoing surgery although this is partially due to a reluctance on the part of my parents to get my condition adequately seen to by the relavent doctor-people.

I suppose that is is why I acted so strongly to the OP. I did not realise, prior to certain posts on the thread, that the condition could be fatal in Western society where we do have health care etc. I assumed that I was one of the more severe cases. Both suprised and humbled to discover that I am not.

If the baby was going to die anyway that maybe an abortion was for the best. I honestly don't know anymore.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If you choose to bring a child into this world (and that DOES extend all the way back to making the choice to have sex in the first place) then said child is your responsibility. Period, end of story.

My question still stands unanswered. How does this standard allow for the intentional destruction of a fertilized egg?
I'm sorry, I thought it was pretty clear that it doesn't.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Then you are opposed to the use of birth control pills on the grounds that they function by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg?

[ 03. December 2003, 16:15: Message edited by: Scot ]

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9513 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Erm, nope, because birth control pills prevent ovulation, rather than implantation.

--------------------
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      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[[This is great. Keep it up. We really, really need to beat this horse, so that we'll finally have an abortion debate thread worthy of the Dead Horse board.]]

Erin,

As a practical matter, do you have any suggestions about what will be done with the millions of disabled and racial-minority children who will not be adopted after the implementation of the Human Life Amendment? We know that the little white and probably the hispanic babies will be quickly adopted (since it has become nearly impossible to adopt such children in the United States right now), but the black and disabled will languish in the orphanages that will have to be built and supported by the state.

I realize that this is a separate issue from whether abortion is murder at any stage, but I think it's worth considering the likely side affects of the new law.

In general, I can't for the life of me figure out what is so repellent about a sliding scale way of understanding a phenomenon that is a sliding scale. Sure, there's not much difference between 23 and 24 weeks (though I wouldn't allow abortion at either point); but between six weeks and 24 weeks there's a huge difference, and I dob't see why we can't make distinctions based on such differences. We live with all kinds of bright line rules that are hard to make, like when is someone "intoxicated" for the purposes of DUI/DWI? .05 in some states, .08 in others, .1 in some? That's not really fair, that it's so arbitrary, but a line had to be drawn.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll have to go read up. It's been some years since I was first instructed in such things, but I thought I remembered that they worked by preventing implantation. If I've remembered wrong, I'll go spend the day dragging my foot out of my mouth.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9513 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Erm, nope, because birth control pills prevent ovulation, rather than implantation.

OCs and IUD's also act to prevent implantation when fertilization occurs. OC's work in three ways:

1) Supressing ovulation
2) preventing implantation and
3) thickening cervical mucus so that the sperm get depressed, tired and confused, and go back to watching football.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I'll have to go read up. It's been some years since I was first instructed in such things, but I thought I remembered that they worked by preventing implantation. If I've remembered wrong, I'll go spend the day dragging my foot out of my mouth.

No need. I looked it up, as you can see, and you are right. This is why some very serious life begins at conception people oppose OCs and IUDs.
See here for support: Utah med school seminar on activity of OCs and GP notebook.

[adding support for contention]

[ 03. December 2003, 16:26: Message edited by: Laura ]

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Get some ketchup or maple syrup or something ready. [Big Grin] From mayoclinic.com:

quote:
How does it work?

The birth control pill impedes pregnancy by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). If eggs aren't released, sperm can't fertilize them and pregnancy can't occur. The pill also thickens your cervical mucus, making it difficult for sperm to reach the eggs.



--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jonah the Whale

Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244

 - Posted      Profile for Jonah the Whale   Email Jonah the Whale   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I'll have to go read up. It's been some years since I was first instructed in such things, but I thought I remembered that they worked by preventing implantation. If I've remembered wrong, I'll go spend the day dragging my foot out of my mouth.

I think you are right Scot. Although the first contraceptive pills did work by suppressing ovulation there is a lot of evidence that the lower dosage pills used nowadays work more often than not by suppressing implantation rather than ovulation.
Posts: 2795 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
We know that the little white and probably the hispanic babies will be quickly adopted (since it has become nearly impossible to adopt such children in the United States right now), but the black and disabled will languish in the orphanages that will have to be built and supported by the state.

I realize that this is a separate issue from whether abortion is murder at any stage, but I think it's worth considering the likely side affects of the new law.

No, it's not. If you believe that it is murder (and, quite frankly, I do), then what you are proposing is some weird form of eugenics. "Let's let abortion happen because no one wants the little black and disabled babies"??? Please tell me that you did not seriously just say that!

--------------------
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      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Erin, I just posted two sites that add "prevent implantation". Are they lying?

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oopsie, here's a Catholic pregnancy center warning that birth control chemicals prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs and are to be avoided by those who wish to prevent fertilization.

Here

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know. I just posted a cite from the most reputable medical foundation in the world. Is it lying?

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jonah the Whale

Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244

 - Posted      Profile for Jonah the Whale   Email Jonah the Whale   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies for being slow off the mark.
Posts: 2795 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
We know that the little white and probably the hispanic babies will be quickly adopted (since it has become nearly impossible to adopt such children in the United States right now), but the black and disabled will languish in the orphanages that will have to be built and supported by the state.

I realize that this is a separate issue from whether abortion is murder at any stage, but I think it's worth considering the likely side affects of the new law.

No, it's not. If you believe that it is murder (and, quite frankly, I do), then what you are proposing is some weird form of eugenics. "Let's let abortion happen because no one wants the little black and disabled babies"??? Please tell me that you did not seriously just say that!
No, no, no. I think abortion because of disability is generally reprehensible and morally wrong. I would not do it. And I think you know why. [Big Grin]

No, I was just thinking out loud about the future warehouses of unplaceable children. I would hope that the government will pony up and make sure they get the love they need.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't think you thought that, but that's how it came across to me, hence the "please tell me you didn't just say that!"

I just have a real hard time understanding the argument of "well, it's going to cost us a lot of money, so let's just kill it". That, to me, is a symptom of a culture whose priorities are out of whack.

--------------------
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      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's the Council of Catholic Bishops who seem to think OCs are abortifacients.

I shouldn't have made that crack about Mayo, but I've used their website, and they tend to report some but not all things about certain things -- of course, OCs work chiefly by preventing fertilization, but I just did a sweep google for "How do OCs prevent pregnancy" and came up with a million web-hits from college info pages on contraception, which all begin, "The Pill prevents pregnancy in three ways..." I don't think Mayo is lying, they're just leaving some information out.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the other thing to remember is that in practice, OCs have a failure rate of 3-7%, which means that fertilizations while on the pill do take place. Ergo, if fertilizations take place, pregnancies occur when those fertilized eggs get to implant, which they mostly don't.

Ugh, overcome by tiredness. Back later.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16882 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
As a practical matter, do you have any suggestions about what will be done with the millions of disabled and racial-minority children who will not be adopted after the implementation of the Human Life Amendment?

The mother and the father raise them.

--------------------
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: 7758 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Preventing implantation may be a secondary effect, but the pill's primary purpose is to prevent ovulation. It CAN be used to prevent implantation -- for instance, an off-label use of it for day after contraception is to take I think three pills every day for a week (or something like that) -- but, as I said, it is prescribed to stop ovulation.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  18  19  20 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools