|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I can't find a direct quote to link to, and I don't have a copy handy, but the PDR reportedly confirms that oral contraceptives (particularly the progesterone-only methods) function primarily by preventing ovulation, but also by blocking sperm and preventing implantation.
--------------------
“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: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081
|
Posted
I'm guessing OCs are oral contraceptives. The UK sites I've been looking at differentiate between the Combined Pill (oestrogen & progesterone) and the Progesterone only pill.
quote:
The main way the [Combined] pill works is:
It stops your ovaries releasing an egg each month (ovulation). It also:
thickens the mucus from your cervix. This makes it difficult for sperm to move through it and reach an egg.
makes the lining of your womb thinner so it is less likely to accept a fertilised egg.
quote:
How does the POP [Progesterone only pill] work?
The pill works in a number of ways:
It works mainly by thickening the mucus from your cervix. This makes it difficult for sperm to move through it and reach an egg.
It makes the lining of your womb thinner so it is less likely to accept a fertilised egg.
It sometimes stops your ovaries releasing an egg (ovulation).
Source - Family Planning Association.
So it looks like it depends on the kind of pill you use (one site said there are over 300 types), but that either pill may cause a fertilised egg to be rejected by the progesterone thinned womb lining.
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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
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.
Ha HA HA! Oho! Ha! Ha ha ha! (Ouch!)
In many cases, the father and mother are entirely unsuitable to raise children, and ought to, absolutely ought to put the child up for adoption. What about the fourteen year olds' kid? Both parents are still kids themselves? Oh, no. I don't think that's a good idea at all. I think in those cases, adoption is the right choice, assuming abortion is off the table.
--------------------
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
Anyway, it's a peripheral issue, but one that will have to be considered if an HLA is passed in the US (or abortion is outlawed in Canada and the UK).
--------------------
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
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
More details about the story that started the thread are found here and here and a related article is found here .
I believe when this law was put into parliament the sponsor was asked if it would ever include minor disabilities like a cleft palate and the answer was no.
The last article says and I think I agree with it.
quote:
Unlike some people involved in this debate, I am not against abortion in all cases. There is a line to be drawn and I would find it hard to state with absolute certainty where that line should be. But I would argue that a cleft lip and palate is nowhere near that line. For a while, it is a serious inconvenience, no more and no less than that. This is not an adequate reason, legally or morally, to terminate an unborn child before or after the 24-week deadline.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
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.
That's a fantastically simplified, and slightly twisted version of the argument.
Looking at realities, if abortion is made illegal:
- Backstreet abortions go up. Casualty/ER units get to deal with all the consequences of these.
- A heck of a lot more babies get put up for adoption. Sad but true fact of life - many adoptive parents want 'perfect' kids, or at least basically normal kids. So kids with obvious disabilities will be much less likely to be adopted, and will live in care. The UK government also has this idea that kids must be placed with parents of the same ethnic grouping, so coloured, mixed-race and indian kids (in UK) again have less chance of being adopted.
- People will have kids that are "mistakes", or "not wanted, but the condom split", or simply kids that they cannot care for in terms of time, money, attention, love etc.
Morally, it would be wonderful if everyone honestly thought "I don't want to look after a kid right now, so I won't have sex, and definitely won't have unprotected sex." Unfortunately people do not think like that. And criminalising the end point will not stop the process from being started.
It's gonna happen, so I concentrate on making the best of the whole bad situation. And yes, it's not a win outcome for all concerned (mother, father, foetus). The sets of rights are in contention, and I argue that the mother's right are more important than the foetus' - actual human wins out over potential human.
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
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
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.
Ha HA HA! Oho! Ha! Ha ha ha! (Ouch!)
In many cases, the father and mother are entirely unsuitable to raise children, and ought to, absolutely ought to put the child up for adoption. What about the fourteen year olds' kid? Both parents are still kids themselves? Oh, no. I don't think that's a good idea at all. I think in those cases, adoption is the right choice, assuming abortion is off the table.
Then the grandparents who did not teach their kids that abstinence is the best way to go until they are ready to become parents should raise them. If the "parents" are still kids themselves, then their parents are responsible for their actions.
I am quite tired of the "let society take care of my mistakes" point of view. When did personal responsibility die? (feel free to treat that question as rhetorical if you wish)
--------------------
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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Sharkshooter,
What grandparents? In the typical archetypical crack family, there are no "grandparents" either! But hey, now I see where you're coming from. You're one of those people who vigorously oppose abortion but are unwilling to provide any encouragement whatsoever to keep the child! Hell-o back-street abortionist! Anyway, whatever your view on who should be "made" to raise the unwanted child, it doesn't matter. In many cases, as a practical matter, there will be no such person, and so, as a practical matter, the state will have to deal with it.
Erin, you're a true-blue libertarian, do you agree with sharkshooter that fourteen year-old parents be forced to raise their unwanted kid, or that the state should track down the grandparents and make them do it? Sounds like an invitation to child-abuse and abandonment to me.
I think the state, which already has the obligation to remove from abusive homes children who suffer therein will be equally obligated to raise abandoned children.
Anyway, back to the central issue, what's the big problem with having a shaded understanding of fetal rights, based on biological realities, as Karl and I have suggested is appropriate?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Morally, it would be wonderful if everyone honestly thought "I don't want to look after a kid right now, so I won't have sex, and definitely won't have unprotected sex." Unfortunately people do not think like that. And criminalising the end point will not stop the process from being started.
The end point is the pregnancy, which is NOT being criminalized in the least.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Morally, it would be wonderful if everyone honestly thought "I don't want to look after a kid right now, so I won't have sex, and definitely won't have unprotected sex." Unfortunately people do not think like that. And criminalising the end point will not stop the process from being started.
The end point is the pregnancy, which is NOT being criminalized in the least.
I was meaning the end point of this particular process to be abortion.
The process being:
- A man and a woman, neither of whom wants kids yet, haven't even thought about kids or the possibility thereof.
- Couple get together.
- Couple have sex.
- Woman discovers she's pregant.
- Woman has abortion.
In between stages four and five, there are optional sub-stages, of the couple discussing it, or the woman looking at whether she has the time, money and inclination to look after a kid right now, or the foetus being tested for disabilities and coming back positive, or etc. etc. etc.
I apologise for not making it clearer what I was talking about. My bad.
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
The UK government also has this idea that kids must be placed with parents of the same ethnic grouping,
In the 80s & early 90s yes. They dropped that when Noo Layber came in. Now there is no nation-wide policy AFAIK, though of course a lot of the implementation is up to the local authorities.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Erin, you're a true-blue libertarian, do you agree with sharkshooter that fourteen year-old parents be forced to raise their unwanted kid, or that the state should track down the grandparents and make them do it?
Anyway, back to the central issue, what's the big problem with having a shaded understanding of fetal rights, based on biological realities, as Karl and I have suggested is appropriate?
I cut this down to the two points I want to address.
First, I doubt that society, as a whole, would benefit from a 14 year old raising a child, so I can't see the logic behind tracking them down and forcing them to. HOWEVER, in my ideal world, they could give up the child with only one string attached: some form of implantable (yet reversible) contraception until such time as they graduate from high school, at the very least.
The issue with the sliding scale is that I don't believe there is a sliding scale of personhood. Either you are a person or you're not.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
As for the Pill vs. implantation -I might be a bit out-of-date, but a while back I looked up some stuff when the same question came up before. (also background reading for an undergraduate course in endocrinology - which I passed - so even if my ideas are wrong London University gives me marks for them)
Apparently we still aren't quite sure what goes on. We also don't know how the coil works.
Yes, all these hormones can stop implantation, but
they also stop ovulation and other things.
Properly used the Pill is so reliable as a contraceptive that I think it is probably over-determined, IYSWIM. More than one effect and all of them rather strong.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Okay, Harvard Medical School's Intellihealth page article on OCs says that combination birth control pills do work in three ways, one of which is to prevent implantation. Article here. Erin, is that good enough? I think we've got enough posted evidence to establish that one mode of operation for OCs is to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. To that extent, it must be considered an abortifacient if the unimplanted zygote is a human being with full rights of that state.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The issue with the sliding scale is that I don't believe there is a sliding scale of personhood. Either you are a person or you're not.
How are you defining person?
I *think* (correct me if I'm wrong) you're defining person in terms of whether you have a right to life?
In which case, does this mean those on Death Row are no longer persons, as the State has removed their right to life?
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
|
|
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081
|
Posted
My guess is that many 14 year olds, if pushed to go through a full unwanted pregnancy, would want to keep their babies. This also presents problems if the girl's living circumstances are not ideal (e.g. there is not a loving extended family willing to support the girl bringing up her child). The interruption to education and regular teenage growing up will be difficult, even without looking at more complicated situations where the teenager is considered unfit to raise a child.
Would emergency contraception not be preferable?
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
One mode, yes, I've already ceded that above. It is NOT, however, the primary, main or most common mode, and even then it's not all that effective (hence the appearance of Kyndall, age 2, and Joshua, age 10 months, as a huge shock to my sister). The primary purpose of the estrogen-containing pills, at least, is to prevent ovulation. I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with setting out to deliberately prevent implantation.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The issue with the sliding scale is that I don't believe there is a sliding scale of personhood. Either you are a person or you're not.
How are you defining person?
I *think* (correct me if I'm wrong) you're defining person in terms of whether you have a right to life?
In which case, does this mean those on Death Row are no longer persons, as the State has removed their right to life?
Sarkycow
No, that's not how I'm defining person. Being a person confers the right to life, not the other way around. A person is a human, living organism with unique genetic components.
BTW, the state doesn't remove anyone's right to life. Death row inmates took care of that on their very own when they committed capital murder.
--------------------
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
One mode? Are you saying that emergency contraception (otherwise known as the morning-after-pill) should be allowed now?
Confused.
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
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Being a person confers the right to life, not the other way around. A person is a human, living organism with unique genetic components.
Really not picking on you Erin, it's just we appear to be the only two posting currently ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But, your definition of a "person" excludes identical twins, as they don't have unique genetic components...
*shrug* Defining a person is nigh on impossible, yet we can mostly agree instinctively on what is/isn't a "person".
--------------------
“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
|
|
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081
|
Posted
Sorry Erin, I figured out too late that you were replying to Laura. But then, according to Sarky I must be invisible anyway. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
Sorry Erin, I figured out too late that you were replying to Laura. But then, according to Sarky I must be invisible anyway.
OOT
Oh hush your mouth ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
We appear to be on the same side, so why would I be arguing with you?
There is no one else currently posting on Erin's side, hence my constant arguing with her, and so my disclaimer that I wasn't picking on her deliberately.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
i've spent most of this morning deleting old magazines. and as i was going through the stack, one of them opened to a full page ad encouraging adoption of foster kids, stating that there are currently 134,000 kids in foster care awaiting adoption. just something for the people who say "adoption, not abortion" to consider. people aren't adopting the kids we already have to deal with.
--------------------
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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Yes, and I blame the state for that. There are huge wads of people who would love to adopt but are prevented from doing so because of their marital status, age and income.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
There is no one else currently posting on Erin's side, hence my constant arguing with her, and so my disclaimer that I wasn't picking on her deliberately.
Er, actually, I am. But I must just be so polite that no-one notices.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
My guess is that many 14 year olds, if pushed to go through a full unwanted pregnancy, would want to keep their babies.
[...]
Would emergency contraception not be preferable?
Yes, probably, but that's not the same as abortion.
And why "if pressed"? Quite a lot of underage mothers want their babies - the social pressure on them these days is in favour of abortion.
There was a rather nasty press campaign in Britain a year or so ago criticising a couple for supporting their underage daughter in her decision not to abort.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Yes, and I blame the state for that. There are huge wads of people who would love to adopt but are prevented from doing so because of their marital status, age and income.
That is true. It is not only that people don't want to adopt, a large part of it is that people are prevented from doing so becuase they don't meet standards that are far, far higher then the standards met by many biological parents. AFAIK there is still a big furore about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.
I also think that abortion is very frequently immoral. Certainly, I don't think the fact that the mother may get "stressed out" is anything like a decent reason to abort esp not after the first trimester. Of course, it may be still be less immoral than to continue with the pregancy in certain circumstances. While I agree that the rights of actual persons should supercede the rights of potential persons and that it is problematic to say exactly when a feutus is a human being, the only reasonable reasons I can see for abortion after the first few weeks are:
1) The child will not live very long and will have an exceptionally low standard of life while it is still alive.
2) The mothers life is in genuine danger becuase of the pregnancy, according to at least 3 experts.
3) The woman became pregnant after being raped.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, probably, but that's not the same as abortion.
But I think we just established that several posters, most recently Erin, think it is the same, since emergency contraception works by causing the fertilised egg to be discarded.
quote:
And why "if pressed"? Quite a lot of underage mothers want their babies - the social pressure on them these days is in favour of abortion.
That is very true. I am of Germaine Greer's opinion* - 'choice' cuts both ways, nobody should be pressured or forced by circumstances into an abortion they don't really want. If that means that as a society we have to put our money where our mouth is to help support young/poor mothers (even if it means we wind up supporting some so-called 'undeserving' cases ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ) then good, lets do it.
Rat
*OK, that was GG's opinion the last time I heard her speak on the subject. I am aware she quite often changes her opinions (something I actually rather admire).
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, probably, but that's not the same as abortion.
But I think we just established that several posters, most recently Erin, think it is the same, since emergency contraception works by causing the fertilised egg to be discarded.
Then it is dishonest to call it "emergency contraception".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, probably, but that's not the same as abortion.
But I think we just established that several posters, most recently Erin, think it is the same, since emergency contraception works by causing the fertilised egg to be discarded.
Then it is dishonest to call it "emergency contraception".
Well, that's hardly my fault, that's what its called! Unless there is some form of after-the-fact contraception I've not heard of that doesn't depend on discouraging the fertilized egg from implanting?
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
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
I thought we'd established that all methods of contraception, except barrier methods, work at least partly by preventing implantation.
And pace Erin, I've heard doctors cite implantation as the beginning of life, since a huge number of fertilised cells fail to implant at all.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
My guess is that many 14 year olds, if pushed to go through a full unwanted pregnancy, would want to keep their babies.
[...]
Would emergency contraception not be preferable?
Yes, probably, but that's not the same as abortion.
And why "if pressed"? Quite a lot of underage mothers want their babies - the social pressure on them these days is in favour of abortion.
There was a rather nasty press campaign in Britain a year or so ago criticising a couple for supporting their underage daughter in her decision not to abort.
I wouldn't say that you're arguing the same side as Erin, ken, but anyway. The 'if pressed' part was, as I said, "if pushed to go through a full unwanted pregnancy". The only people I recall talking about pushing people to continue pregnancies against their will and better judgement have been Erin and Sharkshooter, the 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' brigade. I suppose it is also part of this HLA that I hadn't heard of before this thread.
If the indications were that a girl wanted to (and could safely) continue a pregnancy and would be allowed and supported to look after the baby, then I would be delighted to support her in this. The rather nasty press campaign you mention does indeed sound rather nasty.
In terms of the teenagers I work with, if it is too late for emergency contraception I would want to talk through the situation, consequences and risks and encourage her to make her own decision. It would be unethical of me to try to influence her towards or away from abortion based on my own moral stance (and potentially a disciplinary matter).
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
But, your definition of a "person" excludes identical twins, as they don't have unique genetic components...
I'm not sure this is true.
My cousin has identical twins. Some researchers who studied them said they were ninety-some percent identical.
I assume that one or both underwent genetic changes after the zygote split.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Cuervo
Son of a Son of a Sailor
# 4725
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
It would be unethical of me to try to influence her towards or away from abortion based on my own moral stance (and potentially a disciplinary matter).
OOT
Under what system of ethics would this be considered unethical?
If one of your students came to you and said s/he was contemplating cheating on a test, serial rape or armed rebellion against the house of Windsor would you decline to counsel them "based on (your) own moral stance"?
Abortion is either: A) a morally acceptable choice or B) a morally unacceptable choice. Whichever you believe, surely it is self-evident that we have a positive moral obligation to counsel people to make morally acceptable choices and avoid morally unacceptable ones. Isn't this the very foundation of all ethics? If your position is correct, every ethics book ever written is unethical because they all are attempts to influence people to the author's moral stance!
If you truly think it is unethical to attempt to influence people to your moral views, you should quit posting and go sit in a cave somewhere.
St. C.
[ 03. December 2003, 23:44: Message edited by: St. Cuervo ]
--------------------
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked... angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...
Posts: 295 | From: Falls Church, VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Originally posted by Erin:
the only reasonable reasons I can see for abortion after the first few weeks are:
1) The child will not live very long and will have an exceptionally low standard of life while it is still alive.
2) The mothers life is in genuine danger becuase of the pregnancy, according to at least 3 experts.
3) The woman became pregnant after being raped.
How about:
4) The mother's health will suffer because of the pregnancy.
I think there is at least a grey area when considering the potential life of the developing foetus against the quality of life of the mother.
Some medical complications might injure the mother without killing her, and I can't see it as a moral choice to force someone to experience such injury...
[Edited for UBB.]
[ 04. December 2003, 01:35: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Moo, that's funny. I assume you're joking.
St. Cuervo, it would be considered unethical if OOT is supposed to act as an impartial entity.
If I may be permitted to delve off on a little perspective-revealing tangent before we are all bundled off to Dead Horses and pointed at from the future...
Consider a lump of human cells. Any old lump of living human cells. It is conceivable that in the future any old lump of living human cells could transformed into complete person by a cloning process. Does this mean that, at that time, we will have to gather every surgical remnant, every little shred of nerve from shed baby teeth, and every drop of spilt blood... and turn them into a human clone?
Isn't it the same? By some careful and delicate process, each of those technically can become a fully grown human being just like you. REALLY just like you, but that's beside the point. Before anyone waves the "that's not how God intended it" in front of my face, let me say that Mr. Omnipotent can speak up for himself however and whenever he likes if it means that much to him.
Doesn't it sound a little ridiculous? I'm talking about a little blob of cells that accounts for less human cell matter than I used to shed as dandruff every week. More than that, to myopically focus on this one aspect of reproduction is to restrict the ability to really make having a baby the beautiful thing it should be.
Erin, Sharkshooter, I think I understand your point of view. I just feel that you're oversimplifying the issue. In doing that, I think you would force a great deal of suffering and harm on humanity as a whole. Like I said before, it wouldn't be so terrible in a perfect world, but in the world I see we are stuck with weighing sufferings.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Cuervo
Son of a Son of a Sailor
# 4725
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
St. Cuervo, it would be considered unethical if OOT is supposed to act as an impartial entity.
I think you are confusing the term "impartial" with the phrase "value neutral." If OOT is supposed to be "value neutral", there would be a conflict in giving moral counsel.
Imparital, however, just means "fair." If OOT is supposed to act "fairly", there would be no conflict in giving moral counsel as long as the strengths and weaknesses of different positions were considered equally.
St. Cuervo's two cents: value neutrality is a modern myth. Every decision we make from what to have for breakfast in the morning (fair trade coffee anyone?) to whom we sleep with at night (will I still love her in the morning?) is a moral decision and has a ethical ramifications. The Serpent was right, we have become like God and are aware of the existance of "good" and "evil." To pretend that we can make decisions in a moral/ethical vacuum is to deny what makes us human.
quote:
If I may be permitted to delve off on a little perspective-revealing tangent before we are all bundled off to Dead Horses and pointed at from the future...
Consider a lump of human cells. Any old lump of living human cells. It is conceivable that in the future any old lump of living human cells could transformed into complete person by a cloning process. Does this mean that, at that time, we will have to gather every surgical remnant, every little shred of nerve from shed baby teeth, and every drop of spilt blood... and turn them into a human clone?
Isn't it the same?...
Doesn't it sound a little ridiculous?
Of course it sounds ridiculous, but only because you have set up a false dichotomy.
In the case of a pregnancy, a positive action is required to terminate life-to-be. If there is no such action and "nature takes its course," nine months or so from the date of conception, we will have a bouncing baby whatever. Every pregnancy, thus, contains the immanent potential for life, unless something happens to change that.
In the case of cloning, on the other hand, a positive action is required to create the life-to-be. If there is no such action (and we are still in the realm of science fiction here) there will be no life. If "nature take its course," my dandruff or toenail clippings are still going to be dandruff and toenail clippings nine month from now. My toenails, thus, do not contain an immanent potential for life unless something happens to change that.
So "...gather(ing) every surgical remnant, every little shred of nerve from shed baby teeth, and every drop of spilt blood... and turn(ing) them into a human clone" is not the same as saying someone should not have an abortion. A "lump" of cells, in essence, contains no immanent potential for human life. A fetus, in essence, does. Your comparison is, thus, invalid for you are comparing two unlike things.
Cheers,
St. C.
--------------------
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked... angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...
Posts: 295 | From: Falls Church, VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Erin, Sharkshooter, I think I understand your point of view. I just feel that you're oversimplifying the issue. In doing that, I think you would force a great deal of suffering and harm on humanity as a whole. Like I said before, it wouldn't be so terrible in a perfect world, but in the world I see we are stuck with weighing sufferings.
And I think that you are oversimplifying the issue, too, and in the process encouraging a society where inconvenient life is completely expendable upon someone else's whim, forcing a great deal of suffering and harm on humanity as a whole.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Excellent post, St. Cuervo. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Cuervo:
Every pregnancy, thus, contains the immanent potential for life, unless something happens to change that.
In the case of cloning, on the other hand, a positive action is required to create the life-to-be. If there is no such action (and we are still in the realm of science fiction here) there will be no life. If "nature take its course," my dandruff or toenail clippings are still going to be dandruff and toenail clippings nine month from now. My toenails, thus, do not contain an immanent potential for life unless something happens to change that.
So "...gather(ing) every surgical remnant, every little shred of nerve from shed baby teeth, and every drop of spilt blood... and turn(ing) them into a human clone" is not the same as saying someone should not have an abortion. A "lump" of cells, in essence, contains no immanent potential for human life. A fetus, in essence, does. Your comparison is, thus, invalid for you are comparing two unlike things.
Cheers,
St. C.
But I think you are dodging a real dichotomy here. A fertilized egg is not a pregnancy. As others have pointed out many--perhaps most--fertilized eggs do not implant, so no pregnancy results. My reading of RooK's post was that it came in response to a number of posts that seemed to argue that prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg = abortion = murder.
Arguing that every fertilized egg is a potential life is very much like arguing that every scrap of DNA bearing detritus is a potential life (and in some cases as much in the realm of science fiction as human cloning).
Given that some people must go to extreme lengths to try to encourage implantation of their fertilized eggs (ask people who are having fertility problems if you don't know what I'm talking about) and if nature takes its course no pregnancy will result from the fertilization of their eggs, RooK's comparisson is valid.
Why should we look at a morning after pill that prevents implantation as identical to a procedure that rips apart and kills a developed foetus, with limbs, nervous system, heart beat, reactivity to external stimuli? This makes no sense to me.
I think you have to look at that fertilized egg as a potential person but not an actual person, or as Papio suggested, a person in development. I can't agree with Erin's uncompromising black or white view. Maybe it's time we began saying "you can be a little bit pregnant" -- carrying a fertilized egg that has not yet implanted is far from being pregnant, but it's certainly far closer to being pregnant than if no fertilized egg were present, isn't it?
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Oh crap. I agree with Jerry Boam too.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But Jerry I also think you kinda missed part of what Cuervo was saying. He didn't say "every fertilised egg is a potential life" he said every pregnancy. If you take pregnancy as beginning at implantation (which I do (currently and tentatively)), then everything else he says follows, unless you are appying it to the "morning after pill" or other implantation-prevention strategies.
In which case Rook's thing works better.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
I totally Agree, MT...
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Cuervo
Son of a Son of a Sailor
# 4725
|
Posted
Jerry,
MT is right. I wrote that a "pregnancy" and a "fetus" contain the "immanent potential for life." I was not considering the case of a fertilized egg.
We read RooK differently. I read him as making that comparison in an attempt to illustrate the absurdity of the anti-abortion position, in general, by arguing that in order to be consistent an anti-abortionist one would also have to support this absurd cloning thing as well. You are reading his comparison as referring specifically to opposition to methods of contraception that prevent implantation.
I shall have to think about this some more. I don't think about fertilized eggs very often.
St. C.
--------------------
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked... angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...
Posts: 295 | From: Falls Church, VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
Of course, RooK will now come in and prove me wrong... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But I think you were reading his whole post as a comment on your post because it began that way... but I thought that he was commenting on the broader themes of the thread starting with his third line...
But I may be seeing it that way because a similar confusion lead Sasha to conclude that I was Sharkshooter's (or perhaps Erin's) sock puppet, earlier in this thread...
In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing more from you on this.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I know that it's an unspoken truth, but I want to say it. I'm just speaking my opinion, and the reasons why I think it. I wanted to say it because, even though I fervently want no sweeping anti-abortion law to ever be passed, I would hate for the people who view every potential human life as sacred to go away. It is honourable and beautiful, even if I find it foolish.
Jerry Boam, thanks to you for eloquently helping explain that I'm just trying to explain how it's possible to see a zygote as not fully human.
Erin, I am merely admitting that we live in a world where inconvenient life is expendable upon someone else's whim. Look at it this way:
If someone is shot on a battlefield, you first bind the wound to stop the bleeding - because that's the most helpful thing you can do. Yeah, that bandage actually hinders the removal of the bullet later, but that's only possible in some later state anyway. I see the option of early-term abortion the same way - in some enlightened state of society, it won't be needed any more. But, in the real world we live in, it's the most helpful thing we can do right now.
St. Cuervo, on the issue of abortion I think that the impartial position is akin to value neutral. It is so heated a topic that it would take something close to prescience to be able to really helpfully guide someone while using a decided moral stance regarding abortion. Moreover, in today's political culture, it would be foolish. For most other topics, however, I concede your point. I do deny, however, the existence of either "good" or "evil". But, that's a different and much more lighthearted topic.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Crosspost action!
To clearly confirm - the cloning analogy was primarily meant to compare to unattached fertilized eggs. I hoped it would open the door to seeing how some of us can bend our minds to imagine a grey scale from merely potential to fully human during the pregnancy.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Arguing that every fertilized egg is a potential life is very much like arguing that every scrap of DNA bearing detritus is a potential life (and in some cases as much in the realm of science fiction as human cloning).
If you adopt a Christian teleological approach to ethics this analogy does not necessarily stand up does it? I can see how an argument could be sustained that God has telically ordered his creation such that the purpose of a fertilized egg is to become an adult human being. Adulthood is then not just a possible consequence of a fertilisation, but its divinely ordered purpose.
I cannot see how the same argument could be sustained for ‘every scrap of DNA’. A cloned human being might be a consequence of the existence of such DNA, but I would have thought it would be difficult to argue that ‘a new adult’ represented God’s telic purpose for ‘each scrap of DNA’.
The question then is not one of potential, but of purpose. Wouldn’t the theological question then be ‘is it God’s purpose that a fertilised human egg result in an adult human being?’
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
Wouldn’t the theological question then be ‘is it God’s purpose that a fertilised human egg result in an adult human being?’
And it is precisely THIS sort of natural theology that has me reaching for my Karl Barth! How do you know what God's purpose for any given egg is? If he plans that ALL fertilised eggs end up as adults then his plans are frequently frustrated, given the proportion of pregnancies that end in miscarriage.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
Adulthood is then not just a possible consequence of a fertilisation, but its divinely ordered purpose.
[...]
The question then is not one of potential, but of purpose. Wouldn’t the theological question then be ‘is it God’s purpose that a fertilised human egg result in an adult human being?’
If that was God's purpose, then he/she ought to have arranged it a bit more efficiently, since the majority of fertilised eggs do not implant and are lost without any human intervention.
Sorry to be facetious, but I think that the fragility of the implantation process was part of RooK's point (not that I would presume to speak for a hellhost).
I think I tend to agree with whoever said that life has to been seen as beginning with implantation - otherwise you might as well count the seperate sperm and egg as life, and berate celibate people for wasting them.
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
