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 | | 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 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  18  19  20 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
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 
When I read Kyralessa's post I don't see her to be comparing abortion to slavery at all. I see her quoting an analogy that she doesn't like (comparing homosexuality and slavery) and then bringing in her own analogy comparing the querying of rights of a fetus to the querying of rights of a black person.

She knew she was using a controversial analogy. But I don't think anyone has actually addressed it yet.

I started writing my own analogy comparing abortion issues to issues around vegetarianism and animal rights. But it was difficult to explain what I meant and I'm sure some people would have accused me of being heartless.

So I'll keep thinking about it.

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
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568

 - Posted      Profile for Kyralessa   Email Kyralessa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Okay if I call you an asshole? [Big Grin] See how inoffensive that is when I put the big grin?? [Big Grin] You festering intolerant pustule! [Biased]

"Festering intolerant pustule"?

[Killing me]

Now that was a good tension breaker. [Big Grin]

Sorry, Laura. While my analogy might actually have had some degree of validity if couched in more general terms, its specificity made it rather obviously offensive. It was as odious as the other analogy I referred to, and I hope the Purgatorial Hosts will move to squelch both in the future.

But in the meantime, two wrongs don't make a right, so please forgive me. *extends olive branch to Laura...while glancing in the mirror to make sure I'm not really festering*

--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.

I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.

Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you Kyralessa.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kyralessa,

(picturing now a festering olive branch)

Peace.

I'm sorry for responding to apparent insult with further insults.

OOT, actually, I did separate out and address the comparison with slavery, if you read my post.

[ 07. December 2003, 15:15: Message edited by: Laura ]

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

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pânts*

Ship's underwear
# 4487

 - Posted      Profile for Pânts*   Author's homepage   Email Pânts*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(not that it makes any difference.. but i have just realised who this curate is!! i went to school with her, and the difference between her at school and her a few years ago (when i last saw her) is amazing. both looks and personality. she went through a great deal, even to changing her name becuase of her insecurities before her operations.)

--------------------
I'm not here any more. Dial 999 to get me. (No. Please don't really. Bit you could PM me on my new number cos I never get PMs!)

Posts: 8380 | From: The Stables | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
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 
Laura,

I had read and have re-read your post. I was seeing the view of slavery being ok (odiously or not compared with homosexuality being wrong) as being separate from the issue of the limited rights of fetuses being compared (odiously or not) with the limited rights of black people, say under apartheid.

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
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ophelia's Opera Therapist, what are you disputing? There has been a host warning and an apology on both parts. If you want to discuss the topic at hand, please do so. If you want to discuss the ruling and the posts that led up to it, please do so in the Styx.

Tortuf,
Purgatory Host

Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 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 pants:
she went through a great deal, even to changing her name becuase of her insecurities before her operations.

Now that does seem odd.

Do you mean changing name as in using a nickname, or actually changing name entirely, as if thrying to be anonymous?

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by pants:
she went through a great deal, even to changing her name becuase of her insecurities before her operations.

Now that does seem odd.

Do you mean changing name as in using a nickname, or actually changing name entirely, as if thrying to be anonymous?

It does throw up some interesting questions, though.

Like is she saying a cleft palate is something you can live with, or something that requires lots of (probably very expensive) surgery? She seems to freely admit that her life was hell until she had her face rebuilt, so what would she recommend for those who can't afford such measures? Learn to live with the abuse and name-calling?

Frankly, I would take her criticisms of this case much more seriously if she still had the face she was born with. Then her claims that it's not a serious issue would ring much more true.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 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 Tortuf:
Ophelia's Opera Therapist, what are you disputing? There has been a host warning and an apology on both parts.

I guess I was disputing Laura's suggestion that she had addressed a certain issue and that I maybe hadn't read her post properly. I thought apartheid was a separate issue. But it doesn't seem to matter now the analogy has been dropped.

I wasn't so much querying hosting policy as whether we'd got what Kyralessa meant. But the fact that she hasn't jumped in an said 'ah OOT, at last someone understands me' suggests that I may have got the wrong end of the stick/olive branch too.

Trying hard to drop it. Will shut up now.

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
Mo's is
Shipmate
# 4010

 - Posted      Profile for Mo's is   Email Mo's is   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Like is she saying a cleft palate is something you can live with, or something that requires lots of (probably very expensive) surgery? She seems to freely admit that her life was hell until she had her face rebuilt, so what would she recommend for those who can't afford such measures? Learn to live with the abuse and name-calling?

Thats why we have the National Health Service - it treats people on the basis of need not on the basis of how much they can afford. So any baby born in England will get the medical care it needs.

--------------------
in a basket

Posts: 89 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Irish & Proud
Shipmate
# 4825

 - Posted      Profile for Irish & Proud     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Stats from ONS

Looking at the above link, you can see that the average number of abortions per 1000 people has risen slowly but surely over the last 20 years from 11.5 to approx 17 over the last couple.

I do not for a second believe that this is due to an increase in the incidence of pregnancies which will potentially cause harm to the mother. It can only be being caused by one of 2 factors. The number of people having unprotected sex has increased significantly or the criteria for aborting has been changing to make it easier for mothers to abort.

Whilst, there has been much debate over the morality of abortions, there has been little debate over what our response should be.

I believe the the sexual morals in this country differ vastly from those advocated by God. Sex is a wonderful thing and was created by God. It is also dangerous and can have far reaching consequences both physically and spiritually. This is why in my opinion God recommended that sex is confined to within marriage.

At least within marriage there is support there for one another to bring up kids who might not have been originally planned, or who may be born disabled.

Sex is not just another leisure activity to be enjoyed in the same way as going to the pub or the cinema. I believe that if this was consistent message being communicated through the media the number of abortions would decrease significantly.

Posts: 221 | From: Somewhere with not enough rain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568

 - Posted      Profile for Kyralessa   Email Kyralessa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
I wasn't so much querying hosting policy as whether we'd got what Kyralessa meant. But the fact that she hasn't jumped in an said 'ah OOT, at last someone understands me' suggests that I may have got the wrong end of the stick/olive branch too.

I think you did understand what I meant, but I realized after posting that really what I was getting at was more a matter of hostly policy than the issue of this thread, which is why I didn't say more about it. (BTW, I'm a he.)

--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.

I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.

Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This thread is now officially a dead horse.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mo's is:
Thats why we have the National Health Service - it treats people on the basis of need not on the basis of how much they can afford. So any baby born in England will get the medical care it needs.

Forgive me for phrasing my opinion in a global way.

It's still expensive though, whoever picks up the bill.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An update on the Jepson case where one of the sponsors of the oringinal law that allowed this form of abortion says they were wrong. Story found here and little more is found here .

--------------------
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
Stoo

Mighty Pirate
# 254

 - Posted      Profile for Stoo   Email Stoo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With regard to the idea of life starting at impregnation, or indeed, at an ever later date, what do those who believe this make of the recent case (on channel 4, UK, now) of a fetus in fetu - a fetus growing within another baby?

(For those who are not aware, this boy's twin was removed from inside him, aged seven years)

Is it human? Is it a parasite? Is it both?

Was extracting it murder?

--------------------
This space left blank

Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stoo

Mighty Pirate
# 254

 - Posted      Profile for Stoo   Email Stoo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Link here

Oh, and my mistake, the foetus was removed when he was three days old. The boy is now seven.

(watch the programme before discussing it, Stoo, you fool.)

--------------------
This space left blank

Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551

 - Posted      Profile for Jerry Boam   Email Jerry Boam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Following Stoo's link, I found this lovely truth:
quote:
Most human embryos die in their first eight weeks of life, often before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant. It has been estimated that as many as three quarters of all human embryos perish during this critical phase.
If these are all fully human lives, as some have suggested, wtf is God doing?

--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.

Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stoo

Mighty Pirate
# 254

 - Posted      Profile for Stoo   Email Stoo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yet again, I was wrong.

There were two cases - one boy age seven who had his twin removed, and one American baby who had his removed aged three days.

(Shut up and watch the programme now, Stoo)

--------------------
This space left blank

Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And another who had the foetus in fetu disconnected at 18 wks of the pregnancy.

None of these parasitic "foetuses" had complete bodies, but bits and pieces. For example, one had a pelvis and two legs, but no arms, heart or head...

It was a weird, scary programme. They did say it was truly wonderful and amazing how many of us do suvive to be born.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568

 - Posted      Profile for Kyralessa   Email Kyralessa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
quote:
Most human embryos die in their first eight weeks of life, often before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant. It has been estimated that as many as three quarters of all human embryos perish during this critical phase.
If these are all fully human lives, as some have suggested, wtf is God doing?
But one could just as easily ask why anybody dies at all. Some people accidentally drown, for instance, but that doesn't make it OK for us to hold people underwater. (Unless, of course, going back to square one, they're not real people.)

Personally, seeing these sorts of reports on how precarious life is in the womb makes me that much more puzzled that we'd terminate pregnancies; don't these poor embryos have it hard enough as it is without us deliberately snuffing them out? [Frown]

--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.

I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.

Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792

 - Posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My feeling on abortion is that where the rights of two ‘people’ conflict (as they can be argued to do in varying degree during the pregnancy in terms of a foetus and its mother) – the rights of the independent, born person should take precedence. (Unless the mother chooses to give up her rights in favour of her unborn child).

This is only my opinion, but I feel that the idea of a foetus from the moment of conception as being a mini person with exactly the same right to live as any born person is a notional one, and one that we assign based on the knowledge of the future potential of that clump of cells as opposed to what rights may be reasonable at the stage the foetus actually is. Essentially, we’re projecting backwards the rights of a born person onto a potential person. I feel this partly due to my understanding of how random the process of reproduction is. I’ve read that 1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage (this often at a very early stage) and the programme on C4 last night estimated that 1 in 8 of us was initially part of a twin pregnancy but that only 10% of these pregnancies ends in the birth of live twins. As a baby develops in the womb and comes closer to viability it seems to me that morally the rights that the mother chooses to assign to it should grow – but that as a part of her body and totally dependent on her for life, these rights come via her and should not be assigned from any other source (such as the father/the court). This is because the risks attached to pregnancy are borne by the mother and are to her alone – whether we’re talking about high blood pressure, diabetes, pre-eclampsia – whatever. It’s rare, but let’s not forget that women do still die in childbirth.

In a Christian framework I think that sex needs to be within the context of responsibility and respect –for yourself, your partner, and for any children you may have – born or unborn. Ideally this will mean that ‘unnecessary’ abortions are vastly reduced in any case. In the case of failure of contraception – one would hope that this could also be dealt with very early on in a pregnancy should the mother decide that she really could not go through with it. As to issues of disability or illness that may be spotted during the pregnancy – I would not presume to judge any parents on a decision they made within the law and with the help of skilled medical professionals. Hopefully their decision would not need to be affected by whether or not they would get the support and medical treatment they might need for their baby once it was born – but in this imperfect world, I fear that this might also be a consideration – above and beyond the problems the child might be born with.

At the end of the day - I can't believe there is anyone who thinks abortion per se is desirable - but it's sometimes an option people are forced to consider. I don't think it's an option that should be removed.

--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?

Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Belle, if the fetus was unproblematically a person, then your assertion that the mother's rights should take precedent is counter-intuitive. There is a hierarchy of rights, and the right to life surely comes pretty near the top of this. The fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother, and that its existence is costly to her, shouldn't make a difference - in relevantly similar cases (e.g. born children, the severely disabled) we don't allow such factors to trample over the dependent person's rights.

Of course, this just poses the question of the status of the fetus more urgently. It is this question which is key to the abortion debate.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792

 - Posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree that the status of the foetus is problematic - however I don’t feel that you can compare a baby in the womb with a born person.

However heavy the costs may be to another person of caring for a born person, they are not ‘one flesh’. We as a body can all participate in the costs of caring for a disabled person if the burden is too great for one person to bear. We can take on the role of the carer. We can become substitutes. We cannot take the place of a mother carrying the baby in her womb. We can’t bear the physical or mental risks for her. Surely this is why the debate is so tricky? A foetus is part of its mother’s body. It exists only in relation to her - at least for the first few months of its existence.

Irrespective of the 'status' of the foetus - if for instance, science tells us that in the first few weeks it's 'just a clump of cells' - I don't believe abortion should be treated lightly - and nor do I believe it is in the vast majority of cases.

--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?

Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
A foetus is part of its mother’s body.

Untrue.
quote:

It exists only in relation to her - at least for the first few months of its existence.

This is not different, in a morally relevant sense, from the situation of a dependent child or disabled person. These individuals would die were it not for the constant care given to them and, as such, exist only in relation to their carers.

[ 10. December 2003, 12:22: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792

 - Posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
A foetus is part of its mother’s body.

quote:
posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Untrue

Um - frankly this baffles me. Obviously it's not permanently part of your body... help me out here. You must mean something different to what I mean.

With reference to the carer analogy - are you saying that the baby needs what only the mother can provide to survive and therefore she is morally obliged to provide it - whatever the cost to herself? I would agree that she has an absolute right to pay whatever price necessary to ensure the survival of her child if that is what she chooses, but I would disagree that she should be required to do so. It seems to me that that would be to elevate the right to life of the unborn child over hers.

--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?

Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The European Court are going to make a decision on the status of a foetus

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)

Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 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:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
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.]

Um, sorry to reply to a post from several pages back but I have been offline for a week or so due to EssayHell (one word) and so did not see this post before now.

btw, to be fair, none of the above was posted by Erin so she can't be blamed for any of it.

I suppose it depends what you mean by the mothers health suffering. If it is simply a case of discomfort or a sort-term reduction of health then I am afriad that I don't really consider that an adequate reason for an abortion after the first 12 weeks. A baby/feutus/whateveryouwanttocallit can feel pain after 12 weeks so I am lead to believe.

So, unless one of my original conditions was also true I consider inconvieniance to the mother to be a very poor reason indeed since the chances are that she has had unprotected sex and should be held in some responsibility for her actions (as, btw, should the father). Minor injury seems an esp bad reason given that if the woman was operated on, then technically she is being "injured" even if the op is for an abortion............

Of course, there are grey areas (as there are in all things that involve both moral concerns and human beings) and I suppose I could incorporate serious injury into my criteria. That seems fair. But minor injury? No sir.

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

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568

 - Posted      Profile for Kyralessa   Email Kyralessa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
This is only my opinion, but I feel that the idea of a foetus from the moment of conception as being a mini person with exactly the same right to live as any born person is a notional one...

Of course it is. So is an idea we have on this side of the pond that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Not everyone everywhere in the world believes that one either. My point is simply that the fact that we have to actively assign or defend these rights proves nothing about whether the rights should or should not exist.

quote:
Essentially, we’re projecting backwards the rights of a born person onto a potential person. I feel this partly due to my understanding of how random the process of reproduction is.
Where do you get the phrase "rights of a born person"? It's certainly not in our US Constitution, but maybe it's enshrined in UK law somewhere?

quote:
My feeling on abortion is that where the rights of two ‘people’ conflict (as they can be argued to do in varying degree during the pregnancy in terms of a foetus and its mother) – the rights of the independent, born person should take precedence. (Unless the mother chooses to give up her rights in favour of her unborn child).
If the same rights are in direct conflict, I'd agree. That is, if it's between the mother's life and the baby's, then certainly the mother ought to come first on account of her living relationships, of which the baby of course has none.

On the other hand, if it's a matter of the baby's right to live or the mother's right to not have to bear a pregnancy for nine months, then it's hard to agree that those rights are equal.

This should not, of course, be misconstrued to say that a pregnancy is an insignificant thing. But a pregnancy ends a mother's right to not carry extra weight and to not have backaches or morning sickness for nine months. A termination ends a baby's right to live forever.

--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.

I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.

Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
Um - frankly this baffles me. Obviously it's not permanently part of your body... help me out here. You must mean something different to what I mean.

I mean, in straightforward biological terms, the fetus is a separate organism, albeit one inside the mother's uterus.

quote:


With reference to the carer analogy - are you saying that the baby needs what only the mother can provide to survive and therefore she is morally obliged to provide it - whatever the cost to herself? I would agree that she has an absolute right to pay whatever price necessary to ensure the survival of her child if that is what she chooses, but I would disagree that she should be required to do so. It seems to me that that would be to elevate the right to life of the unborn child over hers.

It would only elevate the rights of the child over those of the mother in situations where the mothers' life is at risk. (And few people are against abortion in this circumstance). To say that one does not have a right to kill someone who is impinging seriously on one's life is not to say that their rights are more important than one's own. It is, instead, to say that the right to life is more important than the right to a fulfilled life.

Incidentally, it is not just a question of whether the mother has a duty to give support to the fetus. The question is, in cases where she doesn't want to give support, whether she has the right to kill in order to cease support. This is an important distinction.

All of which causes me to conclude the foetal status is the determining issue. If the fetus is a person then it is utterly reasonable to demand that the mother doesn't kill it, even at significant personal cost. But it's a big 'if'.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264

 - Posted      Profile for thursday+   Email thursday+   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm. So how do we define 'person'?

--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.

Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian:
Hmmm. So how do we define 'person'?

Very tricky question, and one of the things that posters to this thread seem to be in disagreement about.

Some people say that the feutus is a person from Day 1 (making all abortion murder effectively). Others at various place along the nine months.

Some people say that a human being is not a person unless s/he is capable of rational thought but I think that this last view can be easily dismissed as Utter Crap. What about babies, the retarded, the mentally ill/handicapped, those suffering from senile dementia, small children? Not people? Arse.
Does one stop being a person when one's temper is lost, for example?

As Bentham said "the question is not "can they think? but can they suffer?"

An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.

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

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would define a "person" as a human being capable of living independently of any other human. Say at about 24 weeks.

And yes, I realise that this leaves me open to questions like "do you consider someone on a life support machine a person?" That's another argument, but if anyone wants to start it in Purg I'll join in.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264

 - Posted      Profile for thursday+   Email thursday+   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Papio:
quote:
As Bentham said "the question is not "can they think? but can they suffer?"

An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.

But so can a dog. Or a horse. Or a cow or pig. So we can't ask 'do they suffer' unless we're going to equate human and animal life. I don't think we want to?

Marvin: Yes, I think a thread about 'what is a person?' would be good. Probably start one later.

--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.

Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I would define a "person" as a human being capable of living independently of any other human. Say at about 24 weeks.

And yes, I realise that this leaves me open to questions like "do you consider someone on a life support machine a person?" That's another argument, but if anyone wants to start it in Purg I'll join in.

No it raises the more basic question of 'is a child a person' - children find it very difficult/ impossible to live without support. The seriously ill? Indeed, are any of us people, modern society is a complex web of interdependency? In fact you are claiming that being dependent on someone in utero is different, in a morally relevant sense, from other types of dependence. Why is this?

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
DOD - that's why I said capable of living completely independently. Any of us could, if we had to, survive on our own (if stranded on a desert island, for instance). Children have been known to survive completely on their own as well - the ancient Spartans used to use a child's ability to survive atop a mountain to see if the child was worthy of citizenship.

A foetus plucked from the womb, however, has zero chance of survival. Nil. Zip. It is not capable of independence, therefore is not yet a person.

Right, I've nailed my colours to the mast. Anyone else going to say where they'd draw the line (if at all)?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264

 - Posted      Profile for thursday+   Email thursday+   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know. My instinct is that children are less human than adults, but I don't think that's really true. I think maybe something is more or less human according to how far it has the essential attributes of humanity? Which, I guess, are reason and maths and things.
Is a psychopath a person? Are they doomed to hell? (Is anyone interested in a purg thread on this topic? PM me.)
I don't kill animals so it's not too big a deal for me, where exactly the line is drawn. Are apes 'human' in some sense? It's a puzzle.

--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.

Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But, Marvin, anyone with a potentially life threatening chronic illness, diabetes, asthma, cystic fibrosis, and so on, could not survive without other people - at least without those people who manufacture their medicines. What about someone who needs kidney dialysis? What about someone who is immobile and therefore can't buy food for themself? Etc. etc. etc.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 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 chestertonian:
My instinct is that children are less human than adults,

[Eek!]

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264

 - Posted      Profile for thursday+   Email thursday+   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know, ken, that's why I disclaimed it by the end of the sentence. I'm a very abstract person and find children very alien. But that's clearly my problem, rather than relevant to how the world outside my head actually is. So how do you define 'person'?

--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.

Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Herminator
Shipmate
# 5250

 - Posted      Profile for Herminator   Email Herminator   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A foetus plucked from the womb, however, has zero chance of survival. Nil. Zip. It is not capable of independence, therefore is not yet a person.

Right, I've nailed my colours to the mast. Anyone else going to say where they'd draw the line (if at all)?

I work in a nursing home for old people and about five metres from me right now there is a woman who cannot eat or drink. Everything is given to her by a tube directly into her stomach! She cannot survive on her own, does that make her an unperson?
IMHO whenever we try to define personship by setting boundaries we always will leave out some whose personship need not be debated!

Posts: 83 | From: Ich bin ein Berliner! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264

 - Posted      Profile for thursday+   Email thursday+   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But we're trying to get a definition of personhood that we can use to decide the abortion question. It can be a web if you like, that is, "a person has at least some of these defining qualities: ...".

--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.

Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Herminator
Shipmate
# 5250

 - Posted      Profile for Herminator   Email Herminator   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But if you have a definition that will decide the abortion issue, how will you keep me from using it in other circumstances? If it applies to children (as yet unborn) why doesn´t it apply to old people? In think it is necessary to see the other implications too.

--------------------
"Wizards in trousers? Not in my university! It`s sissy. People´d laugh." said Ridcully
-Terry Pratchett: Soul Music

Posts: 83 | From: Ich bin ein Berliner! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264

 - Posted      Profile for thursday+   Email thursday+   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I mean that we're trying for a definition of personhood in order to decide the abortion question, but yes it should be a definition that is valid for all topics.

--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.

Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Herminator
Shipmate
# 5250

 - Posted      Profile for Herminator   Email Herminator   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok, that is what I meant!

--------------------
"Wizards in trousers? Not in my university! It`s sissy. People´d laugh." said Ridcully
-Terry Pratchett: Soul Music

Posts: 83 | From: Ich bin ein Berliner! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
But, Marvin, anyone with a potentially life threatening chronic illness, diabetes, asthma, cystic fibrosis, and so on, could not survive without other people - at least without those people who manufacture their medicines. What about someone who needs kidney dialysis? What about someone who is immobile and therefore can't buy food for themself? Etc. etc. etc.

Let's not paint with too fine a brush here. My position isn't intended to be specifically applied to any one person, but in general terms.

A person of 24 is capable of independent survival, as is a person of 97, 45 or 1. While there may be specific cases to the contrary, as a general rule it's true. A foetus of minus three to nine months age is not capable of independent survival, period.

I believe the line has to be drawn somewhere. That is where I draw it and why. I'm the first to admit it's not perfect, but then nothing is.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kyralessa,

Though the Declaration and Constitution carry soaring words about right to life and no deprivation thereof without due process, anglo-american legal common-law precedent confines these to born humans, so that's where the distinction comes from. There is no evidence that the Framers intended Constitutional guarantees to apply to an 8-week fetus.

--------------------
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
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.

I think you are presenting something highly dubious as if it was a fact.

From the BMJ

Anti-abortionists hijack fetal pain argument The consensus seems to be that precautions against a fetus feeling pain are taken from 20 weeks onwards and that is erring on the side of caution. The key event is generally reckond to be the
quote:
penetration of the cortex by the thalamic fibres
which happens at about 22 weeks.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology paper on fetal awareness


It's a big difference from your '12 weeks' contention


L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


I believe the line has to be drawn somewhere. That is where I draw it and why.

I agree that a line needs to be drawn. I'm just not convinced about your reasons for drawing it where you do - although I think I probably agree with the conclusions of your reasoning (that the law is about right as it stands?). So there we are.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  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

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools