|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How could the Pro-life movement have wider appeal?
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
In the US the pro-choice lobby seeks to end all legalize abortion for any reason and is seeking a constitutional amendment that grants full person-hood to a fertilized egg. This would end all abortion, even those required to to spare life and health and those for children who are victims of incest and all women/girls who have victimized by rape. It has the added benefit of outlawing several of the most reliable forms of contraception because the lobby "believes" they cause abortion.
Pro-life lobby, not pro-choice.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yet another reason why the OP has a long way to go:
Scott Walker
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It's a dull morning here, and I must be pretty dull as well, but I have real trouble seeing anything in what Macrina has said that would suggest that she espouses the sort of stupidity in that link.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Merely illustrates earlier points made.
We do not allow the nutters to define us, other do not allow us to be separate.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
He is not just doing this for fun. He is doing this to pander to a section of the electorate, which he hopes will sweep him into the presidential race. (I doubt he is electable by the general public.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The OP is either the Opening Post or the Opening Poster. I would no class Macrina with Scott Walker and I would not associate with him.
Your post seemed to me, and apparently Gee D, to be lumping all together.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
CK: quote:
From past experience of discussing this with other women I have often found that people seem influenced by their own experiences and emotions. Those who have had fertility problems have found the termination of any pregnancy inconceivable and offensive; those who are so fertile that birth control methods are insecure may think that abortion is an evil, but see it as a necessary evil.
The plural of anecdote is not data. I have had fertility problems, but I would still describe myself as pro-choice. However, I am pro-choice in a British context where we have the NHS to provide free medical care and a social welfare net to help poor families. Whether we will still have these things after five more years of the Tories is open to question, but at the moment it is (just) possible to keep your baby if you are poor and become pregnant. And counselling is available if you want it, and we have good ante- and post-natal care.
Even if we didn't have all these things I would still be pro-choice. I know exactly how hard it is to carry and give birth to a child; I would not force it on anyone who wasn't willing to do it.
Someday it may be possible to transfer unwanted embryos out of their mother's womb and into someone else's body to be carried to term. I shall expect to see a long line of pro-life campaigners waiting to sign up as volunteers on that day. If I'm not too old, I will. In the meantime, abortion is the lesser of two evils.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
windsofchange
Shipmate
# 13000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I would consider myself to be a left wing feminist in most regards. The big aberration within my world view is abortion. If I am honest with myself I just can't cope with the view that an nonviable fetus is nothing and has no right to life over that of its mother.
I don't want to deny women healthcare, or contraception or choice over their bodies but I just can't get past my gut reaction that yes this is the murder of a child and I would really like it if it stopped.
So I suppose that makes me pro-life. But I can't feel comfortable with that label because I simply can't identify with the rhetoric and priorities of the anti-abortion movement. I find the 'getting into bed' with the anti-gay marriage lobby distasteful and offensive, I am frustrated by the blatantly religious tone of the propaganda produced and the vitriol directed at people who are sincerely trying to help women in desperate situations. I am mystified by the refusal to advocate for contraception and sex education as a means by which the abortion rates can be decreased. Most of all I find the failure of the pro life movement to actually care about the life of the baby once it's born to be hypocritical in the extreme.
Does anyone share my frustration? Are there movements I could get involved in that don't mean I have to scream at vulnerable women outside clinics? Is there a less violent way for Christians to broaden the pro life movement and and reduce abortion rates in a compassionate and just manner?
Please excuse me for jumping into this discussion very late. But as I was just about to start a new thread, asking for help dealing with a very similar situation, I hope you won't mind.
My problem is that I am a "cradle Catholic" (Roman), but I do not agree with my church's stance that abortion is always "murder" and should thus be illegal.
I'm having a LOT of problems right now dealing with other Catholics who insist that if I don't support their current battle to de-fund Planned Parenthood, then I must be one of those evil people who support dismembering babies and selling their quivering, bleeding parts on the black market.
FWIW, I do think it's perfectly appropriate to investigate PP in light of the recent allegations and videos. But it seems to me that defunding it would hurt a lot more people than it would help, so I simply can't support it.
I know that makes me a really bad Roman Catholic. If I were still single, I'd just shrug my shoulders and head for the nearest Episcopalian church. But - I'm not. I'm married, and I'm old, and I'm tired of fighting. I just want to go to church on Sundays and Holy Days and make up my own mind on political stuff.
So am I in danger of hellfire? Or just an ordinary sinner, still beloved by Christ?
--------------------
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on." (owner of Coney Island Freak Show, upon learning someone outbid him for a 5-legged puppy)
Posts: 153 | From: Reseda, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
I'm having a LOT of problems right now dealing with other Catholics who insist that if I don't support their current battle to de-fund Planned Parenthood, then I must be one of those evil people who support dismembering babies and selling their quivering, bleeding parts on the black market.
FWIW, I do think it's perfectly appropriate to investigate PP in light of the recent allegations and videos. But it seems to me that defunding it would hurt a lot more people than it would help, so I simply can't support it.
You realise that the videos have been selectively edited to give the appearance of wrongdoing, and that there is nothing in the videos that comes close to being illegal. The only thing to investigate that I can see is the defamatory actions of those behind the videos, and the criminal act (in California, where one of the videos was made) of making recordings without permission. Bearing false witness is a sin too.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
windsofchange
Shipmate
# 13000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You realise that the videos have been selectively edited to give the appearance of wrongdoing, and that there is nothing in the videos that comes close to being illegal. The only thing to investigate that I can see is the defamatory actions of those behind the videos, and the criminal act (in California, where one of the videos was made) of making recordings without permission. Bearing false witness is a sin too. [/QB]
None of which really relates my problem, though I appreciate the clarification. My problem is I'm basically an Episcopalian in Roman Catholic clothing, and I'm not in a position to change my outfit at the moment. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on." (owner of Coney Island Freak Show, upon learning someone outbid him for a 5-legged puppy)
Posts: 153 | From: Reseda, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I would hope that the pro-life movement (whatever that really is) loses all appeal with its present focus. It is one of those groups that infuriates me because of its hypocrisy and abject moral failure.
Start with prevention.
Women need complete control over their reproductive health, and thereby, pregnancies that are not wanted simply don't occur. So the 'prolifers' would have to get good with birth control, thorough sexual education and knowledge, and stop associating with anti-sex, anti-masturbation, anti-gay, and whatever else they are against about reproduction. Abortion would be reserved for those situations where the prevention doesn't work, which is inevitable, and the pregnancy is easily handled, before it is even known to exist, e.g. mifepristone, which happily Health Canada has approved as of July 2015.
Re-aim at something actually useful.
The pro-life movement might be better to aim itself at something really useful, such as children dying from contaminated water around the world which is estimated at 2200 per day, estimated 18,000 children dying from starvation per day. We might also consider the killing directly or indirectly children in war. The Iraq war estimates were 6-7 thousand children per month**. I think the prolifers need to examine their moral failure, narrow goals, and consider stopping bother everyone else.
Just generally stop associating itself wrongly with Christianity.
Because that's doing "Christianity and..."
As I have learned on the evangelism loving and hating Jesus thread, it is wrong to do "Christianity and...":
** You can search for similar figures via your favourite internet search engine.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You realise that the videos have been selectively edited to give the appearance of wrongdoing, and that there is nothing in the videos that comes close to being illegal.
Ross Douthat speaks my mind on this kind of defence.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I would hope that the pro-life movement (whatever that really is) loses all appeal with its present focus. It is one of those groups that infuriates me because of its hypocrisy and abject moral failure.
Such comments are part of the problem, not of the solution. There will be no dialogue unless it is first admitted that the opposing side has some reasonable points, even if one thinks that they are getting it wrong overall. This of course also applies to the pro-life side, and some of the American activists certainly could do with a truckload of nuance. But this is just the mirror image on the pro-choice side.
Step one here is for both sides to admit that pregnancy is a special case. It is not simply a human being who just happens to live within another human being for a while, as many on the pro-life side would have it. It is not simply another piece of tissue that the mother happens to be growing, as many on the pro-choice side would have it. It is a difficult moral problem precisely because it is a special case. It may have one right solution in the end, but if we acknowledge that it is not simple, then we can approach those who disagree with us with the appropriate respect.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Ross Douthat speaks my mind on this kind of defence.
I'm not taking seriously anyone who repeats the unfounded allegation of haggling. It's clear from the full video that the discussion of price was only about costs, and that is all it could be about.
[ 04. August 2015, 11:59: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't really understand how it follows that even if one thinks that abortion is really bad that use of the fetus in research (and discussion therein) is worse.
Surely making best use of the fetus is a good thing.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Ross Douthat speaks my mind on this kind of defence.
That has got to be the stupidest defense of an anti-choice stance I have ever read.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This: Life has nothing to do with it really.
Here's a piece that could be regarded as a follow-up by the same author on a different blog. The basic point made is that American conservatives are increasingly defining anything to do with ladyparts as "not really medicine".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Step one here is for both sides to admit that pregnancy is a special case. It is not simply a human being who just happens to live within another human being for a while, as many on the pro-life side would have it. It is not simply another piece of tissue that the mother happens to be growing, as many on the pro-choice side would have it. It is a difficult moral problem precisely because it is a special case. It may have one right solution in the end, but if we acknowledge that it is not simple, then we can approach those who disagree with us with the appropriate respect.
When IngoB makes an objective statement on a DH issue, it is time for people to examine their rhetoric.
The problem with discussing the prices isn't that it is done. It is the perception that this is the motive for the practice rather than a practical side issue. That abortions will be encouraged so to generate revenue. Yes, I know that this is unlikely, but this, IMO, is the fear.
And it is about life. And it is about supporting women. For some of us. We would not see abortion illegal, but we would like it to be extremely rare. And this is objectively good for women.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with discussing the prices isn't that it is done. It is the perception that this is the motive for the practice rather than a practical side issue. That abortions will be encouraged so to generate revenue. Yes, I know that this is unlikely, but this, IMO, is the fear.
Not only unlikely but illegal, as selling the tissue for a profit is banned in the US. The insinuation from those making the videos has been that there was profit making going on, but that's flat out untrue.
quote:
And it is about life. And it is about supporting women. For some of us. We would not see abortion illegal, but we would like it to be extremely rare. And this is objectively good for women.
Absolutely agreed.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The way that a doctored video and a false narrative has been trotted out and immediately used as an excuse to cut help to women simply reeks of evil.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't really understand how it follows that even if one thinks that abortion is really bad that use of the fetus in research (and discussion therein) is worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The way that a doctored video and a false narrative has been trotted out and immediately used as an excuse to cut help to women simply reeks of evil.
This kind of cuts to the nub. If fetal tissue research is evil because it's gross (per IngoB/Douthat), it seems a non-sequitur to claim that the solution is to start withholding cancer screenings from poor women. There does not seem to be any kind of interest in investigating or penalizing the large bio-tech firms that actually use fetal tissue for research.
The only principle at stake seems to be the "principle" that charitable organizations that serve women should be obligated to use some of their resources to subsidize large bio-tech firms (even fictional ones). This doesn't seem to be so much a "principle" as it does "crass opportunism".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The way that a doctored video and a false narrative has been trotted out and immediately used as an excuse to cut help to women simply reeks of evil.
Not necessarily that simple. Or even likely that simple.
Yes, there are those who fit your description. But not everyone does.
Let's examine the spectrum of those of us who don't see abortion as a positive.
From the misogynistic "women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" to me. There is a lot of room for nuance and variation.
My objection is not that you paint some with that brush, it is that you paint all with it.
And perhaps you are not. I do realise, with what small amount of objective self-examination I can muster, that I tend to paint very broadly myself.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
If you want to harm poor women, deny them access to healthcare and to contraceptives that mean fewer abortions then defund PP.
Here’s the breakdown from the annual report:
Abortions: 327,653
Sexually transmitted infection/disease testing and treatment: 4,470,597
Contraception: 3,577,348
Cancer screening and prevention: 935,573
Pregnancy tests: 1,128,783
Prenatal services: 18,684
Family practice services: 65,464
Adoption referrals: 1,880
Urinary tract infection treatments: 47,264
Other: 17,187
Their annual report .
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The way that a doctored video and a false narrative has been trotted out and immediately used as an excuse to cut help to women simply reeks of evil.
Not necessarily that simple. Or even likely that simple.
Seems like a pretty good capsule summary of the events in question to me. What do you object to; the suggestion that the videos in question were "doctored" to produce a "false narrative", or that they're being used as an excuse to cut help to women?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not necessarily that simple. Or even likely that simple.
Yes, there are those who fit your description. But not everyone does.
Let's examine the spectrum of those of us who don't see abortion as a positive.
From the misogynistic "women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" to me. There is a lot of room for nuance and variation.
My objection is not that you paint some with that brush, it is that you paint all with it.
Please help me understand why I should be getting angry about the videos and using the anger to deprive tissues for research and services for women. I don't understand.
Incidentally, count me in as one of those who thinks that abortion is overwhelmingly a bad thing and wishes that it happened extremely rarely. But given that it does happen, I'd want the fetuses to be used for the best possible benefit.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The video was doctored. Check.
Some are using this to defund Planned Parenthood. Check.
What I'm objecting to is abortion being presented as a black and white issue and being lumped in the extremists
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Please help me understand why I should be getting angry about the videos and using the anger to deprive tissues for research and services for women.
I didn't say you should. I didn't say anyone should.
Actually, everyone should get angry about the videos.
This issue can be discussed and debated on a rational level and the videos are underhanded. Whatever their motive, the practice is lacking.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, everyone should get angry about the videos.
This issue can be discussed and debated on a rational level and the videos are underhanded. Whatever their motive, the practice is lacking.
Go on then, what about the videos should make me angry?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I just said. The fact that they are underhanded. That they are not honest.
That should anger everyone, even those opposed to abortion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The descriptions on the video of terminations requiring dismemberment are referring to very late abortions, much later than the majority of terminations. (But this is what is shown on the publicity materials of anti-abortion groups.)
In the UK in 2014, 51% of terminations were medical, a procedure that is most effective up to 59 days gestation, and 92% of terminations were carried out within the first trimester (13 weeks).¹. The medical terminations will look like heavy menstruation or an early miscarriage and the woman will have to be quite observant to spot the egg sac among the blood clots.
Abortion debates tend to be polarised on a spectrum with the opposing parties espousing that either:
- the fertilised egg is human as it has created new genetic material and life, so has full human rights, or
- any foetus is only potential life without a woman to act as incubator and potential life cannot trump the woman's rights
Against the first position are the number of zygotes that fail to implant or are miscarried early - estimated to be 50%. If nature / God allows this to happen, is the fertilised egg fully human? Or is it potential life? Early spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, are common enough in the first trimester that women are advised not to publicise they are pregnant until they are past the first three months.
The picture is further complicated by early terminations being carried out on women who seek a termination the minute they know they are pregnant. (Six weeks for confirmation of pregnancy, 51% of terminations by 9 weeks.) The medical complications are not identified until later and the extent of the difficulties until much later after that - 16 weeks or 20 weeks.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fortunately, the bill has been blocked, if barely. So Planned Parenthood is safe for the moment.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I just said. The fact that they are underhanded. That they are not honest.
That should anger everyone, even those opposed to abortion.
Don't you know it's okay to lie, if your ultimate goal is good. As Paul said, "Let us do evil, that good may result."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If fetal tissue research is evil because it's gross (per IngoB/Douthat), it seems a non-sequitur to claim that the solution is to start withholding cancer screenings from poor women. There does not seem to be any kind of interest in investigating or penalizing the large bio-tech firms that actually use fetal tissue for research.
First, this is not an appropriate summary of the points Douthat makes, which I support. Second, I fully agree that funding for say cancer screening should be ring-fenced against whatever action is taken in this matter. If we are worried about a specific issue, then that issue must be addressed. Using it as a device for a much broader attack is not appropriate (and IMHO also tactically unwise for the pro-life side). If PP really needs to be taken down wholesale over these matters as an organisation, then appropriate alternative provisions must be put into place.
Third, it is not evil as such to perform research on human tissue, including foetal human tissue. The ethical question is precisely how the researcher gets this human tissue in the first place. Generally speaking, this becomes an issue of consent. For a (deceased) foetus, one would expect some kind of regulation requiring consent from the parents. In the UK this is regulated by the Human Tissue Act. It does an acceptable job in spite of some ideological nonsense in its classifications, basically because the same people get asked for consent no matter how the tissue is legally labeled. I do not know what regulations exist in the USA, and whether they are reasonable. I also do not know to what extent US companies may have pushed for the illegal or immoral harvesting of tissue. However, the mere fact that a company does research on foetal tissue does not indicate that the company is doing something illegal or immoral.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
US law
And part 1 of the same statute, outlining what is permissible. Part 2 is about what isn't. This was passed in to law in 1993 with broad support in both houses, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who now claims to find fetal tissue research "very, very disturbing".
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I fully agree that funding for say cancer screening should be ring-fenced against whatever action is taken in this matter. If we are worried about a specific issue, then that issue must be addressed. Using it as a device for a much broader attack is not appropriate (and IMHO also tactically unwise for the pro-life side).
And yet that seems to be the approach the American pro-life* movement has taken.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not know what regulations exist in the USA, and whether they are reasonable.
As noted in the link provided by art dunce, it's illegal to provide fetal tissue for "valuable consideration" (what most of us would call profit). On the other hand the law stipulates that "[t]he term 'valuable consideration' does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue". The dollar figures discussed in the Planned Parenthood videos seem very much in line with this latter clause, especially given that PP representative refuses an offer of a much higher payment (in the unedited video). In short, the videos are edited in such a way as to make it appear that "valuable consideration" is being discussed (which would be illegal), when it's actually various operating costs (which it is perfectly legal to get reimbursement for).
--------------------
*Offer expires at birth
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Third, it is not evil as such to perform research on human tissue, including foetal human tissue. The ethical question is precisely how the researcher gets this human tissue in the first place. Generally speaking, this becomes an issue of consent. For a (deceased) foetus, one would expect some kind of regulation requiring consent from the parents. In the UK this is regulated by the Human Tissue Act. It does an acceptable job in spite of some ideological nonsense in its classifications, basically because the same people get asked for consent no matter how the tissue is legally labeled. I do not know what regulations exist in the USA, and whether they are reasonable. I also do not know to what extent US companies may have pushed for the illegal or immoral harvesting of tissue. However, the mere fact that a company does research on foetal tissue does not indicate that the company is doing something illegal or immoral.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) but are you saying there is a problem even if there is consent?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet that seems to be the approach the American pro-life movement has taken.
Yeah, well. Americans are a bit ... different. Though I feel Europeans are not really in a position to tell Americans that they are doing it wrong. After all, European pro-lifers are basically invisible.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
but are you saying there is a problem even if there is consent?
No, I have no problem with good research conducted on foetal tissue given appropriate consent by the parents. Just as I have no problem with such research conducted on the tissue of dead children, or indeed on that of any other dead person. A friend of mine did tracer studies in "dead" brain tissue cut out due to brain cancer ("dead" in quotation marks, because many neurons were still alive enough to transport the dye). I thought that was a really interesting line of research.
I do have a problem with abortion, and hence I would de facto really like to shut down one of the major supply lines for such research. But not because of the research, rather because of the abortion. I dislike the intentional killing of what I consider to be tiny human persons, I have no problem with research conducted on the tissues of dead people if appropriate consent is obtained (and hopefully some sense of decorum is maintained in handling the tissue).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ingo:
I dislike the intentional killing of what I consider to be tiny human persons...
Can I ask when they become 'tiny human persons' in your opinion? Is it at fertilization or somewhere along the developmental time line? If along that timeline when and what qualities bestow personhood?
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Can I ask when they become 'tiny human persons' in your opinion? Is it at fertilization or somewhere along the developmental time line? If along that timeline when and what qualities bestow personhood?
In general, at fertilisation. More precisely, at the point where God infuses a human soul. Since my concept of soul is hylomorphic, i.e., that of a form shaping the body, this is largely equivalent in biological terms to the formation of a distinct set of human DNA with of the associated cell machinery, which is starting to build up a human body. There are special cases, like twins, where God infuses a second soul at a later stage (or, in biological terms, where an independent entity starts a separate process of development at a later stage due to a splitting of the so far assembled cells).
Basically, on a hylomorphic conception I do not believe in any kind of "developmental break" where a person arises. The process of development itself is the operation of the person until it gets to stage where it can take more "externally visible" actions (if it gets there). The human soul just is the biology in motion. Plus an incorporeal component, which is why we need God to infuse it, why humans are more than animals who do not have that component, and why we can survive bodily death - but for the question at hand this matters only insofar as it gives the human process a special flavour and dignity, to which we commonly assign the label "person". Concerning the biological development as such, I could say just the same thing about a dog and its animal soul, i.e., also a new individual dog arises at fertilisation.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The thing I still don't understand is this point that the fetus should not be used because it was obtained in a bad way.
Does that mean human bodies which were the result of suicide, murder, medical negligence, drug overdose.. etc should not be used because they were obtained in a bad way (assuming for the sake of argument that they are suitable for transplant)? Is there a blanket prohibition on using things that were obtained in bad/sinful ways? Does the Vatican know this?
Secondly, I really think this issue of consent is a red herring. Parents all the time give consent to the use of the organs in dead children to be given in transplants because children cannot give their own consent. Clearly a fetus is not able to give consent, but then neither is a child. In the vast majority of all cases (outside of abuse etc), parents are able to give consent for the use of their child's body.
IngoB's view of the origins human life is not that held by everyone. For many of the rest of us, an embryo is a precious and miraculous thing, but it is not a human life until birth. That is the status it has in law. So claiming that abortion is somehow murder of a human is a religious claim many of us do not accept. Furthermore there is no particular reason to join him in believing this and therefore no reason to listen to his - or anyone else's - overblown rhetoric on it.
In my view it is sufficient to believe that abortion is a terrible thing to be normalised in society and often does great damage physically and emotionally to the mother without using overblown language. The use of aborted fetuses to me is a totally different discussion, I don't see that there is any significant overlap.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The thing I still don't understand is this point that the fetus should not be used because it was obtained in a bad way.
There is a debate to be had whether something obtained in an illicit way can be used for the good, and whether that depends on the intentions behind the illicit act. Is it more important to maintain the integrity of the prohibition, or is it more important to pragmatically make the best out of a bad situation? But in sense that sort of discussion is independent of the particular case at hand.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is there a blanket prohibition on using things that were obtained in bad/sinful ways? Does the Vatican know this?
RC morality maintains that evil may not be done to achieve good. This is however not exactly the same as saying that the outcome of evil may not be used for the good.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
IngoB's view of the origins human life is not that held by everyone. For many of the rest of us, an embryo is a precious and miraculous thing, but it is not a human life until birth. That is the status it has in law. So claiming that abortion is somehow murder of a human is a religious claim many of us do not accept. Furthermore there is no particular reason to join him in believing this and therefore no reason to listen to his - or anyone else's - overblown rhetoric on it.
I have not used any "overblown rhetoric". I have stated matter-of-factly what I consider to be the case, since I was asked to do so. And this appeal to not listen to the reasons I - or anybody sharing my opinion - may have is very strange to me. I would say that it is key for any discussion of any topic to listen to the reasons of the other. Whether one agrees with them is a different matter, but to preemptively announce that one will just ignore them seems foolish and/or fanatic to me.
I believe the law on this matter is obviously false, in the sense of being counter-factual (at odds with reality). It is however right in the sense of representing the reigning majority opinion (or at least it codifies the desires of the majority into a categorisation of human life). I respect the rule of law, but I also insist on the possibility of overturning unjust law through a political process. The task at hand is then to change the opinion of the majority on this matter, at which point the unjust law is bound to fall sooner or later.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is a debate to be had whether something obtained in an illicit way can be used for the good, and whether that depends on the intentions behind the illicit act. Is it more important to maintain the integrity of the prohibition, or is it more important to pragmatically make the best out of a bad situation? But in sense that sort of discussion is independent of the particular case at hand.
Why is it? You seem to have rejected the use of fetal samples from abortions in the above. I don't see how this is independent - why exactly do you think the videos are abhorrent? I don't understand what the problem is here.
quote:
RC morality maintains that evil may not be done to achieve good. This is however not exactly the same as saying that the outcome of evil may not be used for the good.
Clearly it does not check every financial donation or the origins of it, so this is easily falsifiable. You are using a standard here the Vatican does not use in other contexts.
quote:
I have not used any "overblown rhetoric". I have stated matter-of-factly what I consider to be the case, since I was asked to do so. And this appeal to not listen to the reasons I - or anybody sharing my opinion - may have is very strange to me. I would say that it is key for any discussion of any topic to listen to the reasons of the other. Whether one agrees with them is a different matter, but to preemptively announce that one will just ignore them seems foolish and/or fanatic to me.
Yeah, well, we've all heard the arguments from your side ad nauseum. Time we moved on and ignored you, I think.
quote:
I believe the law on this matter is obviously false, in the sense of being counter-factual (at odds with reality). It is however right in the sense of representing the reigning majority opinion (or at least it codifies the desires of the majority into a categorisation of human life). I respect the rule of law, but I also insist on the possibility of overturning unjust law through a political process. The task at hand is then to change the opinion of the majority on this matter, at which point the unjust law is bound to fall sooner or later.
Right, so you just follow laws as you feel like it - and laws which enable the use of organs from fetuses which have unfortunately been aborted are "unjust" according to you. Because you say so.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In my view it is sufficient to believe that abortion is a terrible thing to be normalised in society and often does great damage physically and emotionally to the mother without using overblown language.
This "emotional and physical damage to the mother" caused by abortion is a myth peddled by anti-abortion campaigners, although it is really difficult sifting the real information and finding the science as any internet search is flooded by anti-abortion group propaganda.
The physical risk of a termination in the first trimester is far less than that of a full term pregnancy and any risks are very small - NHS Summary of risks.
Post abortion syndrome is written about on many anti-abortion sites but is not accepted by the American Psychiatric Association. According to a Danish study, there is a higher risk of becoming depressed following a live birth than a termination.
A summary of research on the emotional effects following an abortion, Planned Parenthood leaflet (pdf) based on 2011 research summary, concludes:
quote:
The truth remains that most substantive studies in the last 30 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect — except when pre-abortion emotional problems exist or when a wanted pregnancy is terminated, such as after diagnostic genetic testing.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why is it? You seem to have rejected the use of fetal samples from abortions in the above. I don't see how this is independent - why exactly do you think the videos are abhorrent? I don't understand what the problem is here.
I have not seen "the videos", and hence have no particular opinion on how abhorrent they may be. My rejection of abortion has nothing to do with the question whether some American abortion provider has mishandled foetal tissue or not. That really is of marginal interest to me, personally.
I have no clear opinion on what is "morally best" in dealing with the tissue of aborted foetuses. Fortunately, I'm under no obligation or pressure to have an opinion on this. I do have the firm opinion that there shouldn't be any tissue of aborted foetuses in the first place, because there should not be any abortions. But while this would solve the problem at hand in what I believe is the morally correct way, it is not going to happen anytime soon, and so others will have to come up with "second best" moral strategies that deal with current realities. I have pointed to UK law which I think provides viable procedures based on parental consent.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Clearly it does not check every financial donation or the origins of it, so this is easily falsifiable. You are using a standard here the Vatican does not use in other contexts.
Two wrongs do not ever make a right. Furthermore, morality is not established by how diligently it is being patrolled in practice. If you live in an anarchistic country where nobody cares if you shoot random people dead, then your murders do not therefore become morally licit. Likewise, a purported lack in financial diligence of the RCC does not somehow repudiate the moral principle that evil may not be done to achieve good. Rather, we (supposedly) can accuse the RCC of moral neglect precisely based on this principle. What we can say based on the greater attention paid to dealing in human body parts than to (at least small scale) financial donations to the Church is that most people find human life more important than money. I think that is fine.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, well, we've all heard the arguments from your side ad nauseum. Time we moved on and ignored you, I think.
Well, you have not refuted these arguments, or at least you have not refuted my kind of arguments based on hylomorphic dualism (I have no intention to stand up for every argument of every pro-lifer out there). This leaves us with two possibilities: Either you are prepared to act politically regardless of reason. That's tyrannical - and as for every tyrant, it is then just to resist you and remove you from power, if necessary by force. Or this is a case where it is impossible to decide by reason between different reasonable conceptions. In which case a fair political compromise will have to start with acknowledging this inability to prove the other wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, so you just follow laws as you feel like it - and laws which enable the use of organs from fetuses which have unfortunately been aborted are "unjust" according to you. Because you say so.
That is basically the opposite of what I have actually said.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Yeah, I'm calling that bullshit, given I know people who have been under considerable emotional and physical turmoil after abortion. Also I don't consider Planned Parenthood leaflets a reliable source.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I only used the Planned Parenthood leaflet as it was easier than finding the full article in BJ Psych. The other information came from the NHS - the UK health service summarising information and a Time Magazine report on this Danish study which is also contained in the meta-analysis above.
You probably don't know how many other women of your acquaintance have sailed through having an abortion because there was no reason to tell you and these days women tend to keep that one quiet. Anecdotes don't make good research.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
First line of that paper:
quote:
Two recent meta-analyses claim that abortion leads to a deterioration in mental health.
Selective quoting of favourable reviews does not make good reporting.
I am aware that my personal experience does not reflect the totality of women who have experienced abortion, but I also do not accept those who want to pull reviews out of the air and claim that this somehow proves something which is clearly under scholarly debate.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
You've fallen into your own trap there. The whole article goes on to discuss why this review of the research had taken place. Those two recent reviews referred to in the opening paragraph were cast into doubt as
(1) biased by other researchers, see reference to letters;
(2) those two reviews were out of line with all the previous research.
The conclusions are those I gave earlier.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Nope, no trap fallen: there are different researchers in the area who assess the published data in different ways.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
There was a broad range of findings across the different mental health diagnostic
categories regarding prevalence rates following an abortion. Overall the quality of the
studies was poor to fair, with large variation in the study design, including: retrospective
study designs and secondary data analysis of population studies; variable and
sometimes small sample sizes; considerable variation in the measurement methods
and the outcomes reported; and lack of adequate control for confounding variables
including whether or not the pregnancy was planned and multiple pregnancy events
both before and after abortion. In this context, the high degree of heterogeneity in
prevalence rates reported may well result from these variations, making it difficult to form
reliable conclusions or to make generalisations from these results.
From http://www.aomrc.org.uk/doc_view/9432-induced-abortion-and-mental-health
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
