Thread: Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001131
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
The Anglican church has recently faced criticism from Dr Rowan Williams that Anglicans are not doing enough to defend the rights of the unborn child.

Out of interest why do you think this is? Is it because little is taught inside the church on such issues? Or is it just a symptom of the politically apathetic society we live in?

Paddy

[ 15. June 2003, 20:18: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Maybe because some Anglicans don't share your views on abortion.
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
is it just a symptom of the politically apathetic society we live in?
Perhaps, Paddy, because some of us are politically active on the other side. My opinion on this highly charged topic
Abortion should be safe, legal, available, and rare
The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent (by whatever means) unwanted pregnancy. Which requires frankness and public education, amongst other things.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
*sits back, puts feet up, and prepares to watch the fireworks*
 
Posted by Late Quartet (# 1207) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
*sits back, puts feet up, and prepares to watch the fireworks*
Yes more thank likely Nicole, and yet I hope for a peaceful and respectful exchange on this topic which is mindful of the variety of experiences shipmates are bound to have in this area.
 
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
Hi there Paddy, and welcome to the Ship. [Smile]

Can you supply a link to the relevant statement by Dr. Williams?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Oooo. Everyone beat me to it. Paddy, you're begging the question, I fear. Back up a step. You're assuming that Anglicans, generally, oppose legal access to abortion.* That is mostly very untrue.

*as opposed to thinking abortion itself wrong, which is not the same question.
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Oooo. Everyone beat me to it. Paddy, you're begging the question, I fear. Back up a step. You're assuming that Anglicans, generally, oppose legal access to abortion.* That is mostly very untrue.

*as opposed to thinking abortion itself wrong, which is not the same question.
And why do you think Paddy is assuming this rather than thinking that abortion, as a principle is wrong.

In some ways it is the same question seeing that abortion, to those who oppose it, is not simply a 'wrong' but an act of infanticide. Why, therefore, if one feels that abortion is wrong in itself should one feel it is still right for people to have a legal right to access it? The same argument could be applied for euthanasia for example. In the hunting debate we have seen that those who feel it to be wrong overwhelmingly wish to deny access to hunting to those who support it. Why should abortion be any different?

If Archbishop Williams is saying (and I must confess that I haven't seen this or heard about it before Paddy's post) then I think it is splendid that an Anglican archbishop with impeccable liberal credentials is willing to question the liberal abortion imperative. I cannot understand, for example, why so many of those who vehemently oppose a war with Iraq because of the loss of life involved are perfectly happy with abortion on demand. Another example is the medical profession and those who work in 'family planning'. I know a woman who recently went along to her local clinic to have her suspected pregnancy confirmed. After its confirmation (which was the cul,mination of several months trying by the couple concerned) the first questions she was asked by the nurse was 'You know you are well within the legal termination limit don't you? Do you need information about this?' That hardly seems to point to a healthy society.

Cosmo
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
I'm not quite able to make up my mind on whether or not abortion should be legal. I'm inclined to say it shouldn't, because I do consider it to be the murder of an innocent child, but, if it were illegal, it would be so much more dangerous, to both mother and child.

I still can't bring myself to say that it should be permitted, though. I remember someone asking someone once "Do you agree with abortion?" and the response was "Do you agree with the slaughter of innocent children?" I wouldn't ever legitimise the latter, and so find it difficult to justify legalising the former. Mmmm. I don't know.

Thurible
 
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
I can't see where Paddy has expressed any view whatsoever.

He refers to a statement (of which I am unaware), and asks why that statement should be the case. He seems to not be questioning the statement, which is not necessarily indicative of his views.

And he is a newbie, and we don't know his posting style.

So I think that people are being unnecessarily twitchy here. Lets find out some more about the question, please?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
He quoted a possible Rowan Williams question about why Anglicans don't do more to defend the unborn, and suggested that this might be due to apathy or lack of education.

Thus, the question assumed facts not in evidence -- that is, it assumes that Anglicans (all of them!) do feel that they ought to do something about abortion , but aren't doing anything for some other reason. I submit that the reason they aren't "doing something" about it is that generally, many Anglicans feel that there is no need to "do something" about it.

Of course, as noted, Anglicans hold a range of views on abortion and the propriety of government prohibition thereof. In the U.S. Episcopal Church, there are representatives for both views. See NOEL: Episcopalians for Life and The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which counts many Episcopalians as members.

And it's not that it's a bad question; it's just not framed very clearly. Maybe you could be more specific, Paddy?

[ 03. January 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Hi. Yes, I am pretty sure that Rowan Wiliams is not in favour of abortion - although he doesn't necessarily argue for a ban on legal abortion. Have a look at his book Lost Icons pp38-47 if you want to read his views. I hesitate to precis them, simply because he isn't a soundbite cleric ( thank God!) - but his main objection is to the notion of 'choice' used as an argument, from a moral standpoint. He also stresses that militarism is at least as immoral but notes that many who oppose abortion or who view abortion as a 'moral' issue fail to do the same with militarism.

I think, whilst I do respect his view, and I think its consistent, that mine are less hostile, and I do think that Anglican views are probably quite mixed.

One thing I do think, though, is that people on both sides of the argument do have some things which they may agree with. For example, that women who wish to take the pregnancy to term and give birth should not be prevented from doing so by economic deprivation. And that there should be more effort placed into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, so that abortion doesn't have to then be considered.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I can't see where Paddy has expressed any view whatsoever.
See his thread introducing himself in All Saints. His views on this subject are quite clear.

quote:
from Cosmo:
Why, therefore, if one feels that abortion is wrong in itself should one feel it is still right for people to have a legal right to access it? The same argument could be applied for euthanasia for example. In the hunting debate we have seen that those who feel it to be wrong overwhelmingly wish to deny access to hunting to those who support it. Why should abortion be any different?
I for one think that there are plenty of cases in which my personal morality need not be reflected in the law. I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently which read: "Against abortion? Don't have one."

Saying simply that since abortion is wrong it should be illegal ignores the complex situations that lead women and girls to seek abortions.

I agree with Henry Troup: abortion should be safe, legal, available, and rare.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I remember listening to Tony Blair on this, where he said that personally he didn't agree with abortion ( you may remember that when the Blairs had their fourth child, that Cherie didnt have a scan because she said abortion wasn't an option for her) , but that he did not think it would be right to impose his own views on the legal position.
The view of Ruth and Henry is the one I hold as well.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I for one think that there are plenty of cases in which my personal morality need not be reflected in the law. I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently which read: "Against abortion? Don't have one."
What if someone truly believes that abortion is murder?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
If someone truly thinks abortion is murder, then obviously they're going to think abortion should be illegal. But most such people are able to recognize that their views are not shared by the majority of the public. If they can convince the general public that abortion is murder, then the law will probably change.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I think you miss my point. You dismissed pro-life activists as wanting to incorporate their personal morality into the law. It's not a matter of morality for a lot of them (okay, I'll say it -- us), it's a matter of infanticide. I see no reason why I should sit back and be quiet just because other people don't see it that way. I think murder, in all cases, should be illegal. It wasn't too long ago that the murder of women and non-whites was simply considered a matter of personal morality, but I am quite thankful that that personal morality was imposed on the rest of the country.
 
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
Well said Erin- for anti abortion people, abortion cannot be an issue of private choice because it directly, and majorly involves an individual other than the person making the decision.

So for them, the bumper sticker "Anti-Abortion? Don't have one" is a bit like saying "Anti-Murder? Don't kill anyone" or "Anti-Robbery? Don't rob anyone?"

Of course there is the issue about whether abortion is murder etc, but on the basic point it is important to understand that it is not simply a case of "imposing your moral views on someone else".
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
That's what I keep running up against, Erin. I have to respect the political involvement of those who believe abortion is murder, even as I worry that because the positions cannot be reconciled, inevitably the majority will impose its will on the minority should the Supremes kick it back to the states.

I have to respect that political involvement for two reasons: this is a democracy and we want to encourage people to agitate politically for change and also my own forbears, who were abolitionist, used very similar rhetoric to support their view that slavery ought to be outlawed.

I read a terrific article in First Things -- it was an article explicating the irreconcilability of the views on both sides, and explaining why the standard conservative rhetoric would never work with women, because women who would consider abortion regard pregnancy as an attack against which they must defend; and regard those who would outlaw abortion as engaging in a personal attack. The article goes on to explain how the pro-life message might be better delivered as an empowerment one.

I disagreed with the writer, and was a little chilled, but I really understood for the first time where the other side is coming from, and why we really can't even talk about the issue without it devolving quickly.
Abortion: A Failure to Communicate

For example, he says:

quote:
One objective of the research [a study he talks about extensively] was to answer a question that has baffled pro-life activists for some time. How can women, and the public in general, be comfortable with being against abortion personally but in favor of keeping it legal? Because pro-lifers find it morally obvious that one cannot simultaneously hold that "abortion is killing" and "abortion should be legal," they have tended to assume that people need only to be shown more clearly that the fetus is a baby. They assume that if the humanity of the unborn is understood, the consequent moral imperative, "killing a baby is wrong," will naturally follow, and women will choose life for their unborn children. This orientation has framed much of the argument by pro-lifers for over two decades, with frustratingly little impact.

The new research shows why the traditional approach has had so little effect, and what can be done to change things.

The summary report of the study bears the intriguing title "Abortion: The Least Of Three Evils—Understanding the Psychological Dynamics of How Women Feel About Abortion." The report suggests that women do not see any "good" resulting from an unplanned pregnancy. Instead they must weigh what they perceive as three "evils," namely, motherhood, adoption, and abortion.

 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I find myself surprised that I cannot remember a thread primarily concerned with abortion. Perhaps this topic has been taboo for some good reasons...?

Pardon me while I donate my $0.02. I'd like to have it said.

For me, value judgements about life are a touchy topic. On one hand, I think that sometimes it is sensible to sacrifice one life for the sake of another, or others. That is why my gut reaction to abortion and euthanasia is that it can only be decided by those directly responsible for the lives in question. On another hand, I fear the abuse of these things, and find it difficult to trust any group to steward something so delicate and sensitive.

I find that I usually support those that promote choice. This is because I fear that those who make that terrible choice need a chance to wrest some good out of the blood on their hands, and that chance can be disturbingly small. I would never agree to make the process "easy", as it requires serious contemplation. Indeed, I feel strongly that the only real solution is to be able to avoid the majority of abortions through education about contraceptives.

My own connection to the women's group at school, and their quiet and often grim work helping those wracked with the angst of what do, has caused me to respect what I see now as an unfortunate reality. It shames me to say this, but the only pro-life contact I have ever found has been indignant wealthy people, purveying ludicrous ideas about dead babies in dumpsters, who simply didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. It makes me angry. I know that there are other faces to the movement, and I am partially responsible for not seeking them out, but I still think I would trust these people less about making value judgements about lives than I would the average 16-year-old girl.

Thanks for your patience. Sorry for the sidetrack.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
As a young atheist parrot of atheist dogma, I couselled my sisters to have abortions, paid for them with college loans, and helped them with the fallout. (Long story: my sisters have always seen me as Dad more than my Dad.) "It's a little pile of jelly that is going to ruin your life. Come with me, you're getting an abortion." After watching the fallout twice I realized that I was wrong.

As a "thinking" Episcopalian I was an active member in NOEL and gave thoughtful pro-life presentations in the wealthy suburbs of San Diego California and Washington DC. My story was that by the time most woman are aware that they are pregnant the fetus is essentially differentiated into the major organ systems, including tiny hands and feet. While it is biologically "parasitic" on the mother, children are helpless and the economic equivilent of "parasites" from birth until long after. Still I recognized the thorny issues of pregnancy due to rape and encouraged people to at least not see it automatically as a question of the mother's rights only.

As a Humanist who just went to two Unitarian Universalist services and liked them, I'd say today that I am a moderate who does not have a difficulty with first term abortions but cannot agree with final third abortions. In the first trimester I am reasonably certain that the fetus has no idea what is happening to it, so it has no individual rights to assert. In the third trimester I can imagine that it may experience pain, suffering, and primitive emotions like terror, but more importantly the child [sic] could live outside the womb and has gained the potential for biological independence. Therefore it can assert individual rights and the State can step in to protect it. The mother can keep it or give up rights to it after birth if someone can be found to voluntarily take it.

I have no idea what to think about the middle trimester.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
OK. My wishy-washy "proving why the human backside is shaped the way it is - for sitting on fences" thoughts on the matter...

I am, essentially, opposed to abortion. It's my lefty sympathies (yes, I know, but this is how my mind works). I believe in defending the weak against the strong. The same impetus that makes me support minimum wage and trade unionism makes me oppose abortion in theory and in principle.

But - and there's always a but - I do draw a distinction between a full term foetus and a zygote. Life does not begin at conception; life is continuous. There is no line you can draw. But what you do have through pregnancy is the development of a potential human into a real one. It follows, therefore, that the "wrongness" of terminating that pregnancy also increases from "not wrong at all" (barrier contraception) to "totally wrong" - abortion of what is indistinguishable from a newborn.

Life is messy. You cannot just say "Oh have the thing and put it up for adoption". You do run the risk of phychological harm to the mother. It just ain't that simple. Moreover, it must be conceded that it is potentially extremely psychologically damaging to carry the child of one's rapist, or of a violent partner whom one is trying to sever one's connections to. Scenarios like this are myriad, and will always give rise to "yes but"s and "what if"s.

What I propose is that one must measure the 'wrongness' of termination against the 'wrongness' of allowing the pregnancy to continue, if doing so would damage the mental or physical health of the mother, for example. In reality, I doubt that any abortions after a few weeks, once major organs are developing, would be justifiable in any but the most extreme cases - threat to the mother's life, for example. Earlier than this the matter is different.

Does that aid or hinder the debate?
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
All Christians have to be practical, - on abortion and divorce. We don't like it, it's a lose/lose situation but we're trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

I'm sure God sympathises with that point of view.

But that doesn't mean that with 30% of British Pregnancies being aborted, I don't think there is something profoundly round here somewhere.

Giving out free condoms and pills to very young teenagers does seem to have made matters worse.

Sex is now seen as a 'right' rather than a 'responsibility'. And if you're not getting enough or even don't think about it enough there's pills to make you even more 'hornier'.

To advance the above argument naturally gives rise to the argument that you're a 'killjoy' or 'sexually repressed'.

But although I'm not going to give a young woman who's just had an abortion anything other than sympathy, I have a deep worry about the amount of mental harm our female population is currently going through.

I've a feeling that future generations will look back at this period in our history with shame.

Pax et Bonum
 
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
See his thread introducing himself in All Saints. His views on this subject are quite clear.
Thanks, Ruth. Duh! [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Timothy L (# 2170) on :
 
I think all us gents need to step back a little and let the ladies decide.

Trite but true.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Timothy - It takes 2 to Tango.

Males are just as much involved as women.

As Jesus said when 2 people have sex they become one. (His advice on why not to sleep with a prostitute.)

This is not a solitary act with a blow-up doll.

Pax et Bonum
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
But its the women who actually have to go through the pregnancy, and I think that does mean that a man cannot and should not dictate to her what she should do.
It doesn't mean they are not involved, but at that stage at least, I think its a secondary involvement.
 
Posted by Icarus (The Coot) (# 220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy L:
I think all us gents need to step back a little and let the ladies decide.

Trite but true.
Hear, hear! In the case of unwanted pregnancy, the gentleman has already had a chance to decide... and he blew it by not wearing a little rubber thing on the end of his dong.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy L:
I think all us gents need to step back a little and let the ladies decide.

Trite but true.
I disagree. I mean, the woman is the one calling ALL of the shots here -- she can abort the child, no questions asked, OR she can carry it to term and demand 18-22 years' worth of child support from the guy. Now you're saying he just has to sit there and take it while a woman decides his future? I'm not sure if that's fair. 97% of the time women are just as responsible for the unwanted pregnancy, so doesn't Coot's argument apply to them as well?
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Henry Troup:

"Abortion should be safe, legal, available, and rare"

Firstly abortion is never safe. Most women suffer from post-abortion trauma. So common is this condition now that at some universities, medical students have to study it. As Germaine Greer (a generally pro-life radical feminist) rightly points out, abortion does more harm than good to the female's body.

It should also be noted that in the last five years, more women have died from abortion than from childbirth.

Due to advances in medical technology it is extremely rare for women to have their life threatened by pregnancy. In 1999, the latest year for which detailed government statistics are available, only 1 abortion was performed to save a mother's life.

"The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent (by whatever means) unwanted pregnancy"

Ah a common catchphrase from the 1960s. Pro-aborts used to promise us that abortion would 'end unwanted pregnancies'. Why does infanticide still occur? Why does child abuse still occur? Promise made, Promise broken.

Ham'n'eggs:
"Can you supply a link to the relevant statement by Dr. Williams?"

I cannot supply a link to this specific one since it was in a TV interview. But I shall supply these quotes from him which will convince you I am asserting the truth:

"The Methodist church in Great Britain has given its official support to the distribution of abortifacient morning-after pills to girls at school. Rev David Deeks, Methodist spokesman on church and society affairs, issued a statement in which he endorsed the government's strategy to reduce teenage pregnancies and claimed that availability of the morning-after pill was in the "best interests" of teenagers who had engaged in underage sex. Leaders of the Catholic Church in Britain have condemned the morning-after pill, and Dr Rowan Williams, Anglican archbishop of Wales, has also opposed the drug because it causes early abortions. The Church of England has made no official statement on the subject. [Daily Telegraph, 10 January] "

Also see this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2148479.stm

and: http://www.ird-renew.org/Episcopal/Episcopal.cfm?ID=419&c=21

and this one: LONDON, June 20, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The UK pro-life group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has pointed out that the man likely to become the next archbishop of Canterbury is against abortion. However, Dr. Rowan Williams, reportedly the top choice of the Crown Appointments Commission - to be formally ratified by the Prime Minister and Queen - is shunned by conservatives for his support of ordination of homosexuals and women priests.

Rowan, who according to The Times will be named to take over from Dr. George Carey as head of the worldwide Anglican church in July, has described his views on abortion as "ultra-conservative" and has condemned the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.

See the Times coverage and a 2001 Southern Cross article detailing Rowan's views:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-332465,00.html
http://www.anglicanmediasydney.asn.au/august2001/world2.html

That should do.

To make it easier to read, I'll reply to others in a separate post.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Thank you Erin. As a father of an child who was an "accident" (with the pill) who discussed abortion with his girlfriend at the time you have summed up exactly why the biological fathers should be involved in the process of decision making.

I was 27 when I became a father. It is the most maturing* process I have ever been through. We seriously considered abortion but “felt” it was wrong. We were right, my son is, in his own way, the best thing that has happened to me. Despite the child support, the anguish of being a parent who does not live with his children I would not have it any other way. They are wonderful and a real gift.

I abhor the abortion rate in this country. I abhor the way that human sexual relationships have been over run by mammon, machismo and marketing. I abhor the whole selfish immaturity of a nation that would sees pregnancy as a burden and being in the way of a career or “enjoying myself.”

I fully support the mothers right decide what she thinks is best. It’s a dilemma, it is to easy to assume a position and stick to it regardless.

The horror inherent is these situations is obvious. The women who are wracked because of earlier abortions, the families unable to cope with the perceived demands, the financial stress placed upon wage earners. Much if not all of it is due to the parents unwillingness or inability to be responsible. Responsible for their own contraception, for their own sexual ethics, for the consequences of their own actions, for when those consequences are either a child born in to trouble of aborted for the most selfish of reasons or the feelings they are left with after the procedure.

It is a perverse and foolish generation that lives like this and God is surely wrathful with us for our sins.

P

* for maturing you could read horrible, difficult and heart breaking but then for me maturing always is.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I suppose the difficulty for those anti-abortion campaigners who think it is murder, is that to work with those who take a different view but would still like to see a reduction in the numbers of abortion, is diluting what to them is a moral absolute.

However, as I think it is very unlikely that abortion will ever be made illegal - there is a very clear majority for its continued legal availability - and given the likely consequences of banning abortion, I am in that majority, I think it is worth trying to think through some practical ways in which women who wish not to have an abortion can be more easily enabled to make their choice ( and I do mean money and housing ), and how we can reduce, in particular, teenage pregnancy, using good practice from Europe.
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Laura:
"You're assuming that Anglicans, generally, oppose legal access to abortion.* That is mostly very untrue"

What reasons do Anglicans have for supporting abortion? It contradicts the bible.

Considering Mary's poor economic and social status perhaps pro-aborts would have recommended she have an abortion?

Thurible:

"if it were illegal, it would be so much more dangerous, to both mother and child."

I forgive you for being deceived by pro-aborts but this is simply untrue. Pro-aborts USED to refer to backstreet abortions that were taking place which often resulted in the death of a mother. But these figures were found to be fabricated (made-up).

Dr Bernard Nathanson, an abortionist who performed 5,000 abortions before he became pro-life admitted that he had lied about backstreet abortion figures. They over-inflated them by adding two or sometimes three noughts onto the end of the real figure. As a result, the number of backstreet abortions allegedly occuring was greater than the number of legal ones taking place today!!

After all, what person would risk her life to have an abortion rather than to give her child up for adoption?

Furthermore, how comes the backstreet abortion argument is never used in countries like Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Northern Ireland, Monaco, Poland etc?

The fact that statistics in the past have been fictitious has led pro-abortionists to drop completely the argument that back street abortions occur. Instead they now claim women have to travel to different countries to have abortions. They then cite the suffering they go through to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to have an abortion. Again there is little evidence supporting this on a grand scale.

If women are traveling or indeed are really having dangerous back-street abortions then the government should do more to help these women who obviously feel the only way to solve their problem is by aborting their child.

Merseymike:

"although he doesn't necessarily argue for a ban on legal abortion."

He's argued for a complete ban several times. He is also a life member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

"there should be more effort placed into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place"

Although women may initially be fearful of giving birth, many of these women then go on to love their child. Similarly, women who are very enthusiastic about giving birth may then go onto abuse their child. We cannot predict human behaviour unfortunately and it is therefore difficult to prevent 'unwanted' (if such a thing exists) pregnancies.

Ruth W:
"I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently which read: "Against abortion? Don't have one.""

A rather right-wing position (reminiscient of Thatcher's policies). That's like saying "I'm opposed to the Jewish holocaust, but if Nazis want to kill them then why should I force my morality on them?'.

Abortion infringes the rights of another human being and as such should be outlawed.

I noticed that you claim you are a liberal. Why then is Charles Kennedy, Alan Beith (deputy leader of Liberal Democrats) and Baroness Williams (leader of Lib Dems in House of Lords) supportive of pro-life issues? Alan Beith in particular is extremely pro-life.

Also if you are a liberal you're supposed to be supportive of human rights - i.e. the right to life.

"Saying simply that since abortion is wrong it should be illegal ignores the complex situations that lead women and girls to seek abortions."

Of course it doesn't. That's why there are pro-life counselling centres across the country. We try to help those women who are poor, or who have been bullied by bosses into having abortions (like the case with the singer Natalie Appleton who was told by her bosses: 'its your child or your career').

"But most such people are able to recognize that their views are not shared by the majority of the public"

In America 44% of the public are against abortion, compared to only 26% who support it. The other percentage is comprised of people who are not sure where they stand or whom don't fall into either category.

RooK:

"I think that sometimes it is sensible to sacrifice one life for the sake of another, or others"

The unborn child does not get a choice though obviously.

"I feel strongly that the only real solution is to be able to avoid the majority of abortions through education about contraceptives."

The spread of contraceptives does not decrease the abortion rate. A study from Nottingham University found that it actually increased the abortion rate. It is believed that an easier availability of contraception means that sex happens more often with more partners meaning there is a greater chance of contraception failing and falling pregnant.

Also contraception encourages sex outside marriage but it is in these situations that most abortions occur.

Finally, some contraceptives are actually forms of abortion. For instance the morning-after-pill is not contra-conception but contra-implantation and therefore acts as an abortifacient by stopping the conceived embryo from implanting into the wall of the womb - thus killing it.

"I know that there are other faces to the movement, and I am partially responsible for not seeking them out, but I still think I would trust these people less about making value judgements about lives than I would the average 16-year-old girl."

I think you havent met many in the pro-life movement. I know a whole host of people - from hardcore animal rights activits to liberal-atheists to neo-Marxists to counsellors to models and singers.

JimT:

"In the first trimester I am reasonably certain that the fetus has no idea what is happening to it"

But that is assuming that someone operates purely on a mental level. For instance there is a distinction between being brain dead and being dead. People often assume that brain death = death. But that is wrong. Doctors never declare a person dead if they are brain dead since their other organs are still active.

Furthermore your statement is slightly strange since we are not fully-conscious of our surroundings until a year or two after birth when our brain develops further. Of course an unborn child at 10-12 weeks responds to light but the child is not fully conscious until some time after birth.

Let me paste this from my own notes:

From the moment of conception the embryo is very significant. For example, recently an embryologist from Oxford University, demonstrated that the process of shaping the human body begins at the moment of conception – the point at which a sperm and an egg unite. This evidence alone shows that even at the second we were conceived, we were much more than a featureless bundle of cells.



At just 18 days old the heart begins to beat. At just 42 days old, brain waves can be recorded. At the same date, the embryo sprouts the rudiments of fingers. The vertebrae, too, are beginning to develop.



Between weeks 10 and 12, the stage at which most babies are aborted, there has been much progress in the development of the child. For instance, at week 10, the liver starts to secrete bile whilst the pancreas starts to produce insulin. Although the foetus only measures 2 inches and about a quarter of an ounce, he or she’s fingernails and toenails have begun to grow. The skin has thickened, and hair follicles develop beneath the surface. The foetus can also respond to stimulation. Prodded, the eyelids and palms of the hands now close.



Two weeks later, despite not yet being conscious, the foetus’ uniqueness begins to assert itself. Different unborn children now make different facial expressions, based, it is believed, on behavioural patterns inherited from their parents. Within the next week, the foetus will begin to move around, although the mother cannot yet sense these movements.



I hope it is evident that in the first trimester alone, the foetus is developing rapidly. In fact by the end of this primary trimester, the unborn child has developed all its major systems and no new organs remain to be formed. Far from being a ‘blob of cells’ the foetus looks every bit as real as a born child, and has already developed characteristics.

Paddy
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Karl:
"I am, essentially, opposed to abortion. It's my lefty sympathies "

Good on you. I am also a bit of a leftie. I have written an essay here and there on why capitalism causes abortions. For instance it is more profitable for businesses to get their female staff to have abortions. THat why they do not have to pay for maternity leave, finding temporary staff or finding replacement staff, the loss in production... and so on. This is why big businesses like Microsoft fund abortion companies millions of pounds/dollars.

"You do run the risk of phychological harm to the mother"

Actually there is a greater risk of psychological harm from having an abortion. For instance there is post-abortion trauma. Furthermore, research carried out on behalf of the government of Finland found that women who have abortions are seven times more likely to commit suicide then women who do not have any.

As for the rape scenario - aborting the child doesn't make the situation any better. Rape is an experience that stays with you forever. Why should the child become another victim - punished for a crime that the biological father committed?

Garden Hermit:
"I'm sure God sympathises with that point of view."

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" you mean?

Timothy L:
"I think all us gents need to step back a little and let the ladies decide."

It was men who first legalised abortion in 1967. The bill was brought forward by David Steel, who has since been found to have connections to Zimbabwean Terrorist groups (I can send you the info if that interested!).

Secondly, a doctor has to allow a woman to have an abortion. But 75% of doctors are male.

Thirdly, most of the abortionists are male too.

Therefore men cannot evade responsibility on the abortion issue. Men are expected by law to help with the upbringing of the born child - why should they not have responsibilities with unborn children?

Icarus:
"he blew it by not wearing a little rubber thing on the end of his dong."

Condoms are only 86% successful when worn properly.

Paddy
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Paddy we are a bunch of mature (mostly) Christians who love to talk about all sorts of stuff. I know you are new on board but I think I ought to point out two things, Firstly if you are here and your opinion is utterly formed on an issue and you are unwilling to change one iota I would ask why you are here and why I should talk to you?

Secondly saying the same thing over and over again does not constitute debate or even argument it is boring. Your obvious concern over this issue is touching but you need to read all of what people are saying. Already we aboard are starting to debate this. Why don’t you sit back and read for a bit rather that try and bully us?

When a Host explains some of this stuff to you a bit more forcefully please don’t be offended or upset. If however you intend to continue in this vein the I am afraid we will not be talking much longer.

Pyx_e
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Now I am as pro-life as the next person (usually more so), but I think your categorization of others as "pro-abortion" is off the mark. Way way WAY off the mark. Outside of those feminist freaks who believe that anything involving a man is patriarchal oppression, I don't know of anyone who thinks that abortion is a good thing.

I noticed that your arguments are pretty much the standard arguments when it comes to abortion. I know of at least one (and I'm sure there are others) person here who has had an abortion. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric and condescension and really listen to and engage with what's being said here. Better yet, have a wander around the place and find some other interesting threads (there's pretty much something for everybody).
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Paddy : I fully accept that Rowan Williams is not in favour of abortion, but his latest book, where he talks about the issue, in pages 38-47, suggests that he accepts that the moral and legal questions may not be entirely congruent.

He states that :
" Reversion to a pre-1967 situation would only be attractive, even morally defensible, in the context of a massive reconstruction of attitudes to childcare and nurture, to the professional lives of childbearing women, the availabiltity of other forms of fertility control to women, and many other things besides" . He accepts that the law's role is 'fircely contested'.

I think many women who have an abortion are very aware that they did not wish to become pregnant. There are all sorts of reasons why they did, and in many cases, we are talking about young, teenage women and girls. Other countries, without a dominant Roman Catholic heritage, which does alter the overall climate on abortion, undoubtedly, seem to do better at it than we do. All the countries you mention except Northern Ireland are overwhelmingly RC, and if you want to know where NI women come for abortions, then go and watch the Belfast-Liverpool ferry arrive and you may get an idea.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
To return to Rowan Williams and his views, it seems clear that, just as he is getting it in the neck from one part of the Church for his principled stance on homosexuality, so he will get it in the neck from another part of the Church for his principled stance on abortion. That's one of the reasons I keep praying for the guy. That I agree with him is purely coincidental.
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
"However, as I think it is very unlikely that abortion will ever be made illegal - there is a very clear majority for its continued legal availability - and given the likely consequences of banning abortion, I am in that majority"

Far from it. Several countries ban abortion in Europe. For instance, there is Ireland, Northern Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Luxembourg (although legal doctors refuse to perform abortions), San Marino, Vatican, Monaco, Belgium (to some extent), Andorra...+ some others I cannot remember.

All of the South American continent bans abortion too.

In USA this year they will ban late-term abortions. The majority of Senators are opposed to abortion. The majority of under-26s are opposed to abortion in America.

In Italy, the Prime Minister has promised to place restrictions on abortion. Furthermore a cabinet minister has stated that they should ban it completely. Italy has a very low birth rate and drastic actions need to be taken.

In Germany several key government members have been pushing for a tightening of the laws to curb the population decline.

In the UK, by 2110, the population will be down to 30 million people because of the low birth rate and it is therefore only a matter of time before abortion is ended.

"how we can reduce, in particular, teenage pregnancy, using good practice from Europe"

America has the best success on teenage pregnancy. I presume you refer to Holland but their teenage pregnancy rate isn't particularly low and its very taboo over there due to the culture that has descended from the values of the upper classes. We do not have that same culture.

Furthermore why is teenage pregnancy a problem? We should not label such girls as 'problems'. They need help, love and support not some Daily Mail reader telling them they're the worst thing since Hitler.

These girls have been brave and have taken responsibility for their actions. For that they should be applauded. It would be all too easy for them to have had an abortion after all.

We should not be condemning these girls but launching investigation into why they feel a need to embark on a sexual relationship at such a young age. THat's where the root of the "problem" lies not in the girls' themselves.

"anti-abortion campaigners"

Please note that anti-abortion is not the same as being pro-life. Being pro-life means you are opposed to abortion because it involves the destruction of human life. Being anti-abortion means you are opposed to abortion for other reasons. For instance the Daily Mail is opposed to abortion because it encourages teenage sex whereas I am opposed to abortion because it kills a life.

Pyx_e:
"Firstly if you are here and your opinion is utterly formed on an issue and you are unwilling to change one iota I would ask why you are here and why I should talk to you? "

I am unwilling to change because I have come to a conclusion and seen unborn life. If you see an unborn child you will realise that they are human. I make no apology for having an opinion.

I am here because I wanted to meet more Christians in England and because a friend invited me on here. I started this topic because I genuinely wanted to know why Anglicans won't do more about abortion.

"why I should talk to you?"

Only you can answer that one lol.

"Secondly saying the same thing over and over again does not constitute debate or even argument it is boring."

What have I been saying over and over again???

"Your obvious concern over this issue is touching but you need to read all of what people are saying."

I do read what people write but I disagree with them. Is it wrong to believe in something? I don't have time to read every single sentence because I noticed there were quite a few replies since last night!! I'm flattered by the response though.

"If however you intend to continue in this vein the I am afraid we will not be talking much longer."

Forgive me for being naive, but I cannot comprehend what you are talking about. Perhaps it ought to be stated more bluntly. I shall not take offence.

Erin:
"but I think your categorization of others as "pro-abortion" is off the mark. Way way WAY off the mark"

If they support abortion then what should I refer to them as? I'll take suggestions seriously if you find being called pro-abortion is wrong.

"Outside of those feminist freaks who believe that anything involving a man is patriarchal oppression"

Please remember that a number of pro-lifers are feminists. For instance in the UK there is Germaine Greer and Ann Farmer. The first-ever feminist Mary Wolfstonecraft was a pro-lifer too.

Secondly, there are a number of pro-life feminist organisations. Take 'Feminists for Life' in America or the Afghan Women's Liberation Movement (listed as a link on this website).

"I know of at least one (and I'm sure there are others) person here who has had an abortion."

One-third of women who have an abortion have another one. I am afraid that sensitivity might therefore may backfire. As an active pro-lifer I speak to many women who have had abortions and for some it is an experience that they have regretted all their lives. I apologise that some of my comments may provoke upsetting memories but the same argument could be made of all political debate - it would be silly to cease all debate.

"I suggest you tone down the rhetoric and condescension and really listen to and engage with what's being said here"

There are a lot of posts and so I am having to generalise slightly - I apologise therefore if you feel I am not listening to every individual as intentively as I should. If any of you want to debate with me privately then you are welcome to do so (that's not an invitation for 100 people to email me lol).

You must also forgive me if I am using arguments that some of you are very aware of. I have employed these because some members did not seem to grasp basic concepts. I can assure you that I will not make use of common arguments if the occassion calls for it.

Hope this helps.

Paddy
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Paddy : all of those countries you mentioned are Roman Catholic by tradition. Britain is not. That does make a difference in terms of the embeddedness of opposition to abortion within the culture. There is a clear majority against making abortion illegal in the UK, its actually an overwhelming one.

And America's teenage pregnancy rate is atrocious! I would agree that Holland's culture does have a more established 'taboo' than our own, but it is their sex education policies which have made a very great difference.

Now, given what Erin said, that most people aren't'pro-abortion', is there any way you could perceive in working towards the reduction of abortion with those who disagree with its banning ? The answer may be no, and if so, I respect that, because there's nothing wrong with believing abortion should be illegal, but you haven't said anything whch changes my mind on the issue.

Mike
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:

Doctors never declare a person dead if they are brain dead since their other organs are still active.
Bzzzzzt!! Wrong. But thank you for playing. Brain death is exactly the criterion doctors use to ascertain that someone is dead.

http://www.transweb.org/qa/asktw/answers/answers9509/braindeath.html - I draw your attention to the following:

quote:
Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain.
and:

quote:
A person who is declared brain dead is legally dead.

In Iowa (and most other states) two physicians must declare a person brain dead before organ donation can proceed.
Now, how accurate are your other statements I wonder?

I do trust you haven't come here merely to crusade?
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Merseymike - I don't see how the quote suggests that Rowan Williams is possibly half-hearted about being pro-life. As I understand, he supports a massive change in public attitude and an improvement in childcare, a more flexible capitalist system et cetera

I support him on that issue, but with a change in the attitudes of people's stance on abortion will come that change in improvement in childcare etc.

The facilities are there to be used, its just because of the pro-abortion government, they are not being invested in enough.

For instance, at university if a woman falls pregnant then the government (and the university itself in some cases) are more than willing to pay for an abortion but NO university will help pay for the upbringing of the child. In this so-called democracy, a woman is therefore forced to choose between her child and her education.

With a more pro-life government, I am confident this would not be occurring.

"in many cases, we are talking about young, teenage women and girls"

The highest abortion rate is amongst the 24-30 year old category.

"All the countries you mention except Northern Ireland are overwhelmingly RC"

Monaco is not overwhelmingly RC either.

"if you want to know where NI women come for abortions, then go and watch the Belfast-Liverpool ferry arrive and you may get an idea."

Abortion clinics in the UK are required to account the numbers of abortions on women outside the UK. The number of abortions performed on Northern Irish women is actually very low and is not a great concern to us.

Paddy
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Paddy Leahy, you seem to have made an effort to miss Pyx_e’s point and you have blatantly mischaracterized Erin’s position (as I’m sure she will explain to you in detail shortly). You are not helping your cause by alienating people who may otherwise agree with you on many points.

I am pro-life, but my beliefs on the matter are informed by my experiences during an exceptionally painful portion of my life. I am not going to lay myself open to callous abuse by you. I am also not going to risk associating myself with someone who believes that, “that sensitivity might backfire.” You can see that you have already managed to limit the discussion.

Please stop it. Stop spouting statistics and listen to what people have to say. As you know, this is an extraordinarily emotional and sensitive topic. Recognize that those on both sides are real people, not monsters.

scot
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Quick message to Karl (gotta go):

I can assure you what I stated is true. I was engaged in a massive debate with a number of people on the topic of brain death and I can guarantee that brain death is not necessarily classified as death in this country. The debate got silly in the end since we were debating questions like 'do brains think or do people think?'.

Besides I am talking about the UK - I cannot speak for America (your site is from the University of Michigan).

Paddy
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying that all feminists were pro-choice, merely that there is a certain strand of feminism that looks upon pregnancy as yet another manifestation of patriarchal oppression, and therefore abortion is inherently a good thing.

Pro-abortion means that you WANT someone to have an abortion, that you think abortion is a GOOD thing. From what I understand of those who are not opposed to abortion on the pro-life level, abortion is seen as a necessary evil, utilized far too much but still having a place in our society. I don't agree with this, but I can recognize that it's not as black-and-white as you seem to be painting it.

I also think that you really should read every post carefully, as their authors have taken the time to respond to questions you've put forth.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Paddy L wrote:

quote:
Abortion clinics in the UK are required to account the numbers of abortions on women outside the UK. The number of abortions performed on Northern Irish women is actually very low and is not a great concern to us.

Paddy
Dunno about anything else, but your geography certainly needs work. [Roll Eyes] Northern Ireland is part of the UK - so the statistics for NI would only refer to abortions performed in that region. Try looking under Southern Ireland or Eire [Big Grin]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
Ruth W:
"I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently which read: "Against abortion? Don't have one.""

A rather right-wing position (reminiscient of Thatcher's policies).
Ruth? Right-Wing? Priceless.

Anyway...
Little tip:
quote:
That's like saying "I'm opposed to the Jewish holocaust, but if Nazis want to kill them then why should I force my morality on them?'.
sigh. Godwin's Law: Don't invoke the Nazis or everyone stops taking you seriously
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Did I suggest Rowan Williams was half-hearted ? Not at all, merely that he recognises that from his perspective, there is a long way to go before his ideal of no abortion would be feasible.

Monaco is an absolute monarchy ruled by a Roman catholic prince. Most of its inhabitants are tax exiles, who are not native to Monaco. All the local population are RC.

Finally, as an illegitimate adopted 40 year old, I have plenty of good reasons not to be 'pro-abortion', but I don't think its as simple as you suggest, and I think most people are somewhere in the middle between the two strongly held positions. Including Tony Blair, who is not personally pro-abortion, as he has stated many times.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Paddy, mate:

quote:

The brain is so fundamental to all human existence that it is now almost universally agreed, both by doctors and laypersons, that when the brain is dead the person is dead.
Source - NHS Direct

UK enough for you?

What exactly do you think does constitute death anyway?

Now stop crusading and start engaging.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
I've been giving MM a hard time elsewhere but, on this thread ... MM:

[Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Paddy, I recommend you stop cutting and pasting bogus statistics and half-truths in interminable posts and engage the issue. None of the statistics (I identified at least two that are baldly incorrect, and I'll go off to get the sources on it) that you cite matters at all against the question of whether it is moral or not. We don't outlaw most homicides because of a pile of statistics on how murder affects people, or whatever, we outlaw it primarily because we feel it is wrong to kill another human.

In the first instance, you must answer: why do you feel abortion ought to be restricted by the state?

I will address one thing: you say abortion is against the Bible. It is not. Repeat. Not. mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Some contributors to the Bible certainly spoke against killing and against abusing the weak, but opposition to abortion is an interpretation of the scripture that some have made.

It is especially annoying that you should say the example of Mary is an anti-abortion story -- it has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. You are simply imagining Mary as a modern teenager, and imagining that "pro-abortion" people (I don't know any of those, by the way) would recommend she abort. It's a straw man, and unworthy.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Furthermore, abortion was regarded in Jewish law as acceptable up to a certain point, so it isn't as if Tradition is even necessarily opposed.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
Paddy L wrote:

quote:
Abortion clinics in the UK are required to account the numbers of abortions on women outside the UK. The number of abortions performed on Northern Irish women is actually very low and is not a great concern to us.

Paddy
Dunno about anything else, but your geography certainly needs work. [Roll Eyes] Northern Ireland is part of the UK - so the statistics for NI would only refer to abortions performed in that region. Try looking under Southern Ireland or Eire [Big Grin]

Tubbs
Also, you may want to read this article on the judical review on N Irish provision. This article quotes a figure of 2,000 a year so your maths may also need some work as this isn't a number I'd describe as "very low". This earlier article gives an estimated figure of 40,000 over the last 20 years. Again, given the size of the population during this time, it isn't a "very low" figure either.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I actually think its a great under-estimation. A lot of women have relatives in the north of England, and give that as their address
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Paddy,
1. When you produce such long posts, I get lost half-way through. Why not answer one point at a time?

2. All the information you produce from SPUC is nothing more than the stuff we used for debate in Moral Issues at GCSE level. It's quite common knowledge and does not necessarily convince people one way or another.

3. The morning after pill is used by many people who are not pregnant - just because a girl or woman has penetrative sexual intercourse does not mean that they will become pregnant. They use the morning after pill in case. So statistics about its use do not provide any information about the termination of pregnancies. We don't know how many would have become pregnant, and of those we don't know how many would have had spontaneous miscarriages, maybe even before they realised...

And usually it's a very uncomfortable experience to take that pill. Once it's been tried, it's not usually taken lightly.
 
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
Paddy,

I understand that you feel strongly on this issue.

(I worked for David Alton's office for 3 months during the progress of his 1988 Private Members bill which attempted to amend the 1967 Abortion Act, a very enlightening experience. Not least the revelation that entrenched positions do not permit fruitful debate.)

These are discussion boards. Single issue campaigners are not permitted here, by Commandment 8.

If you are on these boards solely to lobby for a single issue on which your mind is made up, then you are in violation of the rules of the Ship, and have made a false declaration in agreeing to abide by them.

Hope that this helps!

H&E
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
At least Paddy is honest that although he has come to a discussion board he is not interested in discussing anything! [Big Grin] But he does ask a question about why 'Anglicans' don't do 'enough' on abortion. It would be good to hear what the definition of 'enough' is to start with; enough what? Campaigning for it, against it, supporting it, condemning it? 'Enough' what?

Also which Anglicans does Paddy have in mind: the entire membership of the worldwide Anglican Communion? Or any little group of Anglicans in particular?

If the former, Paddy is not likely to find a satisfactory answer to his ambiguous question, as I don't think even the most confident and broad-church Anglican here on the boards is likely to feel they represent every Anglican in Christendom; and if it's a question about policies espoused by each of the member churches of the Communion, then surely that information, if it exists, is available from their own media and head office sources?

And thereafter it's a matter of opinion whether or not it's 'enough' (whatever that means, how nice it would be to know!).

If the latter, then which particular group of Anglicans does Paddy have in mind?

Now, if the question had been, coming as it does from a (Roman?)Catholic, has the Anglican Communion, or any of its member churches, formulated any central policies on the issue of abortion in the same way as the RCC; and if not, why not? Now there's a question that might arguably spark some debate.

However, as Paddy has admitted he is not here to debate, I guess we'll never know [Confused]
 
Posted by Icarus (The Coot) (# 220) on :
 
You know what I wish? I tell yas what I wish. I wish the rent-a-crowds of singing, sloganeering 'christians' that harangue women going into abortion clinics would do something that might actually help reduce the number of abortions.

Like oooh. Becoming known as people who will give non-judgemental support and material assistance: furniture, clothing, childcare, school bursaries - would be a good place to start.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Icky they DO do something they pay mega money to 18 year olds to give us a hard time.

P
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
yup, this thread is shaping up pretty much like i thought. *grabs handful of popcorn* carry on folks.
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
OK, here's some heat. I agree that we must be practical, I agree that we must be pragmatic (oh hang on, that's nearly the same thing...) and I agree we must value sanctity of life above quality of life. But isn't it all really about conscience? As much as we hate to admit it, it must be...

Take a look at these photographs and try and say that abortion should remain legal...
Abortion Thumbnails
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
It should remain legal.

P
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
Pro-aborts USED to refer to backstreet abortions that were taking place which often resulted in the death of a mother. But these figures were found to be fabricated (made-up).
Thanks, Paddy. It's always good to learn a new word.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD:
Take a look at these photographs and try and say that abortion should remain legal...
Abortion Thumbnails[/QB]
It should remain legal.

You really weren't paying attention when someone explained above why the whole "it's murder" argument hasn't changed the minds of those like me who think abortion is morally wrong but should be legal, were you?
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
It should remain legal.

I've been seeing those "horror" pictures for roughly 30 years now. They didn't stop me from having my abortions, and they don't cause me any emotional grief now. Contrary to pro-life rhetoric, having an abortion does not automatically lead to "psychological trauma".
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Laura:
"None of the statistics (I identified at least two that are baldly incorrect, and I'll go off to get the sources on it) that you cite matters at all against the question of whether it is moral or not"

Yes they do. If a woman is seven times more likely to commit suicide as a result of abortion, then doesn't it say something about the procedure? If we can present the facts to prospective mothers then it might help them to avoid the psychological problems associated with abortion...as well as giving the child a chance.

"We don't outlaw most homicides because of a pile of statistics on how murder affects people, or whatever, we outlaw it primarily because we feel it is wrong to kill another human."

Of course, but the topic of abortion is about more than just the murder of a child. Research has shown in America that some people, who believe abortion is wrong, still go ahead with it because they see giving birth will kill them (metaphorically - i.e. their career, their freedom, lack of responsibilities et cetera). If we can show women that abortion isn't liberating then it may save them from needless pain and struggle.

"why do you feel abortion ought to be restricted by the state?"

Because it involves the killing of another human being. I have already described that how from the moment of conception the developmental process begins and will continue right until we die. Pictures of unborn children can show us how significant the child is - even after only a few weeks.

Abortion is not an individual issue. It infringes the human rights of another human being. Furthermore, by reducing the birth rate it becomes a public issue. Britain's birth rate is now 1.6 which is well below replacement level. This means less workers and therefore less taxpayers meaning that, at current levels, sooner or later there will not be enough funds for the NHS. Even right now the state pension is under threat. I could go on for pages and suggest we leave any related debate about the birth rate to a different thread.

"you say abortion is against the Bible. It is not. Repeat. Not"

Yes it is. And not only in the bible but in most major religious' texts. Several examples: Genesis 1:27, Exodus 20:13, Job 10:8-11, Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 49:1-5, Judges 13:7, John 1:14 etc

It is also clear in the bible that the eternal Word of God became incarnate not at his birth, but at the moment of conception (Matthew 1:20).

The Gospel of Luke describes how John the Baptist, as a foetus of six months' gestation, responded to the presence of Jesus when he was a tiny embryo of only some days' development (Luke 1:39-44).

Furthermore, the Christian Church has rejected abortion from the earliest years of its existence. For instance, the manuscript of the Didache, which probably dates from the latter half of the first century, condemns abortion altogether, along with infanticide. St. Athenagoras, St Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St Basil the Great, St Ambrose of Milan, St John Chrysostom and St Jerome were among Christian leaders who condemned abortion.

As stated, there is also evidence in the Torah. For instance, Nidah 30b: "To what can the child be compared inside his mother's womb... as with a candle perched on his head he perceives the world from one end to the other...the days when the Lord watched over me?"

The Qu'ran is also quite clear that human life begins at conception. In one place the Qu'ran reads: "Verily We have created man from a drop of mingled fluids of both male and female." In another place it observes: "And We cause whom We will to rest in wombs for an appointed time, then do We bring you out as babies".

Hinduism also condemns abortion. Hindu scriptures refer to abortion as garha-batta (womb killing) and bhroona hathya (killing the undeveloped soul). Hindus believe abortion is wrong because all beings are manifestations of the Supreme Being.

Hope this helps

Paddy
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
[brick wall] a host a host my kingdom for a host.....
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Tubbs:
"Northern Ireland is part of the UK - so the statistics for NI would only refer to abortions performed in that region"

Northern Ireland opted out of the 1967 abortion act and as such abortion is illegal there. If a woman wants an abortion (except in rare circumstances) she therefore has to 'travel' to England and is therefore treated as a foreigner under statistics.

Thanks for your figure of 2,000 by the way. I don't have the number as such only the percentage of abortions in terms of live births. For 2000 for England and Wales it was 29%, for Scotland 23%, Republic of Ireland 11.7% and for Northern Ireland 7.1%. Moreover that year represents a blip since it had been constantly around 6% (in 1999 it was 6.2%). In that respect pro-lifer should be more concerned about the Republic of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland.

Paddy
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
(((pyx_e))) want some popcorn?

paddy, are you the slightest bit iterested in aything other than abortion? why not look aroud the ship a bit at some other threads, before you get yourself tossed overboard for crusading?
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Rob, it is not about conscience it is about rights. Paddy, my support for first trimester abortions takes the mother's rights into account. I concede that she has a rapidly developing potential human being inside her but point out that the embryo has a parasitic relationship to her. Therefore, her right to be free of parasitic support of another life come into play in my opinion. Early on, her rights outweigh those of the fetus because it is not fully human in my view (you will argue otherwise, but I will touch on that later.) Later, even though it is still biologically parasitic and remains economically parasitic the fetus takes on undeniably human form and begins human experience with the functioning of its human brain. At that point, in my opinion, its right supercede the mother's. All of this has an element of arbitrariness and opinion, which is the answer to your question, "Why don't Anglicans do more to fight what is an obvious wrong (my wording and truer I suspect to your real question). Your assertion is that there is only fact and not opinion on the matter and the fact is that the Bible teaches "life begins at conception."

Protection from the point of conception is arbitrary too although you pretend it to be fixed and obvious. When the sperm is on the way to the egg nucleus, conception is imminent--is termination OK? When the sperm is swimming up to the egg conception is a distinct possibility--can it be intercepted? You can take the argument back to the testicles, the ovaries, and the willingness to have children in the first place as the Catholic church used to. If you argue from the point of "don't get in the way of the will of God" you can go back to sex before conception because it is "part of God's plan." What makes you think that it is not a matter of opinion and established fact that God's plan for the individual starts with the fusing of sperm chromosomes to the egg? If God "knew you before you were born" as it says in Psalms, your parents would have blocked his Will by not having sex and using contraception to prevent your birth. Did they have the right to do this? Or must they have sex and must they have children? An argument can be made based on isolated verses that the Bible prevents people from controlling everything about their reproduction because God has declared the entire process under His control.
 
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :
 
I've shifted somewhat in my perception of termination. I used to be vocally anti- but some thinking and discussion has softened my stance.

Ideally it shouldn't exist, but I know believe that it needs to be available, safe and legal. My problem with many Christian orgs in seeking a ban on abortion is that only deals with a facet of reproductive responsibility. Christian orgs need to address sex education (with complete candour), support and councilling, practical support, not in the (IMO) "cash for gestation" mode, in short an end to end presence.

I loath the barracking of clinics that occurs. It's horrible, and doesn't help. There are better ways to campaign.

LFD
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Note to Pyx_e: NickA obviously had a single issue to crusade, namely "Salvation requires speaking in tongues" but we talked him to death until he left voluntarily. My vote is to let the thread go to 1,000 posts and Dead Horse it rather than chop it off after a few dozen posts.

Paddy can't have 1,000 posts in him. [Wink]

But I do; I'm just getting warmed up! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I haven't posted much on Purgatory for a while, but I had to jump in and make two statements:

1. I do, genuinely, believe abortion should be against the law on the sorts of grounds mentioned by Erin and others, above

BUT

2. Two words, repeated indefinitely: Trip-trap, trip-trap, trip-trap...

I.e., Paddy, this really is dangerously close to trolling, and the way you don't seem to be responding to people's concerns over your posting style and single-mindedness does not bode well, as far as I can tell. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong on the subject of abortion or its legality, or for that matter on brain death or geography; if you're violating the rules, or the spirit of the rules, of courteous debate here on the Ship, then eventually a Host will get sick of it, and not only that but no one will listen to you, and you'll never convince anyone of the rightness of your cause because everyone will have written you off as a non-listening, one-issue crusader. Whether you're right or wrong.

David
(Say, Nicole, can my popcorn be salt-free? Thanks.)
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Daisymay:
"So statistics about its use do not provide any information about the termination of pregnancies"

That's why there are a lack of stats about the morning-after-pill and the number of related abortions.

"And usually it's a very uncomfortable experience to take that pill. Once it's been tried, it's not usually taken lightly."

I know...and that's why it also worries me that its not on prescription anymore. Previously a doctor could check someone's health records to see if they were in a high risk category (e.g. from blood clots) or ensure that a woman has not taken more than 2 courses in a short space of time. It's an extremely powerful drug.

Ham n Eggs:
"These are discussion boards. Single issue campaigners are not permitted here, by Commandment 8. "

That is absurd. This is hardly a single issue. Such a commandment is nothing short of bigotry.

"for a single issue on which your mind is made up"

Does that mean I cannot claim murder is wrong, or that I am human since one cannot have a definite view of something?

Anselmina:
"he is not interested in discussing anything!"

I am interested in discussing other topics obviously. Its just I haven't found any of interest. I'm very political and am mainly interested in issues but there don't appear to be too many in discussion so thought I'd start my own.

As for what 'enough' constitutes, I'd suggest it probably means voting for pro-life candidates and taking part in the odd bit of activism, help fund counselling etc.

**I think the criticisms from some members towards me are unnecessary and designed to serve as a destraction from the issues I have raised.

Icarus (The Coot):
"I wish the rent-a-crowds of singing, sloganeering 'christians' that harangue women going into abortion clinics would do something that might actually help reduce the number of abortions."

I never use Christianity in pro-life activism since it undermines the cause and I don't know anyone who would harangue women going into abortion clinics. It wouldn't do our public image much good.

"Like oooh. Becoming known as people who will give non-judgemental support and material assistance: furniture, clothing, childcare, school bursaries - would be a good place to start."

We do though. For instance, Student LifeNet and LIFE helps to campaign for universities and unions to support pregnant students so they don't have to choose between their education and a child's life.

Rob:
Thanks for posting those. I think they help to convey the inhumanity of abortion and the humanity of the victim. How anyone can look at those and not feel slightly uncomfortable with supporting abortion is uncomprehendable.

jlg:
"I've been seeing those "horror" pictures for roughly 30 years now. They didn't stop me from having my abortions, and they don't cause me any emotional grief now. Contrary to pro-life rhetoric, having an abortion does not automatically lead to "psychological trauma"."

I'm sorry to hear you felt abortion was the only solution to your problem. May I ask why you think the pictures don't have any affect? I'm interested to learn your views.

Paddy
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
sure thing, chast. *crunch, crunch*
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Paddy : as I said to you before, a lot of NI residents come over to the north-west and give a local address, as there are a lot of Irish people both North and South in Liverpool and Manchester. Northern Ireland is still part of the UK.

I tend to agree with the other posters. You're not actually debating at all, just putting forward lots of statistics, which do not mean very much and can easily be interpreted differently. Given that I don't think you are likely to reach your aim, what practical suggestions do you have for reducing the number of abortions?
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
May I ask some of you to clarify your stance. Many have stated 'abortion NEEDS to be available'.

But why does it?

We have adoption. There are numerous organisations who give financial and non-financial support. Because of our welfare system no woman should abort because she is poor.

Why is there a need for it?

Paddy
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Paddy : try talking to women who have had an abortion and maybe you would realise that life isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Side question Paddy: is it OK for me to put sperm with eggs in a test tube to study conception? (I am a biotechnologist).

Is it OK for me to let zygotes split a few times in a test tube to make stem cells that might save human lives? Or have I created an individual human being and killed it? Am I guilty of "abortion."

In short, is your definition of abortion limited to a location inside a living woman?
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Jim T:

"Early on, her rights outweigh those of the fetus because it is not fully human in my view"

At what point do you assert it is human? And what do you use to judge this?

I disagree with the second paragraph since you're putting arguments into my mouth which I would never use. I prefer to argue this using secular reasoning rather than any Catholic arguments.

To be totally honest I became pro-life before I even knew the church was opposed to abortion so I am not the best apologetic for the church's stance on the issue.

It's not about God's will though, its about whether killing is right or wrong. Besides since we can never actually know what God's will is, how would we know whether we're blocking it or not?

"Paddy can't have 1,000 posts in him."

I have free time over the next few days but obviously we have lives to lead.

ChastMastr:
"Paddy, this really is dangerously close to trolling, and the way you don't seem to be responding to people's concerns over your posting style and single-mindedness does not bode well"

To be honest I don't quite understand what the problem is. Please make it clearer. I am active on a number of boards and this is the first time people have ever complained. It's probably because this board has a different culture to other boards.

"non-listening, one-issue crusader"

Certainly I am no one-issuer, just not inspired to post in other threads at the moment. Furthermore if 'non-listening' means not changing my mind every 5 minutes then I am quite happy to be classified as a non-listener. I have been involved with pro-life politics for quite some time despite my young age and have seen just about every argument on all sides of the coin. There comes a point when you form a rigid conclusion as all human beings do when they have studied a topic or issue for long enough.

MerseyMike:
"Paddy : as I said to you before, a lot of NI residents come over to the north-west and give a local address"

I'd like to see the evidence for this.

"You're not actually debating at all"

Sorry but I think we must have different interpretations of what debating is.

Paddy
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Merseymike:
"Paddy : try talking to women who have had an abortion and maybe you would realise that life isn't as simple as you make it out to be."

I've talked to many women who have had abortions. Sadly my own aunt also had an abortion. There are also many in the pro-life movement who have had abortions (often the experience itself made them pro-life).

JimT:
"Side question Paddy: is it OK for me to put sperm with eggs in a test tube to study conception?"

If the embryo is killed afterwards then it is not okay.

"Is it OK for me to let zygotes split a few times in a test tube to make stem cells that might save human lives?"

Again no because it involves the destruction of human life. Additionally embryonic stem cell has proved to be a bit of a no-hoper. In Europe it is illegal to patent an embryo or own it in any form, so therefore scientists would be unable to make any profit from embryonic stem cell research. That is European Union law which Britain is a part of.

Secondly there is the high possibility of creating cancer (sure you know what I'm talking about so will avoid long patronising descriptions!) as well as tissue rejection.

Adult stem cell research has proven a much greater success. In Britain the biggest success has been with a man cured of lukaemia (sp?) by using adult stem cells from his own bone marrow. Embryonic stem cell research has yet to provide any successes.

It is hard to justify the destruction of human life for the sake of others. Yet these 'others' will not be deprived of cures which are fast being developed by adult stem cell research (as well as stem cells from the umbilical cord).

"In short, is your definition of abortion limited to a location inside a living woman?"

No.

Paddy
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Host hat firmly ON

quote:
"These are discussion boards. Single issue campaigners are not permitted here, by Commandment 8. "

That is absurd. This is hardly a single issue. Such a commandment is nothing short of bigotry.
Hostly *cough*

It's traditional Paddy that we cut newbies a certain amount of slack.

However ignoring the commandments for this board is NOT an option.

This is commandment 8 which you read and agreed to abide by when you signed up.

quote:

8. Don't crusade
Please don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts. Information-sharing and debate about a range of issues and campaigns are welcome, of course, but single-issue preaching and crusading are not
At the moment you seem to be on course for breaking this commandment by crusading on an anti-abortion platform - which is why other posters have drawn it to your attention.

I am now intervening as a host.

Pay attention as this commandment applies to you and you are obliged to respect it and the rulings of the hosts.

At the moment it is still possible to take the charitable view that you are new here, that you do intend to post on other threads and issues and that you have just started on this one because it is dear to your heart.

However if you continue posting solely on the issue of abortion and show little sign of respecting the views of others, this matter will be revisited and you will be warned again about it.

If you continue in this vein, it is only fair to warn you, that single-issue crusading can ultimately lead to suspension, but hopefully, that won't happen if you pay attention to what others are trying to tell you about how these boards work.

It might be a good idea (as someone else has suggested) for you to look around and get more of a feel for the nature of boards and to take up posting on other threads whilst cooling it a bit on this one.

If you want to dispute the nature of the Ship's commandments then the place to do it is not here in Purgatory but on The Styx board.

However whilst you post here in Purgatory you must respect these rules. They are not optional.

Louise

hosting off
 
Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
(((pyx_e))) want some popcorn?

paddy, are you the slightest bit iterested in aything other than abortion? why not look aroud the ship a bit at some other threads, before you get yourself tossed overboard for crusading?
Nicole, can I have some? Just looked: 14 posts, 13 on this thread. But not a one-trick-pony at all. [Killing me]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus (The Coot):
You know what I wish? I tell yas what I wish. I wish the rent-a-crowds of singing, sloganeering 'christians' that harangue women going into abortion clinics would do something that might actually help reduce the number of abortions.

Like oooh. Becoming known as people who will give non-judgemental support and material assistance: furniture, clothing, childcare, school bursaries - would be a good place to start.
Wasn't there a bunch of people in USA who were shooting abortion doctors or nurses at one point?

It can't really help women to change their minds to be picketed and shouted at as they arrive at abortion clinics; they've already struggled enough to make the decision to have the abortion.

There are a few groups in the UK who provide material and emotional help for girls, teenagers and children who want to keep their babies. There are a few houses where they can go and stay and be looked after, much like in an extended family. There was also a RC initiative when a bishop or something offered material help to women who would choose not to have terminations. That got a lot of criticism.

But it is still extremely difficult to survive and thrive with a baby, particularly because these groups only help for a short while. They don't help all the way through childhood. Also they don't give education to the mothers.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
sure thing eanswyth, how do you like it?

paddy, ignoring a host is considered a Really Bad Thing To Do around here. just a hint.

*mmmmm.... caramal corn, my fav.*
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Paddy, may I study the way in which sperm penetrate the egg cell membrane so long as I kill the two haploid cells before their nuclei fuse?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Grabs some Popcorn from nicole, sits down. Hey Jim T if Paddy makes a 1000 posts I will eat my hat. And if you type a 1000 posts on this thread I may eat you also.

P
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hostly reminder to other posters

quote:
4. Take all personal arguments to Hell
If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell. Personal arguments are not allowed outside Hell because they disrupt and derail conversation on the other boards. If you take your argument to Hell, please read the guidelines for that board. Hell is not a free-for-all. Bigotry, racism, sexism and general nastiness will catch the most unwanted attention of the hosts.
L.
 
Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I haven't posted much on Purgatory for a while, but I had to jump in and make two statements:

1. I do, genuinely, believe abortion should be against the law on the sorts of grounds mentioned by Erin and others, above

BUT

2. Two words, repeated indefinitely: Trip-trap, trip-trap, trip-trap...

I.e., Paddy, this really is dangerously close to trolling, and the way you don't seem to be responding to people's concerns over your posting style and single-mindedness does not bode well, as far as I can tell. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong on the subject of abortion or its legality, or for that matter on brain death or geography; if you're violating the rules, or the spirit of the rules, of courteous debate here on the Ship, then eventually a Host will get sick of it, and not only that but no one will listen to you, and you'll never convince anyone of the rightness of your cause because everyone will have written you off as a non-listening, one-issue crusader. Whether you're right or wrong.

David
(Say, Nicole, can my popcorn be salt-free? Thanks.)
I have to say I agree with David and Co. on ths one.

I don't usually say much on this topic [in fact I don't think I have said one word on it since becoming a member of SoF in May 2002], not because I don't feel strongly about it, nor because I don't have anything to say...but because it doesn't seem to be profitable [I have been in enough long debates with people very close to me, who are the ones who bring it up & push it...my step-mom, step-sister [studying to become a doctor], ex-bf...etc]. If they could not convince me it is not murder, then I doubt anyone else can. I only share here since I might give somebody somewhere a better view of pro-life people, God only knows we have enough bad media (and unfortunately some of it deserved).

Instead of standing outside Planned Parenthood and hassling people, or worse...I just support a Clinic that supports and helps women find alternative ways to keep their baby [listening ear, free medical care, helping to find a place to live...](or have the baby adopted), rather then abort. The women who do chose to abort are not hassled. I have looked at the guidelines into being an on-call consoler and in the written requirements for this organization it says "must listen without non-judgemental attitude". I am not doing anything at the moment since I do not feel led to but I do give money to them and promote them to those who wish to hear about them. I am leaving their name out purposesly for fear some may think I am trying to promote some organization.

Anyhoo..the thing that impresses me about this organization is that the leader met with somebody from Planned Parenthood (had lunch with her) and discussed abortion. The lady from Planned Parenthood said "I feel it is a necessary evil". The lady from this pro-life organization responded something paraphrase "I wish to make work on making abortion an undesirable choice".

Some of the ways they do that is show the expentant mothers, with their consent, an ultrasound of their unborn. Not all mother decide to not abort but for some, that has made a difference.

The way we cut down abortion is helping women and men keep their babies...money, good medical care, education...and most of all loving them in a non-judgemental place.

I do have friends who have had abortions and I do not bring it up nor love them less.

I wish the word pro-life was not associated with fanatics who bomb clincs...but I fear in America...it already has.
 
Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
Pls Note:

"I wish to make work on making abortion an undesirable choice" should be:
"I wish to work on making abortion an undesirable choice"
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
quote:
You really weren't paying attention when someone explained above why the whole "it's murder" argument hasn't changed the minds of those like me who think abortion is morally wrong but should be legal, were you?[/QB]
I think it should remain legal. I just think if every couple who were ready to jump into bed together were shown those pictures then it wouldn't be.
 
Posted by Gunner (# 2229) on :
 
I am glad that this topic has been raised as I too feel that Anglicans have tended to hide from this issue. For far too long we have been concerned with "isms" and not directly addressed the issue of the sanctity of human life. An asault on human life is an asult on Christ for he too on our humanity.

We can't remain quiet on this subject and merely say it is the woman's right to choose where is the rights of the baby in the womb? It may be vital that Christians work together with Orthodox Jews and Muslims to end this legalised evil.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I'm still hoping (foolishly perhaps?) that the question of the thread actually has something to do with the thread. Paddy hasn't defined his question, merely regurgitated some very familiar pro-life material. Very interesting and all that, but hardly relative to his own question, at least not without his further defining what he intended by it.

As we've all noticed, and as Paddy has admitted, there is no room for discussion about this topic on this...er.. discussion board, at least not as far as he's concerned. So if

a) no discussion is possible and
b) the question isn't even relevant then

there's really no point in taking any more notice of the thread. Just my opinion.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
I am glad that this topic has been raised as I too feel that Anglicans have tended to hide from this issue. For far too long we have been concerned with "isms" and not directly addressed the issue of the sanctity of human life. An asault on human life is an asult on Christ for he too on our humanity.

We can't remain quiet on this subject and merely say it is the woman's right to choose where is the rights of the baby in the womb? It may be vital that Christians work together with Orthodox Jews and Muslims to end this legalised evil.
Hooray, someone who's having a go at the title question! Gunner maybe you could enlighten me as to which Anglicans are meant, then, by the thread title; the entire Anglican Communion membership, particular member churches within the communion, specific policies that you are aware of, or specific groups of Anglicans that you feel ought to be concerned with campaigning for the illegalization of abortion?

At last, an opportunity for some clarification!
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
Abortion is not an individual issue. It infringes the human rights of another human being. Furthermore, by reducing the birth rate it becomes a public issue. Britain's birth rate is now 1.6 which is well below replacement level. This means less workers and therefore less taxpayers meaning that, at current levels, sooner or later there will not be enough funds for the NHS. Even right now the state pension is under threat. I could go on for pages and suggest we leave any related debate about the birth rate to a different thread.
Wait just a minute here. This argument is probably the most self-centered, callous argument against abortion I have ever seen. Women shouldn't have abortions cause it means there aren't enough taxpayers to support old people? Are you serious?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
Abortion is not an individual issue. It infringes the human rights of another human being. Furthermore, by reducing the birth rate it becomes a public issue. Britain's birth rate is now 1.6 which is well below replacement level. This means less workers and therefore less taxpayers meaning that, at current levels, sooner or later there will not be enough funds for the NHS. Even right now the state pension is under threat. I could go on for pages and suggest we leave any related debate about the birth rate to a different thread.
Wait just a minute here. This argument is probably the most self-centered, callous argument against abortion I have ever seen. Women shouldn't have abortions cause it means there aren't enough taxpayers to support old people? Are you serious?
I hate to say it, but these were many of the reasons that abortion was extremely difficult to obtain under a certain German regime I won't bring up, but just allude to gently. How instrumentalist!

Look. It's either evil or it isn't. That's just the first question. We won't know 'til we're dead who was right about this, and I hope that God will have mercy on those of us who were wrong.

Next (in my mind) comes the issue of access to abortion. I concede that both sides of the issue have not exactly done credit to their organizations by use of statistics. Now I'll be instrumentalist. I won't tell you my view of whether abortion is right or wrong. But I believe that abortion must be available, partly because no matter what you do, women will seek it out, whether it's legal or not, and we'll be back to the way it was before -- it will be the province of the rich to have them, and the seamy underworldy sort of abortion trade will pop up again. I really think that this is like alcohol; prohibition will do almost nothing to stem it.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
[brick wall] a host a host my kingdom for a host.....
It isn't a Dead Horse yet, Pyx_e. If it's dealt with extensively enough, perhaps it will be one day.
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Duchess wote:
quote:
I have looked at the guidelines into being an on-call consoler and in the written requirements for this organization it says "must listen without non-judgemental attitude".
Is that the same non-judgmental attitude without which our original poster is speaking? Aside from what I'll assume is a little double negative problem, yours was a thoughtful post, Duchess. Thank you.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Laura said,
"I believe that abortion must be available, partly because no matter what you do, women will seek it out, whether it's legal or not, and we'll be back to the way it was before -- it will be the province of the rich to have them, and the seamy underworldy sort of abortion trade will pop up again. I really think that this is like alcohol; prohibition will do almost nothing to stem it."

I think that may be true; one of my friends died from an illegal abortion before the law changed. And even now it's legal, many abortions are being carried out in expensive private facilities; it's not always easy to get one, particularly early on, in the NHS.
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Paddy, you are being me squared. Being a newbie, that won't mean as much to you as it does to the others, but believe me, it isn't good.

In my usual arragance, I was sure I would have much to add here, but have come away with a different impression. To many of you, both those I agree with and those I do not. [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]

In my field (mental health), an extreme and unsubtle pro-choice stance is usual, though not universal. As a consequence, most of my discussions have been with people fully convinced of the unwavering misogyny of pro-lifers. They are also unable to even discuss limitations such as waiting periods or parental notification. While I have found more flexibility on the prolife side, it is seldom enormous, and there are those as reflexively rigid there also.

This seems to be the first group which seemed to contain a healthy percentage of people I might actually discuss this with. Bless you all. No. Bless about 70% of you.

As is usual with me, I am more anti-anti something than I am for something. I start from a strongly prolife perspective, mostly from finding that the prochoice groups don't fight fair. That said, I am already of the opinion that implantation is as defensible a beginning of life as conception.

Paddy makes my head hurt. But the rest of us can still teach each other something.

My opening contribution: the issues of rape, incest, and life of the mother are important in the philosophical discussion, but are rare enough to remove them from the practical side of the discussion. My request would be that people keep that distinction in mind in their arguments.
 
Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Duchess wote:
quote:
I have looked at the guidelines into being an on-call consoler and in the written requirements for this organization it says "must listen without non-judgemental attitude".
Is that the same non-judgmental attitude without which our original poster is speaking? Aside from what I'll assume is a little double negative problem, yours was a thoughtful post, Duchess. Thank you.
Welcome Presleyterian. What I mean even in bad English is that a someone on the other end of the phone is suppose to listen without casting stones of judgement on the person calling. Yes, try to talk her out of it is a given in a pro-life organization...but not by bad mouthing her...

I think you know what I mean. I think my diet restricting my calories lately is messing up my speech [trying to find some reasonable excuse].

What an uncomfortable topic. I usually am too weary to deal with it...but Logician hit the nail on the head in his post. I feel too many pro-choice organizations have not fought fair (not to say that pro-lifers who harrass clinics are any less culpable).

What I mean is I receive mail from some left leaning groups I won't name...and with that comes pro-choice pamplets. I don't know how I got on their list, I suppose it's because I am kinda green and some automatically think if you are environmental aware, than you must be left in your thinking...I dunno. I have read statements I strongly disagree with...I have written several times too politely asking to be taken off their lists...but I still get their pamplets talking about how all pro-lifers are extreme (when it is the fringe, as these groups are the fringe of the left).
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
Tubbs:
"Northern Ireland is part of the UK - so the statistics for NI would only refer to abortions performed in that region"

Northern Ireland opted out of the 1967 abortion act and as such abortion is illegal there. If a woman wants an abortion (except in rare circumstances) she therefore has to 'travel' to England and is therefore treated as a foreigner under statistics.

Thanks for your figure of 2,000 by the way. I don't have the number as such only the percentage of abortions in terms of live births. For 2000 for England and Wales it was 29%, for Scotland 23%, Republic of Ireland 11.7% and for Northern Ireland 7.1%. Moreover that year represents a blip since it had been constantly around 6% (in 1999 it was 6.2%). In that respect pro-lifer should be more concerned about the Republic of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland.

Paddy
If you had read both articles properly you would see that abortion is available in NI - but because they didn't accept the 1967 act it is unclear about when it can and cannot be provided. The articles also state that abortions do take place in NI - and quotes a figure of approx 70 in 1999. But, unless they split out NI specifically, it would not be included in figures for "outside the UK" as it isn't. And, as MM so rightly pointed out (bet you never thought you'd hear me say that!) many women in NI give address of relatives and friends so the figures quoted aren't accurate.

One thing you seem doomed to fail to do here is actually debate the issue and engage with any of the points made. If I actually wanted to read pro-life propoganda then I can look on the website - I don't need you to post great globs of it here. [Roll Eyes]

It's late and I'm tired, but from what I can tell, you haven't actually answered the main question - just what do you expect the church to do?

Here's a suggestion:

The early church stance on abortion was that wasn't right. But it backed that stance up with practical help - wealthy Christians were encouraged to take unmarried mothers into their homes and provide a job and support for the mother and the child. Maybe many more people would take anti abortion campaigners more seriously if they learnt from the early church's example.

And, although it's not a choice I'd make, I think it should be remain legal.

Tubbs
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
This "not fighting fair" concept: what do you mean Logician and duchess? The only thing I can think of along those lines is the perennial chant "keep your hands off my body." Even in my unqualified pro-choice support days I sometimes said that I thought it was an obviously deceptive slogan that was just going to give a weapon to the other side. I got killed for even asking.

Is that what you guys are talking about?
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
part of an earlier post by Paddy:

jlg:
"I've been seeing those "horror" pictures for roughly 30 years now. They didn't stop me from having my abortions, and they don't cause me any emotional grief now. Contrary to pro-life rhetoric, having an abortion does not automatically lead to "psychological trauma"."

I'm sorry to hear you felt abortion was the only solution to your problem. May I ask why you think the pictures don't have any affect? I'm interested to learn your views.
Why are you feeling sorry for me? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough the first time. I have no regrets.

I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?

And when you ask "...why [I] think the pictures don't have any affect?" you are again putting words in my mouth. I stated (please note that I didnt "think") that the pictures didn't affect my decisions in the past nor my current lack of regret.

You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!"

Here's my view: I made my decisions and I am still at peace with myself about those decisions 25 years later. What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions.
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
hi everyone

I'm new to the website but what I've seen of the website it looks great. well done to whoever masterminded it.

I was recently doing work experience with one of the national newspapers and one of the journalists, who is an atheist, commented to me that the Raelians (the sect who have claimed this week to have cloned a baby and believe that human beings were created from aliens coming to earth in a spaceship) had no less strange beliefs than Christians.

I was stunned by this as the Raelians' beliefs are fantasy, - (they have no qualms about cloning which is condemned universally as barbaric experimentation on a child) - How can this be compared to Christ who laid down his life to save us? I couldn't at the drop of a hat point out the difference.

It seems to me that our secular world may struggle with the concept of a mighty creator but what they can't fail to be inspired and impressed by are the great Christians who spoke out about injustice and laid down their lives like Christ for the sake of others.

My understanding of the Christian faith is that it is not about political compromise. If a human life is created in the image of God, if it is wrong to kill, then it is always wrong to kill. If Christianity is not opposed to abortion then I would find its claims and teachings far harder to follow.

The more I have seen of the prolife movement the more I think they have got it right - I've seen the dedication of people who give time, money and energy to a cause that seems collosal who will never give up as long as abortion continues. Prolife isn't about saving the child at the expense of the mother's life, but helping both, finding a better way forward that doesn't involve taking human life.

Christ ultimately doesn't choose.

here is some text that puts this far better than I can:

When we accept Christ, we accept the whole Christ. To accept the whole Christ also means we accept all His brothers and sisters. If we accept Christ, we also accept all those whom He accepts. This is true even when those He accepts do not seem so acceptable to us. Maybe they're different. Maybe they're annoying. Maybe they have offended us.

Or maybe they're just too small. A whole group in our society today, the boys and girls in the womb, are often rejected. When their mothers feel they cannot provide for them, many are led to abortion, without being given other, better choices. Somehow we think we can love and accept the mother while rejecting her child. Why do we do this? Christ accepts them both; Christ loves them both. Why can't we? Why can't our society?

To accept Christ means to accept the whole Christ, to accept and love all those He loves. If we support abortion, we are rejecting those whom Christ loves, and in that respect, are rejecting Christ Himself!

Love and acceptance are not always as easy and pleasant as they sound. If we truly love our neighbor, we will begin doing more to eliminate abortion. We never eliminate problems by eliminating people. We never serve women by destroying their children. We never improve society by rejecting society's future members. We never build up the Body of Christ by killing Christ's future disciples. Yes, there is an alternative to abortion. It's love...love that accepts and nurtures not only some people, but all. Amen.

Interested to hear your response and I will keep exploring your site. Best wishes.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Welcome, Dorothy. Your fervent belief is evident and has moved you to speak and quote eloquently on the sanctity of human life. How indeed can any person who purports to value individual rights support the taking of innocent, helpless human life? It is not possible.

But it is possible for Chrisitians and those of strong secular morals to support aborting the development of an incomplete or potential human life that is possibly harming the welfare of a fully developed human life. That is the debate. The rigid pro-life stance says, "fertilized single cell, human life, to kill is murder, even in a test tube." But is that cell a human whose right to exist outweighs the mother's economic freedom or even her convenience? How so?
 
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:

My opening contribution: the issues of rape, incest, and life of the mother are important in the philosophical discussion, but are rare enough to remove them from the practical side of the discussion. My request would be that people keep that distinction in mind in their arguments.
Er...no.

Rape statistics from US Dept. of Justice survey- (Site: RAINN.org)

(And I believe those are just the *reported* cases.)

Rape isn't rare. Nor is incest. Nor, for that matter, is adolescent fumbling around, failed birth control, unprotected sex while under the influence of a drug, etc.

I'm basically middle of the road about abortion. I think it's best avoided *when possible*. It's not just about the woman, or just about the fetus--which is why it's so darn complicated.

I can't tell another woman whether or not she should abort--I'm not her, with her circumstances. And I'm damned sure not going to tell a rape or incest victim that they *have* to carry their abuser's child for 9 months. And, for many reasons, women and girls can't/don't always report the crime, so you can't leave the legal loophole "except for cases of rape or incest".

If you want to cut down on abortions, provide better birth control and sex education, work to stop rape and incest, and work on treatments for the abusers.

That would put a good-sized dent in the statistics.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I believe he meant that pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are pretty rare and, well, they are. So dragging those into an abortion discussion is a version of Godwin's Law.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy: (in reply to Laura)
And not only in the bible but in most major religious' texts. Several examples: Genesis 1:27, Exodus 20:13, Job 10:8-11, Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 49:1-5, Judges 13:7, John 1:14 etc
I think you missed the point that Laura was making here. Where, in any of those texts, does it say anything specifically about abortion?
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
hi Jim

thanks for your reply. I've read your previous posts regarding the development of the baby and I respect any one who has thought seriously about the baby's development and status.

I read this fascinating book about craniometry by Steven Jay Gould called "The Mismeasure of Man". In the nineteenth century, there was a serious school of scientific and philosophical thought that believed that human worth was determined by the size of the person's head and scientists devised all sorts of measures to weigh skulls in order to prove that whites had larger heads and were therefore more intelligent than blacks. Amusingly one of the leading proponents of this had a very small head.

Nowadays it's easy enough to laugh at this. But Gould points out that the scientists didn't even take into account the fact that some of the skulls would be smaller because they were from smaller or younger people. Inevitably my head has grown along with me, but my worth as a human being has not changed. I believe it is self-evident that the size of the human body does not determine worth. Hence the embryo is unsurprisingly small, but no less precious than the older child.

I started like you by seeing that abortion must be wrong at say, 16 weeks. It shocked me that human rights were dependent solely on whether you could make it to 24 weeks gestation without being aborted, and I wondered how it could make any sense that you could abort a baby at 23 and a half weeks, but not at 24 weeks and one day. Human beings it would seem from Gould's book can get it seriously wrong when we try to depend on reason. When the implications at the very least might be that we are killing a child made in God's image, isn't it far better to leave it to God?

If you pick a point at which you believe abortion to be wrong and then ask yourself if a day or a couple of weeks earlier would make a substantial moral difference, (isn't the being the same? isn't the outcome, termination of life the same? the baby won't be born if it aborted at any stage) it becomes difficult to justify abortion at any point. Last week, or at 4 am this morning, I had no less human rights than I do now.

Having said this - I do recognise how entrenched abortion is and I would welcome any opposition to abortion at *any* stage as a first step. We don't have to solve the whole caboodle at once. To save one baby would be incredible.

I checked the national abortion statistics for the UK recently and over 2,000 babies were aborted at 21 weeks or above, the stage at which the baby can survive outside the womb. Our law (abortion up to 24 weeks, and up to birth for disability) is based on fetal viability and is out of date. You may have seen the image of Malachi at 21 weeks which is well known and heart breaking. Malachi is clearly a baby, no different from a baby born prematurely. Surely we can put aside our differences and this is something that Christians and anyone with a love of human beings can unite behind?
 
Posted by Icarus (The Coot) (# 220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I believe he meant that pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are pretty rare and, well, they are. So dragging those into an abortion discussion is a version of Godwin's Law.
I've been told that the pregnancy rate from rape is higher than that for consensual sex. Something about stress and hormones? The person who told me mentioned rape of women in wartime having a higher conception rate as evidence (where they got the info re: the higher rate I don't know)

Anyone got any hard info or refs on the matter?
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus (The Coot):
I've been told that the pregnancy rate from rape is higher than that for consensual sex. Something about stress and hormones? The person who told me mentioned rape of women in wartime having a higher conception rate as evidence (where they got the info re: the higher rate I don't know)

Anyone got any hard info or refs on the matter?
That is counter-intuitive on the surface, because stress and hormones decrease the opportunities for conception. However, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (very well-respected) says that women give rape or incest as the reason in seeking an abortion approximately one percent of the time. (It's an awkward format, but go to slide 10.) I found several references on the Internet to the extremely low/virtually non-existent rate of pregnancy resulting from rape and incest, but chose not to include them because of the virulent prolife stance of the websites. The statistics countering those claims are notable for their absence.

[ 04. January 2003, 15:37: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
quote:
women give rape or incest as the reason in seeking an abortion approximately one percent of the time.
I believe most rape victims are given the immediate option of the "morning-after pill", so they would not need to "seek an abortion" at a clinic.
Therefore the statistic you quote is not very relevant.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Well then abortion due to rape and incest will not need to enter into the discussion at all, since the morning-after pill PREVENTS pregnancy in the first place.
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
Exactly
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
Sorry for the double-post, but it just occurred to me that some "pro-life" partisans might be in favor of outlawing the morning-after pill.

In that case, we need to consider the morning after pill as "probable abortion", & include it in discussion.
 
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :
 
I was about to ask about that; I was wondering about the mechanism of the Morning After Pill; I thought it inhibited a fertilised ovum to embed itself into the womb lining. If that is the case, that may prove problematic for some.

LFD
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
One of the girls I used to know at Univ worked in the abortion unit at a large North London hospital and she said that women seeking abortions divided up to the following fairly board types:

The unlucky – women who’d done their best to avoid pregnancy but whose contraception had let them down on the night. And who, after careful consideration of their circumstances and options, had decided that abortion was the best answer to their situation. Most were never seen again and, the majority seemed to be at peace about what they were doing.

The horror stories – mercifully rare. Victims of rape or incest or the incredibility young. Who’d decided that carrying a child to term and then either bringing it up (with whatever support was available) or adopting it and risking it turning up later in their lives was another trauma that they just didn’t feel able to cope with. (She said that workers at the unit found these kind of cases the hardest to handle because it just seemed that these women were just going from one horror to another – in a situation where all the options were just terrible [Frown] )

The regulars – also rare and despised by the staff. Women who just couldn’t be bothered with contraception and used the unit instead.

Weirdly enough, she had little time for the people who stood outside the clinic hassling patients and staff and handing out anti-abortion leaflets. She felt their energies could be better spent by backing up their principles with practical action – like joining local schemes to help support first time or lone parents with advice or even the odd bit of babysitting. And their financial support to charities that supported parents – especially single or vulnerable ones (So well done Duchess!) She did, however respect people like the RC Bishop who died last year (please would someone remind me of his name!) who spoke out against abortion but also provided homes and long term support for mothers who’d decided against it.

So, Paddy, I ask you again – just what do you think is “enough”?.

Just waving around pictures and quoting statistics in the hope that this will encourage more women to reject abortion as an option? Or should that campaign be backed up with long term practical support for women who decide against abortion? And what about sex education in schools? Should that be restructured in some way (made compulsory?) to help young people be more aware of the risks and how to protect themselves?

Writing as a shipmate and not a Host – not my board you see:

I do hope you’re going to actually engage with the questions I and other posters have asked instead of just spouting statistics and factoids at us … These are, in case you haven’t noticed, Discussion Boards. The clue is in the title. [Big Grin]

And Commandment 8 is there for a reason - to prevent anyone with a “special interest” or a “cause” from just pitching up and refusing to discuss anything but that. [Snore] To make the boards interesting for those that run and read them. So, if none of the other threads interest you – then start one that does! Go back to your welcome thread in All Saints and say thank you to those posters who’ve greeted you so far. But if you’re just here to talk about abortion (which is a single, although multi-faceted, issue) and win converts to the pro-life cause, then you are a crusader. And will be treated accordingly. Louise is a Host of this board, and she has explained, as a Host, how things work on this board. You may wish to go back and re-read it.

Tubbs
 
Posted by coffee jim (# 3510) on :
 
I think it's Cardinal Thomas Winning, Mrs Tubbs.
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
JimT -- You asked about fighting fair. I'll only pick on one local girl. How about Mrs. Tubbs, who keeps saying that all those activists should be giving practical aid instead, obviously not knowing and not willing to find out that they do. Hang out with these folks, Mrs. T, and you'll find a surprizing number of children-adopters, home-providers, and donators of food and clothing.

The extended accusation, made by political figures such as Barney Frank, is that prolifers only care about babies until they are born (and I am not accusing you of that extremity, Mrs. T). In view of who is actually doing the work in the trenches, this is vile.

Another favorite, though it's old: The ad campaign complaining about crisis pregnancy centers because they "bring young women into darkened rooms and show them movies about fetal development." What other kind of room do you show movies in?

I might add in things from time to time, Jim, but it gets me hot under the collar and I stop listening, so it's not appropriate to do too many at once.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
He called me a girl [Embarrassed] Why thank you Logician. [Not worthy!]

Actually, I don’t doubt that many of them do – and backing up pro-life principles with practical help is the way to go. (But you knew I thought that already [Big Grin] ). But there are pro-lifers who do only care about the baby until it’s born. [Frown] One of the saddest interviews I ever read was with a very young girl who’d been persuaded by her local pro-life group to keep her baby and promised all sorts of help once she’d had the child. But once the child was born she never heard or saw any of them again.

My argument is not with you Logician – but with our new friend Paddy. A young man with strong views – who seems unable to answer a straight question, “What exactly is “enough”? Are we talking prayer for those making that decision; writing letters to the government about changes in the law; standing vigil outside clinics as people enter; firebombing clinics and shooting their staff … Just where do we draw the line between "enough" and "the ends doesn't actually justify the means". And where does practical support and help fit in with this? And education?

Tubbs
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Dorothea, we call your acknowledgement of the legitimacy of other opinions, and your willingness to discuss options and alternatives being “engaging” and we like it a lot. It is the opposite of what we call “crusading.”

In engaging me on the issue of when human rights begin, you summed up your position this way:

quote:
I believe it is self-evident that the size of the human body does not determine worth.
I agree. It is not the size of the body at all, but the presence or absence of mind that most of us associate with "humanity." It is very telling that you made your example the size of the head and not the heart or reproductive organs. What are the rights of a developing human being who has no head at all or a head that is more like a fish than a human being and is attached to a neck with gills? Does it have a human mind?

You have not engaged me yet on the issue of the rights of a mother who has a developing, but not yet complete human being living inside her parasitically. Has the mother no rights at all to assert against this parasitic and incomplete human life on the condition that she did not intend to create it? Before it becomes fully human can she not choose to prevent it from becoming so in the same way that she can prevent her eggs from becoming fertilized? By what right does the State or the father compell her to complete a process that she did not intend to begin? Because God really wanted that life to be created even though she did not? No one can prove God's intent or desires. The mother can seek it, but she can only know her own. We cannot tell her what God intends for her or her developing embryo. Can we?

Logician, given that you’ve revealed your adoption of Romanian children elsewhere, I can see how you would become upset at the generalization that “pro-lifers” are more interested in forcing others to make sacrifices for the sake of tiny or unborn children but are unwilling to make sacrifices of their own because that's how all conservatives are. I don't read that into Tubbs myself but see how perhaps you could. I have heard it said, though.

[PRIVATE ASIDE]I rankle in the same way when I sense that a knee-jerk anti-“capitalist” is defining me as a selfish and lucky thief who obviously achieved financial independence at the expense of starving Third World children. I feel myself slipping into anti-“anti-‘capitalist’” mode, sputtering that they know nothing of capitalism or me. On bad days I rub a little Libertarianism in their face just to piss them off. Nonetheless, I don’t think that any particular group has more “unfair” people in it than any other (RooK’s school of kinder, gentler cynicism) and I recognize that my “anti-anti-ness” is a knee-jerk rebellion against my rebellious youth, when I was myself a knee-jerk anti-just-about-anything-ist. Perhaps the source of your own “anti-anti-ness” is different. Ah, youth. Ah, the 60's.[/PRIVATE ASIDE]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
As to heads, what about the termination of a pregnancy where the mother is carrying an anancephalic foetus? One of my friends had one, and chose to abort it; she reckoned it was kinder to the child to do so as it would not have to go through birth and then die.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
JimT wrote:

quote:
Logician, given that you’ve revealed your adoption of Romanian children elsewhere, I can see how you would become upset at the generalization that “pro-lifers” are more interested in forcing others to make sacrifices for the sake of tiny or unborn children but are unwilling to make sacrifices of their own because that's how all conservatives are. I don't read that into Tubbs myself but see how perhaps you could. I have heard it said, though.
Now I didn't know that - and reacted accordingly. Thank you JimT for pointing this out as it does give me a better idea about where Logican is coming from. I would like to apologies for any misunderstanding that my comments caused [Frown]

Tubbs
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Apologies accepted and reciprocated. I was intemperate and insulting.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I rather wish some of the energy directed towards forcing women not to have abortions could be spent working for the many unwanted, abused and neglected children who are already here, though. Banning abortion would no doubt just increase that number
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
I read this fascinating book about craniometry by Steven Jay Gould called "The Mismeasure of Man".
An excellent book. I have it on my shelves. It is really worth reading. And re-reading after the execrable "Bell Curve", which I also have.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
A test for those of us who hate abortion.

Do we support large-scale, publicly-funded sex education where it counts, i.e. of pre-pubertal boys?

Do we support the universal availibility of the means of contraception - including (but nbot limited to) givng condoms out to anyone and everyone (why not put dispensing machines on street corners?)

If not - why not?
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Ken,
I do support all that you suggest.

Sex education should start from when children are tiny and want to know where babies come from; they need age-appropriate accurate answers whenever they ask questions. (I remember being asked by my 4yr old son's friend, in a queue at a bus-stop, "How do babies get out from their mummies?")

Sex education should not just be biology and anatomy, but relationships and appropriate boundaries too.

Of course condoms are better than abortions; if we provide free NHS abortion, we ought to provide free condoms in easy to access places.
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
hi Jim and anyone else...

I've heard the idea that humanity depends on what you call "a presence of mind" or an ability to reason, but my stumbling block with that is in order to have reason the baby has to be allowed to develop these faculties. We all passed through this phase of development so in terms of equality, it seems to me that we ought not to deny the right to develop to others and that the aesthetic look of a human being (whether black or white or a developing embryo) does not affect a human beings moral worth. If development of rationality endows humans with greater rights, then arguably any one cleverer than me would have the right to do anything to me....

Brain activity (as I notice someone pointed out earlier) in fact exists at an early stage (after all, presumably this directs all development, brain waves can be detected at 40 days, and the baby can feel pain and hear music and responds to loud sounds before it is born. I would assume that sensory perception is part of brain activity). If you're talking about more sophistocated brain activity (the ability to do calculus) then under that definition a new born baby doesn't have a great deal of rationality, but neither given my maths inability do I !

I've never been fond of brains as an indicator of human worth. It might have something to do with my coping strategy at school. I found out early on that if you do well in exams the best thing to do was to pass it off as a fluke or an accident. Any one who didn't was considered arrogant. But I also genuinely counted myself lucky to get into a good university. It doesn't make you better than anyone else. It's just a case of being in the right place at the right time. (ideally 18 and just passed a few A levels. No matter how virtuous you are, if you are 6 years old you won't get into university).

In the same book I cited earlier by Gould, all non-whites were considered morons or imbeciles. This was mainly because they performed poorly on IQ tests on arrival in America. Gould points out that their poor performance was directly attributable to their inability to speak English and their lack of knowledge of everyday life in America.

I realise that you may be tut tutting at this point thinking that I have deliberately misinterpreted what you've said. But I genuinely believe that the acquisition of mental ability in an unborn baby is inevitable and dependent on the passing of time, just as black immigrants would have acquired the knowledge to perform well on IQ tests given a chance. Rationality is an acquired ability, not an indicator of human worth.

When it comes to the rights of the mother, I do not see the conflict between adult woman and unborn baby as equal. The woman is an adult with resourcefulness, courage, rationality and a voice to ask for help, the baby is weak and defenceless. Without playing down the difficulties of pregnancy and birth, 9 months is by definition a limited and temporary space of time to carry a child for. The baby on the other hand will lose its life. On a time comparison alone this is 9 months versus 70-80 years. Who has the worse deal? Abortion is not a pleasant way to die. (neither incidentally is it a necessary or desirable procedure for women. Going into hospitals and undergoing an operation is not something I am willing to do and in no way feels liberating. Why can't the state help women rather than insisting that "it is their choice, get on with it") In terms of equality, we all enjoyed the protection of unmolested development in the womb, how can we deny this to others?

In terms of law when there is a conflict of rights we have to establish
which party suffers more and protect them. In the case of drink driving and smoking in public places for example, the mere risk of harm to others is sufficient to curtail these liberties, so when we have an operation that is specifically designed to attack and kill, there is no question which party should be protected. The point is that the state does not intervene to keep the individual pregnant, but the state should not intervene to kill the child. With abortion paid for by the taxpayer on our National Health Service, the state currently facilitates
and legitimises abortion.

It may be presumptious to assume to know the mind of God but extrapolating on a general principle that God is good and loving, I can't see abortion fitting into this.

If you advocate allowing some limited abortion on the grounds that the baby is not "fully human", then I think you would have to define an exact day when the baby becomes fully human so fully human babies are not killed. And you'll see this is a rather fraught process. If you fix a day, how morally different would it be to kill the baby a minute, an hour or a day before?

Finally, as a newcomer, I'd like to point out that I love your section on heaven, especially Rosencrantz (one of my favourite plays). It seems from numerous comments that Paddy has taken a lot of stick, but perhaps that's because you've inundated him with questions and comments?! He has tried to answer them after all. I've tried to be brief but these questions tend to require lengthy responses.

If abortion is a human rights abuse of unparralleled proportions, then it is surely important to discuss it. There are a million and one things that can be done to save human life and help women (advertising counselling support, training people, providing equipment, providing housing, lobbying for better maternity benefits) but all this can only be done if we have enough hands and enough money to make it happen. If people see abortion as a choice, then why campaign to provide an alternative? It is only if abortion is perceived as undesirable that people will be motivated to put themselves out to help. None of this comes without generous donations and volunteers. Without discussing the issue, we won't have enough people to make the social changes a reality or to provide the moral imperative to inspire people to campaign.
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
I thought you might be interested in this article I remember reading about contraception increasing the unplanned pregnancy and abortion rate:

Morning-after pill, lessons in family planning and early puberty are all blamed for soaring pregnancies

Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday March 17, 2002
The Observer

The number of under-age abortions has risen by more than a fifth in the past 10 years, fuelling fears that the greater availability of sex education and the morning- after pill is encouraging young people to have unprotected sex.
Figures compiled by the Office of National Statistics for 2000 reveal that 4,382 girls under the age of 16 had abortions, up 200 on the year before. The same figure for 1992, the first of the last Conservative Government, was 3,510. There has been a rise of 20 per cent since then.

Experts in teenage pregnancy and abortion say poorly defined sex education policies and the Government's decision to allow the morning-after pill to be freely available at chemists is increasing the awareness of sex and leading to more unwanted pregnancies.

Some argue that because sex is illegal under the age of 16 the official figures reveal only a small part of the problem. 'It is clear that providing more family planning clinics, far from having the effect of reducing conception rates, has actually led to an increase,' said Dr David Paton, a leading expert on teenage fertility at the University of Nottingham.

'The availability of the morning-after pill seems to be encouraging risky behaviour. It appears that if people have access to family planning advice they think they automatically have a lower risk of pregnancy.'

for the full article:
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,668849,00.html
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Precisely. This faith that "education" is going to fix this somehow is misplaced. People choose not to know what they know. When you talk to these girls (and boys, when you can get them), you find that they know the biology but think there were certain exceptions, like "if it's the first time," "if we were standing up," etc. Children believe they are bulletproof.

It is one thing not to know that pre-ejaculate fluid is dense with sperm, so that "just fooling around on the outside" can make you pregnant. But it is quite another to convince yourself that the one thing that can make you pregnant can't really make you pregnant.

This better education mantra keeps coming up, but it doesn't have a track record of success. It's one of those things adults imagine is going to help, so we do it to make ourselves feel better. To rephrase Ken: are we really interested in doing what is necessary to stop unwanted pregnancies? If so, why do we ignore the evidence that something doesn't work?

Heresy, I know.
 
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A test for those of us who hate abortion.
...don't really hate abortion as such, just see the fact that it exists saddening, but to continue...

quote:
Do we support large-scale, publicly-funded sex education where it counts, i.e. of pre-pubertal boys?.
Depends how you define support. If you mean do I give time or money, then the answer is no. Do you mean do I support sex education in public schools, then yes. Teach the kids about the mechanics of reproduction, and as morally neutral a tone as possible, the consequences of sexual activity. Particular attitudes to aspects of sexuality should come from the likes of parents, churches, and other third party "stakeholders" outwith school. Sex education needs to be a part of general citizenship education, and the responsibilities of individuals in society.

quote:
Do we support the universal availibility of the means of contraception - including (but nbot limited to) givng condoms out to anyone and everyone
Yes. Ideally only as a means of family planning among married couples, but despite holding a very trad view of human relationships, I'd still prefer to give the sexually active access to contraception to minimise STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Ideally a programme of education would empower individuals to take control of their sexuality responsibly.

LFD
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
so, a question for all the anti-abortion folks here.

how would you react to having a group home for the mentally handicapped set up next door to you?

i ask this because my brother lives in such a group home, being severly autistic. and my mother was for many years extremly active in a group which existed to set up such group homes. and i know full well the amount of vitriolic hatred thats spewed forth whenever theres an attempt to set one up. up to and including burning down buildings that have been purchased for the purpose.

so i want to know... does that respect for all human life extend to when theres a not very attractive, obviously abnormal bunch of men and women living next door to you?
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Dorothea, you've done a good job and have prompted me to review the fetal development process. An excellent description with beautiful pictures is found here. The brain is fully formed at 12 weeks and in my view begins its life as a "human being." Just opinion. Thank you very much for yours. It has gotten me off the fence on the second trimester: good job!

It would probably be best if a woman took up the debate from here about the mother's reproductive rights, but I will say that it is not a given that the child will suffer more by not being born than the mother will if the child is born. Women also suffer when in good conscience they give up the child and it "finds" them in their middle age. No doubt there are other dimensions to explore on this.

But we've had enough of a polemic for now. Thanks!
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Dorothea, you've done a good job and have prompted me to review the fetal development process. An excellent description with beautiful pictures is found here. The brain is fully formed at 12 weeks and in my view begins its life as a "human being." Just opinion. Thank you very much for yours. It has gotten me off the fence on the second trimester: good job!

It would probably be best if a woman took up the debate from here about the mother's reproductive rights, but I will say that it is not a given that the child will suffer more by not being born than the mother will if the child is born. Women also suffer when in good conscience they give up the child and it "finds" them in their middle age. No doubt there are other dimensions to explore on this.

But we've had enough of a polemic for now. Thanks!
I agree vis-a-vis the second trimester; the systems are all pretty much up and running by that point. Also, the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
nicolemrw, a very fair question, and one that prolife folks -- and everyone -- should answer. It is inconsistent to say that Life is Valuable, and then act as if some lives are Not Really Valuable.

The inconsistency can cut both ways, however. If we wish to allow the abortion option for those carrying damaged babies -- because they have little to look forward to but a life of hardship, dependence, and ostracism, then we should also allow families to kill them off when they are two or three years old, because they have little to look forward to but a life of hardship, dependence, and ostracism.

After some research and thought, I would like to open up the discussion about use of language in the public debate. There is much that troubles me there.
 
Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
Nicole, I think every person serves a purpose and God loves them...I used to live near a house of handicapped adults and it was not a problem. They are people too. I used to love the episodes of Touched by An Angel where there was a handicapped angel, played by a handicapped (mild enough to act) actor in real life.

Logician, do you mean the terms used by both sides in the debate about the language thing? The anti this and that when using Pro for their side?
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
After some research and thought, I would like to open up the discussion about use of language in the public debate. There is much that troubles me there.
Yes, it always troubles me when I hear that a way has been found to 'prevent' X, Y or Z condition, when what is actually meant is a way has been found to detect foetuses with X Y or Z so they can be aborted.

There is an assumption among many medical staff that most couples would chose to abort a foetus with a detected gentic disorder, I have also met people who have made this assumption when pregnant. If abortion is seen as a 'solution' to disability then this implies that disabled people do not have as much right to exist as the rest of us. Of course not all disability is due to genetic conditions so we cannot eradicate it anyway.

I think I am personally anti-abortion at the moment, but I would not make abortions illegal. I cannot possibly judge what another person should do, only God can judge us.

The obverse of the argument about the foetuses humanity however small is that however small when aborted it has still had a significant life in God's eyes - cf Psalm 139. I am not proposing this as any sort of theological answer but I think the theology of 'God hates X Y or Z' is not helpful. If we are aware of the complexities of the situation, I am sure God is as well.

We had friends whose baby had an incurable and fatal condition that was so rare that they do not routinely test for it antenatally. They looked after her devotedly and she lived much longer than expected - nearly two years as opposed to nine months predicted when she was born. They were given a test during their next pregnancy and would definitely have aborted if it had been positive. Would God understand or hold them guilty of murder if that had happened?
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Don't worry guys, I haven't forgotten about this thread.

I just got a new computer yesterday so have been playing round with that for a while (plus was out all day Saturday).

Will write later today hopefully.

Paddy
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
so, a question for all the anti-abortion folks here.

how would you react to having a group home for the mentally handicapped set up next door to you?

i ask this because my brother lives in such a group home, being severly autistic. and my mother was for many years extremly active in a group which existed to set up such group homes. and i know full well the amount of vitriolic hatred thats spewed forth whenever theres an attempt to set one up. up to and including burning down buildings that have been purchased for the purpose.

so i want to know... does that respect for all human life extend to when theres a not very attractive, obviously abnormal bunch of men and women living next door to you?
I don't have the slightest problem with it. I don't see what this has to do with the subject at hand, though, unless you have some conclusive proof that all of those people who have so virulently protested in the past are also ALL pro-life.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
I don't think anyone here is pro -abortion. It is something, I would hope never undertaken ligthly or with anything but a heavey heart. I think some of what we are discussing is under what circumstances it may happen.

I am not pro the British Army, but I am pretty glad it's there.

P
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Logician,

Here's a language misuse that drives me to distraction. People who describe abortion as "murder" are themselves guilty of libel or slander, both of which are illegal and arguably immoral.

Here's another. It is a foetus, NOT a "baby".

While I am fairly certain that I would never have had an abortion (with the possible exceptions of a rape-induced pregnancy or the likelihood of my life being endangered}, and while this certainty is fomred by princiles that might be described as moral, I would not support any weakening of the right to personal privacy as applied in Roe v. Wade. Until the foetus is viable, it is not a person, and the state cannot constitutionally interfere with a woman's fundamental right to make her own private medical decisions.

Greta
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I take issue with the libel or slander remark, Greta. If I regard the fetus as human life, and I DO, then I regard the deliberate taking of human life as murder.

You may choose not to consider a fetus human life (though to be honest I have no idea what legitimate biological basis you use to make that decision), but just because YOU don't think it is doesn't mean that it isn't.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Along the language lines, and just to clarify Erin, "fetus" is after "embryo" which is in turn after a bunch of other stuff that starts with "zygote" meaning "fertilized egg cell that has not yet divided." Do you support full rights beginning with conception ("zygote").

Forgive me, I'm a biologist.
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
well put Erin.

for those who think abortion is unacceptable when the baby is formed, and have put this point at 12 weeks, it's worth clarifying that the baby is fully formed at 8 weeks:

"At 56 days all organs functioning - stomach, liver, kidney, brain - all systems intact. Lines in palms. All future development of new life is simply that of refinement and increase in size until maturity at approximately age 23 years."

Anyone using the formation of the baby as a guide would therefore presumably regard abortion after 8 weeks as unacceptable, though how much difference would a couple of hours before 8 weeks make?

I've also come across one of the most incredible websites about abortionists who tell their story about how they turned away from abortion. It makes compelling reading:

http://www.prolifeaction.org/meet_the_abortion_providers.htm
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Along the language lines, and just to clarify Erin, "fetus" is after "embryo" which is in turn after a bunch of other stuff that starts with "zygote" meaning "fertilized egg cell that has not yet divided." Do you support full rights beginning with conception ("zygote").

Forgive me, I'm a biologist.
I know what the continuum is, thanks. I recognize life as beginning at implantation.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Erin,

The penal codes define murder {and slander and libel). Some people may wish that abortion (performed according to legal standards} be defined as murder, but in law it is not. It is assuredly libel or slander to falsely label someone as a murderer.

Greta
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Erin,

Your points about human life are really the crux of the matter in my opinion, and I assure you that I can see merit in your view.

What is human life, and when does it begin? I'm not sure I can supply an inconstestable answer. Why do you pinpoint fertilization as the relevant event?

The language of the Constitution further complicates things in that its guarantees apply to "persons" or "citizens". Do either of these terms include fertilized ova?

Greta
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Erin,

Sorry, I misread your post. I should have said implantation rather than fertilization.

Greta
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Corgigreta, that wasn't particularly what I was thinking about, though it might lead into it.

Many cultures use some variant of the term "with child" for pregnancy, compare especially NT. We now use specific terms for scientific clarity, but that is a modern convention. I don't object to the term foetus, as it has its uses. But there is no linguistic imperative to regard it as the "correct" term. Since abortion came to the forefront of our political dialogue there has been some pressure to use the term "baby" only for children already born, but this is quite new. I don't know how old you are, but apparently the redefinition has succeeded with you.

As to libel and slander, your use of the terms in that context corresponds to no accepted definition of either. We can tell that you mean to say "that's an unfair accusation," but that's not quite the same thing.

I was thinking of two overlapping strains of language use. The most common complaint that conservatives have I am sure you have heard: the use of terms like "jihad," "assault," and "Taliban" to describe prolifers. This is not very different than other parts of our political dialogue, but still, it does seem hyperbolic.

But the part which troubles me, which I have not seen anyone reference before, is the language of sexual assault that prochoice people direct against prolifers. Keep your hands off my body, get government out of our bedrooms (you will note that the bedroom is not where an abortion takes place -- not a mere technicality), women will be forced to have back-alley abortions, forcing a woman to bear a child, an assault on women (note that the phrase is on "women," not on "the rights of women"), intruding on the bodies of women . The cumulative effect is quite clear. You are raping us. You are groping us. You are in our wombs. You are peeping through our windows. You are dragging us into dirty, secret places and assaulting us.

This type of language is not merely slanted, but remarkably sexual. That the men who are anti-abortion are much more often mentioned only heightens this effect.

Once such language has been accepted it would of course be expected that women would respond with outrage, believing they had not merely been disagreed with, but violated in some way. And it is this type of rhetoric I think muddles rather than clarifies the discussion.

Paddy, I'm begging you. Please read other's comments closely before writing.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Logician,

I think the term 'murder'should be confined to its legal definition and not used in situations where it is inapplicable. For this reason I am likewise driven to distraction by people who claim that capital punishment is state-sponsored murder.

If abortion is murder, those who perform it are murderers. The classic form of defamation is a false imputation of criminality, a fortiori if the crime is capital.

I had no idea that mention of libel and slander would be such a hot-button matter.

Greta
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
This type of language is not merely slanted, but remarkably sexual. That the men who are anti-abortion are much more often mentioned only heightens this effect.
Being forced to be pregnant when the means exist to stop being pregnant might feel like being sexually violated. Just because I've not experienced this I certainly can't say it doesn't fel like that for other people.

It's also important to bear in mind that the people saying these things probably do not perceive the foetus as a person and in this they are backed up by the legal definitions of viability.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think the term 'murder'should be confined to its legal definition and not used in situations where it is inapplicable. For this reason I am likewise driven to distraction by people who claim that capital punishment is state-sponsored murder.
But there are plenty of instances of perfectly legal, state-sanctioned killing that most of us would think constitutes "murder" (i.e. wrongful killing). To avoid Godwin's law, I won't mention the Holocaust, but we can think of Stalin's Gulag or Pol Pot's Killing Fields instead. Both of these were "legal" according to the State that carried them out. But I think that both would be accepted as examples of "wrongful killing" by most people.

To identify "murder" as "illegal killing" rather than "wrongful killing" seems to me to embrace an unfortunate legal positivism. It reflects a view which hold, to quote Rev. Lovejoy, "If it's legal, it must be moral."

FCB
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
A question I have on the use of language is; If a foetus is called "an unborn baby", why isn't a living person called "an undead corpse?".

This isn't an entirely flippant question as I think the ways we use language is important and often a reflection of what we think.

For example; I am pro-choice, you are pro-abortion.
I am prolife, you are antiabortion.

Huia - to borrow someone else's sig "Thinking out loud."
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I'll jump on the dog-pile and make a point about "zero risk of intentional killing of innocent life." Some have tacitly conceded that perhaps a zygote, embryo, or very early fetus (first trimester) is not fully human. However, they have said that because a clock and calendar time cannot be established for for 'fully human' but a clock and calendar time can be established for conception, then a zero-risk policy must be employed so that protection begins from conception.

I say this leads to some logical absurdities and would welcome arguments to the contrary.

1. Test tube abortions, where a scientist fertilizes and egg, allows it to divide to the point of producing stem cells, and stops the division, is a "murderer."

2. Children should not be allowed to ride in automobiles because their lives are at risk and they cannot choose on their own to take the risk of riding in a car. Although no parent intends to kill their child in a car, it is inevitable that some parents will kill their children and it should be outlawed.
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
There’s one aspect of the issue which I rarely see addressed, & that’s the aspect of “personhood” vis-à-vis the “person’s” relationships to others.

My grandmother (in the 1920s, in San Francisco) had her life threatened by her first pregnancy. She was a devout Roman Catholic, & so was her doctor. The issue had to be discussed, of possibly terminating the pregnancy to save her life. Her RC doctor refused to consider the option, & I believe my grandmother would have accepted that.
My grandpa,on the other hand, was Protestant, & felt he had a right to choose his wife over their unborn child, & fired the doctor – hiring the best (& non-doctrinaire) doctor he could find.
I always felt my Grandpa made the correct, & perfectly morally defensible choice.

Nowaday, we have come far enough (thank God) that if there is an actual choice to be made, no-one (that I’m aware of) would choose an unborn foetus over the fully alive mother.

?Isn’t part of the reason that the mother has other people who would mourn her loss, while the foetus will be mourned by the mother (& possibly the father) but otherwise –though it’s hard to admit this- no-one – except in principle????
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I disagreed with the writer, and was a little chilled, but I really understood for the first time where the other side is coming from, and why we really can't even talk about the issue without it devolving quickly.
Abortion: A Failure to Communicate

Fascinating article, many thanks for the link.
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
I did invite someone who works for SPUC Evangelicals but they were unable to register on the boards. I thought you might be able to relate to him better since he would have been of a similar persuasion.

Furthermore I can come across as being patronising/authoritative (although i dont mean to be) because of my frank personality.

However he did ask me if I could post this message. I hope it doesn't constitute advertising:

"What I was going to post was my offer to "come and speak on this
difficult
and emotive issue with a sensitive, multimedia presentation. Mr Thorne
speaks and takes part in debates in schools, universities and churches
throughout the UK. Contact him at ajthorne2@hotmail.com"

He's supposed to be very good so if you run any society or club which might benefit then do get in contact with him. He lives in Kent so might be hard for those further up north wishing to see him but you can but ask.

I'll reply to other posts a little later. Apologies but just been a little busier over the last few days.

Paddy
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I don't think anyone here is pro -abortion. It is something, I would hope never undertaken ligthly or with anything but a heavey heart. I think some of what we are discussing is under what circumstances it may happen.
...
P
As someone who made a strong statement early in this thread, I feel I should add my full endorsement of this post.

There's no doubt in my mind that abortion kills. But, anyone who remembers before legal abortion (or researches it) will know that modern medical abortions rarely kill the mother. That alone is a major item. Try a web search on "death rate illegal abortion" on Google. I was surprised that this is still a major issue today.

Unbiased statistics seem hard to come by, although pro-life sources agree with some of the numbers in this page from the US National Organization of Women In the US, illegal abortions used to kill at least 160 women a year.

So, there's also a few other ramifications. Clearly, when abortion was both illegal and dangerous, it happened anyway. The legal status of abortion doesn't necessarily change the number of abortions.

BTW, the legal status of abortion in Canada is interesting: we have no law, because the courts struck down the old law, and the Parliament did nothing. Also, Dr. Henry Morgenthaler, who operates abortion clinics, was found not guilty by several juries; not on the facts, but on the jury's view of natural justice.
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
...
Condoms are only 86% successful when worn properly.

...[/QB]
Paddy,

Please provide a source for this amazing statistic, and some definitions.

BTW, for a significant chunk of the eighteen years I've been married, condoms plus foam were the birth control we used, with 100% success. (No children)

If "86%" means a 0.14 probability of conception, we would expect in 18 years of moderate activity the probability of no pregnancies is (.86)**(18*52) pregnancies, which evaluates to 5 times 10 to the negative 62 power...

If your 86% means relative to the normal estimate of .33 prob of conception (Wilcox and Weinberg, 1995 see New England Journal of Medicine ) then the resultant probability is around 4%, and the probability of my marriage having 0 pregnancies is then (.96)**18*52 or 2.5
times 10 to the negative 17 power.

If it means something else, you'd best provide a definition. Although, it's only marginally on-topic.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Paddy : I'm honestly not sure what help another anti-abortion campaigner from an evangelical, rather than RC perspective would be. Surely he would say much the same things using a different theological reasoning ?
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Wasn't there a bunch of people in USA who were shooting abortion doctors or nurses at one point?
And in Canada.

Dr. Barnett Slepian was killed in Ocotber 1998. One James Kopp has confessed to the crime. Kopp is linked by DNA evidence to the attempted murder of Dr. Hugh Short, an abortion provider in Hamilton, Ontario.

A good source at the moment is to use news.google.com with any of these keywords.

(I better go post somewhere else, or I'll be a one-trick pony myself...)
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
part of an earlier post by Paddy:

jlg:
"I've been seeing those "horror" pictures for roughly 30 years now. They didn't stop me from having my abortions, and they don't cause me any emotional grief now. Contrary to pro-life rhetoric, having an abortion does not automatically lead to "psychological trauma"."

I'm sorry to hear you felt abortion was the only solution to your problem. May I ask why you think the pictures don't have any affect? I'm interested to learn your views.
Why are you feeling sorry for me? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough the first time. I have no regrets.

I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?

And when you ask "...why [I] think the pictures don't have any affect?" you are again putting words in my mouth. I stated (please note that I didnt "think") that the pictures didn't affect my decisions in the past nor my current lack of regret.

You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!"

Here's my view: I made my decisions and I am still at peace with myself about those decisions 25 years later. What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions.
I'm still waiting for a response, Paddy. Or perhaps you didn't really mean it when you stated that you were interested to learn my views.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
posted by DorotheaLydgate on 05 Jan:
<snip>
Abortion is not a pleasant way to die. (neither incidentally is it a necessary or desirable procedure for women. Going into hospitals and undergoing an operation is not something I am willing to do and in no way feels liberating.
<snip>
Having experienced first trimester abortion, second trimester abortion (16 wks), one hospital-assisted childbirth (no pain medication), and one home-birth, I can vouch that it is six of one, half dozen of the other. Once one is pregnant, one is going to experience rather intense uterine contractions, no matter how or when the pregnancy ends. Talk to women who have had a "normal" miscarriage; in my experience they are more likely to have suffered from the pain and regret of the experience than women who have chosen to have abortions.

As with my previous questions to Paddy, my main point is that it is presumptuous to argue about how "women feel" when they have abortions. There are a lot of us out here, and our feelings and reactions and physical experiences run just as full a range as those of the women who made other choices.

[fixed UBB for quote]

[ 06. January 2003, 21:48: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
And don't get me started on my two c-sections.
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
I find it interesting that James Kopp is defined as "a bunch of people."

Because I am fully enmeshed in the "prochoicers don't fight fair," side of this, let me reiterate that I am not fully convinced that life begins at conception.

Greta, you are assuming a definition of murder and then concluding that definition. I am unconvinced that the lines you are drawing are better than someone else's.

It was just obvious to some people in 1840 that black people weren't fully human, and they really resented all those religious fanatics coming in and telling them they were wrong. The abortion and slavery justifications are in fact chillingly similar.

To the thread in general. I don't draw conclusions from silence for at least a few days. But I will eventually start.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Laura's link was the most insightful self-criticism from a "pro-life" writer that I have ever seen. Thank you Laura and I highly recommend the entire article to "pro-lifers" who seriously want to make a difference. The basic thesis is that the mother is operating from a mindset that an unwanted pregnancy has so threatened her welfare that in some sense to complete it would be "the end of her life." The "pro-life" message often comes across in this context as "you must kill yourself in order to avoid murder."

Please don't jump on my summary, which is highly simplistic. If you are interested, please read the article and comment on the author's real words. I thought it deserved a summary for those who are too busy to read the whole thing. It is excellent in my opinion and in fact describes in good measure why I backed off from a hard "protect from conception" position several years ago. As the article points out, the mother will make the final decision: legal, not legal, "right" or "wrong." Effective arguments must be pitched to her in a way that she will find convincing.
 
Posted by Grizzy (# 3286) on :
 
Other people here have expressed far more eloquent opinions on the subject of the morality of abortion than I could hope to, especially at 2 in the morning. Everything that I would have said has already been said by at least one other person. But having just read the thread from beginning to end, I am curious about a particular statistic that Paddy Leahy quoted back on page 1 of this thread:

"Furthermore, research carried out on behalf of the government of Finland found that women who have abortions are seven times more likely to commit suicide then women who do not have any."

That certainly is dramatic, but it leads me to wonder a few things. Was there any distinction made between women who did not have abortions because they simply had not become pregnant in the first place, women who had become unintentionally pregnant but decided against abortion, and women who had chosen to become pregnant and carried the child to term?

Did they control for (or at least consider) other possible factors that might correlate with both abortions and suicide? For example, and I'm just pulling this out of thin air, not saying it's the case, what if it turned out that depression was a significant factor causing both, by making the woman both less likely to feel capable of dealing with a child, and more likely to consider taking her own life?

-Grizzy
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
There's lies, damn lies and statistics [Big Grin]

An article from CNN about the study which was published in the BMJ in 1996 and commissioned by The National Research & Development for Welfare and Health

The BMJ article states that:

quote:
Social class has also been found to be associated with all mental disorders after an abortion. Data from the abortion register showed that women in the lowest social class were highly over-represented among women who committed suicide
and

quote:
The proportion of divorced women who commit suicide was more than double after an abortion and eight-fold after a birth, which suggests that low social support is associated with suicide. ... The relation between suicide, mental disorders, life events, social class, and social support is a complex one. Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully.
The only articles I could find that made the explict connection between abortion and an increased suicide rate, but ignored the woman's other circumstances (marital, social, previous mental health) were ones published on prolife sites

Tubbs

PS Paddy (and others) if you are going to cite statistics it would help if you provided the original source of the statistics and independent links. Ta v m
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
To those who believe that abortion is a choice, do you believe that abortion can sometimes be the wrong choice? Are you opposed to abortion at any stage, or if the following cases apply?

(a) when a woman does not want to have an abortion but feels pressurised by lack of money, lack of support, or career/academic pressure, all of which should be overcome if abortion is not coerced

(b) when a woman wishes that the pregnancy had been continued at a later date but it is too late

(c) when a woman makes a decision to have an abortion without knowing a lot about abortion (eg. fetal development, how abortions are carried out, fetal pain, and possible psychological and physical afteraffects, what former abortionists themselves say about abortion)

(d) because the baby's rights at some point or in some cases outweigh the mothers?

Is the baby's life worthy of any protection at all?

How much information should women have in order to make an informed choice? and who provides this information? How adequate is this information when pro-abortion groups deal exclusively in euphemisms?

Many of the posts have implied that prolifers could be doing more to help women. In fact prolife pregnancy counselling organisations here were set up shortly after abortion was legalised. Abortion clinics by contrast do not offer any other choice but abortion. The largest UK abortion provider, BPAS, isn't actually about pregnancy advice (as stated in its name), but only about selling abortion. It goes as far to say on its website that it makes better economic sense to abort babies with taxpayers' money rather than help disadvantaged mothers. I couldn't believe this when I read it.

A recent Marie Stopes report actually cited a student who they "helped" to have an abortion who said that she did not want one and that she believed abortion is murder but that she felt she had no other choice.

I wasn't by the way implying that women always suffer from an abortion, but from what I have read it is difficult to tell what women will suffer negative effects

Can't there be a better way?
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I do draw a distinction between a full term foetus and a zygote. Life does not begin at conception; life is continuous. There is no line you can draw. But what you do have through pregnancy is the development of a potential human into a real one. It follows, therefore, that the "wrongness" of terminating that pregnancy also increases from "not wrong at all" (barrier contraception) to "totally wrong" - abortion of what is indistinguishable from a newborn.

Life is messy.
Without wishing to offend anyone of any persuasion, and conscious that any such statement is a gross generalisation:

Perhaps Anglicans are less committed to anti-abortion action because they are more likely to take the view so well outlined by Karl ( [Not worthy!] ) - that life is complex and that there are arguments on both sides - than the view that full human rights should automatically apply from the instant of conception.

I suspect that if the anti-abortionist campaigners were to try to make the case that too many abortions are performed too late (i.e. that the balance is currently wrong) they would gain a wider level of public agreement (expressed in terms of signatures on petitions, for example) amongst people within the Anglican tradition.

But to phrase the argument in those terms would be to abandon (or at least conceal, or distance themselves from) their own view.

And might inspire fewer people to activism.

(& I don't mean that in a cynical sense - that's just how life is.)

Russ
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
To answer your points in turn, Dorothea

(a) Not if she doesn't want an abortion, but if she feels that she wouldn't get the support, money, or would lose her job, then I would not oppose her decision

(b) The choice has to be the woman's , though - part of making choices is later saying that you may have been wrong.

(c) Women should have information, but I don't class the propaganda of the anti-abortion movement as information. Why shouldn't those in favour of legal abortion be the ones who provide this - because, as it has been stressed, people who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion - they do not either want or not want women to have abortions, whereas the anti-abortion movement wish to prevent abortion. So the anti-abortion lobby is much more likely to provide biased information.

(d) I don't think thats possible, because I don't believe that a foetus is legally a baby. I start from the position that the person already here must automatically have more rights than that which remains potential and part of the mother until birth.

It is the unwanted pregnancy which should be receiving much more attention. I am afraid that this thread has summed up exactly why I will always come down on the pro-choice side - because of the arguments and tactics of the anti-abortion lobby.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Laura's link was the most insightful self-criticism from a "pro-life" writer that I have ever seen. Thank you Laura and I highly recommend the entire article to "pro-lifers" who seriously want to make a difference. The basic thesis is that the mother is operating from a mindset that an unwanted pregnancy has so threatened her welfare that in some sense to complete it would be "the end of her life." The "pro-life" message often comes across in this context as "you must kill yourself in order to avoid murder."
Thanks for summarizing it better than I did, Jim. I was digging around the First Things archives a year ago and I found that article to be a revelation about the differences in mindset between the sides, and I had to concede (as somone who believes that abortion should be legally available) that the pro-life article writer was completely correct that that is the way most women perceive their situation.

Here's the link again, for those too bored to go back through the last few pages.

Abortion: A Failure to Communicate
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
I am just wondering why, since "it takes two to tango", the entire discussion to date has not dealt with the "opinion" of the "father". Presumably that is because most people think it is the "mother's" choice alone? If so, why is that? Was not the male involved in the creation of the "baby"? Will he not be the father after birth, with all the responsibility associated with that role? Is it assumed that he will not mind if his "child" is aborted?

(Please interpret terms in "" loosely.)
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I simply don't think that any man has the right to dictate to a woman whether she should go through a pregnancy or not. He doesn't have to go through that physical experience, and she does. Of course, ideally, there would be some dialogue, but I don't think that the man's view should out weigh that of the woman.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I have given "father's rights" some thought and come to the conclusion that unless the father was clear in telling the mother that he wanted a child with her, he has no rights to assert. He may have rights to assert if he was clearly trying to have a baby, the woman agreed, and then the woman said, "I've changed my mind and I'm going to get an abortion whether you like it or not." The second case might be worth theoretical discussion, but it seems to me that the typical case is that neither the mother nor the father were intending to have a baby but a pregnancy occurred.

Turning to the father's rights on the condition that he expressed no intent to have a baby with the mother, once conception happens inside of the mother, the mother's rights supercede the father in my view. The father can ask the woman to consider his feelings but he cannot assert legal rights before the State which the State is obligated to protect. Is there a "right to unintentional fatherhood?"

When it comes down to decision time, if the mother says, "I've considered your request that I complete the pregnancy and have decided against it" what legal right would the father have to say "oh no you don't; I have rights too and I'm going to assert them?" On what basis would the State say, "you are right, unintentional father, the mother must complete the pregnancy inside her body?" I've thought a great deal about it, and I can see none.

The situation is potentially different between husband and wife where the wife changes her mind after becoming pregnant. But I have not given that much thought. I doubt it happens very much.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
I don't think it is simple at all.

After birth, the father has as much responsibility related to raising the child as the mother does. Are you assuming that his responsibilities only start after the birth? I don't. If indeed you are not saying this, why, if he has pre-birth responsibilities, does he not have pre-birth rights?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I don't think it is simple at all.

After birth, the father has as much responsibility related to raising the child as the mother does. Are you assuming that his responsibilities only start after the birth? I don't. If indeed you are not saying this, why, if he has pre-birth responsibilities, does he not have pre-birth rights?
Legally, his responsibilities only start after birth. So, there the argument collapses. I'd say birth is where any control begins. I agree that the involved partner has or ought to have an ethical say in the outcome. But as a legal matter it is entirely unworkable to allow the father an official say in the decision. If abortion is legal, then you can't deny it to some women on the basis of another person's say so.

I'm also not impressed with arguing (as some have done) that if he has legal responsibilities after the birth, he ought to have a say beforehand. If he really feels he cannot support a child, he should keep his trousers zipped. If he feels strongly that he would want to see any pregnancy carried to term, he should choose his partners more wisely. On what basis can he object to the abortion? It's legal, so he can't say "I must prevent her from killing my child." People don't have property interests in children or women anymore, so he has no claim on that score. What would the legal basis be?
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Fathers' Rights. Well, here's a sticky wicket.

Logician: This is one of my verbal pet peeves: attaching the word rights to everything/anything under the sun, but I digress.

JimT has done some good legwork. However, let's not so easily discount the gravity a potential new life might have on even the most unintentional of fathers-to-be. Are there no circumstances by which a hopeful father might be permitted the birth of his wanted child by a woman with no intentions of pursuing motherhood? I'm not asking from a legal standpoint. (Dare I?!) I believe intentions are at the heart of this matter, as JimT stated.

Sharkshooter: Fathers equally responsible after birth? I should hope so, but I would submit that the overwhelming majority of infant/early childhood hands-on care is still predominantly a maternal realm. Do you disagree?

Ship: Regarding the "When does life begin?" issue, I must first thank many of you for your helpful insights/information. My question: Haven't those who have murdered pregnant women sometimes been charged/convicted with double-murder? How do we rationalize that in lieu of the abortion issue -- whether or not the fetus was known to have been "wanted" at the time of it's death?
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:


Sharkshooter: Fathers equally responsible after birth? I should hope so, but I would submit that the overwhelming majority of infant/early childhood hands-on care is still predominantly a maternal realm. Do you disagree?

Yes. As in all things, the responsibility is shared. But that, I think digresses too much.

JimT: While I respect your, obviously, well thought-out argument, I cannot agree that the only opinion that matters is the mother's. While this may be true, as you say, on a legal basis, I think it is wrong.

Laura: Your comments also relate to the legal basis. I was not considering just legalities, but moral issues.

Sorry if I took this too far afield.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Laura, you said:
quote:
If he really feels he cannot support a child, he should keep his trousers zipped. If he feels strongly that he would want to see any pregnancy carried to term, he should choose his partners more wisely.
(Invoking devil's advocacy): Would you not also say that a woman ought to keep her skirt down if a pregnancy isn't going to be carried to term? With primary rights, the sole physical burden, and potentially difficult aftermath regardless of abortion or delivery, who really needs to be more choice conscious: a sexually consenting man, or woman?

On a personal note, I must say how distasteful I find the word "parasitic" to be in reference to a fetus. Technically it may be true, but it seems pretty frigid.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Sharkshooter: Before you bail on the topic, let me say that I understand what you're driving at, and from a moral perspective I agree with your take. However, when children are conceived apart from a mutually supportive and sacrificially inspired marriage, one can hardly hope for mutually respectful rights and/or equally apportioned responsibilities.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
I hope I am not introducing a tangent, but I tink we all agree that in an ideal world there would be no abortions; all preganacies would be intentional and would remain so until birth.

Putting aside situations of rape or danger to the life of the pregnant woman, how can the above ideal be achieved? Are there statistics on the reasons for unintended pregnancies? To what extend is ignorance of contraceptive techniques a factor? Can such ignorance be overcome, and if so how?

How many unwanted pregancies occur due to inavaliablity of effective contraceptives? How is this best remedied?

To what extent do cultural and individual notions about sex and love work against taking the unromantic efforts to prevent accidnetal conception? Can these be overcome?

Which societal institutions are in a position to effectively deal with the problem? What are the obstacles in the way of their doing so? Is the Church a help or a hindrance in this effort?

Is it possible that the pro-life/pro-choice groups are both obsessed with the wrong end of things?

Greta
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think we all agree that in an ideal world there would be no abortions; all preganacies would be intentional and would remain so until birth... Is it possible that the pro-life/pro-choice groups are both obsessed with the wrong end of things?

I certainly would agree that in an ideal world there would be no abortions. Until very recently I wouldn't have been able to imagine myself understanding someone who decided to have an abortion and I would probably have tried to persuade them not to whatever the circumstances, in my extreme youth even in the case of rape, because I believe in the sanctity of human life.

However, not long before this thread started, I found myself in exactly that position - understanding a friend who felt that she could not continue with her pregnancy. She did not take having an abortion lightly but felt unable to continue in spite of help offered to her by friends and church. At the time she had an 18 month old baby who had never slept through a night and woke several times each night, along with a precarious financial position and several other problems. Even if her own life wasn't at risk, that of her already-born baby may have been.

Now I don't know, but maybe there are situations where abortion may be the lesser of two (or more!) evils.

Gracie
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Russ, I'm not sure you can give Anglicans credit for realizing that life is complicated and recognizing there are arguments on both sides. You can certainly find individual Aglicans who would meet those criteria.

Tangent Alert!
As to church actions as a whole, however, the CofE has insisted it has something to offer in the discussion of other political issues, such as economics and more recently, military interventions. There has not been any much regarding that there are arguments on all sides there.

Paddy's statistic about condom effectiveness has an inordinately flexible meaning. It matters greatly whether that number means 86% of couples who rely on condoms for 30 years don't get pregnant, or 86% of couples who rely on condoms for 30 minutes don't get pregnant.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Thinking about the father's responsibilities, I'd agree with Laura that the father's potential responsibility after birth does not give him a basis to override the mother's freedom of action and compel her to deliver the child. However, I would say that he should be able to ask for release of responsibility after birth if she completes the pregnancy against his wishes. She has options open such as finding a willing father, applying for public assistance, or giving the child up so in my mind she should not be allowed to force the potential father into becoming a real one. Remember, I'm talking only about first trimester and taking as given that the child is a "potential human." Therefore, we have only "potential mother" and "potential father."

I am aware that blacks were not considered "human" in the 19th century and were denied legal rights on that basis. That is repugnant. However, I am not revulsed by a zygote, embryo, or fetus without a fully formed human brain being fully human. I am a bit disturbed by it, but the whole issue of abortion is disturbing.
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
I met a leading abortionist in this country the other week, and she explained to me that she agreed that the unborn baby is a baby, what she said she disagreed with prolifers about is that it mattered.

I said to her, but that isn't for you to decide. It isn't up to me either for that matter. The only person who has a legitimate right to make a decision about an abortion is the baby his or herself.

None of us assume that pregnancy is easy, but killing cannot be an option, otherwise if it was just down to how parents feel about their children, why should the killing of any child after birth matter at all?

To return to my original post, why pit mother against child, why not accept the whole Christ and help both?

Even if the ideal seems a little far off, surely the vast majority of people would agree that 200,000 abortions a year in this country is a little much.

I'd also be glad if someone could fix a day when the baby is fully human and then explain to me how a moment before makes any significant difference.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Welcome to the Ship Dorothea,

you said:
quote:
I met a leading abortionist in this country the other week, and she explained to me that she agreed that the unborn baby is a baby, what she said she disagreed with prolifers about is that it mattered.

I said to her, but that isn't for you to decide.The only person who has a legitimate right to make a decision about an abortion is the baby his or herself.
Her opinion, like yours, is simply that, an opinion. I do agree that 200,000 (in the U.K.) is an aweful lot and that does bother me. It also bothers me that fathers have no say in the matter. But the abortion debate really hinges on one thing IMHO:

We do not KNOW when a baby is a baby, we have opinions.

Therefore, IMHO, it is simply a matter of freedom. In this case the Mother's freedom. And that is where your statement "The only person who has a legitimate right to make a decision about an abortion is the baby his or herself" has problems.

The government often decides on the behalf of children AND parents what they can or cannot do with said children. The government has that decision, right or wrong, and has evidently chosen to err on the side of the freedom of the mother.

I cannot say I fault them on that.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
With regard to a developing fetus, the exact instant of "fully human" can be seen as legally arbitrary, just like "fully drunk" is legally arbitrary in some jurisdictions. At 0.079% you are "perfectly sober and not in the least bit a danger to anyone if you drive." At 0.080% you are "a murderous threat to humanity who must be forcibly removed from the roads." If that's the way you want to see it.

At 12 weeks, my assertion is that there is an acceptably low risk that the mother is not killing a human being by terminating her pregnancy if she chooses (thoughtfully!). The risk is to me acceptable given the rights and freedoms of the mother and I have no problem with the day, minute, hour, and second of "fully human" not being exactly determinable.

I would hope that people can see my position as different from "leading abortionists who don't care that they are murdering babies and will admit it right to your face." Anyone who implies that is going to piss me off and will be invited to Hell for further discussion. I really hope no one has done that, and would like some reassurance.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Dorothea:

quote:
I'd also be glad if someone could fix a day when the baby is fully human and then explain to me how a moment before makes any significant difference.
You can't. The process is gradual. Who was the first person to speak Middle English instead of Old English, and why was it so different from the language his father spoke?

That's why my proposal (way up at the top of the thread somewhere) takes this into account.
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
I met a leading abortionist in this country the other week.
What is an 'abortionist?' Do you mean a surgeon who performs abortions in the course of their job or someone actively campaigning in the 'pro-choice' movement?
 
Posted by Ian M (# 79) on :
 
Yeah, I'm with Karl about the continuous progression thing - maybe there is an actual moment, but as Dorothea points out, who can tell where that is? And frankly, to end up equating the morning-after pill with full-term abortion (as many pro-life people do) completely undermines the cause.

If I can give a few thoughts about the OP itself and its rather careless phrasing, it's interesting that Paddy began by implying that 'Anglicans' don't do 'enough' about abortion - clearly signalling the Catholic basis of his stance - and yet later saying that he was strongly anti-abortion even before he found out the church's views.

I read the main UK Catholic papers each week and pro-life adverts and editorial pieces feature very strongly, to the point that one might easily think this *the* issue of our time for Catholics.

To be frank, I suspect falling attendances and lack of vocations are more serious issues within the Catholic church, while if the aim is genuinely to secure overwhelming support for a change in the law, then surely the campaign should focus pragmatically on securing wider support for a reduction in the number of weeks of pregnancy at which abortion can be carried out - say down to 12 weeks rather than 24, except in exceptional cases.

I suspect that's when you might start to get significant support from other churches - including Anglican - as being practicable and reasonable.

Of course, once that aim was achieved, you could begin campaigning to take it a step further etc etc - though at some point I guess it would lose that wider impetus.

At the moment, the 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' positions are so far apart, and the demands of the pro-life campaigners so extreme, that it should surely be obvious they will never garner the necessary public support to change the law, especially not in one fell swoop.

With regard to support for women falling pregnant unintentionally to keep their babies, I accept (and indeed know) that this happens, most often in quiet, unshouted-about ways, which is good for those concerned - but unfortunately pro-life campaigning always seems to come across very judgementally, as seeking to restrict people's choice, rather than present alternatives.

Ian
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
What is an 'abortionist?' Do you mean a surgeon who performs abortions in the course of their job or someone actively campaigning in the 'pro-choice' movement?
In typical US usage, an "abortionist" would be a person who performs abortions. Someone who actively campaigns would usually be described as an "abortion activist."
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:

Here's the link again, for those too bored to go back through the last few pages.

Abortion: A Failure to Communicate[/QB]
More praise for this article, and thanks for the sharing of it.

To me, the activism on both sides of the issue seems woefully misguided, and doing more harm than good for their respective causes.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Riv,

I didn't mean to say the woman doesn't share responsibility. We were talking about whether the man in question can demand that she carry it to term, so the focus on the man's choices seems relevant in that context.

In an ethical sense, I do think that if a couple agrees to abort any unplanned pregnancies, and the woman changes her mind, it doesn't *seem* right that the man will have to pay support. But actually, the state doesn't really care, and I see why. If there's a child in being, the state demands that the father pay support, so that the mother and child don't become impoverished and dependent upon welfare for support. So I can see why, from the gov't point of view, the gov't isn't going to let a father off the hook because he wanted her to abort. It isn't the child's fault his father didn't want him.

And again, I think it is incredibly important for people who know each other well enough that they're exchanging bodily fluids to have serious conversations about this before it becomes an issue. Because in the end, if you father or mother a child, there's no going back.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
What is an 'abortionist?' Do you mean a surgeon who performs abortions in the course of their job or someone actively campaigning in the 'pro-choice' movement?
In typical US usage, an "abortionist" would be a person who performs abortions. Someone who actively campaigns would usually be described as an "abortion activist."
And I think it's worth mentioning that many activists would regard it insulting to be called an "abortionist". I certainly find it so. I don't use pro-life or pro-choice unless I have to, as both are misleading euphemisms. I support legal access to abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. I'm not "pro-abortion", or an "abortionist".
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
[QUOTE]In typical US usage, an "abortionist" would be a person who performs abortions. Someone who actively campaigns would usually be described as an "abortion activist."
Thanks, Scot, for this information which is very helpful.

I note Dorothea is writing from London - my question arises because in British English the only usage of 'abortionist' I am aware of is perjoratively, as in 'backstreet abortionist'.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Riv,

I didn't mean to say the woman doesn't share responsibility. We were talking about whether the man in question can demand that she carry it to term, so the focus on the man's choices seems relevant in that context.

In an ethical sense, I do think that if a couple agrees to abort any unplanned pregnancies, and the woman changes her mind, it doesn't *seem* right that the man will have to pay support.
Laura: Right, and I understand what you're saying. I wasn't speaking from a legal standpoint. I suppose you struck a small nerve w/me with the "men should keep their pants zipped" bit. I trust you got my meaning.

Regarding women changing their minds (and perhaps to revive a bit of Sharkshooter's commentary), how do you reconcile (morally, not legally, mind you) a woman doing so (and seeking an abortion) after becoming pregnant by a man with whom she had formerly planned to have a family? The man is simply S.O.L? This may be moot, b/c I suppose it always becomes a legal issue.

Also, and if it's not falling on deaf ears, can no one help with the issue of pregnant women being murdered and their killers being charged with/convicted of double homicide? Am I imagining this having happened? (in the US at least)
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Assuming that two people having intercourse agree beforehand that any unintended pregnancy will be carried to term, morally, it is more wrong than not for the woman to change her mind, unless there's been a change in circumstance that would justify it. It would be more immoral, however, for him to be able to force her to go through with it. So that's where I'd say the balance falls. Legally, however, the man is, as you say, SOL.

Now, that said, sex is something to which many imponderables are attached. That is, (if you are a man) you may be a man who doesn't want children now and you may end up with children. A woman who agrees totally with a man on these issues in principle may find that actually being pregnant changes her mind a) in favor of or b) away from having an abortion; a man who was in favor of aborting unplanned pregnancies might find himself, when faced with the actual situation, feeling quite differently.

I hate to sound harsh, but if one is unable to cope with such critical imponderables, it would be better not to have potentially fertilizing intercourse.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
Also, and if it's not falling on deaf ears, can no one help with the issue of pregnant women being murdered and their killers being charged with/convicted of double homicide? Am I imagining this having happened? (in the US at least)

i may be mistaken about this, but i believe that the only times that a killer of a pregnant woman has been charged with two murders is when the foetus is delivered alive by c-section from the mothers body, and subsiquently dies.

also, in case i am wrong about that, remember that just because someone was charged with something doesn't mean that the chatge held up in court.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Laura: I don't think you're being harsh, and I agree with you.

nicolemrw: Thanks. I'm still looking.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I have given the question about "the minute that full humanity arrives" more thought. It seems as though it is not going to go away until an answer is given that makes more sense than anything said so far. My alcohol example was not as directly applicable as the age-based examples I am about to give.

The day before you turn 18 you are a "child" (legal minor) and the next day you are an "adult." You can buy cigarettes one day but not the day before. Have you gained your judgment in one day? No. You gained it over the course of the entire 18 years, but it was legally delivered on that day and not a day before. The 18th birthday is arbitrary, but it is not "capricious" which is to say "without reason and based entirely on whim."

Note that rights often increase with age, even beyond 18 when you are an "adult." May times, you can't purchase alcohol until your 21st birthday; not one day before. In the US, you still do not have a legal right to represent hundreds of thousands of citizens as a representative until your 25th birthday; not one day before. To represent an entire State, not until your 28th; the nation as President, the 36th. Every cutoff is arbitrary and somone can say "you mean I didn't have the brains, judgment, personal experience, wisdom, and maturity to exercise this right yesterday but today I do?"

This may not be a satisfactory or convincing answer, but it is an answer.
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
There was a case reported today in the UK. Apparently if a baby is born prematurely as the result of the violent action of another person on the mother such as an assault or a car accident caused by dangerous driving, the person responsible can be prosecuted for unlawful killing only if the baby breathes independently before dying.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Well JimT and nicolemrw, the link below addresses both the "when does life begin" question as well the killing of a pregnant woman/fetus. There are many variations of these issues in numerous state legislatures. I merely picked this one from the pile to share:

Pennsylvania State Legislature Recognizes the Unborn as a Human Life

Beyond the rhetoric, that is, the issues rest.
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
This is going swimmingly. I think I'll chuck another jalapeno into the chili. But first, JimT's and KLB's acknowledgement of gradualism with arbitrary cutoffs is quite reasonable.

Ian M. For the record, as the prolife groups have attempted to pass any number of measures that were not comprehensive -- such as partial birth abortion, parental or spousal notification, non-transport of minors, or waiting periods -- all of which have been turned back, I think the word extremist applies in the other direction. I don't think this is a you-say-tomato, I-say-tomahto difference. One side has evidence of attempts at moderation, the other has zero attempts.

I return to both my comments about language, both the hyperbolic and violent imagery and the sexual imagery of the prochoice activists. I contend that if people do not recognize that manipulation and specifically account for it, then they are unwittingly swayed by it.

On another thread, Presleyterian wisely noted questioning one point of view, but resenting being railroaded into criticism. This is the proper response.

People will deny being affected by these phrasings, but their own evidence is against them. Numerous postings on this thread quickly reference how benighted and unreasonable prolife people are. Criticism of the people involved is not often flowing in the other direction.

This is certainly not a universal accusation to the thread. There are those with a variety of views trying very hard to keep to issues. But there is too much "other."

The accusation: some of you are powerfully influenced by this manipulative language and don't realize/acknowledge it. Please respond with better evidence than "No I'm not," or "How can you say such a thing?" I have submitted the evidence of your own hand. Find me a better.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Another study break!

Yes, we are covering everything that needs to be covered and that is great.

I am confused, bemused, dismayed, and disheartened by the pragmatic "twiddling" that lawmakers do to legislation in order to make it "better." All I can do is rant with everyone else that the moral principles are hard to discern but political motivations are easy to see:

quote:
The Calif law applies to the intentional killing of the unborn as a result of intentionally injuring of killing the pregnant woman. It does not apply, however, to cases in which the woman has injured the unborn by drug use or other abuse.
Rant warning: Let's be tough on crime, so if someone kills a woman and she's pregnant, nail the sucker for double murder! Right back to conception when you can't even see it! Take that, thugs on drugs! Uh-oh, speaking of drugs, let's be tough on drugs. Hmmm, I know, if the woman was on drugs, the baby's a write-off. Let that be a warning to you, girls! But you still have a 'right to choose' don't get me wrong. "But how does that all fit together, Legislators?" Hell if we know, let the Supreme Court decide! We've got to show progress to interest groups in order to get elected!

It is no wonder people are watching the Supreme Court for a ruling on this. They will have to contend with the notion that "if the mother wants the baby it is fully human but if she doesn't it is not." I don't have the strength to carry this one forward and I will be very, very interested when it comes before the court as it must. I disagree with this inconsistent twiddling.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Logician, I have to humbly and honestly say that I have no idea which group you are opposing.
 
Posted by Ian M (# 79) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
Ian M. For the record, as the prolife groups have attempted to pass any number of measures that were not comprehensive -- such as partial birth abortion, parental or spousal notification, non-transport of minors, or waiting periods -- all of which have been turned back, I think the word extremist applies in the other direction. I don't think this is a you-say-tomato, I-say-tomahto difference. One side has evidence of attempts at moderation, the other has zero attempts
It doesn't matter how extreme one side or the other is; the point is that there are so definitely two sides, two extremes.

What I was saying is that whatever genuine practical support the pro-life side gives to expectant mothers, or whatever compromise restrictions on abortion it promotes, the over-riding impression is still that it's all about getting abortion totally banned; and that's where I think a lot of people get stuck, because like it or not that is an extreme position compared with where we're at today.

Certainly for me I would avoid any kind of overt sympathy with pro-life at present, for fear of seeming unsympathetic to those I know who've been through real-life situations where abortion has seemed vital and necessary; but if it was all about ensuring that abortions didn't happen unless truly needed, I'd be happy to be associated with it.

Ian
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
the prolife groups have attempted to pass any number of measures that were not comprehensive -- such as partial birth abortion, parental or spousal notification, non-transport of minors, or waiting periods -- all of which have been turned back
Not sure if that applies equally in the UK context.

I think there is a sense in which, with the law in Britain allowing abortion, the side that wants to change the law is the one that has to get noticed, that has to make people feel that this is a current issue (rather than just something on which it is well known that people have strongly-held and differing views).

And they too frequently don't get noticed except when they do something violent or outrageous.

I think you're right that the "not wanting to side with extremists" is a real motivating factor for people, perhaps more so for Anglicans (he said trying vainly to get back on the original track).

But so is the "letting individuals rather than the State decide".

Russ
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
jlg, I admit that an unnecessary obscurity attends being an anti-anti something as opposed to being a pro something. The double negatives twist us about. My complaint is against the manipulative language used by prochoice group. Does that clear it up?

Ian M. People have the impression that prolifers are extremist, and you don't want to appear to be aiding extremists. This would suggest you are identifying yourself as one who has been manipulated by prochoice hyperbole. I doubt you mean that, but it's pretty much what you said. You didn't cite any evidence that the prolifers are in fact extremist.

I am still tapping my foot on this language thing...
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Logician,

Do you consider the use of terms such as "murder",
"helpless babies", and "butchers" to be the language of rational discourse?

Admit it. Both sides use hyperbolic, indeed inflammatory, language.

Greta, who considers both sides to be dominated by extremists.
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
I wholeheartedly reject the idea that prolife is extreme. I have tried to prove that life cannot be disposable one day and sacred the next. This seems to me logical and reasonable. (thanks to those who have responded, Jim, your arguments are well thought out but I cannot agree that the right to life is equivalent to the right to vote. Right to life is basic and non-negotiable. Drinking and voting depend on being able to have an adult understanding of politics. 1 year olds would not want to drink or vote, the right to life is in the best interests of any one alive. The right not to be attacked in the womb does not require any adult reasoning ability).

Prolife ought to be something we are proud of being. Imagine if someone was ashamed to know Christ, simply because we live in a secular world. Should we pretend not to be Christian so that no one thinks we are extreme? If atheists think we are extreme does that mean we are? or are we just misunderstood? If we are misunderstood is that all the more reason for trying to double our efforts to spread the Gospel of Christ?

I accept that some people on this thread may not believe that all abortion is wrong. And I beg you, if you oppose abortion at all, have the courage to oppose it, spread the word, help women, help make abortion rare. If it is one life you save it is one life.

But while you are being "moderate" about abortion and perhaps oppose late term or abortion after 21 weeks or abortion once the baby is fully formed at 8 weeks, think about this: the same people who justify abortion at 24 weeks or at birth, also justify it at an earlier stage. If they are wrong about late term abortions, can't they be wrong about earlier abortions? It is because I find the whole idea of a 16 week old baby being aborted (dismembered etc) horrifying that I cannot support killing that baby at any gestation. The whole issue of fetal tissue research I find sickening.

I make no value judgement about any one who has had an abortion or supports abortion. I never use the words "butcher" or "murderer" but try to use words that reflect the facts without hyperbole. Killing and termination are to me interchangeable; foetus and baby mean the same thing given the Latin derivation of the fomer.

I sincerely believe that being ambivalent about the value of a growing human being (at any stage gestation) is a mistaken view. Human rights are not extreme or endowed by others, they don't fluctuate like opinion polls. Torture and slavery were as wrong when they were culturally acceptable as they are now.

Human rights are intrinsic to all human beings, without discrimination, without subjectivism, and must be protected.

Is it possible to be a human being without having passed through 9 months gestation? Of course not, birth is not the start, none of us appear suddenly in this world without 9 months in the womb.

This writer puts it far better:

The Good Samaritan

Even when we understand the dimensions of the abortion tragedy which kills our youngest brothers and sisters in numbers larger than any disease, disaster, or war, we are often afraid to act.

We can gain courage however from the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) On the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, a man fell in with robbers. A priest and a levite came by, but did not stop to help. Despite their knowledge of the Law and the Prophets, they walked right by. Why?

One of the reasons may be that they were afraid. The road to Jerusalem to Jericho is a steep and dangerous road. At the time of Jesus, it had come to be known as the "Bloody Pass". Because of its numerous curves, it lends itself to attacks by robbers who can easily hide not too far from their victims. Perhaps the priests and levites who passed by that man asked themselves, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me? Maybe the robbers who attacked him are still here. Maybe they're hiding just round the bend. This is a dangerous road. I better keep going."

Sometimes we ask the same question. If I speak up too loudly about the victims of abortion, what will happen to me? Will I face persecution, will I encounter opposition, will I lose popularity if I get involved in a cause like this?

Priests sometimes ask the same question. If I preach about abortion, what will happen to me? What will happen to my parish, my effectiveness, my image? What legal troubles might I provoke?

Politicians sometimes ask the same question. If I say I am pro-life, what will happen to my votes, to my standing in the polls, to my chances in the election?

And then the Good Samaritan came along and he reversed the question. He didn't ask, "If I help this man, what will happen to me?" The Good Samaritan asked, "If I do not help this man, what will happen to him?" And that is the question for us. If we do not address this evil, what will happen to the unborn? If I do not get involved, what will happen to those who are vulnerable, to those who are marginalised in our society, those who are oppressed, those who have no one to speak for them?

Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. brought out this same lesson from the same parable on the night before he was assassinated, He called the people it a "dangerous unselfishness" as he rallied with the oppressed sanitation workers in Memphis. And in regard to himself, he declared that it didn't matter what happened to him; he just wanted to do God's will.

These words of holocaust survivor Elie Weisel sum it up well: "I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
 
Posted by Ian M (# 79) on :
 
Logician, I don't think I have ever come across anything overtly pro-choice, to be honest, and I was once vehemently anti-abortion myself - until I spouted about it vociferously in the presence of some well-respected friends who turned out to have had an abortion in very fraught circumstances.

From the point of view of the legal position here in the UK, and the stress and trouble that surrounds pregnancy generally, let alone when it is unwanted, I can't see that campaigning for a complete ban on abortions could ever be successful, nor come across as loving or anything other than extremist. I certainly think that the adverts and campaign material I've seen - particularly in the Catholic press - come across as extremist, with their 'all-or-nothing' approach.

This is where I think it gets most dangerous of all, in that the call to Christian witness can get swallowed up in the particular issue. Dorothea's quotes certainly tend that way, making it seem like the Gospel can only be worked out in fighting abortion. Maybe for some people that is how God wants them to work, but surely not for most or all.

Ian
 
Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
Are there any examples of countries which permitted legal abortion banning it? What happened in those countries?

If abortion was banned in the UK wouldn't pregnant women just go to Europe for abortions, as Irish women now come to the UK?

How difficult is it to induce an abortion - presumably not very given the development of the abortion pill (RU486?). And could pregnant women wanting to terminate pregnancies induce miscarriage via a poison or an accident?

What's happened to Paddy Leahy? Has he been suspended?
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
Ian - I am sorry you think me extreme, when I have made it clear that any reduction in abortion would be a good thing.

Ian: " I was once vehemently anti-abortion myself - until I spouted about it vociferously in the presence of some well-respected friends who turned out to have had an abortion in very fraught circumstances."

Why were the circumstances fraught? instead of seeing abortion as a solution, why can't the circumstances be tackled? A leading abortionist who became prolife said that abortion is a social problem and we should deal with it by tackling social problems, it isn't a medical problem and it doesn't require a medical operation.

If you are prolife and find yourself talking to someone who had an abortion it doesn't mean you are against them and it doesn't mean that you immediately have to change your view. We need to ask, why should women be forced to have an abortion because of their circumstances? If their circumstances were fraught it sounds like they were forced into it.

Does morality fluctuate with the circumstances? Don't you think that we need to consider an action in itself to work out whether it is good and that the motivation of those choosing to abort is not the action itself. In the case of someone choosing an abortion under fraught circumstances and someone choosing abortion easily, the action, abortion of a baby, is still the same.

Ian: "This is where I think it gets most dangerous of all, in that the call to Christian witness can get swallowed up in the particular issue. Dorothea's quotes certainly tend that way, making it seem like the Gospel can only be worked out in fighting abortion. Maybe for some people that is how God wants them to work, but surely not for most or all."

After September 11th, our newspapers were full of pictures of the twin towers, normal tv coverage was suspended, political activity ground to a halt. People bowed their head in a minute's silence for those who were killed. This is the appropriate and suitable response to the loss of human life. This isn't a secondary issue, it goes to the basis of our humanity. The media (usually) prioritise matters of life and death over more trivial news, shouldn't Christians?

You mentioned church attendance in your earlier post as more important to the Church than abortion, I would argue that Christ attended to people's physical needs and healed people who were ill before observing the rules of the Sabbath.

I see the basis of social justice (alleviation of poverty, homelessness, loneliness, depression, the right to education, health care and the vote, ending child cruelty, worker's rights) as all dependent on people being alive in the first place. If you abort a child you have no hope of any of the following.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Dorothea,
What about the idea that many depresed and/or abused women have - that they would rather have died than gone through the horrible lives that they have endured. So it's kinder to kill the developing baby before it comes into this awful world? And saves their own sanity, now and for years ahead?
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I did not notice a previous reference to this, so this link presents the Church of England position on the topic.

Rowan Williams is one of my favourite theologians, and, though I am not familiar with the specific statement to which Paddy makes reference, my study of Archbishop Rowan's other work makes it seem very unlikely to me that His Grace is speaking purely or primarily of "political apathy." In a larger context, was ++Rowan referring to pastoral care and teaching? At the very least, ++Rowan is far too brilliant and knowledgeable to think that Christian morality can be legislated.

In looking over the examples of politically related issues which Logician set forth, it occurs to me that politicians who support abortion can still take the supposedly "pro life" stance on these. For example, restricting abortions for minors without the consent of their parents may not (for some, at least) be an anti abortion position at all, but rather one of parental controls.

Recently, and this in searching for information which had nothing to do with this topic, I came across an Internet site, RC and based in the southern United States, which incensed me. The position was that Roman Catholics (which I am not, by the way) had a moral obligation to invariably vote for the candidate who supported "pro life" issues, regardless of the stance which he or she held on any other matter. First off, I would think that such an organisation would be more concerned with matters other than politics, but that was not the key reason for my ire.

Abortion is legal, and I see no reason to believe that this is ever going to change. A politician who speaks against abortion (possibly in relation to such side issues as logician mentioned) could oppose aid to the poor, medical care for babies whose mothers have very low income, and so forth - but his/her talking a good pro life game could guarantee the votes of thousands of RCs who are trying to be 'obedient'! (I hate to even give this ghastly site publicity, though it is occasionally useful in searching for documents such as statements of Councils, but those who which to reference this rubbish may check the Question and Answer section of EWTN. )

Incidentally, Paddy - I am against abortion.
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
I'm back by popular demand!

Sorry guys - got tied down with a website that is beginning to drive me nuts. Can't seem to get the frame and the index page to load simulataneously.

Anyway!

"Are there any examples of countries which permitted legal abortion banning it? What happened in those countries?"

Yes. Take for example Poland where under the Communist regime it had one of the highest abortion rates in the world. Now, partly due to restrictive laws and changes in attitudes, it's down to 138 abortions (2000 figure).

In the United States, late-term abortion is set to be outlawed this year. They're going in the right direction.

"If abortion was banned in the UK wouldn't pregnant women just go to Europe for abortions, as Irish women now come to the UK?"

Some would travel. We can't restrict people's right to travel. But the abortion rate would never be nearly as high and the government could of course promote alternatives, and help solve the problem of women who feel the only way out is to have an abortion.

In Ireland I partly think that the reason why 6,000 (which remember isn't a particularly high number in comparison to the UK's 180,000 - but still some cause for concern) come to England is because of the taboo of teenage pregnancy and taboo of pre-marital sex. Therefore women would rather have an abortion than be looked down upon in society.

I recommend therefore that teenage pregnancy is seen less as a bad thing and more support offered for single mothers. Measures can be taken at the same time to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies without making it a taboo.

Look at what we have achieved with smoking. The number of people smoking has been severely reduced and yet it isn't a taboo.

"How difficult is it to induce an abortion - presumably not very given the development of the abortion pill (RU486?). And could pregnant women wanting to terminate pregnancies induce miscarriage via a poison or an accident?"

In ancient times some abortions were carried out by a partner or male punching the woman in the stomach. There are also various drugs which can induce abortions - but both of these are dangerous and its hard to imagine women putting their own lives at risk when adoption is a easier option. THe government can also take steps to ban such practises.

Daisymay:
"kinder to kill the developing baby before it comes into this awful world?"

Excuse me for being frank - but this is an awful statement to make. It is making a sweeping judgement of the future of the child. I can think of a number of successful people who were brought up amidst terrible circumstances. You are also implying that a life isn't worth living unless you are happy (whatever we determine happy to be) which is quite wrong.

Newman's own:

"The position was that Roman Catholics (which I am not, by the way) had a moral obligation to invariably vote for the candidate who supported "pro life" issues, regardless of the stance which he or she held on any other matter"

This is not the stance of a particular organisation - but the stance of the church itself. Without the right to life, all others rights are meaningless. Therefore the abortion issue is the most important political issue.

"Abortion is legal, and I see no reason to believe that this is ever going to change."

I can guarantee it will change in America. Progress is slow in this country but in America attitudes are changing dramatically and there are more people who are pro-life than pro-choice amongst the youth. Such is the support for pro-life policies, pro-life organisations have millions of pounds to play with. The President, Senate and House of Representatives are all dominated by pro-life politicians. It's only a matter of time - particularly considering the Democrats' lack of success at the moment - before abortion is ended in America. Real power lays in the Supreme Court, where the vote is 5-4 in favour of abortion. 2 candidates are nearing retirement however and if Bush is still President a pro-life judge will be elected. ALl it then takes is for a group to take a case to the Supreme Court and the constitution may be interpreted as pro-life and thus abortion ended.

"Incidentally, Paddy - I am against abortion"

Are you anti-abortion or pro-life though? Sounds as if you are the former and I am the latter.

Paddy
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Replies to random comments:

"Greta, who considers both sides to be dominated by extremists."

Have you ever been to a pro-life meeting? I have yet to come across these alleged extremists.

Just because some make use of words "butchered" etc doesn't mean they are extremists. For instance, I suspect a Jew would use similar words regarding the Nazi holocaust yet the Jew would not be labelled as an extremist.

It is therefore not about the words you use, rather about your personal view towards abortion.

Since the establishment (i.e. government, media, big business) has portrayed pro-lifers as extremists, you therefore label emotive language employed by us as extremist.

Russ:

"And they too frequently don't get noticed except when they do something violent or outrageous."

Violent? I dare to think that any pro-lifer has been involved in violence in Britain. Please pass on info if you have any since these people would not be pro-life but rather anti-abortion or reactionaries.

Although sometimes humourous or peaceful stunts might be undertaken, this is because our government will not listen to pro-lifers (and seems to take a corporatist attitude in its dealing with the public - i.e. only listens to the views of the officials of liked pressure groups).

Ian M:

"It doesn't matter how extreme one side or the other is; the point is that there are so definitely two sides, two extremes."

Do you mean like pro-euro and anti-euro or pro-fox hunting and anti-fox hunting. As with all major issues there is no such thing as middle ground. You're either pro-abortion or pro-life.

"like it or not that is an extreme position compared with where we're at today."

There's nothing extreme about valuing human life.

"for fear of seeming unsympathetic to those I know who've been through real-life situations where abortion has seemed vital and necessary"

Sorry to be frank but really you are willing to place your popularity above the life of another human being.

Being pro-life doesn't equal being disrespectful to those in hard situations. Pro-abortion groups like Marie Stopes offer little in the way of after-care and don't help solve the causes of the problem - they just offer abortion as a solution.

Part of our job is to tackle the real reasons behind why women go through with abortions. I don't seriously believe any woman wants an abortion - rather they feel it is there only option.

Take the example of the singler Natalie Appleton. She wanted to keep her child but her bosses said it was the child or her job (pregnancy would have been bad for her image apparently). Faced with such a decision it is easy to see why women go through with abortions.

Answer this one question those of you who aren't pro-life: Why do you think abortion is the only solution?

Paddy
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Paddy wrote:

quote:
Take the example of the singler Natalie Appleton. She wanted to keep her child but her bosses said it was the child or her job (pregnancy would have been bad for her image apparently). Faced with such a decision it is easy to see why women go through with abortions.
Interestingly enough, music industry insiders have rubbished Appleton’s account of these events. (As well most of the rest of the biography) While it has been admitted that any good manager will point out the difficulties of holding down a full time, high profile music industry job … That isn’t the same as “forcing” someone to have an abortion. Doubt is further cast on Appleton’s account by the fact that Melanie Blatt of All Saints was pregnant at the same time as Appleton and had her child. As was Posh Spice, shortly followed by Scary. You need a better example. One with some credibility.

Paddy also wrote:

quote:
Are you anti-abortion or pro-life though?
As an outsider, what is the difference?

Tubbs
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Paddy,

I rather resent your patronizing attribution of my judgments to manipulation by government, the media, and big business. I am a crusty old lady, who has always prided herself on her ability to think rationally and independently. I am not easily manipulated. I trust you are not manipulated by peolpe whose real motives have nothing to do with the sanctity of human life.

Greta
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
And one last thing ... Please would one of you (either Paddy or DorotheaLydgate) answer a question that has been asked several times by different posters ....

Just what is "enough"?

Tubbs
 
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
Daisymay:
"kinder to kill the developing baby before it comes into this awful world?"

Excuse me for being frank - but this is an awful statement to make. It is making a sweeping judgement of the future of the child. I can think of a number of successful people who were brought up amidst terrible circumstances. You are also implying that a life isn't worth living unless you are happy (whatever we determine happy to be) which is quite wrong.
To say that you have missed the point is to seriously understate the situation. Either that, or you would actually have the gall to use such language to a woman who is in the situation that DaisyMay describes.

quote:

Answer this one question those of you who aren't pro-life: Why do you think abortion is the only solution?
What makes you think than anyone who is not 'pro-life' (whatever that means) thinks that abortion is the only solution?

And if you think that Commandment 8 is bigoted, then why did you show such a lack of integrity as to agree to it, and then decide that you would not be bound by it?

quote:

<snip>
"Incidentally, Paddy - I am against abortion"

Are you anti-abortion or pro-life though? Sounds as if you are the former and I am the latter.

<snip>
I recommend therefore that teenage pregnancy is seen less as a bad thing and more support offered for single mothers. Measures can be taken at the same time to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies without making it a taboo.
But Paddy, if you are truly pro-life, then you would surely wish to see more not less wonderful human beings brought into existance.

I trust that you are doing your bit to increase the statistics. Keep you end up, there's a good chap!
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Daisymay, the sad life faced by the child of a depressed/abused mother would still be a sad life two years later, but I doubt you are advocating terminating the life then.

Greta, I am sure I am misreading you and overjudging you in some ways. I don't doubt we could have a sane, live conversation. I will nonethelss pick up on a few points. I think "helpless baby," is a quite reasonable term, "murder" is over the top, and "butcher" is unacceptable. I will concede that there are prolife extremists who use horrible technologies and techniques. My contention is that the language of the prolife fringe is the language of the prochoice mainstream. Prominent politicians and respected national columnists on the prochoice side use the hateful terms. From your own responses I would suggest that your reasoning powers are not overwhelmed by the rhetoric, but are influenced by it.

Mrs. Tubbs, I must have missed the "enough" question, or am filing it in another folder in my memory. I imagine if I answer it, it will be briefer.

I do not share Paddy's optimism that abortion laws in America will change much. I concede that late-term abortions may be sharply limited, and some states will pass minor limitations which a new Supreme Court might uphold. That's about it. Roe v. Wade, which even many supporters claim has flaws, may be partly overturned, but I don't doubt that tighter replacements will arise.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:

Daisymay:
"kinder to kill the developing baby before it comes into this awful world?"

Excuse me for being frank - but this is an awful statement to make. It is making a sweeping judgement of the future of the child. I can think of a number of successful people who were brought up amidst terrible circumstances. You are also implying that a life isn't worth living unless you are happy (whatever we determine happy to be) which is quite wrong.
Paddy
It is an awful statement to make - it exemplifies how awful such a woman is feeling, and her view on life, for herself and any offspring she may have. Have you ever met or listened to someone who has felt like that?

How would pro-life people expect her to survive without having a termination or siucide, with the little help that is presently available?
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
Daisymay, the sad life faced by the child of a depressed/abused mother would still be a sad life two years later, but I doubt you are advocating terminating the life then.
I haven't said I advocate or don't advocate termination at any point, befoe or after birth.

What I want to emphasise is the agony some women go through. A pregnancy may well be looked on as a horrific idea. There are many women who have abortions because they think it's the best (of awful choices) they can do for themselves and any children they are bearing.

Just as some people in India kill girl babies when born. They can't afford tests to find out if they are carrying girls and abort them as richer people would. They can't afford to raise the girls; they would drain the families resources and could not look after the parents when they are old.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
It is good to see the discussion going further and I don't mean to derail it, but I would be interested in how many other "from conception" hard-liners are against "test tube abortions." I have an interest because I am being trained in biotechnology.

People might be interested to know that because "test tube fertilization" followed by "test tube abortions" was recently declared unethical, Stanford University said, "Fine--how about if we make a zygote by taking out the haploid nucleus from the egg and replace it with a diploid nucleus from a somatic cell? This avoids 'fertilization' and we arrest the development with no intention of creating a complete adult. Is that OK?" I don't know what the answer was because the media got ahold of it and the next thing you know Stanford was proposing to clone humans in test tubes. The medical school wants to make new stem cells and the President won't let them do it because creating and destroying human life in a test tube is unethical in his view. That's the issue.

Paddy made his position clear earlier: terminating development of any human cell capable of developing into a human is killing innocent human life. Do others see it in the same terms? My point is that "conception" is not really required to start a human life. All you need is a complete set of DNA surrounded by the initial proteins and membranes. You need a biological mother to make get it to 22 weeks and from there an incubator can finish the job. If you start the human development process in a test tube with no intention to let it develop to completion and then intentially stop it for the purpose of medical research is this unethical creation and killing of human life? If so, should the church oppose it?
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
Mrs. Tubbs, I must have missed the "enough" question, or am filing it in another folder in my memory. I imagine if I answer it, it will be briefer.
If anyone answers it at this point I'd be grateful ...

Tubbs
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
jlg, I admit that an unnecessary obscurity attends being an anti-anti something as opposed to being a pro something. The double negatives twist us about. My complaint is against the manipulative language used by prochoice group. Does that clear it up?

Ian M. People have the impression that prolifers are extremist, and you don't want to appear to be aiding extremists. This would suggest you are identifying yourself as one who has been manipulated by prochoice hyperbole. I doubt you mean that, but it's pretty much what you said. You didn't cite any evidence that the prolifers are in fact extremist.

I am still tapping my foot on this language thing...
Thanks, logician, that explanation did help.
And thank you for replying.
 
Posted by Theophilus (# 2311) on :
 
The word 'murder' to describe abortion, used by a holder of the classic pro-life position that a foetus is a full human being, is nothing more than descriptive. From the point of view of such a person, abortion is the premeditated termination of a human life.
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
I await with interest the Logician's suggestions on what should be done by the Church. For the record I answered this in an earlier post.

There are three types of activity - charities who work to help women (pregnancy and parenting support); education (conveying the simple facts and having a genuine debate about the issues); and political activity. The Church should always inspire people to act on their faith.

Much could be done to reduce abortion, and help women, if there were more volunteers, donations, and government backing.

As you will see from the motion passed in the Church of England General Synod last November (2002), much of the action requires real action from the Government which is why Christians need to be politically active:

"A motion asking for restrictions on the abuses of the Abortion Act of 1967 by saying that when it was enacted it had been said that the number of abortions would be relatively small, but there was now one abortion every three minutes in England and Wales. He said that despite the good intentions of those who supported the Act in Parliament, abortion was being used as a method of contraception.

Speakers in the debate spoke of the psychological trauma caused to a woman by having an abortion, the pressures to abort a potentially disabled child, which was now legal even at full term, and how easy it was to have an abortion.

The motion itself was passed by 222 votes to 22.

That this Synod being gravely concerned with the fact that in England there are currently 500 abortions every day of the year, call upon Her Majesty's Government to bring in urgent legislation to restrict the abuses of the Abortion Act and, in doing so, to give consideration to the following:

(a) protecting women from being coerced into abortions and providing counselling facilities to help women keep their babies;

(b) guaranteeing a woman's right to full disclosure about the balance of risk involved; and

(c) protecting those women most likely to be injured by abortion by requiring the screening of patients."

------
Jim - you mention your background in biology. I've heard it said that every embryology text book defines life as beginning at fertilisation. (in the case of cloning, when the cells start to divide) In the face of such scientific consensus, why don't you accept this definition?

As regards human cloning, why don't you start a new thread on cloning, stem cell research and embryo experimentation? it is a vast area, and I think it doesn't fit in easily here. For example, there are a great many scientific problems associated with embryonic stem cell research and human cloning that means that many people would oppose it, regardless of their views on abortion. In fact, there are pro-abortion groups in America who oppose embryonic stem cell research and cloning embryos on the grounds that it is exploitative and invasive towards women because the technique involves women undergoing invasive procedures to produce eggs for research, and reproductive cloning where the embryo is implanted would endanger the life of the mother (as well as resulting in a child who would be severely deformed).

At the same time the leading scientists in this area have stated that cloning is a waste of time. There is growing evidence that adult stem cells (taken from adult bone marrow, blood, fat, skin, brain tissue etc) provide an ethical alternative that does not involve creating and destroying human life.

A crucial part, (but not the only part of the issue) is whether we are prepared to use human life as a means to an end. I think that we have to apply a consistent principle to these issues. if you can use human life at the embryo stage, what stops you using a 9 week foetus for spare parts or a newborn baby? If is wrong to kill life at a later stage then it is wrong to kill life at an earlier stage. The end cannot justify any means.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting

Ham and eggs,
Please can you leave raising the commandments to the hosts?

Everyone else,

So long as this sort of discussion sticks to this thread only (or to the relevant Hell thread, should a dispute arise) and keeps within the usual rules then we'll let it run and see how it goes and give people the benefit of the doubt, although the behaviour of some posters here is getting very close to crusading (Paddy and Dorothea take note).

As usual, if anyone is unhappy with other people's debating style or personally annoyed with other participants, then they should start a thread in Hell and summon the person in question to reply there.

cheers,

Louise

hosting off
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
As usual, if anyone is unhappy with other people's debating style or personally annoyed with other participants, then they should start a thread in Hell and summon the person in question to reply there.
For info in case anyone missed it, someone did start a thread in Hell. Sadly, Paddy seems to have missed it while he was unable to access a computer and it is now closed.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Dorothea, I'll answer your question again, but only this once more unless you specifically engage my argument about gradualism. The specific reason why I believe you were cautioned about "crusading" is that you did not pick up on anything I said but rather asked me (as you have more than once) "why don't I accept that life begins at conception?" It is against the rule to ask the same question over and over without taking regard of the other person's postings and arguments.

All biology texts will tell you that the life of an organism starts at conception. Period. I accept that. We have a new human organism at conception, with a unique genome. Do we have a human being with rights to assert against a mother? No, as I've argued fruitlessly to you. When the developing human has a brain, I see it as having some rights to assert against a mother. When it can live outside the mother on life support, more rights. When it can breathe on its own, more rights still. At birth, full and complete rights. That is my opinion; one which you and other leading biologists do not share. But it is at the heart of Roe v. Wade, which was based on extensive testimony of legal, religious, philosophical, and scientific experts.

In my view it is important to be inconsistent with respect to biological definitions and legal definitions. Biologically, you are an "adult" when you reach sexual maturity. We would not want to fix the drinking age, voting age, and the age to be President or Prime Minister at 10 to 12 years old because we have a biological adult capable of reproduction. Complete consistency between legal and biological definitions would require this. So my opinion is that consistency between biological definitions and legal definitions is illogical. I realize that you read a whole book driving the opposite point home to you and that it was written by someone much more famous and much more highly regarded than me in the world of biology. But I disagree with him. Please don't ask me again to defend my legal disagreements with biological experts, nor why I disagree with the notion that biological and legal definitions ought to be the same.
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
I am going to guess that the "enough" question means the OP.

In the simplest sense, as long as there is even a small problem, someone hasn't done enough. Whether that would be the church as a whole or some individuals within it, I don't know. Really.

I think the methods suggested are all valid means of change, and I don't know which is the best. So far as any church has political swing, it should be entering the discussion. The CofE's position seems defensible, but I wonder why, in the face of that, abortion remains common in the UK. Does that mean that the organization isn't doing enough, or that the country is fully post-Christian?
So far as any church has sway over its membership, they should be rescuing babies and helping moms.
So far as anyone has the power to persuade, they should try.

Sorry to provide such a bland, facile answer.
 
Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on :
 
I started a thread in Hell on the subject of, well, let's just call it debating style -- but I was also hoping it would help determine whether crusading was afoot.

Shall I ask the Hellish hosts to reopen it, and re-PM the subject of my attentions?

R
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Paddy Leahy: There is much about which I'd agree with you on the underlying issue. But hearing an 18-year-old boy lecture me in such a simple-minded fashion about United States Supreme Court prognostication and other subjects that you know little about makes me question a lot of the other things you've said.

Your debating style is losing you converts to an important cause. Please bear that in mind before firing off your next post.
 
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
quote:
Jim T Posted
Note that rights often increase with age.....
Jim your comments regarding your above quote IMHO misses the point of the topic.

With age restrictions (eg drinking & smoking) they are there to protect the indivdual and the community around. If the driving age were to be reduced to something stupid like 12yrs then it would have immense knock on effects.

The law protects those under 18yrs from making choices which could be harmful. These aren't rights to be gained.

Everyone no matter what age has the right to life etc. My understanding with the whole Abortion topic is that many people have a disagreement over the point of when then the foetus becomes a human being. At whatever point you consider this you then have to admit that it has the right to life like the rest of us.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
part of an earlier post by Paddy:

jlg:
"I've been seeing those "horror" pictures for roughly 30 years now. They didn't stop me from having my abortions, and they don't cause me any emotional grief now. Contrary to pro-life rhetoric, having an abortion does not automatically lead to "psychological trauma"."

I'm sorry to hear you felt abortion was the only solution to your problem. May I ask why you think the pictures don't have any affect? I'm interested to learn your views.
Why are you feeling sorry for me? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough the first time. I have no regrets.

I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?

And when you ask "...why [I] think the pictures don't have any affect?" you are again putting words in my mouth. I stated (please note that I didnt "think") that the pictures didn't affect my decisions in the past nor my current lack of regret.

You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!"

Here's my view: I made my decisions and I am still at peace with myself about those decisions 25 years later. What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions.
I'm still waiting for a response, Paddy. Or perhaps you didn't really mean it when you stated that you were interested to learn my views.
quote:
quote: posted by DorotheaLydgate on 05 Jan:
<snip>
Abortion is not a pleasant way to die. (neither incidentally is it a necessary or desirable procedure for women. Going into hospitals and undergoing an operation is not something I am willing to do and in no way feels liberating.
<snip>Having experienced first trimester abortion, second trimester abortion (16 wks), one hospital-assisted childbirth (no pain medication), and one home-birth, I can vouch that it is six of one, half dozen of the other. Once one is pregnant, one is going to experience rather intense uterine contractions, no matter how or when the pregnancy ends. Talk to women who have had a "normal" miscarriage; in my experience they are more likely to have suffered from the pain and regret of the experience than women who have chosen to have abortions.

As with my previous questions to Paddy, my main point is that it is presumptuous to argue about how "women feel" when they have abortions. There are a lot of us out here, and our feelings and reactions and physical experiences run just as full a range as those of the women who made other choices.
I am still waiting for Paddy and Dorothea to at least acknowledge my points, even if they don't agree with them.
However, at this point in the "debate", it is clear to me that neither of them have any real interest in hearing from women unless those women have been traumatized emotionally and physically by having had an abortion, because to acknowledge the existence of women like myself would force them to confront the difficulty of writing laws which "protect" women without also preventing women who don't need that "protection" from having access to legal abortions.

So to tie this back to the OP, I think that churches should concentrate on providing support services to pregnant women, mothers, and children. Any political action should be directed toward getting more government support for programs which support pregnant women, mothers, and young children.
But as far as I am concerned, abortion is a private medical matter for the woman and her doctor, and all the laws and restrictions and "protections" are an invasion of privacy.
 
Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
I'm back by popular demand!

Ah. Paddy, popular (well, my) demand would also like you to pop into Hell and respond to points made in this thread . I have sent you a private mail about this, but since you've apparently missed it I thought I'd bring it to your attention here.

RM

[replaced long URL text - it will cause problems with page width for some people]

[ 12. January 2003, 19:51: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
"music industry insiders have rubbished Appleton’s account of these events"

Such as? I believe Appleton on this one since it's unlikely she would attack her managers if they had really done nothing wrong since they might be a tad uneasy.

"Melanie Blatt of All Saints was pregnant at the same time as Appleton and had her child"

But All Saints was more of a girls' group whereas the Appleton's are partly selling on their sex appeal to young men.

"As an outsider, what is the difference?"

If you are pro-life you are opposed to abortion because it involves the destruction of innocent life.

Being anti-abortion means you're against abortion but not necessarily for pro-life reasons. For instance the Daily Mail speaks out against abortions sometimes since they believe it encourages teenage sex and a lack of responsibility.

The BBC often confuse the two terms - partly because they don't know what they're talking about, and partly because anti-abortion sounds more horrible than pro-life.

Ham 'n' Eggs:

"Just what is "enough"?"

I'm not Rowan Williams

"And if you think that Commandment 8 is bigoted, then why did you show such a lack of integrity as to agree to it, and then decide that you would not be bound by it?"

I don't agree with it but wasn't going to let bureaucracy stopping me from having a look around. Let's not get tied up in an argument about what rules I have or haven't broken and debate the issue at stake.

"But Paddy, if you are truly pro-life, then you would surely wish to see more not less wonderful human beings brought into existance.

I trust that you are doing your bit to increase the statistics. Keep you end up, there's a good chap!"

I'm not sure what you are referring to in both. Apologies.

DaisyMay:

"It is an awful statement to make - it exemplifies how awful such a woman is feeling"

Hold on - a number of you have commented on this as if a pregnant woman would state this. I have not come across any pregnant woman who has ever stated this.

"What I want to emphasise is the agony some women go through. A pregnancy may well be looked on as a horrific idea."

To be honest I don't get the impression that women have abortions because they fear the pregnancy. As my mum pointed out first-time mothers are unaware of how painfull child-birth actually is until you arrive at the day.

I think women have abortions for different reasons for which there are many.

As a male perhaps I am unaware of this fear existing in females though.

"There are many women who have abortions because they think it's the best (of awful choices) they can do for themselves and any children they are bearing."

I still disagree. Although yes women may have an abortion because they believe its the best of awful choices, I don't think they think it's the best for their unborn child. How could anyone really think 'my child is disabled so better it doesn't live' for instance?

" They can't afford tests to find out if they are carrying girls and abort them as richer people would. They can't afford to raise the girls; they would drain the families resources and could not look after the parents when they are old."

I'm not sure if this would be necessarily true. The reason why girls would drain a families' resources (for those who don't know) is because of the marriage system where the woman's family offer a dowry to the potential husband.

But if you are poor then the number of potential husbands is going to be reduced since, due to the caste (sp?) system, it's unlikely that people families would encourage husbands to marry women from the lower classes. Therefore, in theory, I would have thought the lower classes wouldn't have encountered these problems as much anyway. But this is just my thoughts, I haven't seen enough information on India's sex selection programmes to ascertain whether or not what you state would be true.

JimT:

"Paddy made his position clear earlier: terminating development of any human cell capable of developing into a human is killing innocent human life"

Just to make a point - one of the reasons why, as you say, I am a "from conception hardliner", is because humans don't have the power or knowledge to judge when human life begins at. Why should we make sweeping generalisations? I've heard some really weird suggestions in my debating times. One person suggested that life doesn't begin until 20 weeks (totally arbitrary) and the UK government has been quoted as stating life doesn't begin until a few days after conception.

If you aren't a "from conception hardliner" then what qualities do you use to make judgements over when life begins?

For Host:

"and keeps within the usual rules then we'll let it run and see how it goes and give people the benefit of the doubt, although the behaviour of some posters here is getting very close to crusading (Paddy and Dorothea take note)."

As someone who supports freedom of speech I really would encourage you to have a rethink on these "rules". I don't see how I am "crusading" anymore than say Jim is.

The Internet should allow people to come together and discuss things without authorities and pointless bureaucracy getting in the way.

Besides it does little to attract people to the site.

What's wrong with a little bit of healthy debate? Aren't we allowed to hold views?

Arrietty:

"For info in case anyone missed it, someone did start a thread in Hell. Sadly, Paddy seems to have missed it while he was unable to access a computer and it is now closed."

I apologise. I haven't ever really checked the Hell thread since nothing in there had interested me previously. Much prefer Purgatory [Smile]

For the record, I've never had a problem with any other messageboards except an anti-Capitalist one where they alleged I was a Fascist because I attacked Communism once too often (I am a moderate anti-Capitalist but don't support Communism).

I think its just, and no offence intended, that a certain culture has been built up in the Ship of Fools forum and I started a thread before I had been socialised into your culture.

Jim T:

"It is against the rule to ask the same question over and over without taking regard of the other person's postings and arguments."

Without making a direct attack on you Jim, this i what I was referring to with regards to pointless bureaucracy. I mean really, is this necessary? Haven't we got better things to fret over than whether someone has asked a question twice?

"When the developing human has a brain, I see it as having some rights to assert against a mother."

Don't the other organs have any part to play? After all the brain cannot function on its very own.

"But hearing an 18-year-old boy lecture me in such a simple-minded fashion about United States Supreme Court prognostication and other subjects that you know little about makes me question a lot of the other things you've said."

I can assure you my knowledge in this field is comprehensive - at least in relation to most adults.

"Your debating style is losing you converts to an important cause. Please bear that in mind before firing off your next post."

I presume you refer to my abrupt, frank style. It's deliberate. I alter my style according to the attitudes of other users. It has succeeded in attracting the attention of others to this important thread and has enraged the pro-aborts thus gradually discrediting their argument.

You'll probably notice me tone down a little bit gradually now.

Polly:

"My understanding with the whole Abortion topic is that many people have a disagreement over the point of when then the foetus becomes a human being."

Well stated Polly. I think it is partially dependent on this. Although women don't just have abortions because they don't think the child is human (though it must have some influence).

jlg:

"I'm still waiting for a response, Paddy. Or perhaps you didn't really mean it when you stated that you were interested to learn my views."

I've read your post before and am pretty certain I responded to it. Perhaps it didn't post or you missed it - probably the former due to dodgy internet connection!!

"I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?"

Okay well I would have meant best solution in this situation had I read your post more clearly.

"You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!""

No, no, no. What would I have to achieve in trying to score some point off of you? I am genuinely interested to learn.

You see because I believe live starts at conception and is significant enough to warrant the right to life, I am predisposed to thinking that the pictures are horrible or display the humanity of the child and inhumanity of the abortion process.

Therefore i seek the opinion of someone who doesn't share my perspective in order to understand if the pictures are effective.

It would be really good if you could say why you don't think they've had any effect. If you feel that I am then using your arguments against you ask me to leave and I promise you I will.

"What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions."

I have sympathy with that view but I don't think those people think they know more about you then you do, rather they think abortion i wrong and therefore your decision was wrong. Their intentions aren't to be patronising.

Apologies once again for seeming not to acknowledge your points. I know how frustrating it can be.

NOTE TO ALL: if you feel I haven't responded then PLEASE let me know. I must admit that where I have been away for a few days I have missed some of the posts.

"But as far as I am concerned, abortion is a private medical matter for the woman and her doctor, and all the laws and restrictions and "protections" are an invasion of privacy."

Interesting you don't see the doctor as an invasion of privacy. This brings me onto a different topic but why don't you see them as intruders?

I have studied a lot about feminism and healthcare (remember not all feminists are pro-abortion so my studies wouldn't contradict my views) and am extremely critical of the amount of power doctors possess.

Anyway before i start, I'll leave it there and wait for your comments.

Best wishes all (if I don't reply for a day or two, its because I am in London - but should reply on Wednesday at the latest). I'm also quite interested in the death penalty thread at the moment but will try to make sure I'm not too caught up there.

Paddy
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Hmm not sure why I didn't receive your PM.

As for the popular demand thing - 5 people emailed me to ask me back on the boards so it did have an element of truth [Wink]

Anyway see you in hell! (I've always wanted to say that!!)

Paddy
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
For Host:
<snip>
As someone who supports freedom of speech I really would encourage you to have a rethink on these "rules". I don't see how I am "crusading" anymore than say Jim is.
Please note that discussions of board policy belong in the Styx, rather than breaking the flow of debate on the other boards. As such, I'm going to start a thread here in the Styx just to address this question.

Alan
Purgatory Host

[added URL of thread]

[ 12. January 2003, 21:02: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Paddy Leahy wrote:
quote:
I presume you refer to my abrupt, frank style. It's deliberate. I alter my style according to the attitudes of other users. It has succeeded in attracting the attention of others to this important thread and has enraged the pro-aborts thus gradually discrediting their argument. You'll probably notice me tone down a little bit gradually now.
No, Paddy, I'm referring to what I perceive as an insensitive and patronizing style. Yes, you've succeeded in "attracting the attention of others," but not in the way you might think. For me -- someone inclined to agree with you substantively -- what has struck me on this thread has been the arrogance of those who have argued against keeping abortion legal and the moderation of those who have argued for keeping abortion legal. You have not "enraged the pro-aborts." You have repelled some of the people who might otherwise agree with you, but are put off by the way you attempt to prove your points.

"Reading" in high school about what feminists think or what women who have had abortions think is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't give you any real insights into those subjects. Age, time, and experience will.

quote:
You'll probably notice me tone down a little bit gradually now.
I look forward to that. You may find that kindness, humility, and sensitivity are more effective advocacy tools.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think you have displayed very well, Paddy, why the anti-abortion case is very unlikely to be won, because it really isn't as simple as you try and make out
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Almost everything I've ever heard a pro-life advocate say makes perfect sense, if one agrees that the life of the un-born is of the same value as the life of the born.

Nothing would excuse a mother killing her five year old child; not her miserable circumstances or his disability or whether he was the child of rape or incest - but I do not believe and never will believe that the fetus is the same as that five year old. I don't even think the pro-lifers believe it because the difference between the two keeps peaking out in their speech from time to time. For about thirty-five years now they have been working hard to get us to think of the embryo as a child and I think they have had some success. I'm not surprised that more and more young people are pro-life, but that thinking goes against thousands of years of viewing the embryo,fetus and live birth infant, as different from a five year old in many ways.

I for one will never think they have the same value anymore than I will come to think that a man who masturbates has murdered a thousand potential children.
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
Dear Jennifer

I'm sorry that you think I haven't acknowledged your post. I wrote this soon after you posted originally: "None of us assume that pregnancy is easy...." and "I wasn't by the way implying that women always suffer from an abortion, but from what I have read it is difficult to tell what women will suffer negative effects".

The reason why I cannot comment on your situation is two-fold: firstly, I am sure you would be furious if I did, and I have no desire to upset or irritate you. Secondly, I can't possibly know why you had an abortion and it would be unfair to you to comment on it. I genuinely meant that "I make no value judgement about any one who has had an abortion or supports abortion." It is possible to oppose an action without opposing those who do it.

You say that: "to acknowledge the existence of women like myself would force them to confront the difficulty of writing laws which "protect" women without also preventing women who don't need that "protection" from having access to legal abortions."

I can acknowledge that women are not always hurt by abortion because in addition to helping women, the prime purpose of legislation against abortion would be to protect the baby. I wrote earlier: "The woman is an adult with resourcefulness, courage, rationality and a voice to ask for help, the baby is weak and defenceless. Without playing down the difficulties of pregnancy and birth, 9 months is by definition a limited and temporary space of time to carry a child for. The baby on the other hand will lose its life. On a time comparison alone this is 9 months versus 70-80 years. Who has the worse deal?

I'm delighted that you say the following: "I think that churches should concentrate on providing support services to pregnant women, mothers, and children. Any political action should be directed toward getting more government support for programs which support pregnant women, mothers, and young children." That's fantastic.

However you say that "abortion is a private medical matter for the woman and her doctor, and all the laws and restrictions and "protections" are an invasion of privacy". It isn't a medical matter because the woman's health in the vast majority of cases is not threatened by pregnancy. Moreover abortion has potential harmful consequences to the mother, (potential but existing nevertheless), and *certain* harmful consequences to the baby. (the abortion would be a failure if the baby survived). I don't see it as consistent with the Hippocratic oath to terminate life.

Those are my genuine responses. I appreciate that you may feel differently.

Dear Jim
Your well-written posts have made me think and I have tried to engage with your argument. (see below)

"thanks to those who have responded, Jim, your arguments are well thought out but I cannot agree that the right to life is equivalent to the right to vote. Right to life is basic and non-negotiable. Drinking and voting depend on being able to have an adult understanding of politics. 1 year olds would not want to drink or vote, the right to life is in the best interests of any one alive. The right not to be attacked in the womb does not require any adult reasoning ability."

While we may not agree on the definition of when life begins, perhaps there might be other reasons to oppose cloning (as I suggested in my last post) where we might agree. Adult stem cells are doing rather well. If you haven't seen the following two websites, you might be interested in them:
www.stemcellresearch.org
www.cloninginformation.org

I extend my apologies for repeating myself regarding conception.

Best wishes to all.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Quoth Paddy:
quote:

I presume you refer to my abrupt, frank style. It's deliberate. I alter my style according to the attitudes of other users. It has succeeded in attracting the attention of others to this important thread and has enraged the pro-aborts thus gradually discrediting their argument. You'll probably notice me tone down a little bit gradually now.
I'm not at all enraged. However, your assertion that the "pro-abort" arguments have been discredited is absolute crap. You really haven't adressed the questions others have asked you in an intelligent fashion. But thanks for playing, anyway.

I certainly look forward to your "toning down". I can tell you're no more than 18; nobody older is this patronizing.
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
I think the main points have been made. There remain a half-dozen questions that remain unresponded to (two of them mine), and I accept now that they will not be addressed in this context.

I hope the subject comes up again sometime, for there is further discussion I would like to have with some of you. I am henceforth off this thread.
 
Posted by Lola (# 627) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
I'm back by popular demand!

In Ireland I partly think that the reason why 6,000 (which remember isn't a particularly high number in comparison to the UK's 180,000 - but still some cause for concern) come to England is because of the taboo of teenage pregnancy and taboo of pre-marital sex. Therefore women would rather have an abortion than be looked down upon in society.

I recommend therefore that teenage pregnancy is seen less as a bad thing and more support offered for single mothers. Measures can be taken at the same time to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies without making it a taboo.

Paddy
Hi Paddy

Two things that strike me on reading your posts:

I don't think that your figures on the number of abortions for UK and Irish women in UK clinics mean much if you leave them as absolutes, given the large disparity between the populations of the UK and Ireland. I don't know for which years your statistics relate, so could you please provide further information (eg population for each country for the same period that your numbers are taken) to enable the incidences to be directly compared?

I'm rather at a loss as to how you can simultaneously reduce the number of teen pregnancies and not make it a taboo. Please could you provide a concrete example of what you propose to achieve this.

Cheers

Lola
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Paddy,
"It is an awful statement to make - it exemplifies how awful such a woman is feeling"
Hold on - a number of you have commented on this as if a pregnant woman would state this. I have not come across any pregnant woman who has ever stated this.
There are quite a lot of women who chose to have terminations because they are depressed and abused. I have come across many. This is, of course, not scientifically statisticated evidence.
"What I want to emphasise is the agony some women go through. A pregnancy may well be looked on as a horrific idea."
To be honest I don't get the impression that women have abortions because they fear the pregnancy. As my mum pointed out first-time mothers are unaware of how painful child-birth actually is until you arrive at the day.
I didn't mean the physical pain, I meant the emotional agony.
"There are many women who have abortions because they think it's the best (of awful choices) they can do for themselves and any children they are bearing."
I still disagree. Although yes women may have an abortion because they believe its the best of awful choices, I don't think they think it's the best for their unborn child. How could anyone really think 'my child is disabled so better it doesn't live' for instance?
Not because the child may be disabled, but because the world is such a horrible place to live in. If you have had a bad time yourself, you may not want to put a child through that, particularly if you are depressed.
" They can't afford tests to find out if they are carrying girls and abort them as richer people would. They can't afford to raise the girls; they would drain the families resources and could not look after the parents when they are old."
I'm not sure if this would be necessarily true. The reason why girls would drain a families' resources (for those who don't know) is because of the marriage system where the woman's family offer a dowry to the potential husband.
There's the cost of feeding and clothing children before they are old enough to marry off, and then the dowry. Richer Indians have tests to check the sex of the foetus and although it's supposed to be illegal, many girl foetuses are aborted.

But if you are poor then the number of potential husbands is going to be reduced since, due to the caste (sp?) system, it's unlikely that families would encourage husbands to marry women from the lower classes. Therefore, in theory, I would have thought the lower classes wouldn't have encountered these problems as much anyway. But this is just my thoughts, I haven't seen enough information on India's sex selection programmes to ascertain whether or not what you state would be true. There is statistical evidence, but I don't know where on the net. In China, too, it's well known that there are now many more boys than girls being born.

You see, Paddy, people all over the world make decisions on abortion because they think they are doing the best they can, for themselves, their families and sometimes the foetus too. They may think they are doing something "not good" but better then something "even worse".
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Its certainly not the case that most young people are anti-abortion in the UK, though, and attitudes in Ireland amongst younger people are certainly less hostile to legal abortion.
 
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
Dear Paddy,

You made the Original Post. You gave the thread its title. Do you really mean to say that you have no comprehension of what it means?

You made some comment about Rowen Williams, without taking the trouble to understand or to clarify what he was saying? Why? Because you had a particular agenda that you wanted to score points in favour of, and actually understanding what you were talking about was a minor detail?
I'm afraid that is the impression that you are conveying.

When are you going to answer where you got your statistic about condom failure from, and exactly what it means?

Please would you share with us exactly how you are able to decide who is pro-life and who is pro-abortion on this thread, and what makes you so sure that everyone fits into one or other of these arbitary categories. I assume that you use "pro-abortion" to mean someone who does not share your exact viewpoint on this topic.

Please would you point to one instance of a "pro-abort" becoming enraged on this thread? I havn't seen anyone getting annoyed by the debate. (And I happen to know the folks here, unlike you.)

One or two of us are indeed getting annoyed because you showing a wilful disregard for the community that you can't be bothered to find out about before posting on - there is a difference between that and reacting to stunning debate. Particularly when the debate is not stunning, but is in fact badly prepared, badly presented, juvenile, condescending, and fails to engage with the majority of points raised.

Abortions don't happen in university debating society meetings. They happen to real people in the real world.
 
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I havn't seen anyone getting annoyed by the debate.
should have read I havn't seen anyone getting enraged by the debate.
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
"I'm referring to what I perceive as an insensitive and patronizing style. Yes, you've succeeded in "attracting the attention of others," but not in the way you might think. For me -- someone inclined to agree with you substantively -- what has struck me on this thread has been the arrogance of those who have argued against keeping abortion legal and the moderation of those who have argued for keeping abortion legal."

Arrogance implies unjustified confidence or contempt of others. I don't think I possess either of these two qualities and perhaps the only reason it comes across is because I am dead certain that abortion is wrong.

What makes moderation a good quality? Particularly in this instance.

"Age, time, and experience will."

I'm unsure why so many are hung up on this idea of life experience. How many years justifies life experience? 20? 50? 80?

Furthermore do we really need life experience to argue whether or not an unborn child is human or not?

"You may find that kindness, humility, and sensitivity are more effective advocacy tools"

To some extent and after time. But had I been acted all friendly and compassionate then I wouldn't have attractedd so much attention to this thread (it's already on its sixth page despite having only been running for just over a week).

I wanted to bring attention to the thread because I was quite disturbed at the permissiveness of some. I don't aim to change minds - it takes a long time to achieve that - but rather gauge the opinions here and try to understand how other Christians and non-Christians justify abortion.

Merseymike:

"because it really isn't as simple as you try and make out"

I'm making it simple?

Twilight:

"Nothing would excuse a mother killing her five year old child"

What about killing a premature born child?

"but I do not believe and never will believe that the fetus is the same as that five year old"

Why do you think the five year old is more human than a "foetus" (I'm not sure why this latin word remains in English language when it's meaning in latin is 'little one')?

Also what do you determine as "human"? At what point do we become "human"?

"I for one will never think they have the same value anymore than I will come to think that a man who masturbates has murdered a thousand potential children."

Sperm does not possess human qualities nor can it develop into a human on its own.

Laura:

"However, your assertion that the "pro-abort" arguments have been discredited is absolute crap."

They haven't yet but if you keep swearing they might [Wink]

Lola:

"I don't think that your figures on the number of abortions for UK and Irish women in UK clinics mean much if you leave them as absolutes, given the large disparity between the populations of the UK and Ireland"

Hi Lola

Of course they don't mean much but a bit of simple math will show you the Irish abortion rate is still far below British one. Ireland's population is about 1/12th of England. Yet abortion rate is, even if you go at the highest estimated figure, 1/30th.

"I'm rather at a loss as to how you can simultaneously reduce the number of teen pregnancies and not make it a taboo. Please could you provide a concrete example of what you propose to achieve this."

I live near a town which has a very high teenage pregnancy rate (Ashford). I've worked in South Ashford a fair bit on my rounds and come across some pregnant mothers.

What strikes me is the lack of meaning in their lives and even they seem to imply (albeit sometimes unwittingly) that they wanted a child to give them a purpose and routine. Ashford is an area which has a poor education standard for those in comprehensives and there are very little opportunities for those in the lower economic classes to climb the social ladder.

A friend stated, in the work she does, that one girl said she had a child because she wanted someone to love and to be loved by someone else which suggests family breakdown etc.

We can help give purpose to these girls by improving community spirit and putting more funding into run-down areas, giving them more opportunities.

With globalisation, community is becoming undermined and therefore we do not have that same sense of warmth, belonging and purpose that came with living in, say, a close-knit village. Most people do not live in the area they were brought up in.

Anyway I can't go into full details of my theories becaus we'll be here forever and its past my bed time!! But we can help give purpose to young girls' life without making pregnant teenage mothers the enemy of society.

I think its absolutely appauling how young pregnant girls get treated and wrote a small bit about it in the Daily Mail. I'll post it if you like. What do we aim to achieve in punishing them?

Before I'm go to bed (will respond to others soon):

"attitudes in Ireland amongst younger people are certainly less hostile to legal abortion."

I would disagree. The last abortion referendum showed how strongly pro-life the country is. 50% vote yes, and 50% voted no. But according to IPPF half of those voting no were pro-life (although the yes vote would have made the abortion law more restrictive, it would at the same time have legalised the abortive morning-after-pill - therefore a number of pro-life groups pushed for a No vote).

Now also consider that the turnout was quite low (in the sixties if I remember rightly). Most of these people would have been pro-life because there was no confusion on the pro-choice side. All pro-choice groups wanted to vote no but the pro-life side, as stated, was divided and this is why the many confused didn't vote.

This would suggest then at least 75% of Ireland is pro-life. A clear rejection of abortion surely?

Anyway sorry I can't reply to more. I've got to get up in 8 hours and am quite tired already.

I will try and make an effort to reply to the rest though please be patient!

Best wishes and have a good week all. I start a new job tomorrow [Smile]

Nic-nac Paddy whack.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Arrogance implies unjustified confidence or contempt of others. I don't think I possess either of these two qualities and perhaps the only reason it comes across is because I am dead certain that abortion is wrong.
The problem is that many shipmates are convinced that abortion is not wrong.

Your failure to acknowledge that people who disagree on this point may be as intelligent and sincere as you are is arrogance.

You are convinced they are wrong. They are convinced you are wrong. They have shown a greater willingness to pay attention and respond to you than you have to pay attention and respond to them.

Of course you're sure you're right. In most of the discussions on this board everyone who posts is sure they're right. Our rules allow an orderly exchange of ideas. I would never post on a board that did not have such rules.

Moo
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Paddy,

I want to sincerely wish you good luck on your new job, and I hope you stay on board the ship. It really is a wonderful place.

Greta
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Another day … another post from Paddy where he has not checked his basic facts [Disappointed] [Roll Eyes] :

quote:
"music industry insiders have rubbished Appleton’s account of these events"

Such as? I believe Appleton on this one since it's unlikely she would attack her managers if they had really done nothing wrong since they might be a tad uneasy.

"Melanie Blatt of All Saints was pregnant at the same time as Appleton and had her child"

But All Saints was more of a girls' group whereas the Appleton's are partly selling on their sex appeal to young men.
I’ve read a number of interviews where the Appleton’s account of all the major events in their book have been rubbished – including this one. Maybe my reading material is less high-brow than yours. [Big Grin] And the fact that Melanie Blatt of All Saints went on to have her child is actually crucial to anyone’s interpretation of Appleton’s account of the events surrounding her abortion. Both Blatt and the Appleton’s were members of All Saints at the time of their pregnancy. In fact, according to Appleton, both she and Blatt were pregnant at the same time while in the same group[/I[ while [I]being managed by the same people while on the same record label. Blatt went onto have her child and always said that everyone was very supportive of her decision. Appleton didn’t. This, and the fact that other sections of the book have been described by those named in it as being "completely inaccurate" does leave cause for reasonable doubt.

Tubbs

PS logician: I am sorry that you are withdrawing from this thread. [Frown] Your contributions have been very insightful and thought-provoking. [Not worthy!]
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Oh, and the Latin "fetus" means "offspring", not "little one".
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
MAN! This thread's STILL going on?! What could you possibly be talking about?

Particularly impressive to see you were discussing linguistics just now, something the Anglican church is famed for under-elaborating in [Wink]
 
Posted by Ian M (# 79) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
...humans don't have the power or knowledge to judge when human life begins at...

Paddy
I just had to pick this out, although I don't imagine Paddy will disclaim it - I'm assuming he'd say it's safer to err on the side of caution when trying to come to some pragmatic conclusion - but that's precisely where others would want to come in with other views.

Dorothea, I neither said nor implied you were extremist, only that pro-life campaigning in general tends to come across as such in the context of our society where - as others have reiterated many times - it is a fact that abortion is legal at present and most people don't even know that other countries might do it differently!

I think there's so much need for people to be offered dispassionate advice rather than (at the very point when they are in difficulties) finding themselves in the midst of a war about rights and wrongs. So there's a lot of scope for sensitive and balanced campaigning to ensure that the medical profession and social services etc. have the support/information they need about the other options - rather than only seeing 'pro-life' as anti-abortion or nothing. Particularly in the light of his admission quoted above, I refuse to accept Paddy's assertion that everything comes down to taking sides - I don't think that we can afford that in this issue that so intricately involves real people's real lives.

I am not going to say any more about the situation that started me thinking more leniently about abortion in practice, other than that it was more a first step than an epiphany, and was a part of a general process of softening of views to take into account the harsh realities of life, which in my experience God tends to break into alongside us, rather than lifting us out of...

Paddy, you call the BBC biased for using 'anti-abortion' rather than 'pro-life', but whatever genuinely 'pro-life' motivations you have, I don't think it's unfair to describe the primary outworking as being 'anti-abortion'. Certainly given the BBC's need to use terms that are clear to its hearers/viewers, and the fact that the 'pro-life' movement has little general profile in the UK, I don't think it's surprising that 'anti-abortion' is the term they use. I would expect them to use 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice' along similar lines for the opposing campaigners - can anyone confirm this?

Ian
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Also, those of us who support legal availability of abortion are hardly 'anti-life'
 
Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
Well said Merseymike. I've never seen anyone say how wonderful abortion is. I've never seen an abortion clinic advertise along the lines of "have an abortion - it's fun".

Paddy, you say Poland banned abortion. Was this a blanket ban, or under limited circumstances? How easily available in abortion in neighbouring countries? What was the impact on the birth rate (that might show whether women are travelling or having backstreet abortions)?

One valid objection to legalised abortion is when it is used as a contraceptive. This is easy to deal with; stop abortions on the NHS (other than in cases of genuine medical emergency). This would also, IMHO, permit NHS resources to be used more effectively - curing real diseases rather than performing operations which are the result of individuals' moral choices. Women will soon find out that condoms are a much cheaper and more effective way of contraception!

Abortion may well result in trauma. So does having a baby you dont want. So does rearranging your life to have a baby - pregnancy, unlike abortion can't be done secretly within a few hours!. So does having a baby adopted.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Paddy quote
quote:

Twilight:
Also what do you determine as "human"? At what point do we become "human"?

Sperm does not possess human qualities nor can it develop into a human on its own.
Sometimes I think you answer your own questions Paddy. A zygote can't develop into a human on it's own either. I realize a sperm is quite a step removed from a fertilized egg but it is the life form that just precedes the zygote so I had to use it (crudely, I'm afraid) to make my point; i.e. none of us know exactly when life begins, not you, not me, not scientists, but we do know when a life can exist apart from it's mother. The human race has always known this. Why do you supposed last rights were never administered to miscarriages? Why were they not buried on sacred ground?
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
jlg:

"I'm still waiting for a response, Paddy. Or perhaps you didn't really mean it when you stated that you were interested to learn my views."

I've read your post before and am pretty certain I responded to it. Perhaps it didn't post or you missed it - probably the former due to dodgy internet connection!!
[quote]

"I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?"

Okay well I would have meant best solution in this situation had I read your post more clearly.

"You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!""

No, no, no. What would I have to achieve in trying to score some point off of you? I am genuinely interested to learn.

You see because I believe live starts at conception and is significant enough to warrant the right to life, I am predisposed to thinking that the pictures are horrible or display the humanity of the child and inhumanity of the abortion process.

Therefore i seek the opinion of someone who doesn't share my perspective in order to understand if the pictures are effective.

It would be really good if you could say why you don't think they've had any effect. If you feel that I am then using your arguments against you ask me to leave and I promise you I will.

"What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions."

I have sympathy with that view but I don't think those people think they know more about you then you do, rather they think abortion i wrong and therefore your decision was wrong. Their intentions aren't to be patronising.

Apologies once again for seeming not to acknowledge your points. I know how frustrating it can be.

NOTE TO ALL: if you feel I haven't responded then PLEASE let me know. I must admit that where I have been away for a few days I have missed some of the posts.

"But as far as I am concerned, abortion is a private medical matter for the woman and her doctor, and all the laws and restrictions and "protections" are an invasion of privacy."

Interesting you don't see the doctor as an invasion of privacy. This brings me onto a different topic but why don't you see them as intruders?

I have studied a lot about feminism and healthcare (remember not all feminists are pro-abortion so my studies wouldn't contradict my views) and am extremely critical of the amount of power doctors possess.

Anyway before i start, I'll leave it there and wait for your comments.

Best wishes all (if I don't reply for a day or two, its because I am in London - but should reply on Wednesday at the latest). I'm also quite interested in the death penalty thread at the moment but will try to make sure I'm not too caught up there.

Paddy

jlg:

"I'm still waiting for a response, Paddy. Or perhaps you didn't really mean it when you stated that you were interested to learn my views."

I've read your post before and am pretty certain I responded to it. Perhaps it didn't post or you missed it - probably the former due to dodgy internet connection!!

"I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?"

Okay well I would have meant best solution in this situation had I read your post more clearly.

"You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!""

No, no, no. What would I have to achieve in trying to score some point off of you? I am genuinely interested to learn.

You see because I believe live starts at conception and is significant enough to warrant the right to life, I am predisposed to thinking that the pictures are horrible or display the humanity of the child and inhumanity of the abortion process.

Therefore i seek the opinion of someone who doesn't share my perspective in order to understand if the pictures are effective.

It would be really good if you could say why you don't think they've had any effect. If you feel that I am then using your arguments against you ask me to leave and I promise you I will.

"What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions."

I have sympathy with that view but I don't think those people think they know more about you then you do, rather they think abortion i wrong and therefore your decision was wrong. Their intentions aren't to be patronising.

Apologies once again for seeming not to acknowledge your points. I know how frustrating it can be.

NOTE TO ALL: if you feel I haven't responded then PLEASE let me know. I must admit that where I have been away for a few days I have missed some of the posts.

"But as far as I am concerned, abortion is a private medical matter for the woman and her doctor, and all the laws and restrictions and "protections" are an invasion of privacy."

Interesting you don't see the doctor as an invasion of privacy. This brings me onto a different topic but why don't you see them as intruders?

I have studied a lot about feminism and healthcare (remember not all feminists are pro-abortion so my studies wouldn't contradict my views) and am extremely critical of the amount of power doctors possess.

Anyway before i start, I'll leave it there and wait for your comments.

Best wishes all (if I don't reply for a day or two, its because I am in London - but should reply on Wednesday at the latest). I'm also quite interested in the death penalty thread at the moment but will try to make sure I'm not too caught up there.

Paddy
I'm sorry, but this is such a muddle of what I have posted and your supposed responses that I can't take the time to sort it out (especially since you can't be bothered to use proper quote code, including referencing the exact post and/or indicating where your have deleted parts of posts).

Too little, too late, Paddy.
 
Posted by Lola (# 627) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:

Lola:

"I don't think that your figures on the number of abortions for UK and Irish women in UK clinics mean much if you leave them as absolutes, given the large disparity between the populations of the UK and Ireland"

Hi Lola

Of course they don't mean much but a bit of simple math will show you the Irish abortion rate is still far below British one. Ireland's population is about 1/12th of England. Yet abortion rate is, even if you go at the highest estimated figure, 1/30th.

"I'm rather at a loss as to how you can simultaneously reduce the number of teen pregnancies and not make it a taboo. Please could you provide a concrete example of what you propose to achieve this."

I live near a town which has a very high teenage pregnancy rate (Ashford). I've worked in South Ashford a fair bit on my rounds and come across some pregnant mothers.

What strikes me is the lack of meaning in their lives and even they seem to imply (albeit sometimes unwittingly) that they wanted a child to give them a purpose and routine. Ashford is an area which has a poor education standard for those in comprehensives and there are very little opportunities for those in the lower economic classes to climb the social ladder.

A friend stated, in the work she does, that one girl said she had a child because she wanted someone to love and to be loved by someone else which suggests family breakdown etc.

We can help give purpose to these girls by improving community spirit and putting more funding into run-down areas, giving them more opportunities.

With globalisation, community is becoming undermined and therefore we do not have that same sense of warmth, belonging and purpose that came with living in, say, a close-knit village. Most people do not live in the area they were brought up in.

Anyway I can't go into full details of my theories becaus we'll be here forever and its past my bed time!! But we can help give purpose to young girls' life without making pregnant teenage mothers the enemy of society.

Nic-nac Paddy whack.
Dear Paddy,

Wouldn't it be stronger (for your purposes) of convincing people if you posted the informaiton in a readily comparable form to begin with?

See, I think that, leaving aside the fact that your incidences of abortion were for the UK as a whole and you have given me information re: the population of England alone, which is simply sloppiness on your part, I can then take what you have said and do different things with it.

For example, couldn't I could say that on population size alone I would expect the UK incidence of abortion to be 12 times as large as that in Ireland? So I could divide 180,000 by 12 and get 15,000 UK abortions per the same population in Ireland as a figure to compare to the 9,000 actual Irish abortions. Which doesn't look quite as alarming a difference.

Alternatively, I could multiply the Irish 9,000 by 12 to get 72,000 Irish abortions per the same population of the UK to compare to the UK's 180,000 which still looks quite a big difference.

That is why, I think it would be better to tighten up your information. If you don't want people to nitpick then the best way is to make harder for them to do so.

I think that instead of providing tight information you have gone for the most dramatic. I think that is why people on both sides of this debate are both being accused of extremism.

If you are going to be a professional activist in this area my advice would be to avoid sensationalism. After all, its an emotive subject on its own.

IMHO

Lola

Oh, and and I almost forgot, you were going to tell me your ideas on reducing teen pregnancies without making it a taboo. You talked about helping your girls and their children, fabulous, good job, but how will this cut the pregnancy rate?
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
Good evening all.

I can't help feeling posters are being a bit hard on Paddy here.

I understand that the latest UN report shows that Ireland has the lowest abortion rate in the EU. Before anyone asks - this report took into account all those abortions taking place overseas (namely the UK).

It seems to me that there is something to be learned from countries, such as Ireland, which have low abortion rates. If that means constitutional protection for the unborn then so be it.

I think we all agree that the British abortion rate is phenomenally high and simply ridiculous. There must be a better way of handling crisis pregnancies than this.
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
I would like to add a little something about reducing the teenage pregnancy rate.

It seems to me that UK government policies in the last three decades, which have focused on increasing access to birth control drugs and devices and providing value-free sex 'education' to young people have been utterly counterproductive.

If anything is to be learnt from such initiatives it is that they don't work and certainly don't provide value for money.

I think something else (dare I mention the term 'abstinence education'?) should be tried. It seems to be working in the US.

Oh, another idea: why not have gigantic posters advertising the CSA anywhere young males congregate? I have a brilliant idea for one of them. A picture of tennis player Boris Becker and a quotation of his in bold letters. 'Two minutes of sex cost me £2million'. That would convince young males to keep their pants on!
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
why not have gigantic posters advertising the CSA anywhere young males congregate? I have a brilliant idea for one of them. A picture of tennis player Boris Becker and a quotation of his in bold letters. 'Two minutes of sex cost me £2million'.
You are OK with telling young females that there's 2 million pounds in it for them if they just take their panties off for two minutes? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ms Byronic:
That would convince young males to keep their pants on!
No it wouldn't. Young males (as well as young ursines) would just say "What a plonker!".

bb
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Ms Byronic wrote:

quote:
I can't help feeling posters are being a bit hard on Paddy here.
In what way? In asking him to discuss his ideas in relation to what other people have said rather than just posting endless essays. To back up his assertions with independent data and to provide sources for the same. It all sounds fairly reasonable to me [Big Grin]

quote:
I understand that the latest UN report shows that Ireland has the lowest abortion rate in the EU. Before anyone asks - this report took into account all those abortions taking place overseas (namely the UK).<snip>
Please would you supply a link to the report you are citing so other posters can check this for themselves. Many thanks.

quote:

I think we all agree that the British abortion rate is phenomenally high and simply ridiculous. There must be a better way of handling crisis pregnancies than this.
Do you have any concrete suggestions on how this could be done?

quote:

It seems to me that UK government policies in the last three decades, which have focused on increasing access to birth control drugs and devices and providing value-free sex 'education' to young people have been utterly counterproductive.

...

I think something else (dare I mention the term 'abstinence education'?) should be tried. It seems to be working in the US.
Why should this all be down to the "government" or "the schools"? [Roll Eyes] Surely a teenager's family also has a role [Big Grin] One quote from a sermon that's stayed with me over the years (one of the few!) was the following:

"Parents ... if you don't teach your children values and morals then Disney will

Tubbs
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
"Parents ... if you don't teach your children values and morals then Disney will
Well, there are worse sources for values and morals... and while I'd dearly love to think it's the exception, many parents are terrifyingly bad sources. I've known some people who have had to learn (from other sources, some media, some from schools, etc.) good morals, behaviour, etc, in spite of their parents' horrifically bad and often twisted mindsets, morals etc.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
"Parents ... if you don't teach your children values and morals then Disney will
Well, there are worse sources for values and morals... and while I'd dearly love to think it's the exception, many parents are terrifyingly bad sources. I've known some people who have had to learn (from other sources, some media, some from schools, etc.) good morals, behaviour, etc, in spite of their parents' horrifically bad and often twisted mindsets, morals etc.
True. [Not worthy!] But what he was addressing was the attitude that exists that “I don’t have to teach my children about <blah> because that’s someone else’s job …” The one and a half hours a week at church covers the Christian thing. School does most of the moral stuff in general studies / RE while the physical stuff gets done in biology. Sorted. [Wink] But that isn’t enough – and the values learnt may not be the values you want passed on. (Even if the children reject them later or those values suck – which is a separate discussion). Maybe, if the pro-life movement truly wants to win hearts and minds, it needs to target someone else other than the government.

Which brings me onto another point – one that I hesitate to make as it makes me sound like a Daily Mail reader. [Embarrassed] The pro-life posters (with a few honorable exceptions) have said that women who want to keep their babies, and have abortions for financial reasons, should receive support from “someone”. I’m assuming that the “someone” is the government / taxpayer. But the popular assumption is that the social security system has already got this covered. [Big Grin] Believe me, I have lost count of the number of times I have heard friends with children express great resentment about their struggles to bring up their families while “the family on benefits down the road gets it all for free …” (This isn’t an accurate perception, but it’s there). Can’t see a proposed mass overhaul of the benefits system anywhere to prevent abortions winning anyone any friends …

Tubbs
 
Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :
 
Its taken me 3 lunch-time breaks to catch up with what's gone before, so sorry for joining in late:

quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:

After all, what person would risk her life to have an abortion rather than to give her child up for adoption?
Paddy: The following is a quote from someone who once believed the same as you (though didn't crusade about it). She got pregnant but decided that she wasn't emotionally or financially ready for motherhood, so she had the baby and gave it up for adoption at birth. Three years on, she still hasn't recovered from that experience, maybe she never will. She now says:

"I'm never putting myself through that again, if I ever get pregnant again and am still not ready, I'm having an abortion"

As a man, you can be thankful that you will never actually have to make this most excruciating of decisions. However, of all the options available, having the baby and giving it up for adoption is the most difficult, the most painful and the most heart-breaking of them all.

It is very easy to conclude what is right and what is wrong during college debate classes. I know, I've been there. Probably so have most of the other people disagreeing with you on this board. We've since found out that the world is not black and white, and it's different when it happens to you.
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
BuzzyBee - that's sad, but if you couldn't predict how you would feel about adoption then do you think that you could predict with certainty how you would feel about abortion?

I have a friend who has been in this situation who believes that the solution is more open fostering so that someone helps look after the child temporarily.
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Moo:

"Your failure to acknowledge that people who disagree on this point may be as intelligent and sincere as you are is arrogance."

I have never stated or implied that I think I am more intelligent than others' on the board. Despite being lucky enough to go to Cambridge University, I am under no illusions about my intelligence. I am far less intelligent than some on the boards and my achievements in life are mainly due to my determination, work ethic and creativity.

"They have shown a greater willingness to pay attention and respond to you than you have to pay attention and respond to them."

Moo, please give me a chance. I have taken on the almost impossible task of trying to respond to everyone. I only spend 3 hours a week roughly on this messageboard. It is simply impossible for me to go through everyone's post with a fine tooth comb.

As for the idea that you're sure that I'm sure I'm right...is it not impossible to hold an opinion without believing that opinion is right? Why else believe in something?

It seems rather pointless therefore to make play of the fact that I think I am right. We all think we're right!

Mrs Tubbs:

You mention Melanie Blatt but I am not referring to the All Saints, rather the Appleton sisters. In short, what has Melanie Blatt got to do with the price of peaches?

Karl:

"Oh, and the Latin "fetus" means "offspring", not "little one"."

To be honest I've seen various interpretations of foetus. There doesn't seem to be a set one although I rely on 'little one' since a friend who speaks fluent Latin is determined that that is the correct translation.

Ian M:

"I don't think that we can afford that in this issue that so intricately involves real people's real lives."

I apologise to quote from you Ian, but a similar statement has been made by many others. It seems a rather trivial thing to point out that abortion deals with "real" people and "real" lives. We are engaging in psycho-babble.

Abortion is the only option given by society to women. But as I have stated once already - babies are not the problem. Women who have an abortion don't do so because they see babies as evil or a problem! It's because they often don't receive enough support from the family, or because they fear public humiliation (e.g. teenage pregnancy or single motherhood), or their finances are low etc.

The legalisation of abortion has stopped government from investing in solving the real problems behind abortion. This alone warrants a reason for outlawing abortion.

Abortion doesn't help women, and it certainly does not help children!

"I would expect them to use 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice' along similar lines for the opposing campaigners - can anyone confirm this?"

I follow your logic but there is without doubt a deliberate attempt to smear pro-lifers as "anti-abortion or anti-woman". On one webpage on news.bbc.co.uk they have a picture of a middle-aged man holding up a cross above an "anti-abortion" article. Such a picture is highly insulting to pro-life feminists or atheists.

I think the BBC is deliberately being political. Why else would they have censored our broadcast? Why else would the first episode of Spooks have focused on a religious fundamentalist anti-abortion group which was using bombs? (there has never been any incidences of pro-life terrorism in the UK).

Spooks dealt with the MI5 yet political terrorism doesn't fall under the MI5's remit anyway!!

Merseymike:

"Also, those of us who support legal availability of abortion are hardly 'anti-life'"

What are you then?

Ian S:

"Paddy, you say Poland banned abortion. Was this a blanket ban, or under limited circumstances? "

Blanket ban except in some minor circumstances. There were only 130 abortions in Poland in 2000.

"What was the impact on the birth rate (that might show whether women are travelling or having backstreet abortions)?"

Birth rate and abortions have little connection. Though it will have some studies show that where abortion is restricted people simply take less chances.

For instance amongst 15-19 year olds South Africa has a very high birth rate yet contraception and abortion is easily available. Poland on the other hand has an extremely low birth rate amongst 15-19 year olds and yet abortion is illegal and it only has a 19% contraception prevalence (takn from UNFPA statistics: State of World population 2002).

Similarly Columbia's birth rate amongst that age category is over seven times greater than Polands and it's contraceptive prevalance is 65%. I'm unaware of Columbia's abortion laws.

I am also unaware of statistics of Polish women travelling to neighbouring countries. But remember Poland is not yet part of the European Union and it is thus very difficult to travel from one country to another. I highly doubt therefore that women are travelling in vast numbers to other countries - though there will inevitably be a handful.

"This is easy to deal with; stop abortions on the NHS (other than in cases of genuine medical emergency)."

From a pro-abortion position it would be impossible to stop abortions on the NHS. THere would be cries of discrimination against the poor. Abortions can be very expensive privately. An average abortion costs between £500-£600 though the cost increases dramatically the later you are in your pregnancy.

"Abortion may well result in trauma. So does having a baby you dont want. "

The trauma associated with having a baby is firstly not linked directly to the baby itself (rather linked to the loss in a previous lifestyle, loss in independence etc) whereas post-abortion trauma is linked DIRECTLY to the abortion. Secondly, most trauma related to pregnancy takes place when the mother finds out she is unexpectedly pregnant. I.e. after the initial shock and acceptance its unusual for women to continue to suffer from trauma.

"unlike abortion can't be done secretly within a few hours!."

Errr hang on - abortion can't be done secretly within a few hours. Although for most abortions women do not have to stay overnight at a hospital, they involve a lot of planning, sorting out etc. It's also not terribly secretive - after all two doctors must allow you to have an abortion. It would be uncommon for women not to tell a loved one or someone close due to the emotional trauma involved too.

I'll end there for tonight.

NOTE TO SELF: GOT UP TO TWILIGHT.

Paddy
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
ya' know what it is about the "pro-life" movement*? its that its a lie. they aren't pro-"life", not unless you limit the definition of "life" to the nine months pre-birth. the intrest of the so-called "pro-life" movement ends at birth. the movement doesn't concern itself with anything other than those nine months. now, single-issue movements are fine, but call it what it is. if the movement is truly pro-life, than it should concern itself with any life or death issue, at the very least. i'm not even talking about quality of life issues, i'm talking about out-and-out matters of life-and-death. there are many. yet the only one that the so-called "pro-life" movement concerns itself with is abortion. now, if thats what you think is important, so be it. but call it by its right name. its not being "pro-life", its being anti-abortion.

*please note, i am refering here to the movement, not to any individual member of the movement, amny of whom do concern themselves with greater issues.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Merseymike: "Also, those of us who support legal availability of abortion are hardly 'anti-life'"

Paddy's reply: What are you then?
What answer do you really expect? Do you really expect an answer of "My God, I am 'anti-life'?" Do you really think you can prick someone's conscience with that sort of pointed reply? Do you think you are making some dramatic gesture that will score points with people who are listening in?

You may as well have deleted the rest of your post and spared us the pretence that you want to engage people where they are. You dismiss without comment that the other side is "anti-life." What more needs to be said?
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
I have already said that I am now probably anti-abortion on a personal level but I would not support the outlawing of abortion. And I certainly do not condemn women for having abortions.

If that makes me anti life then so be it. I have no defence. However, I think Nicole's points on this are highly relevant.
 
Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ya' know what it is about the "pro-life" movement*? its that its a lie. they aren't pro-"life", not unless you limit the definition of "life" to the nine months pre-birth...
If only this were true.

Spontaneous abortion -- defined as the natural loss of a foetus weighing less than 500 grams before 20 weeks gestation counted from the first day of the last menstrual period -- is thought to occur in anything up to 50% of pregnancies, for a very wide variety of reasons. It, like medically caused abortions, is a complex matter, and many aspects of this phenomenon are poorly understood. Mostly, it's thought to be the body's natural reaction to chromosomal abnormalities, uterine abnormalities, exposure to environmental or other substances, maternal heavy lifting... but it's under-reported (many spontaneous abortions are thought to occur without the mother ever becoming aware she was pregnant in the first place) and the subject of some debate in the medical world.

However, if the logic of those opposed to medical abortions is followed, this is the biggest single ongoing tragedy in the history of mankind. Imagine if 50% of one year old babies were dying of 'natural causes' -- there'd be a huge outcry, crash programmes would be kicked off investigating the causes and possible cures of this terrible phenomenon, and the scale of the reaction to the problem would far outweigh that we've seen in response to cancer, AIDS, starvation, the works...

This hasn't happened. Why? Because most people consider foetuses before a certain stage of development as not the same as children. There is an opinion that spontaneous abortions are 'nature's way' of not bringing badly malformed or unviable foetuses to term, and most people seem to think this way.

Clearly, those who feel abortion is fundamentally wrong cannot hold this opinion. Therefore, they should be most concerned not with the small percentage of abortions that are deliberately caused but with the overwhelming percentage of abortions that occur naturally. Don't those foetuses have the same rights as any others?

So where are the campaigns by the anti-abortionists to fund research into spontaneous abortion? Why are they wasting their time and effort in campaigning against one very minor cause of abortion, when they could be doing so much better working towards an understanding of spontaneous abortion?

Don't they care about the unborn child?

R
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
I had a friend at university who saw the world in a very different way from me. She put individual choice first, she was an atheist, life was about immediate pleasure. She was clever, efficient, driven, and what's wrong with that? After all it's a jolly good idea to look after number one, who will if you don't, but it was a kind of capitalist mentality, get what you can and fend for yourself. Survival of the fittest.

I see the world in a different way and this is why I think prolife is more complicated than just being anti-abortion, (even though in fact some of us are very concerned by medical research, IVF, cloning, designer babies, commercialism, hospice work, pregnancy support, which makes it *not* simply anti-abortion but really pro-life-protecting alternatives, which easily feeds into questions including treatment of the sick, poor, old, young) - because it is about whether you see the world through the eyes of one individual and their choices as paramount, to the exclusion of the rights of another living human being, where one can survive or gain at the expense of another, or whether you see society as a community where all have something to give and all are respected.

This to me informs policy areas such as health, education, family law, medical research, foreign policies, criminal justice.

I see Christianity as a guide on difficult issues. So how does Christianity inform the abortion debate?
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
To Rex Monday - do you think the death of a man from natural causes, say a heart attack, is morally equivalent to a man being stabbed in the heart and his heart stopping?
 
Posted by day_thomas (# 3630) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
but it was a kind of capitalist mentality, get what you can and fend for yourself. Survival of the fittest. I see the world in a different way and this is why I think prolife is more complicated than just being anti-abortion
DL, are you saying here that Pro-Choice is a Captalist policy, while being Pro-Life makes you a socialist?

Personally i dont think Abortion should be a political issue, left or right issue - it is a moral issue. And i know this point has probably been made before, but i don't think our government can / should place its own morals on its people.

tom

Tom
 
Posted by DorotheaLydgate (# 3893) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by day_thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
but it was a kind of capitalist mentality, get what you can and fend for yourself. Survival of the fittest. I see the world in a different way and this is why I think prolife is more complicated than just being anti-abortion
DL, are you saying here that Pro-Choice is a Captalist policy, while being Pro-Life makes you a socialist?

Personally i dont think Abortion should be a political issue, left or right issue - it is a moral issue. And i know this point has probably been made before, but i don't think our government can / should place its own morals on its people.

tom

Tom
hi Tom

I take your points on board. I didn't mean to suggest that capitalists are always pro-choice/pro-abortion and socialists are always prolife. I know plenty of people who are exceptions to that, either right wing and prolife or left wing and pro-choice/pro-abortion.

Neither did I mean that all atheists are necessarily pro-choice, though I personally see it as a contradiction in terms for any Christian to be pro-choice.

However, I think there are two distinct approaches - that could broadly be described as
individualism versus putting others first and I believe that Christianity falls totally in the second camp.

If your rationale for being prolife or pro-choice/pro-abortion then determines how you see the world, and informs your attitude to social justice issues, aid to the third world, domestic policies and health and education, and industry, then prolife is a political ideology just like any other.

I don't think it is possible to see abortion as apolitical, since the crux of the issue (whether you are prolife or pro-choice) is whether you support abortion/embryology/cloning/euthanasia legislation etc. I could not be prolife without wanting abortion to be abolished and real prolife alternatives to help women and that is a political process.
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
She put individual choice first, she was an atheist, life was about immediate pleasure.
[TANGENT]
However, many atheists are deeply moral and altruistic. They disagree with Christians about the source of morality and altruism. Conversely, I have met many professing Christians who put themselves first in most situations. I have heard many discussions on church committees about giving substantailly in time and/or effort to those outside the church where the basic question being asked is 'what's in it for us?' Christianity through the ages has been used by Christians as a justification for things like slavery and apartheid.
[/TANGENT]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
I personally see it as a contradiction in terms for any Christian to be pro-choice.
For this to be a contradiction in terms I suppose you would have to show the following:
Show all those then, yes, a Christian being pro-choice is probably a contradiction. Personally, I'm not sure we can get past the first ....
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
DorotheaLydgate,

Your portrait of the Pro-Choice person as selfish and un-Christian may well be true in some cases, just as there are un-Christian Pro-Life people who are more interested in punishing the women who get abortions than they are in saving the lives of the un-born. Rex Monday's post points that out very well.

I know so many kind hearted people who are Pro-choice out of a Christian love and sympathy for; a. young couples with a badly malformed fetus and a terrible decision to make, b. a fetus that may grow into a person who faces a life of pain and misery, c. a teenager or unprepared woman who is unable to raise a child herself but feels she can't face the ordeal of giving up a full term baby to another person, d. foster parents who bond with children and then have to give them back to biological parents.

Life is complicated and sympathy and Christian kindness can come in many forms.
 
Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
To Rex Monday - do you think the death of a man from natural causes, say a heart attack, is morally equivalent to a man being stabbed in the heart and his heart stopping?
I haven't said anything about morals, nor do I intend to. To the dead person, the case is moot. I am saying that given the anti-choice people ('pro-life' strikes me as being a particularly nasty piece of propaganda. Who here is anti-life?) say a foetus has full human rights, and that the vast majority of abortions are not medical, it is curious that the anti-choice people choose to concentrate *all* their efforts on a tiny minority of abortions. It's like a government choosing not to fund any hospitals while hiring millions of policemen, despite the fact that 90% of their citizens are dying from illness not murder.

Whatever the anti-choice brigade's motivations, they can't be because they truly believe the foetus has full human rights. If they did, then sheer humanity should demand they direct a proportionate amount of their efforts towards the biggest cause of abortions, not a minor one that happens to coincide with their personal political agenda. By their deeds shall ye know them, I think the saying goes...

R
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Twilight:
quote:
A zygote can't develop into a human on it's own either.
I disagree. Although a zygote is smaller than a grain of sand the zygote contains the information that makes each human being unique. This is the same person that will become a baby, then a child, will go to secondary school, drive a car, become old et cetera.

From the moment of conception we are significant. From this moment we now know the mapping of the human body has already been determined.

quote:
i.e. none of us know exactly when life begins,
I think the scientific community is in agreement that life begins at conception. I think what you meant is when that life is significant - that is where the debate begins.

Lola:
quote:
Alternatively, I could multiply the Irish 9,000 by 12 to get 72,000 Irish abortions per the same population of the UK to compare to the UK's 180,000 which still looks quite a big difference.
I agreed with what you said in your post. But just want to make the point that the estimated figure is 6,000 not 9,000.

The only part I do not agree with is this:

quote:
I think that instead of providing tight information you have gone for the most dramatic. I think that is why people on both sides of this debate are both being accused of extremism.

If you are going to be a professional activist in this area my advice would be to avoid sensationalism. After all, its an emotive subject on its own.
I'm rather at a loss as to what you are referring to as being 'sensationalist'. Please be clearer.

Buzzybee:

quote:
We've since found out that the world is not black and white, and it's different when it happens to you.
I don't see how I am asserting this is a black and white issue. Far from it - I have continually claimed that abortion is often promoted as the only way of solving a woman's problems. Yet promoting abortion is in effect claiming that the baby is the problem.

But the baby is not the problem - single motherhood, lack of financial support, lack of familial support, lack of support from friends, lack of flexibility in the capitalist system (meaning women have to choose between job or baby), lack of respectability for adoption etc are all the real problems.

Abortion is a easy solution for governments. It's much cheaper to get women to terminate their pregnancies than to, say, force employees to increase maternity leave, force boyfriends to contribute to the welfare of the unborn child, fund programs giving support to women or helping to subsidise the costs of raising a child.

However there is one matter which is black and white - and that is whether or not the child is entitled to the right to life. We live in an age with ultrasound, photographic and video imagery of the unborn child. Thanks to scientific research we now know the unborn child's heart begins to beat between 21-25 days, and brain waves are first recorded at 42 days. Despite all the vast information available we continue to deny the humanity of the child. Why?

NicoleMRW:

quote:
ya' know what it is about the "pro-life" movement*? its that its a lie. they aren't pro-"life", not unless you limit the definition of "life" to the nine months pre-birth. the intrest of the so-called "pro-life" movement ends at birth. the movement doesn't concern itself with anything other than those nine months. now, single-issue movements are fine, but call it what it is. if the movement is truly pro-life, than it should concern itself with any life or death issue, at the very least. i'm not even talking about quality of life issues, i'm talking about out-and-out matters of life-and-death. there are many. yet the only one that the so-called "pro-life" movement concerns itself with is abortion. now, if thats what you think is important, so be it. but call it by its right name. its not being "pro-life", its being anti-abortion.

*please note, i am refering here to the movement, not to any individual member of the movement, amny of whom do concern themselves with greater issues.
Pro-lifers don't just deal with the issue of abortion. We also deal with euthanasia and then some of us branch into other issues - like being opposed to the death penalty.

If you can find any organisation which calls itself pro-life and deals solely with the abortion issue I shall eat my hat.

Perhaps the reason why you believe this is because pro-life organisations do concentrate on the abortion issue. This is because unborn children cannot defend themselves - the elderly can. Furthermore abortion is the area where the most life is lost.

Rex Monday

quote:
Why are they wasting their time and effort in campaigning against one very minor cause of abortion, when they could be doing so much better working towards an understanding of spontaneous abortion?
Firstly - do not feel as though I have ignored the rest of your post. for the purpose of shortening my quotes, I have decided to use just this one since it encapsulates pretty much what you say in the entire post.

We do actually work towards an understanding of spontaneous abortion.

In some respects spontaneous abortion is worse since it deprives the mother of a child who she really did want.

I know one woman who went through so much tragedy. She is childless after having 7 spontaneous abortions. Because she had so much time off work with depression she was forced out of a job (she was a primary school teacher). Had I been older I would have fought damn hard for her. It was appauling she was forced out of her job basically because she was depressed. There is something seriously wrong with a society that does not allow people to mourn.

Imagine how she feels when she hears that 180,000 abortions occur every year.

One of the major reasons for spontaneous abortions is age. After a mother reaches 30 the chance of miscarriage increases dramatically (and her fertility rate decreases dramatically).

That is why I am keen on the government to encourage people to get married younger and have children younger so they don't fall prone to childlessness and to increase Britain's low birth rate of 1.6 (we currently need 2.4).

But there is not an awful lot pro-life organisations can do. We tend to leave most of the research up to the relevant scientists since they obviously have more expertise and knowledge (there are pro-life scientists who carry out a lot of research in this field). We also cannot force people to have children earlier.

There is nothing morally wrong in spontaneous abortion. You cannot blame a person for it. Abortion on the other hand involves the intentional killing of a child.

DayThomas:

quote:
Personally i dont think Abortion should be a political issue
Moral issues are political issues. Abortion infringes the right to life and it is the duty of governments to protect basic human rights.

Furthermore abortion impacts on the power of government, our quality of life, the economy - all because of one thing: demographics. Because our birth rate is currently 1.6, in 100 years time our population will be half that of today. We won't be able to afford the NHS, let alone state pensions, because we won't have enough working people paying taxes plus the percentage of people over 65 will be ever-increasing.

We currently need 1.2 million immigrants a year (we only have just under 200,000). Alternatively we need to increase the birth rate and outlaw abortion.

--
The other posts refer more to Dorothea so I shall leave them to my trusty ally!

Best wishes all
Paddy
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
To raise a few other points:

1. No-one has stated at what stage the unborn child should be awarded rights.

2. Have you ever read Psalm 139 before:

"For it was you who created my being,
knit me together in my mother's womb.
I thank you for the wonder of my being,
for the wonders of all your creation.

Already you knew my soul,
my body held no secret from you,
when I was being fashioned in secret
and moulded in the depths of the earth."

Paddy
 
Posted by coffee jim (# 3510) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
She put individual choice first, she was an atheist, life was about immediate pleasure.
[TANGENT]
However, many atheists are deeply moral and altruistic. They disagree with Christians about the source of morality and altruism. Conversely, I have met many professing Christians who put themselves first in most situations. I have heard many discussions on church committees about giving substantailly in time and/or effort to those outside the church where the basic question being asked is 'what's in it for us?' Christianity through the ages has been used by Christians as a justification for things like slavery and apartheid.
[/TANGENT]
Arrietty - [Not worthy!] One of the things that really pisses me off about so many Christians (and others) is their assumption that non-theists are morally underdeveloped. There are plenty of atheists and agnostics whose morality rises far above 'imaginary super-daddy will punish me if I'm bad'.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
That is why I am keen on the government to encourage people to get married younger and have children younger so they don't fall prone to childlessness and to increase Britain's low birth rate of 1.6 (we currently need 2.4).
<snip>
We currently need 1.2 million immigrants a year (we only have just under 200,000). Alternatively we need to increase the birth rate and outlaw abortion.
Why do we need to maintain the UK population? Given that there are good arguments that the world is overpopulated (or soon will be - but that is another subject) why not make a small start in the UK - and accept more immigrants if we really do need to maintain UK population. But, if this line of argument is to be followed it's probably best to start a new thread since it isn't directly related to abortion.
 
Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 
I should have thought that younger marriage leads to a higher divorce rate.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Paddy, that's a nice Psalm. What's your point?

You asked for an organization that is dedicated solely to the "pro-life" cause. Here's one: Operation Save America

It used to be called "Operation Rescue". Its sole purpose is to blockade abortion clinics.

From its "purpose" page:

quote:
Operation Save America unashamedly takes up the cause of preborn children in the name of Jesus Christ. We employ only biblical principles. The Bible is our foundation; the Cross of Christ is our strategy; the repentance of the Church of Jesus Christ is our ultimate goal. As the Church changes its heart toward unborn children, God Himself will hear from heaven, forgive our sin, and bring healing to our land. We believe that Jesus Christ is the only answer to the abortion holocaust. It is upon our active repentance in the streets of our cities that the Gospel is visibly lived out. We become to the church, to our city, and to our nation living parables which rightly represent God's heart toward His helpless children.

There are no cheap political solutions to the holocaust presently ravaging our nation. Like slavery before it, abortion is preeminently a Gospel issue. The Cross of Christ is the only solution.
Hope that hat is tasty.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
As to the birth rate issue (an instrumental and not a principle-based argument), with which many anti-legal-abortion groups here in the US are concerned; they also cite the dropping birth rate, but what they're mostly talking about is the birthrate among whites, for the most part, because they are concerned that America will shortly be overrun by blacks, Latinos, Asians ... in other words, that America will shortly be overrun by Americans. (Too late!)

I'm not saying that that's Paddy's view, just that it's one enunciated by some "pro-life" groups here.
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Why do we need to maintain the UK population? Given that there are good arguments that the world is overpopulated (or soon will be - but that is another subject) why not make a small start in the UK - and accept more immigrants if we really do need to maintain UK population. But, if this line of argument is to be followed it's probably best to start a new thread since it isn't directly related to abortion.
Why do we need to maintain the UK population? Well if we don't increase it then by the end of this century we will be reduced to the economic strength of meagre Holland. We won't be able to afford the NHS let alone state pensions. Britain will lose its place as a world power. Many services will collapse due to lack of workers. We will be left with miles of deserted urbanland.

It's a jolly good excuse to start having sex.

As for the world is overpopulated - that argument was one of the 1960s. It's rarely used nowadays except by abortion groups desperately trying to justify abortion in countries like Italy and Germany whose population is already declining.

As for accepting more immigrants. There are several major problems:

- We currently need 1.2 million a year. We're only taking in 200,000.
- Doesn't do much good for race relations!
- Migrants tend to settle on the major cities like Birmingham, London, Manchester...but these aren't the areas with population problems. They need to settle in places like Wales. Now presuming you don't believe its right to force people to settle somewhere, we've got a slight problem!
- Also its morally wrong to steal doctors/nurses and other workers off countries that need them more. For instance, we are currently importing a lot of doctors from South Africa (1/4 of the NHS is going to retire by 2005) - but ZA needs these doctors more than we do (AIDS crisis!).

ANd I think it is directly related to abortion. If we didn't have abortion then we would have an extra 6 million people (plus more since these 6 million would have children of their own etc).

Besides if I had created a new thread I would have been labelled as a crusader.

Laura:

you point out operation save America (who seem like a ghastly organisation I haven't come across before) but I don't see where they call themselves pro-life.

quote:
I'm not saying that that's Paddy's view, just that it's one enunciated by some "pro-life" groups here.
I was talking about the birth-rate in general. I actually don't have figures for seperate asian or african birth rate figures.

Paddy
 
Posted by Pedant (# 3263) on :
 
How awful to be like Holland!
Will we have to wear clogs and dip our chips in mayonaise?
 
Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
quote:
Abortion is the only option given by society to women.
What about adoption or keeping the baby?

quote:
Women who have an abortion don't do so because they see babies as evil or a problem!
Do you have any statistical evidence as to the reasons for abortion? I would have thought the main reason was that they are simply not ready - whether in terms of relationships/finance/career development etc.

quote:
Birth rate and abortions have little connection.
In a country which bans abortion I would expect there to be a clear impact on the birth rate, unless illegal abortion is available or it is easy to travel to neighbouring countries.

quote:
But remember Poland is not yet part of the European Union and it is thus very difficult to travel from one country to another.
What gives you that idea? Poland and its neighbours are developed, free countries. Travelling between them is very easy.

quote:
Errr hang on - abortion can't be done secretly within a few hours. Although for most abortions women do not have to stay overnight at a hospital, they involve a lot of planning, sorting out etc. It's also not terribly secretive - after all two doctors must allow you to have an abortion.
The only people who need know other than the women concerned and those she chooses to inform are medical staff with obligations of confidentiality. Compare with having a baby - can't exactly be kept a secret!

quote:
Abortion is a easy solution for governments. It's much cheaper to get women to terminate their pregnancies than to, say, force employees to increase maternity leave, force boyfriends to contribute to the welfare of the unborn child, fund programs giving support to women or helping to subsidise the costs of raising a child.
Paddy, do you have any political interests other than abortion?

Maternity leave rights have been signficantly increased in recent years. The CSA forces fathers to pay maintenance. Since 1997 we've had big increases in child benefit, family tax credits, chilcare subsidies etc. If women want babies there is plenty of support available.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Why do we need to maintain the UK population? Well if we don't increase it then by the end of this century we will be reduced to the economic strength of meagre Holland. We won't be able to afford the NHS let alone state pensions. Britain will lose its place as a world power. Many services will collapse due to lack of workers. We will be left with miles of deserted urbanland.

It's a jolly good excuse to start having sex.
Paddy
I must admit when I first had sex I wasn't thinking of the economic and social good of the country - how thoughtless of me! [Eek!]

Huia - rather bemused at the turn this is taking.

[fixed UBB in quote]

[ 19. January 2003, 13:04: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I've started a seperate thread to follow the immigration and population tangent.

Alan
 
Posted by day_thomas (# 3630) on :
 
Paddy said
quote:
It's a jolly good excuse to start having sex.
[tangent] Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'lie back and think of England' [Devil] [/tangent]

tom
 
Posted by Paddy Leahy (# 3888) on :
 
Ian S:

quote:
What about adoption or keeping the baby?
Keeping the baby wouldn't solve the problem in most cases. Take for example the stigma of teenage motherhood. Adoption could be an option but the government does little to promote it.

Secondly, in some cases women don't view it as an option. To use the example of teenage motherhood again, teenage girls might be afraid of having a bump for fear of being condemned.

But abortion doesn't solve the problem of teenage pregnancy stigma.

quote:
Do you have any statistical evidence as to the reasons for abortion? I would have thought the main reason was that they are simply not ready - whether in terms of relationships/finance/career development etc.
I don't think there are any statistics on reasons. When you record an abortion you are supposed to record the reason but the reasons are extremely vague. Most UK abortions are put under the category (threat to mental/physical health of the mother). But quite obviously 170,000 people aren't all at risk of damage to mental health!!

I think the biggest cause has to be fear of losing/damaging career prospects since it is the middle classes who account for most of the abortions. Poverty isn't that large a factor since the working class abortion rate is relatively very low.

quote:
In a country which bans abortion I would expect there to be a clear impact on the birth rate, unless illegal abortion is available or it is easy to travel to neighbouring countries.
I actually made a mistake. i didn't mean to put there is little relationship between abortion and the birth rate.

quote:
What gives you that idea? Poland and its neighbours are developed, free countries. Travelling between them is very easy.
Poland and its neighbours are not part of the EU's pact on free movement of labour. They still use very old-fashioned systems which make it difficult to enter and leave countries easily. Furthermore, since they are not a part of the EU any abortions would have to be funded privately not publicly.

quote:
Paddy, do you have any political interests other than abortion?
Of course. I spent the other day arguing about why the congestion charge in London will work for instance.

quote:
Maternity leave rights have been signficantly increased in recent years. The CSA forces fathers to pay maintenance. Since 1997 we've had big increases in child benefit, family tax credits, chilcare subsidies etc. If women want babies there is plenty of support available.
Still not enough. Sweden allows mothers to have a year's worth of maternity leave.

The UK's maternity pay is also the third lowest in Europe (Reuters, 16th Jan). See: http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/030116/11/1iroe.html

day_Thomas:

quote:
Paddy said

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a jolly good excuse to start having sex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tangent] Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'lie back and think of England'
Lol yes. Having just re-read that quote I cannot believe I used the word 'jolly'!

Paddy
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Paddy,

Against my better judgment, I decided to take another look at this thread, and I find that you are now maligning the Netherlands, which is the proper name for the country you incorrectley designate as Holland. It is small country, but I see no justification for calling it meagre. It is not an economic, political, or military major power, and I think, for the most part, it is quite happy not to be. It has a few minor problems and has its unique (and in some ways peculiar) Dutch characteristics, but it is a lovely country, justly proud of its culture. International clout is not everything.

Greta, proud of her Dutch ancestry and apologizing for the need to reply to the tangent
 
Posted by Sleepyhead (# 3862) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy: (19th, 9:55)
As for accepting more immigrants. There are several major problems: [snip]
- Doesn't do much good for race relations!
So you're a segregationist? Wow.
 
Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 
I don't think abortion is a good thing. But I do not think it should be illegal. If abortion is made illegal, it will not disappear. It will move into back alleys, and women will die from unsanitary, dangerous, and unregulated procedures. There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without making them illegal. The distribution of birth control information, for example, or the promotion of adoption. (without any discouraging laws such as Florida's law that requires an unwed mother to take an advertisement in a newspaper if she plans to give up her baby for adoption)
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Paddy wrote
quote:
Mrs Tubbs:

You mention Melanie Blatt but I am not referring to the All Saints, rather the Appleton sisters. In short, what has Melanie Blatt got to do with the price of peaches?
Well, whatever else you know or don’t know, you know nothing about popular music [Razz] … And you certainly haven’t read excepts from the Appleton’s fascinating biography … [Big Grin]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Melanie Blatt?
The All Saints?
The Appleton Sisters?

There are times when my American ignorance is indeed bliss. I assume that they aren't even worth a google. [Snore]

Although The Price of Peaches would make a great name for a girl group.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
Paddy,

On the thread in Hell, Day Thomas asked you :

quote:
You are Pro-life right? So why this comment about Saddam (to be found in the oil, america and iraq thread).

quote:
With all credit to Bush, he is only trying to do what he sees as the moral thing. I personally think he is right to dispose of Saddam - though disagree with the methods. It would be better to assassinate Saddam.
So Assaination. Thats not being Pro-life is it? Are well, i suppose hoping you might be consistent would be too much.
And you answered :

quote:
Perfectly legitimate question. But I see Saddam as a real threat to the world. I have studied him quite a bit. I think it would be the pro-life thing to do to get rid of him. I don't see how he can be arrested and placed in jail so the only option is to kill him. It's a case of killing to stop mass killing.

Although I understand your point, in this case I see it as the pro-life thing to do to stop Saddam.
I don't know whether you read my previous post on this thread. I think I could be described as pro-life in any normal way of understanding these words, however I am not part of any 'pro-life' group because I would not necessarily agree with all their conclusions or methods of action.

Anyway the point I made in my previous post was that maybe sometimes abortion (killing an unborn baby) might be the lesser of two evils when compared to the risk of killing an older already-born sibling.

You seem to entertain this as a possibility (ie. the concept of the lesser of two evils) in the case of Saddam Hussein, so why not in this case?

Gracie
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
Paddy,

I think (given apparent lack of interest in discussing the differences between Anglican and Roman Catholic outlooks) what you're really asking in the title of this thread is something like "How can you be a Christian and not be an anti-abortion activist ?"

To the extent that such a question is a genuine desire to understand other people's views (rather than a provocation designed to give you the opportunity to put forward your own strongly-held convictions) I think it's been answered in terms of
• gradualism, rather than binary categories of human/nonhuman, rights/lack of rights
• reluctance to judge others, rather than wishing to impose the penalties of the criminal law on those who have taken what we imagine to be a painful decision in difficult circumstances
• different views about the role of the state and the individual in bringing about outcomes which we might see as desirable
• different reactions to the apparent extremism displayed by some people on both sides of the question, and views on activism in general.

None of which dimensions seems to have any direct link to Christianity. "Preserve human life at all costs" is not a position that it is particularly easy to derive from the teaching of Jesus...

Russ
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
May I add that, unless I have missed something, I am still waiting for detail about what ++Rowan had to say? (I find it hard to believe he was either speaking mainly of politics or using statistics...)

There also seem to be no references to the actual Church of England statement (which I quoted previously), which hardly can be taken to reveal a pro-abortion stance. I am assuming that your problem is not with the document, but with insufficient attention to how it could be made more widely known or accepted? (Yes, Paddy, I know that the C of E allowance for abortion in certain, unstated circumstances is not one you would find acceptable.)
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Re ++Rowan, here is an interesting link on his views re abortion and other things.

Also here, from the Guardian.

quote:
From Lost Icons, 2000

"I accept that the termination of a pregnancy is not necessarily in all circumstances the worst possible moral option, even though I consider this to be the termination of a human life.

And, like many others I am sickened by the rhetoric and practice of anti-abortion activists whose respect for human life turns out to be curiously selective ... I am genuinely puzzled by political parties, governments or churches that appear to find a greater moral problem in abortion than in the manufacture, marketing and use of indiscriminate weaponry, from cluster bombs and poison gas to nuclear warheads."

 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Re ++Rowan, here is an interesting link on his views re abortion and other things.

Also here, from the Guardian.

quote:
From Lost Icons, 2000

"I accept that the termination of a pregnancy is not necessarily in all circumstances the worst possible moral option, even though I consider this to be the termination of a human life.

And, like many others I am sickened by the rhetoric and practice of anti-abortion activists whose respect for human life turns out to be curiously selective ... I am genuinely puzzled by political parties, governments or churches that appear to find a greater moral problem in abortion than in the manufacture, marketing and use of indiscriminate weaponry, from cluster bombs and poison gas to nuclear warheads."
I think Paddy's comments about Saddam illustrate ++Rowan's point beautifully [Big Grin]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Sigh... Tubbs beat me to that one! (And, not being expert in such matters, I cannot comment, though I am sure others can, about Paddy's concept of Bush's 'pro life' administration and court... though I have heard that those who oppose Roe vs Wade need not oppose abortion at all...)
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
That is so, Newman's Own. I'm certainly a liberal constructionist (constitutionally speaking) but I criticise Roe freely for relying on an invented privacy right (not in the Constitution) and the trimester system (dated), rather than on an equal-rights argument (definitely in the C) and perhaps a modification as to how long abortion is legal. Also, it focussed too much on the rights of physicians rather than the rights of women. The Roe standard essentially says that the state's interest in protecting the fetus increases as the pregnancy goes on, which is fair enough as far as that goes, but it is too limited based on our current understanding of viability. Per Roe, in the 1st trimester, no state interference with the right to obtain abortion legally; in the second, some restrictions, after that, states may limit freely. Abortion on demand at 24 weeks very much flies in the face of current state of the art re: viability, and is legally dated, imho.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
posted by Laura:
Also, it [Roe v Wade] focussed too much on the rights of physicians rather than the rights of women.
That's a new one to me. And rather interesting.

To be honest, I'm a libertarian on the abortion issue: the state should have no voice since this is a personal matter.

But then I'm old enough to have experienced legal restriction of birth control. I got my first prescription for birth-control pills from a doctor in my college town who was breaking the law by prescribing them to unmarried women. He didn't seem happy about it, but I suspect that like another doctor (who later performed one of my abortions and also provided prenatal care for my daughter), he had seen too much of the aftermath of illegal abortions.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Oh, I agree, jlg, re: the libertarian view. It was an extraordinary thing for me to look out my window on Wednesday this week and see hundreds of thousands of people marching against something that is none of their business. But since our dear state and federal gov'ts seem determined to get involved, I want there to be a letter on file from the dear Supremes telling them to bugger off. [Big Grin]

Oh. Was that too direct? And not purgatorial enough?

[ 25. January 2003, 03:04: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
For those who consider abortion to be the deliberate - and therefore wholly unjustifiable - killing of an unborn child, the "personal issue" argument makes about as much sense as saying that if an adult decides to kill their four-year old child, it's a "personal issue" and not a matter for legislation.

On a genuinely personal note, I thank God that - in the US - there are enough determined people to ensure such pro-life action. And I pray that the situation in Britain will move in that direction.
 
Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
On a genuinely personal note, I thank God that - in the US - there are enough determined people to ensure such pro-life action. And I pray that the situation in Britain will move in that direction.
JL, it's all very well that you have such a profound love for the unborn, but what about the thousands, no, milions of actually-born babies and their mothers that live in poverty? Will you be donating your time and money to help them? This is what really annoys me about the anti-choice people (oops! my bias is showing). They want the babies to come out, but they seem to care precious little about what happens after that.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
I think that abortion is a terrible thing, but sometimes a needed option. I suppose I agree with ++Rowan here. I have heard activists argue against abortion even when the mother's life is threatened, and there is a seriously defective fetus that will have a short and agonizing existence--unwanted by its mother or anybody else either. My heart weeps over these things, but I think sometimes abortion is a terrible, painful, but necessary choice.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Not only that, but how many people who claim to have such respect for life are firmly in favor of the death penalty--from GWB on down?
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
I came back and caught up after a few weeks. I haven't noticed anyone changing their minds much.

Boy, am I glad I left this thread.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Following on from Elizabeth, its interesting that many supporters of the anti-abortion lobby are also the first to call for the reduction of welfare benefits and the heinous effect of single parenthood. They can't have it both ways : if they wish to collectively enforce their views on others, then it seems only reasonable that they should then ensure similar collective response to the consequences of their enforcement.

Mind you, I suppose it gives them extra ammunition to moan about how terrible today's society is, and how we would all be so much better off if things were like they were at some other time in the past, usually Victoriana or the first century.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elizabeth Anne:
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
On a genuinely personal note, I thank God that - in the US - there are enough determined people to ensure such pro-life action. And I pray that the situation in Britain will move in that direction.
JL, it's all very well that you have such a profound love for the unborn, but what about the thousands, no, milions of actually-born babies and their mothers that live in poverty? Will you be donating your time and money to help them? This is what really annoys me about the anti-choice people (oops! my bias is showing). They want the babies to come out, but they seem to care precious little about what happens after that.
Elizabeth,

I do actually donate a considerable amount of money to UK charities such as LIFE, whose purpose is to provide help to those women who choose to go through with their pregnancies in difficult circumstances. They also provide therapy for women traumatised as a result of their decision to abort.

And Merseymike, I have NEVER condemned single mothers, so please don't try to lump me in with the Daily Mail crowd. Thanks.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I wasn't trying to suggest that you did, but unfortunately, there are many who would come into that category, and it doesn't make me any more sympathetic to their aims.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
JL,

And your point (taken with mine) demonstrates how this issue will never de-polarize. We are staring, though in my case with some respect for principled opponents, across an unbridgeable chasm.

I'm taking logician's lead, and leaving the argument. It's definitely run its course.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Logician:
quote:
I haven't noticed anyone changing their minds much.

Boy, am I glad I left this thread.
Ah, so unlike the war threads then?
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Laura,

It has been many decades since I read Roe, but I seem to recall that there were two or three cases that foreshadowed the Court's announcememt (invention/discovery/enactment/fabrication) of a fundamental right to privacy. I think the use of the word 'penumbra', however, was absolute genius.

I have always thought that Roe was in fact more anti-abortion than it logically could have been. I think the Court could have overturned the state laws on a simple rational basis test, rather than having to search about for fundamental rights. In no other area that I know of does government take any cognizance of the unborn. The fact of birth, on the other hand, has important consequences in many areas of state concern, e.g., citizenship, census enumeration, taxation, and welfare benefits.

Under a kind of estoppel theory, I think the Court could have ruled that the state should rationally be barred from using its penal code to protect the rights of an entity it does not in other respects recognize. Under such an approach, any laws prohibiting abortion would be invalid.

Greta
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
I'm leaving too. I use the Ship as a therapeutic escape from the stress of the legal rack...er...profession, and now I find myself talking cases. It makes me want to sue myself for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Greta
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
It never fails to amaze me in the abortion debate, the complete inability for people to view the situation objectively.

As someone said, the "anti-abortion? Don't have one then!" stance is intellectually retarded. It shows a complete inability to stand aside from the predujice of one's own possition and look objectively.

If a fetus is a human being with human rights, then killing it is murder.

Therefore, to call it "personal choice" makes no sense unless one calls all instances of homicide "personal moral choice".

Now, that first statement starts with a big "IF". It is the crucial statement around which the debate revolves.

Strangely however, I have never heard a pro-choice campaigner structure their central arguement around refuting this core central statement: "A Fetus is a human being with human rights".

Instead they will start their arguements from statments concerning:
"Health of Women"
"Good of Society"
"Backstreet abortions"
"Unwanted Children"

However, until they address and convincingly refute the central statement on some concrete ground, philosophical, moral or scientific, to attempt to give any weight to these other statements is at best absurd, and at worst barbaric.

To see what I mean, let us fantasise for a moment that a fetus is a human being and see how these arguements then sound.

"killing children who are not wanted saves social services time and effort."

"Banning the killing of Children would only lead to children being killed in backstreets anyway"

"It is the right of every mother to kill their child"

The statements are clearly laughable or horrific.

Now, of course, if any pro-choice individual cares to put forward a convincing arguement for saying that an unborn child is not a human being...they should go right ahead.

I don't doubt there are significant social advantages to abortion, but the idea that any kind of social advantage can negate the intentional taking of innocent life is horrific.

It utterly staggers me that any pro-abortion campaigner should attempt to formulate a defence of abortion on such grounds without having first comprehensively overturned the notion of an unborn child having human rights.

Incidently, Some Trivia: Current research suggests a subsequent 30% increase in risk of breast cancer for women who have had an abortion.

Matt
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
...penumbra...
Actually, I think the great W. O. Douglas described it as an "emanation" from a penumbra. Yuck. I see a sort-of privacy issue in the Fourth Amendment (that is, the right to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures), but that doesn't really get us where we're going. And besides, the Supremes don't seem to find anything in violation of the Fourth A anymore, so it's a paper tiger, really. I mean, if they can make random employees, upon whom no suspicion of drug use lies, and who are not entrusted with airplanes or state secrets, pee in cups for drug testing, then I'd say the 4th Amendment is dead and gone.

But that's just me.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Strangely however, I have never heard a pro-choice campaigner structure their central arguement around refuting this core central statement: "A Fetus is a human being with human rights".

Incidently, Some Trivia: Current research suggests a subsequent 30% increase in risk of breast cancer for women who have had an abortion.

Matt
*Arooga, Arooga* Straw men alert!

Sorry, can't let lies go unaddressed:

That last "trivia" bit you list has been debunked; and anyway, fairly irrelevant is, too, even if true, given your correct observation in your post that we must focus on the principle of the mattter. So you castigate people for ignoring the principle of the matter (which if you read this thread, you'll see has been pretty well discussed, I think), and then you engage in it yourself. I guess pro-lifers are just as fond of trivia that seems to support their position as anyone.

As Planned Parenthood notes in their fact sheet on pro-life misinformation, there have been at least 80 research studies worldwide have collected data about breast cancer and reproductive factors such as childbirth, menstrual cycles, birth control pills, and abortion. Approximately 30 studies have examined the risk of developing breast cancer for women who have had abortions. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, and major universities say that the most reliable studies show no increased risk, and they consider the entire body of research inconclusive (ACS, 1999; NCI, 2002; Rosenfield, 1994?; RCOG, 2001; WHO, 2000).

You may not like Planned P as a source, but the studies they examine came from independent organizations.

I note also that studies have also shown that nuns have an increased risk of breast cancer. I'm sure that pro-life groups aren't advocating "informing" prospective nuns of this "fact".

As to human rights, I'm not sure what debaters you're listening to, but my support for legal access to abortion hinges on my conviction that the fetus until a certain point does not possess any rights at all. With few exceptions, legal precedent does not support that the fetus possesses the same rights as a born human. It is a long-held and well-recognized doctrine, whether you like it or not. This is why so-called pro-lifers have tried end-runs around the Constitution by putting legislation allowing prosecution of those who cause miscarriage by violence, so that they can argue the next step.

The law also has recognized for years this grey area -- killing isn't always murder. You can kill a full-grown human being, in full possession of human rights, without going to jail, if your justification is recognized. You can even kill an entirely innocent human being without going to jail, under certain circumstances. So people should stop pretending that this is black and white. It is not. It isn't enough to say "the fetus has human rights" or that the Bible says "Thou Shalt not Kill". If that were so, then capital punishment or self-defense, or war would be equally wrong. Most pro-lifers aren't saying that, I've noticed.

Also Matt, your post shows just the kind of nmot-giving-a-crap about women that characterizes so much of the so-called pro-life debate, it's no wonder the movement provokes so much anger in observers.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
No, Matt, its the other way round - you have to justify your own view that a clump of cells which sould not live outside the room is entitled to the same rights as a walking, talking, fully developed person, and you have to do that without recourse to your religious beliefs, which are not held by everyone, and which thus should not be imposed on those with different views.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
aaagh...this keyboard is playing up

Room = womb
Sould = could

Sorry.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
No, Matt, its the other way round - you have to justify your own view that a clump of cells which sould not live outside the room is entitled to the same rights as a walking, talking, fully developed person, and you have to do that without recourse to your religious beliefs, which are not held by everyone, and which thus should not be imposed on those with different views.
This is a critical point. It cannot be a religious justification. Otherwise, one is (along with many who support the pro-life cause) favoring the establishment of religious authority in a Constitutionally secular state (the US, that is).
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
*Arooga, Arooga* Straw men alert!

Sorry, can't let lies go unaddressed:

quote:
That last "trivia" bit you list has been debunked;
No it hasn't. Be careful. First Planned Parenthoods Systematic Review is three years old. Things have moved on since then.

Second, the distinction should be made between good studies and bad studies. There is a confounding factor, in that use of contraceptive pills decreases risk of breast cancer, while abortion increases risk. These are confounding factor because women having abortions have a higher than average use of the contraceptive pill.

Shake down all the figures properly, you come out with somewhere around 1000 breast cancer deaths per annual cohort attributable to abortion.

quote:
and anyway, fairly irrelevant is, too, even if true, given your correct observation in your post that we must focus on the principle of the mattter.
agreed. Which is why I threw it in as Trivia. It should not be seen as an integral part of my post.

quote:
So you castigate people for ignoring the principle of the matter (which if you read this thread, you'll see has been pretty well discussed, I think), and then you engage in it yourself.
No. for the above stated reason. In fact, I didn't attempt to make a case either for pro-life or Pro-abortion in my post. Merely, I identified the key question which must be addressed.

I said "If" an fetus is an unborn human being with human rights...I merely drew the battle lines. I didn't attempt to answer my own hypothetical.

quote:
As Planned Parenthood notes in their fact sheet on pro-life misinformation, there have been at least 80 research studies worldwide have collected data about breast cancer and reproductive factors such as childbirth, menstrual cycles, birth control pills, and abortion. Approximately 30 studies have examined the risk of developing breast cancer for women who have had abortions. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, and major universities say that the most reliable studies show no increased risk, and they consider the entire body of research inconclusive (ACS, 1999; NCI, 2002; Rosenfield, 1994?; RCOG, 2001; WHO, 2000).
No study dated post 2000 in there. In fact we have moved beyond mere statistical study, and now have a coherent theory of why termination increases breast cancer risk. It's to do with end cell differentiation of breast cells under the influence of Progesterone during the third trimester of pregnancy. When this does not occur (as in terminations), the cells are left in a state from which they are likely to become carcinomas.

quote:
You may not like Planned P as a source, but the studies they examine came from independent organizations.
First, the Royal college of Obs and Gyne is hardly "independant". As the overseers of 100,000 terminations a year in this country they are not exactly going to be falling over themselves to accept evidence of risks to women.

quote:
I note also that studies have also shown that nuns have an increased risk of breast cancer.
Again, an easily explained confounding factor here is prevalence of HPV virus. (Cause of cervical cancer.) Since everyone dies of something, the proportions will shift accordingly if you are in a low risk for some other factor.

A parrallel of this is that smokers *appear* to have a lower risk of dying of Alzheimers disease. The truth is just that they never live to be old enough to get it.

Likewise, the increased risk of Breast Ca in nuns is proportional to the decreased risk of Cervical Ca in the same group.

Look at the overall life expectancy of nuns and it's a good deal higher than average.

Anyway.....as previously discussed, this is all a smoke cloud. As I said, the comment I added was mere "trivia" and not related to the rest of my post.

quote:
As to human rights, I'm not sure what debaters you're listening to, but my support for legal access to abortion hinges on my conviction that the fetus until a certain point does not possess any rights at all.
Right, now we get somewhere, credit to you for being candid. What "certian point"? Justify please.

quote:
With few exceptions, legal precedent does not support that the fetus possesses the same rights as a born human.
Well, not sure of your nationality, but preservation of life from conception is part of the traditional form of the hypocratic oath. It's been part of English statute law since the infant live preservation act of 1831.

I'm not awfully interested in legal precedent however. It's hardly a good measure. For the majority of our history, legal precedent has not given women the same rights as men.

quote:
The law also has recognized for years this grey area -- killing isn't always murder. You can kill a full-grown human being, in full possession of human rights, without going to jail, if your justification is recognized.
Agreed. But only on two grounds.
1) Their rights have been diminished.
2) Some superior right overrules the individuals right to life.

quote:
You can even kill an entirely innocent human being without going to jail, under certain circumstances.[/uqote]

What circumstances? Name some? Do any of them directly transfer to the unborn.

[quote] It isn't enough to say "the fetus has human rights" or that the Bible says "Thou Shalt not Kill".
No it's not. But it's a good starting point. I would think it very much puts the onus on the pro-choice lobby to make a strong case.

quote:
If that were so, then capital punishment or self-defense, or war would be equally wrong. Most pro-lifers aren't saying that, I've noticed.
Yeah...I'm thinking this sounds like an american. It's very sad the way anti-abortion has somehow slotted into the "right wing" political agenda.

quote:
Also Matt, your post shows just the kind of nmot-giving-a-crap about women that characterizes so much of the so-called pro-life debate, it's no wonder the movement provokes so much anger in observers.
Not giving a crap about women. Elaborate please? I would be inclined to say that 50% of the unborn are female. I most certianly "give a crap" about them. In addition, I sincerely do not believe abortion to be in women's interests.

matt
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Its not up to you to make that decision, matt. You will never have to get pregnant or give birth.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Oh, good, Matt cares about women. The unborn kind.

Thanks for proving my point and have a nice day! I think I'll go sit in a corner and suck my thumb for a bit.

If I understand you correctly, you claim that "we" now understand better than the eighty studies between whenever and 2000, but you cite no support for that contention. You suggest that the RCOG is biased, so biased that their longitudinal study is meritless. In any case, the Planned Parenthood summary I cited, which can be read here includes a 2002 National Cancer Institute Study. Is the NCI biased? It also makes clear that the multi-factor issue you mention is what makes it extremely difficult to be certain what causes breast cancer, and cites the Cell Differentiation theory which so-called pro-life groups rely on for this hypothesis.

I apologize for the big block quote here, but it's important, I think, to see it:

quote:
Hypothesis: Hormones Lead to Breast Cell Differentiation

The theory linking pregnancy termination and breast cancer is based on the hormonal disruption that occurs when a woman's pregnancy is interrupted. Pregnancy initiates a surge of sex hormones (estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin), which leads to differentiation of the cells in the breast glands in preparation for lactation. The changing concentrations of hormones during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy lead to increased differentiation. In a first pregnancy, the results of these hormonal changes permanently alter the structure of the breast. Adherents of this theory claim that interruption of the first trimester of a first pregnancy causes a cessation of cell differentiation that may result in a subsequent increase in the risk of cancerous growth in these tissues (Brumsted & Riddick, 1990; Westhoff, 1997). Attempts to prove this theory, however, have failed.

Many Factors Contribute to Inconclusive Study Results

At least 80 research studies worldwide have collected data about breast cancer and reproductive factors such as childbirth, menstrual cycles, birth control pills, and abortion. Approximately 30 studies have examined the risk of developing breast cancer for women who have had abortions. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, and major universities say that the most reliable studies show no increased risk, and they consider the entire body of research inconclusive (ACS, 1999; NCI, 2002; Rosenfield, 1994?; RCOG, 2001; WHO, 2000).

A number of factors may render a study unreliable:

Miscarriages and induced abortion affect a woman's body differently but many studies have not distinguished between them.

Many women do not report miscarriages because they are unaware they have had them.

Abortions are often unreported because of the privacy of the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Some studies have not examined the possibly different effects of abortion after or before a full-term pregnancy.

Other studies have not been careful to examine the impact of age at the time of abortion and age at the time of first childbirth.

Many studies have been too small to be statistically significant. (Wingo et al., 1997; NCI, 2002).
Two of the Strongest Studies Published to Date Show no Overall Relationship Between Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer

One of the most highly regarded studies on abortion and breast cancer was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. This study of 1.5 million women found no overall connection between the two (Melbye et al., 1997). This study benefited from its size — 1.5 million women — and by linking data from the National Registry of Induced Abortions and the Danish Cancer Registry, thereby avoiding one of the pitfalls observed in some case-control studies — that women with breast cancer were more likely to recall having had an induced abortion than women without breast cancer, particularly because abortion had been illegal (Brody, 1997; Westhoff, 1997). An accompanying editorial on the results of the study led the writer to conclude that, "in short, a woman need not worry about the risk of breast cancer when facing the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy" (Hartge, 1997).

Another large cohort study was done in Sweden. It followed, for as long as 20 years beginning in 1966, 49,000 women who had received abortions before the age of 30. Not only did the study show no indication of an overall risk of breast cancer after an induced abortion in the first trimester, but it also suggested that there could well be a slightly reduced risk. Among women who had given birth prior to induced abortion, the relative risk for breast cancer was 0.58; for those who had never given birth, the relative risk was 1.09; for the total sample, the relative risk was 0.77 (Lindefors Harris et al., 1989).

Studies Published During the Past 20 Years Offer Mixed Results

Before Melbye's seminal study appeared in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the body of published research showed inconsistent and inconclusive evidence — some found abortion to have a protective effect, others found a slightly elevated risk. Many of these studies were hindered by the small sample size, others failed to distinguish between induced and spontaneous abortion, and others did not take confounding factors into account (NCI, 1999).

A 2001 population-based case-control study of women in China sought to determine whether there was an association between induced abortion and breast cancer. Abortion is common and well-accepted in China, so women involved in this study would not be prone to underreporting their abortion histories — a problem which has rendered other studies unreliable. Because of the small number of women in the study who had never had a live birth, only women who had at least one live birth were included in the analysis. The study compared 1,459 women with breast cancer with 1,556 controls. No relation was found between ever having an induced abortion and breast cancer. Additionally, women who had three or more induced abortions were not at greater risk of breast cancer than other women (Sanderson, et al., 2001).

Another case-control study of women who had at least one child was conducted in Washington state to examine the relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer. A cohort of women who gave birth between 1984 and 1994 were identified. From this cohort, 463 women who developed breast cancer were each matched with five control women. Induced abortion was not found to increase the risk of developing breast cancer — the relative risk for breast cancer was 0.9 among women who had ever had an induced abortion (Tang, et al., 2000).

A 1999 population-based case-control study examined data from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study to determine what, if any, connections exist between induced abortion and other reproductive events in adolescence and the development of breast cancer later in life. The authors reported that neither induced nor spontaneous abortion during adolescence was connected to an increased risk of breast cancer. They did, however, observe that breastfeeding conferred some protection against breast cancer (Marcus et al., 1999).

In 1996, Joel Brind and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 28 published reports describing 23 studies on induced abortion and breast cancer. Based on these studies, the authors calculated that induced abortion places women at a slightly increased risk for developing breast cancer (Brind et al., 1996). This analysis has been criticized for attempting to calculate the odds for developing breast cancer from widely varying studies (Blettner et al., 1997), some of which have been criticized for methodological flaws and for failing to calculate their results from the raw data of the original studies (Melbye et al., 1997).

A 1994 study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, was a case-control study of 845 women in Washington State who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 1983 through 1990, and of 961 controls. The study found that among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50 percent higher than among other women. Highest risks were observed when the abortion was done at ages younger than 18. No increased risk was associated with a spontaneous abortion. However, the study was relatively small, lacked objective measures for establishing pregnancy duration, and was susceptible to reporting bias, since a breast cancer diagnosis may influence a woman's recall or disclosure of her reproductive history. The authors reported that the study's limitations "argue against a firm conclusion at this time" and called for further research (Daling et al., 1994). An editorial that accompanied the report said that "it is difficult to see how [the study results] will be informative to the public" (Rosenberg, 1994).

A 1989 study matched 1,451 women in New York State whose breast cancer was reported from 1976-1980 with controls of equivalent age and residence (Howe et al., 1989). The study examined state health records for the prior incidence of abortion or miscarriage. An odds ratio of 1.9 was found for cases with a history of only induced abortions, 1.5 for only spontaneous abortions, and 4.0 for repeated interrupted pregnancies with no intervening births. However, the cohort consisted only of women under age 40 and the follow-back search was restricted to events that occurred since 1971. The authors believed that the study was inconclusive.

In a 1987 study, researchers reported "little relation of breast cancer risk with abortions or miscarriages" (La Vecchia, 1987). Four years later, the same researchers again found no consistent relationship (Parazzini, 1991). Other researchers concluded in 1988 that the data "suggest that the risk of breast cancer is not materially affected by abortion, regardless of whether it occurs before or after the first term birth" (Rosenberg, 1988).

A 1985 study examined the association between spontaneous abortion prior to a first birth and the risk of breast cancer among 3,315 Connecticut women who gave birth between 1946 and 1965. Among women who experienced one childbirth, a prior miscarriage was associated with a 3.5-fold increase in the risk of breast cancer. While the study concluded that an abortion prior to the first live birth may increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, it examined only spontaneous abortion. Among the questions left open to speculation was whether a hormonal imbalance may have resulted in both the spontaneous abortion and the onset of cancer (Hadjimichael et al., 1986).

A 1981 study of women in Los Angeles County looked at both oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors. The cohort consisted of 163 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1972 and 1978. All of the women were aged 32 or younger at the time of diagnosis. The study found that a first-trimester abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, before first full-term pregnancy appeared to cause a relative risk of 2.4 for subsequent development of breast cancer. The extremely small cohort size and the age restriction of the methodology rendered the results inconclusive (Pike et al., 1981).
Risk Factors for Breast Cancer are Varied
In addition to the reproductive factors that affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer, a wide variety of other considerations have been the subject of continued research by epidemiologists. Of particular concern are factors related to genetics, nutrition (especially dietary fat intake), age, and the environment (exposure to carcinogens) (Jones, 1990).

A family history of breast cancer is reported to increase a woman's risk of developing the disease twofold to threefold (Jones, 1990). In one study (Sattin et al., 1985), women with a first-degree relative (a mother or sister) with breast cancer had a relative risk 2.3 times that of women without a family history of breast cancer. For women with both an affected mother and sister, the relative risk was 14.

Of potential carcinogenic significance is the finding that environmentally derived chemicals are secreted into the breast fluid and concentrated by the alveolar ductal system. For example, five minutes after a woman smokes a cigarette, nicotine appears in her breast secretion. Although smoking has not been linked to breast cancer, the finding shows that almost anything to which a woman is exposed may appear in her breast fluid (Jones, 1990).

Nutritional considerations have focused on dietary fat, with the exception of monosaturated fat such as olive oil. While Asian women show a lower incidence of breast cancer than women in western countries, women who move from areas of low to high incidence, such as Japanese women moving to Hawaii, show a slow but definite increase in breast cancer over successive generations (Wynder & Rose, 1984). Other research has investigated certain metabolic conversions that are affected by total body weight (Deslepeyre et al., 1985).

Some studies have found that alcohol consumption may be implicated in breast cancer risk, and that the risk may increase in women who consume greater than three drinks of alcohol per week (Hiatt et al., 1984; Willett et al, 1987; Schatzkin et al., 1987).

Works Cited in the Article:

ACS - American Cancer Society. (1999, accessed November 2). Breast Cancer : Prevention and Risk Factors [Online]. http://www3.cancer.org/cancerinfo/load_cont.asp?st=pr&ct=5
Bartholomew, Lynne L. & David A. Grimes. (1998). "The Alleged Association Between Induced Abortion and Risk of Breast Cancer: Biology or Bias?" Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 53(11), 708-714.

Blettner, Maria, et al. (1997). Comment on Brind et al., "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 51, 465-468.

Brind, Joel, et al. (1996). "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 50, 481-496.

Brody, Jane E. (1997, January 9). "Big Study Finds No Link in Abortion and Cancer." New York Times, p. A12.

Brumsted, John R. & Daniel H. Riddick. (1990). "The Endocrinology of the Mammary Gland." In William H. Hindle, ed., Breast Disease for Gynecologists. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.

Daling, Janet R., et al. (1994). "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion." Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 86(21), 1584-1592.

Deslepeyre, J.P., et al. (1985). "Fat tissue: A Steroid Reservoir and Site of Steroid Metabolism." Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 61, 564.

Hadjimichael, O.C., et al. (1986). "Abortion Before First Livebirth and Risk of Breast Cancer." British Journal of Cancer, 53, 281-284.

Hartge, Patricia. (1997). "Abortion, Breast Cancer, and Epidemiology." New England Journal of Medicine, 336(2), 127-128.

Hiatt, R.A. & R.D. Bawol. (1984). "Alcoholic Beverage Consumption in Breast Cancer Incidence." American Journal of Epidemiology, 120, 676.

Howe, Holly L., et al. (1989). "Early Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk among Women Under Age 40." International Journal of Epidemiology, 18(2), 300-304.

Jones, Ronald C. (1990). "Epidemiology - Risk Factors." In William H. Hindle, ed., Breast Disease for Gynecologists. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.

Kelsey, Jennifer L. & Marilie D. Gammon. (1991). The Epidemiology of Breast Cancer. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society.

La Vecchia, Carlo. (1987). "General Epidemiology of Breast Cancer in Northern Italy." International Journal of Epidemiology, 16, 347-355.

Lindefors Harris, Britt-Marie, et al. (1989). "Risk of Cancer of the Breast after Legal Abortion during First Trimester: A Swedish Register Study." British Medical Journal, 299(December 9), 1430-1432.

Marcus, Pamela M., et al. (1999). "Adolescent Reproductive Events and Subsequent Breast Cancer Risk." American Journal of Public Health, 89(8), 1244-1247.

Melbye, Mads, et al. (1997). "Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer." New England Journal of Medicine, 336(2), 81-85.

NCI - National Cancer Institute. (1999, accessed 2000, January 28). Cancer Facts: Abortion and Breast Cancer [Online]. http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_53.htm

_____. (2002, March 6, accessed May 21). Cancer Facts: Abortion and Breast Cancer. [Online] http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_53.htm

Parazzini, Fabio. (1991). "Spontaneous and Induced Abortions and Risk of Breast Cancer." International Journal of Cancer, 48, 816-820.

Pike, M.C., et al. (1981). "Oral Contraceptive Use and Early Abortion As Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Young Women." British Journal of Cancer, 43, 72-76.

Querido, Melissa. (1999). "State of the States: A Selection of Legislative Initiatives around the Country." Reproductive Freedom News, 8(3), p.3.

Rosenberg, Lynn. (1988). "Breast Cancer in Relation to the Occurrence and Time Of Induced and Spontaneous Abortion." American Journal of Epidemiology, 127, 981-989.

_____. (1994). "Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer: More Scientific Data are Needed." Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 86(21), 1569-1570.

Rosenfield, Allan. (1994?). "Breast Cancer and Abortion - Comments by Allan Rosenfield, M.D., Dean, Columbia University School of Public Health." Photocopy.

RCOG - Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2001, May, accessed 2002, May 21). What You Need to Know About Abortion Care. [Online]. http://www.rcog.org.uk/print.asp?PageID=701&Type=main

Sanderson, Maureen, et al. (2001). "Abortion History and Breast Cancer Risk: Results from the

Shanghai Breast Cancer Study." International Journal of Cancer, 92, 899-905.

Sattin, R.W., et al. (1985). "Family History and the Risk of Breast Cancer." Journal of the American Medical Association, 253(13), 1908-1913.

Schatzkin, A., et al. (1987). "Alcohol Consumption and Breast Cancer in the Epidemiologic Follow-Up Study of the First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey." New England Journal of Medicine, 316, 1169-1174.

Simon, Stephanie. (2002, March 24). "Abortion Foes Seize on Reports of Cancer Link in Ad Campaign." Los Angeles Times.

Slobodzian, Joseph A. (1999, April 1). "Philadelphia Transit Authority, Religious Group Settle over Pulled Ads." Philadelphia Inquirer.

Tang, Mei-Tzu, et al. (2000). "Induced Abortion in Relation to Breast Cancer among Parous Women: A Birth Certificate Registry Study." Epidemiology, 11, 177-180.

Westhoff, Carolyn. (1997). "Abortion and Breast Cancer: Good Data at Last." IPPF Medical Bulletin. 31(2), 1-2.

Willett, W.C., et al. (1987). "Moderate Alcohol Consumption and the Risk of Breast Cancer." New England Journal of Medicine, 316(19), 1174-1180.

Wingo, Phyllis A., et al. (1997). "The Risk of Breast Cancer Following Spontaneous or Induced Abortion." Cancer Causes and Control, 8, 93-108.

WHO - World Health Organization. (2000, June, accessed 2002, May 21). Induced Abortion Does Not Increase the Risk of Breast Cancer. [Online]. http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact240.html

Wynder, E.L. & D.P. Rose. (1984). "Diet and Breast Cancer". Hospital Practice, 19(4), 73-78, 83-88.
So, having dealt with that, I'll move on to the legal issue, even though you say it isn't persuasive. First, you say that it isn't persuasive because women once weren't allowed to vote. Yet you probably don't think legal restrictions on robbery are not persuasive just because the law once provided hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Legal precedent may not be definitive, but provides the shifting backdrop against which human rights can be understood. Women can vote now; slavery is outlawed in the United States. Religion cannot enter into this in a secular democracy. I contend that the notion of fetal human rights which trump those of a grown woman (and make no mistake, that's what the contention is, and the context with which we have to deal) is not one supported by legal precedent, but is a religious argument.

I've got to go now, and I will try to continue the legal side later.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Laura:
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Laura:
quote:
I apologize for the big block quote here, but it's important, I think, to see it
You weren't kidding were you? When you block quote, you block quote!

( [Embarrassed] very embarrased at sending a meaningless post prior to this; especially when I was only making a feeble joke [Embarrassed] .)
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
I'd like to apologise for the "Trivia" comment. It was in hindsight a bad inclusion in my original quote. Primarily because it has generated discussion irrelevant to the central issues and is therefore negative. I think it is plainly obvious that the ship of fools messageboards are not a scientific forum.

It is true I did not cite references. SOF didn't seem an appropriate place for formal debate. If you take an interest in such things, I shall forward you the latest material personally.

MerseyMike said:
quote:
No, Matt, its the other way round - you have to justify your own view that a clump of cells which sould not live outside the room is entitled to the same rights as a walking, talking, fully developed person, and you have to do that without recourse to your religious beliefs
Mike, I think it is unlikely that any human being on the planet is able to justify "The Human Right to Life" without recourse to something akin to a religious belief. The notion of such a right is certianly not self evident on a purely materialistic basis.

On a purely materialistic basis, why should it be wrong to kill anyone? On a materialistic basis, every human being is only so much Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen (and a few odd percent of other chemicals) clumped together doing certain reactions.

Death merely substitutes one set of reactions for another set. At the purely materialistic level there is no objective reason for prefering death to life.

Therefore, I put it to you Mike, that belief in the right to life itself, is a kind of basic religious belief. (If by "religious" you mean something held to be true that is not self-evident from materialistic fact).

So before I even attempt to defend my position, I request that you do not ask of me, in defence of the unborn right to life, more than you would ask for defence of the right to life in the general case.

So, on to your clump of cells:

First, "clump of cells". The mental image you generate is rather crude, and, for the majority o of abortions, innaccurate.

Most women, by the time they know they are pregnant, and finally get to the date of their abortion will probably be at 11-12 weeks.

At this stage, what we have is not "a clump of cells" like the "football" structure you may see embryologists sticking needles in under a microscope.

It is a near fully formed (although tiny) human being. With 5 fingers...complete with finger nails. 11 Week fetuses are known to suck their thumb.

On insertion of an object (such as an abortionists needle) the fetus will demonstrate a complex stress response, releasing adrenaline, altered heart rate, and recoiling from the stimulus.

In one sense I don't think fetal development is entirely crucial to the issue, however, "clump of cells" sounds to me very much like a literary device for bypassing one's gut instinct of moral concience. This may not neccessarily mean you are on bad moral ground, but it's not a good sign of moral integrity in general.

I am well aware the pro-life lobby do the inverse and repeatedly refer to the unborn as a "baby" rather than "fetus". I attempt generally myself to use neutral (neither dehumanising, nor sentimental) language where possible.

Having got in mind what sort of an object it is, the question I might pose to you, is what sort of critera do you suppose the fetus must fulfil in order to qualify for the right to life?

You don't specifically say, but your next comment seems to provide a signpost.

"which could not live outside the womb"

Quite true of course. The fetus is an organsism adapted to it's environment (the womb). It has for example, an altered blood flow system in the heart to compensate for the fact oxygenated blood comes from the umbilical cord and not the heart.

However, in this respect it is no different to you or I. We are adapted to a enivronments, and if taken out of them, we die. For example, a fetus can happily swim in amniotic fluid. If you or I tried that, we would drown.

Even amongst different human beings we are adaptive. If MerseyMike was dropped in the middle of the arctic, I doubt he would live very long at all. An Eskimo can live quite happily however.

Therefore, while what you say is true, it doesn't seem awfully relevant at that level.

On a deeper level, I suppose what you are suggesting is that this environment only exists because of the Mother's providing of it, that the existence of fetus is therefore dependant upon what you might call the mother's continued "goodwill and hospitality".

The problem here is, I have yet to see a newborn baby who immediately on exiting the womb, goes out and gets itself a job, starts paying taxes and feeds and clothes itself. A newborn baby is every bit as dependant on it's mother as one inside the womb, yet I doubt you are suggesting the right of the mother to kill her children.

In fact, even leaving children aside, there are whole communities of people in this world, dependant upon the "goodwill" of others for their very survival.

However, this is morally a circular arguement. "Goodwill" implies "given through free choice when not obligated to give".

But if someone depends upon your "goodwill" for their survival then in fact, there is a moral obligation upon you to defend their right to life, and it is not a question of "goodwill" at all, but rather a simple moral choice between selflessness or selfishness.

Hence, with the baby in the womb we arrive back where we started. You seem to take the attitude that it is only a matter of "goodwill and hospitality" whether the mother continues to house the fetus or not. That is true, provided you have already dismissed the fetuses right to life.

It doesnt actually logically lead to an arguement against the fetus having a right to life. Rather it has the fetus' non-human status as an unspoken inital premise.

Finally, the only other hint you give in your post as to what the criteria should be for "the right to life" is alluded to in your statement:

"Entitled to the same rights as a walking, talking, fully developed person.

There is of course a very crude "emotional" objection to this: What about the mute? What about those in wheelchairs?

Were I either of these things, I may well have found your post offensive.

However, the really interesting words are "fully developed".

What do those words mean? It seems to me, when we apply those words to an object, we have a minds eye picture of some completed, finished article towards which the object is currently aspiring to be.

Without such an end goal we can only say that an object is "changing" from one thing to another, not that it it is "developing" to any one thing in particular.

Mike seems to have in mind some system whereby we aquire human rights in line with our anatomical and physiological development.

The problem is, if Mike has some "archetypal developed person" in mind, who qualifies for all human rights on offer, it seems likely a vast proportion of the human race will not qualify for those rights, either because they are not yet "developed" enough, or have "misdeveloped" in some way or else because they have decayed past that peak point of development.

So what image do you have in mind for a "fully developed" human being Mike? What are the criteria that buy right to life for all living extra-utero human beings but not for in-utero ones? The only definitive criteria of difference I can think of is that very fact which is a) Arbitary, and b) A matter of geographical placement, not development.

matt
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Because in-utero ones are still part of the woman in a way which those born are not.

You still seem to be missing the point, though. I have no problem with you believing what you wish. But as your views are no more certain in terms of fact than mine - they are both opinions - you wish to impose yours on other people, and I don't.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
Because in-utero ones are still part of the woman in a way which those born are not.
Hardly a biologically accurate statement. A fetus maintains an entirely separate biological system from it's mother, seperate blood system etc. Of course there is interaction between the two.

But the difference between a 22 week fetus in the womb, and one in an a hospital incubator is primarily one of geographical location. One is a fetus which can be destroyed by the crushing of it's skull with forceps. The other is a cute little baby, who's right to life is defended.

quote:
You still seem to be missing the point, though. I have no problem with you believing what you wish. But as your views are no more certain in terms of fact than mine - they are both opinions - you wish to impose yours on other people, and I don't.
With respect Mike..this arguement is retreating to the "safe haven" of liberal dogma. The statement "It is a matter of opinion" is itself a statement of fact requiring justification. It's a non-argument, generally only rolled out by liberals when all other arguments fail.

It seems nearly any issue of a speaker's choosing can suddenly become "only a matter of opinion" when the speaker's (often previously vehmenently expressed) opinion has been tried, and found wanting.

matt
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
Its not up to you to make that decision, matt. You will never have to get pregnant or give birth.
One's own status has never been considered anything except a biasing factor in one's ethical opinions Mike.

If you want to bias the value of opinions on the basis of gender, I would say it is all the more powerful defence of the position for a man to be pro-life.

After all, being being pro-abortion is definitely the easy "no collateral damage" option for any man, certainly, for one who doesn't believe in "no sex before marriage", and even more so for one who claims he does and falls short of his own moral standards with unfortunate conseqences.... [Two face]

matt
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Matt,

I don't wish to receive any more pro-Life literature than what I'm already exposed to. If you don't want to address the breast cancer thing, fine, but it's no good saying that the medium just isn't right. If you want to argue it, do it here. Or drop it.

On another issue, I'm beginning to think that the slavery analogy is, as lawyers say, inapposite to the issue. Slaves were grown humans treated as property. Fetuses have never been treated as human beings possessing full human rights -- it would be a legal absurdity.

Back to Matt; you can kill an innocent human being that you reasonably believe is about to kill you, even if you are completely wrong. It's a defense to murder, which requires a mens rea.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
If you read through my previous comments, Matt, you will find that my opinions were not expressed in that way : and I think that the day we forget that matters like this are our opinions, and not 'truth' for us to impose upon others who do not share our view , will be a dark day indeed.

Sometimes its best to be liberal and recognise that there are sincerely held different views, but I don't get the impression that you are prepared to accept any other view but your own and that you wish others to be forced to follow that view, even if their disagreement is sincere. I don't think the law has any right to inflict that on anyone else. No-one is forcing anyone to have an abortion.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
don't wish to receive any more pro-Life literature than what I'm already exposed to If you don't want to address the breast cancer thing, fine, but it's no good saying that the medium just isn't right. If you want to argue it, do it here. Or drop it.
I shall do so, as soon as I get my hands on a full copy of the papers I'm after from the university Library.

I think you should seriously consider bias in the sources you quote. You asked: "why is National Cancer Institute biased?"

I ask you to consider the fact that every scientist and it's dog is falling over themselves to do embryonic stem cell research at the moment. Including groups involved in cancer research.

The philosophical proposition that the fetus has no right to life is a primary stepping stone to ethical acceptance of embryo research. If it did not exist, such research could not be ethically allowable.

Hence, every cell biologist who is involved in such research, or thinks they might become involved in it in the future, has to lean towards a pro-choice agenda.

Secondly, do you have any idea of the financial impact of the law suits that could result were a link proven?

Even if only law suits since the first fears were raised in about 1995 were eligable, you are talking about potentially 13,000 abortion related breast cancer deaths in the UK alone. Assuming only £10,000 each, that represents 130 million pounds in damages. And that's before you consider the impact on "sue-crazy" america. (Very very "ballpark" figures...but I'm sure you see the point)

Do you really believe that with even a sniff of that kind of financial threat there wouldn't be people leaning very hard on all kinds of (often hard up) research institutions to interpret the data as skeptically as possible?

If the data has any "wriggle room" in it, you can be garunteed the powers that be will all come down in favour of the null hypothesis.

Enough on this for a moment till I can get some data though.

quote:
Fetuses have never been treated as human beings possessing full human rights -- it would be a legal absurdity.
Do you mean treated in practice? Or treated in Law? Or in individual moral judgement?

If you mean in practicality, then the same could be said of all human beings..hence the existence of murder.

If you mean in terms of Law, then I could point you to many countries of the world (mainly those of Roman Catholic/Islamic persausion) where the legal system does exactly that (with respect to the right to life).

If you mean "Never" in terms of British law, then you are presumably neglecting to mention the entire century between the Infant life Preservation act of the 19th century and the abortion act of 1967.

Finally, if you mean in terms of personal morality, then all views on the status of the fetus have been held by sizable groups of people since the year dot.

quote:
you can kill an innocent human being that you reasonably believe is about to kill you, even if you are completely wrong. It's a defense to murder, which requires a mens rea.
Which I will agree might plausibly allow for abortion under Provision A of the abortion act. (continuation of pregancy is life threatening to the mother) The major Pro-life group in this country, ("Life"), has always conceeded this. Only trouble is that accounts for a fraction of 1% of all abortions carried out.

How does this generalize to the other 99%?

matt
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Dear Matt,

I'll concede that legal precedent really doesn't in the final analysis speak authoritatively on this issue. Other than that the things of which you speak did not give full human rights equal to those of a born human to a six-week-old barely-differentiated fetus. But it isn't the law alone that convinces me.

I find that the law plus the scientific truths about the development and unsustainability outside the womb of the fetus mixed with siginifcant public policy concerns = legal abortion to 12 weeks without question. After that, I'm open to debate. Why the line at 12 weeks? The line has to be somewhere, and that's early enough for me. I find this article What neither side wants you to know compelling on the first trimester deadline (in the article, he rejects both pro-choice and pro-life orthodoxies).

However, since you contend (in your discussion of the breast cancer connection issue) that all scientists are too biased to research issues related to abortion, except pro-life ones, we have nothing more to discuss. You are clearly one of those people who are so biased that discussion is pointless.

Have a nice day,
Laura
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Dear Matt,

I'll concede that legal precedent really doesn't in the final analysis speak authoritatively on this issue. Other than that the things of which you speak did not give full human rights equal to those of a born human to a six-week-old barely-differentiated fetus. But it isn't the law alone that convinces me.

I find that the law plus the scientific truths about the development and unsustainability outside the womb of the fetus mixed with siginifcant public policy concerns = legal abortion to 12 weeks without question. After that, I'm open to debate. Why the line at 12 weeks? The line has to be somewhere, and that's early enough for me. I find this article What neither side wants you to know compelling on the first trimester deadline (in the article, he rejects both pro-choice and pro-life orthodoxies).

quote:
However, since you contend (in your discussion of the breast cancer connection issue) that all scientists are too biased to research issues related to abortion, except pro-life ones, we have nothing more to discuss.
You are willfully misunderstanding. I didn't say they were biased because they were pro-choice. I said they were biased because they have a vested interest in being pro-choice.

This is because embryo research is a major driving force in cell biology, and cancer biologists are cell biologists. Some of them work directly with stem cells, nearly all of them are part of umbrella organisations which have embryo research within their remit.

Embryo research can only exist in a pro choice environment and their scientific collegues would be non too pleased with any cell biologist who provided the pro-life lobby with ammunition.

The second part of my bias warning was that evidence against the safety of abortion would tread on the toes of a multi-million dollar industry in a BIG way. Are you really too niave to realise that?

matt
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
I am not "too naive" to realize anything. I DISAGREE with your infamous accusation of bias on both scores. Are you "too naive" to understand that distinction? You seem to equate financial benefit with bias. I benefit from owners of intellectual property suing to protect their property; that doesn't mean I encourage all such potential litigants to sue, or that I misread the law in order to support the incorrect side of an argument. Anyway, the pro-life cause is famous for citing crap statistics in support of its cause. I used to spend hours every week debunking that stuff as a researcher.

I also know how to code a quote/reply. Perhaps you should go practice on the Styx thread a bit so that your posts are easier to read.
 
Posted by Martin PC not (# 368) on :
 
Has anyone mention Doug Gresham, C S Lewis' stepson? I read an interview with him some years ago where he said, in essence, as I recall, that unless we offer to personally take care of a woman and her child, we have nothing to say.

It's tended to inhibit me from saying anything since.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I ask you to consider the fact that every scientist and it's dog is falling over themselves to do embryonic stem cell research at the moment. Including groups involved in cancer research.

The philosophical proposition that the fetus has no right to life is a primary stepping stone to ethical acceptance of embryo research. If it did not exist, such research could not be ethically allowable.

Hence, every cell biologist who is involved in such research, or thinks they might become involved in it in the future, has to lean towards a pro-choice agenda.
Now let me see if I've got this straight. Inorder for the use of embryonic stem cells to be ethically justified you reckon scientists involved, no matter how remotely, in such fields are automatically biased regarding abortion. What a high regard you have for the objectivity of scientists and our ability to maintain a professional attitude towards our work.

Let us just ask how scientists are using embryonic stem cells, and what for. They use cultures of stem cells - ie a large number of cells from an initially small number of cells (and hence from a small proportion of aborted fetuses). The knowledge gained is hoped to help understand and develop therapies for a wide range of diseases that relate to cell division (eg: cancer). Given that abortion is legal, there is nothing illegal about obtaining such cells. But, more importantly, is it ethical? Many would say yes, even those who object to abortion on ethical grounds, because as the abortion has happened why waste the stem cells that would otherwise be disposed of.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
Its not up to you to make that decision, matt. You will never have to get pregnant or give birth.
One's own status has never been considered anything except a biasing factor in one's ethical opinions Mike.

If you want to bias the value of opinions on the basis of gender, I would say it is all the more powerful defence of the position for a man to be pro-life.

After all, being being pro-abortion is definitely the easy "no collateral damage" option for any man, certainly, for one who doesn't believe in "no sex before marriage", and even more so for one who claims he does and falls short of his own moral standards with unfortunate conseqences.... [Two face]

matt
As no one else has picked up on this, I’m going to.

I would say that it is easier for a man to be pro-life. A man is never going to have to put his pro-life principles into practice. (Well, not fully [Wink] ).

Most of my female friends are what Paddy would call “anti abortion”. They’re not sure that abortion is entirely right and hope that they’ll never been in a situation where they have to consider having one. But, they can imagine situations where an abortion would be the lesser of all evils – if they were pregnant and alone; pregnant with no financial support; tests showed the child would be extremely handicapped and they didn’t feel they could cope etc.

Unless medical science manages to recreate “Junior”, men will never have to go through the whole being experience that is pregnancy. Men will never have to decide between that and either abortion, adoption or child-rearing. Or live with the consequences afterwards. How many single male parents do you know that aren’t a result of either divorce or death? None I bet [Big Grin]

Martin PC Not, summed it up nicely:

quote:

Has anyone mention Doug Gresham, C S Lewis' stepson? I read an interview with him some years ago where he said, in essence, as I recall, that unless we offer to personally take care of a woman and her child, we have nothing to say.

It's tended to inhibit me from saying anything since.
As a medical person, you get some additional choices:

As far as I’m aware, none of your options include writing off whole sections of the scientific research community as being too biased and greedy to accurately report their research findings for fear of offending vested interests. [Roll Eyes] [Disappointed]
I’m not sure what took my breath away more – your complete lack of respect for your own peer group OR your assertion that evangelicals would support the racist thugs that make up the BNP because of their stance on specific issues … [Mad]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
I’m not sure what took my breath away more – your complete lack of respect for your own peer group OR your assertion that evangelicals would support the racist thugs that make up the BNP because of their stance on specific issues
Wait one second...are you trying to imply I'm a BNP sympathiser now??

Tubbs..that's actually pretty close to libel, whether intentionally or accidently and amounts to a personal defamation of character, by drawing in completely out of context comments I said on another thread you are quite clearly making a personal attack on me rather than addressing the issues of this thread.

I said repeatedly on that thread, that I (as an evangelical Christian) would NEVER consider voting for the BNP due to their racist foundations. Yet anyone reading your post in this thread who had not read my posts in the other thread would not be aware of this and would infer I was a racist.

I am utterly appaulled at suggestion, and as a host I would have thought you'd have a better grip on the 10 commandments than that. May I respectfully request you qualify your remarks.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
I deserved that. [Embarrassed] I didn’t mean to imply that you were a racist and am sorry if you interpreted my post that way.

As this isn’t the right place to discuss this further, I have started a thread in Hell (or I will in a moment) called “Attention Matt The Mad Medic”.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
No problem Tubbs, my concern was simply that your comment, read by a casual observer in this thread who had not read my posts in the BNP thread would have a very distorted view of my politics! [ [Smile] ]

matt
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

Strangely however, I have never heard a pro-choice campaigner structure their central arguement around refuting this core central statement: "A Fetus is a human being with human rights".

Matt
Never? Right on this thread;[quote
Twilight Posted 12. January 2003 21:22                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost everything I've ever heard a pro-life advocate say makes perfect sense, if one agrees that the life of the un-born is of the same value as the life of the born.
Nothing would excuse a mother killing her five year old child; not her miserable circumstances or his disability or whether he was the child of rape or incest - but I do not believe and never will believe that the fetus is the same as that five year old. I don't even think the pro-lifers believe it because the difference between the two keeps peaking out in their speech from time to time. For about thirty-five years now they have been working hard to get us to think of the embryo as a child and I think they have had some success. I'm not surprised that more and more young people are pro-life, but that thinking goes against thousands of years of viewing the embryo,fetus and live birth infant, as different from a five year old in many ways.[/quote]

I agree with Matt that this is the only arguement that counts. I don't think the fetus is a full "human being" with full human rights until it is born.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Whenever I've discussed abortion the beginning and end of the discussion has been whether or not the foetus is a person. Other issues come and go, but that one has always remained central.

For what it's worth, a French thinker (whose name I fail to recall) suggested the phrase personne en devenir , which roughly translates as' "becoming a person". That is, the foetus has the potential to be a person (if all sorts of things work out right) and is therefore worthy of very great respect. However, it is not yet a person, and so should not be seen as equivalent to the life of the mother, or other existing family members.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Twilight..

quote:
I do not believe and never will believe that the fetus is the same as that five year old
Saying "I do not believe X" is not the same thing as constructing an argument for X.

You are commendable in making your statement that you think it is the only question that matters. However, you didn't construct an arguement, you stated an end conclusion. I couldn't see a conclusive train of thought in what you said.

If you have one, please give us it.

For some time now, I have been considering posting a link to websites featuring videos and pictures of abortion. This would no doubt cause the pro-choice people to roll their eyes, yet, (as twilight would presumably agree) this is fundamental evidence in the key question.

However, in the interests of good manners, I won't. Anyone who wants such a link...PM me.

Instead I shall post a link to a webpage where mothers who have had an abortion can create an internet memorial to their aborted child.

I ask you to go have a look and see how many you can read before the tears start to flow. I believe maintaining a reality check with humanity is important when engaged in an abstract philosophical debate such as this:

http://www.supportweb.org/kgroup/memorials.htm

matt
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
I find it very interesting, Matt, that you refute twilight's post showing that your earlier statement was incorrect by citing a technicality about debating standards, and then proceed to bring up the usual emotional tactics of "gory pictures" and sob-stories.

I thought we were having a rational discussion here, not an emotional contest. Do you really think that the "teariness response" is an accurate measure of whether something should be legal or illegal?

This sort of emotional manipulation is why I refuse to debate the abortion issue. As I stated above to Paddy Leahy, I am tired of people telling me that I don't know my own mind and feelings.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
I find it very interesting, Matt, that you refute twilight's post showing that your earlier statement was incorrect by citing a technicality about debating standards,
If I understand you correctly...
I said I have never heard a pro-choice campaigner start their case for an argument that the fetus is not a human being

Twilight said she had done this. She had not. She had started by stating a belief that the fetus is not a human being. To her credit she candidly stated it was a neccessary belief in order to hold a pro-choice view, but she didn't give a rational argument leading to the statement of that belief.

That's hardly a "technicality" of debating standards. The difference between making a statement based on argument and making a statement based on assumption is profound.

quote:
and then proceed to bring up the usual emotional tactics of "gory pictures" and sob-stories.
The "gory pictures" to me is not an "emotional tactic", the physical reality of abortion is a fundamental part of the debate.

In a murder trial, I have never heard of the defence objecting to the jury being shown images of the crime scene and the body on the grounds it was an "emotional tactic". It may be a fundamental piece of evidence in many cases.

And, keeping emotion out of it seems suspicously close to saying we should keep gut-instinct moral conscience out of it.

Amongst people, including my medical peers, I know of very few who deny, when witnessing terminations, that their gut moral instinct doesn't trouble them. Eventually you get used to it..desensitized might be a better word. I worked in an antomy lab with numerous aborted fetuses in jars on the shelf next to me every day for two years. Eventually I barely noticed they were there. I'm about as desensitized as you can get emotionally.

quote:
I thought we were having a rational discussion here, not an emotional contest. Do you really think that the "teariness response" is an accurate measure of whether something should be legal or illegal?
No, but I think all moral debates have a tendancy to move to the abstract. exposing oneself afresh to the reality is usually a good idea.

Once we move abstract debate, things tend to turn into "point scoring".

I find it amusing that originally on this thread I was accused of being too theoretical with concerns about the fetus and not being practical and caring about women enough etc.

I post something about the "human" side and the effect on women, and now i'm just playing the emotional card?? That seems a tad unfair.

Actually I posted the link for the beneft of both sides in the debate to read anyway.

I hope for the pro-lifers that page would encourage them to remain sensitive to the feelings of the women involved, as many pro-lifers disregard this.

For the Pro-choice group, I hope that in some way the page may open themselves to the possibility of thinking...just for a moment..of the 1.2million abortions in america per year as 1.2 million tragic deaths.

Not in order to make them believe this is the case, but just merely so they entertain as a hypothetical that it could be the case and mull over the moral consequences of that.

Every pro-choice christian must surely recognise the profound nature of the moral burden they are therefore taking upon themselves.

Let me put it this way, if you *think* a fetus is *probably* not a "person".....then you should seriously contemplate that 1.2million lives per year hang in the balance on the strength of your "probably".

Which means you need to be damn sure of your "probably".

matt
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Matt
quote:

However, you didn't construct an arguement, you stated an end conclusion. I couldn't see a conclusive train of thought in what you said.
No, I didn't state an end conclusion I stated a belief. I didn't attempt an argument to prove that the embryo isn't the same as full human being anymore than you have presented proof that it is. Part of the reason that concrete proof of either theory is almost impossible is that we don't have a solid definition of "human being".

Matt quote
quote:

And, keeping emotion out of it seems suspicously close to saying we should keep gut-instinct moral conscience out of it.
It's surprising how many things we agree on Matt. I think tradition and gut-instinct are very important in all this. That's why I think it's important to note that until abortion became such a hot issue in recent years, no one seemed to question that an embryo was less than a full human being. Why else was there no attempt by religious leaders to bury the aborted fetus on hallowed ground or give them last rites? Why aren't they listed in family bibles as children who have died? Thousands of years of gut-instinct and religious practice said that the embryo was not a full human being.

As to your sad stories of women who regret their abortions, I'm sure we can find just as many sad stories by women who wish just the opposite. In fact I think the main reason that women who have had abortions feel such guilt is that the right to life people have worked so hard to make them feel that way. But that's just a guess.

Matt:
quote:

Every pro-choice christian must surely recognise the profound nature of the moral burden they are therefore taking upon themselves.
I've always thought it was the pro-life person who is taking upon themselves a profound moral burden. The pro-choice person is saying that each woman should be free to make her own moral decision. The pro-life person is saying to the woman (for example) whose embryo is horribly mal-formed and will have to live a life of pain, that they have made the decision for her that she cannot abort. Surely that decision should be made by the mother, father and doctor and not by the government.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
No, I didn't state an end conclusion I stated a belief.
quote:
I didn't attempt an argument to prove that the embryo isn't the same as full human being anymore than you have presented proof that it is.
The problem here seems to be the lack of a testable hypotheisis. I think both sides are equally guilty here.

You tell me what criteria would achieve full human status for a fetus, and then we have something to work on.

quote:
Part of the reason that concrete proof of either theory is almost impossible is that we don't have a solid definition of "human being".
This is scarily true, once one moves away from "that which exists once sperm meets egg", but I would argue, if that definition is abandoned, the definition is no more solid for a born human being than an unborn one. I cannot think of a single criteron which, applied to the unborn, could not also, in some circumstance apply to a born human.

Matt quote
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, keeping emotion out of it seems suspicously close to saying we should keep gut-instinct moral conscience out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
It's surprising how many things we agree on Matt. I think tradition and gut-instinct are very important in all this. That's why I think it's important to note that until abortion became such a hot issue in recent years, no one seemed to question that an embryo was less than a full human being.
But this "no one" view is simply not true.

It is given status in Psalm 139v13 "For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother's womb...v16 your eyes saw my unformed body,. all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be"

NOTE - I am NOT using this as a "religious" argument..I'm quoting the bible purely as a historical source on ancient attitudes to the unborn.

quote:
Why else was there no attempt by religious leaders to bury the aborted fetus on hallowed ground or give them last rites? Why aren't they listed in family bibles as children who have died? Thousands of years of gut-instinct and religious practice said that the embryo was not a full human being.
How about, because abortion has always, as far as possible, been kept secret? And what does that fact tell you about gut moral instinct?

Historically, the hippocratic oath of doctors says "I shall not give a woman a pessary to induce abortion". (although this is a late insertion, it is not that late)

In addition, it is only wonderful modern science that has opened up the possiblity of abortions in the second and third trimester.

It is with these abortions that the real "gut instinct" of evil kicks in.

On the other hand, modern science has given us a far better understanding of fetal development, and, the general tone of this has been the discovery of how quickly it advances.

For example we know a 10 to 11 week fetus sleeps and wakes, (evidenced by REM sleep) and sucks it's thumb. This relatively recent knowledge.

quote:
In fact I think the main reason that women who have had abortions feel such guilt is that the right to life people have worked so hard to make them feel that way. But that's just a guess.
I find the argument that "society is to blame" for personal guilt to be very weak on any issue. It sounds like just the sort of excuse someone who knows deep down they are in the wrong would make.

In addition it could be used for any example of guilt "I wouldn't feel guilty about cheating on my wife if SOCIETY didn't say it was wrong" etc etc.

Usually, if someone is angry at you for "making me feel guilty" it's because all you have done is make plain to them something they jolly well know they should feel guilty about and were trying to avoid.

quote:
I've always thought it was the pro-life person who is taking upon themselves a profound moral burden. The pro-choice person is saying that each woman should be free to make her own moral decision.
Well, you are right in one sense, but a non-decision is a decision. I conceed that the pro-choice is essentially "washing one's hands" of the ethics and leaving it to the individuals.

But you would do well to consider where that phrase comes from...and how history recorded that man's moral opt-out policy.

quote:
The pro-life person is saying to the woman (for example) whose embryo is horribly mal-formed and will have to live a life of pain, that they have made the decision for her that she cannot abort.
But this is a straw man! The key issue is abortion on demand of healthy fetuses which form the VAST majority of abortions.

I think, actually, that to persue this argument that you are shooting yourself in the foot philosophically.

What you are really saying is that we have a responsiblity to the fetus to ensure it does not have intolerable future suffering.

In which case, what you are saying (since responsibilty is reciprocal with rights) is that the fetus has a right not to be put through future suffering.

If this is the case, then it is not so much an argument for the woman to have choice whether to abort, but rather for the government to tell her that she must abort in order to protect the right of the fetus to not suffer.

Else what you are really saying is that a mother has the right to choose whether to put her child through a life time of suffering, which would, if you are to be consistent, imply there is no ethical problem with parental child abuse.

It seems you are making a philosophical U-turn. On the one hand, for abortion on demand, your argument hangs on saying the fetus has no rights, for eugenic abortion, your argument hangs on saying the fetus does have rights.

matt
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Matt
quote:

You tell me what criteria would achieve full human status for a fetus, and then we have something to work on.
I would say full human status is a born infant. I agree with the French doctor quoted above that up until then the fetus is only in the process of becoming a full human being.

Matt
quote:
I cannot think of a single criteron which, applied to the unborn, could not also, in some circumstance apply to a born human.
How about - can live outside the mother's body?

Matt
quote:

It is given status in Psalm 139v13 "For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother's womb...v16 your eyes saw my unformed body,. all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be"
I read this passage as a poetic statement of the fact that God has made us. It could just as well say "God knew us before our parents met."

Twilight:
quote:
Why else was there no attempt by religious leaders to bury the aborted fetus on hallowed ground or give them last rites? Why aren't they listed in family bibles as children who have died? Thousands of years of gut-instinct and religious practice said that the embryo was not a full human being.
Matt answers:
quote:
How about, because abortion has always, as far as possible, been kept secret? And what does that fact tell you about gut moral instinct?
Sorry, I was unclear, I was talking about the spontaneous abortion of miscarriage here. It has never been kept secret but was never given last rites and buried by priests - the same priests who now tell us that the embryo is the very same as a child.

(Matt, I don't want to get into 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions with you; I'm mainly against them.)

Matt
quote:
The key issue is abortion on demand of healthy fetuses which form the VAST majority of abortions.
I don't think that's the key issue at all. I think the key issue is if the government should decide whether or not a woman gets an abortion (healthy fetus or ill fetus).

Matt
quote:
What you are really saying is that we have a responsiblity to the fetus to ensure it does not have intolerable future suffering.
I said no such thing. I said that "we" have no business interfering with the decision that this fetus' parents have to make.

Because I think good parents probably will consider whether or not their fetus will live a life of pain is not inconsistent with my belief that the embryo is not a full human being. Remember that the "life of pain" is going to happen to a born child, not the embryo.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Matt, by definition you know far more about medicine than I do, so anything I say could well be shot down in flames. However, as for the dividing line betwenn foetus and person, I would suggest two possibilities.

Brain wave - an independent brain wave can be detected, I believe, at about 12 weeks. Given that the lack of a brain wave is often used to determine when a life support machine should be turned off, it seems a reasonable indication to me of a human life truly beginning.

Viability - when does the foetus have a reasonable chance of survival outside the highly specialized environment of the womb? This is the arguement the law recognises, and it currently stands at 24 weeks (in UK anyway, don't know about USA).

I give two alternatives, not only because I am a wishy-washy liberal, but because I genuinely don't know. This is why I find the concept of personne en devinir so helpful - we are talking about something that is on the way to becoming human. Therefore it needs to be treated with the greatest of respect (like you I am horrified by the total figure for abortions in the UK), but does not have the same status as a full human being.

(And I found Twilight's point about the way miscarriages - spontaneous abortions - have been treated a very helpful one, in this context.)
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Has *anyone*, especially Matt, read the Easterbrook article I linked to -- it holds what I consider to be a compelling legal and medically based argument for allowing abortion to about 11-12 weeks and no later, based on current medical understanding. I don't link to articles I think are stupid.

And Matt, as to gross-out; I watched a pretty disgusting medical procedure the other day -- my natural disgust at its nastiness doesn't make surgery wrong. Our gut instinct is only so/so as a guide.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Laura, I read the article, enjoyed it immensely and agree very much with the framework. My question for you is why you stick to the end of the first trimester (12 weeks) as the latest possible time for elective abortion when the article argues for the end of the second trimester (24 weeks)?

For the benefit of those on the thread, I'll summarize what I think are the very high points.

1. Conception leads to implantation in only 50% of fertilizations.

2. Implantation leads to live birth only 65% of the time.

One and two mean that it is impractical and perhaps impossible to grant full legal protection from conception because nature does not allow it.

3. If death is legally defined as cessation of brain function, then life should be defined as the beginning of brain function.

4. Complex, "fully wired" brain function starts at 24 weeks.

Three and four imply that life should be protected starting at 24 weeks, the beginning of the third trimester.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Argghhh! JimT, you're right, sign of brain decay setting in from severe sleep deprivation over the last few days. It was twenty-four weeks in the article; though, personally, *I'd* set it earlier, in order to be certain not to go crossing into viability territory. As a matter of legal line-drawing.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
When is the legal time limit on abortion in the USA? Over here it is 24 weeks, having come down from the original 28 weeks. Both of these are based on viability.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I would say full human status is a born infant. I agree with the French doctor quoted above that up until then the fetus is only in the process of becoming a full human being.
Define "born" please??

What about abortions resulting in live birth? Should the abortionist suddenly "turn caring doctor" if the baby is still alive after abortion?

Live birth is a recognised "complication" of late 2nd trimester abortion.

And of course, we have the ethical dilemma of "partial birth" abortion. At the moment,if Bush gets a partial birth abortion ban, you get the right to life when your navel is born into the world. Hurrah for lunatic legislation.

These situations highlight the fact that saying right to life begins when "born" is not sufficent as a "defining criteria".

quote:
How about - can live outside the mother's body?
But the problem here is "with what assistance?" A 9 month baby can't live outside a mothers body, unless it is artifically kept warm, fed etc.

The limit of viablity at the moment is 24 weeks.

However, this is only a limitation due to insufficent lung development. Within the next couple of years, systems of gas exchange direct with the bloodstream will dramatically push back viability, well into mid-second trimester.

In any case, A fetus could, on this measure, be "Ethically" aborted in 1970 at 30 weeks, but only aborted at up to 23 weeks in 2003? The question is, in the subjective experience of the fetus, does it care tuppence about the hypothetical question: "if removed from the womb now, would you survive?".

quote:
Sorry, I was unclear, I was talking about the spontaneous abortion of miscarriage here. It has never been kept secret but was never given last rites and buried by priests - the same priests who now tell us that the embryo is the very same as a child.
I have endevoured not to make a specifically religious case, however, since we are mentioning priests, and religious ritual it seems only fair to assess the situation from the priest's religious perspective:

The question here is surely one of God's sovreign reign over life?

If God ordains that a woman should have a miscarriage, then the preists logic is presumably that the fetus was never intended to live a life.

On the other hand, with an abortion, the fetus would have gone on to have a life, intended by God, with all it's days ordained before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139 again).

quote:
(Matt, I don't want to get into 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions with you; I'm mainly against them.)
Very commendable. Your position is very close to what I wish I could take as my own. I quite agree, I find it very hard to maintain a strongly anti-abortion stance with early (pre 9 week) abortion, or (at the extreme) the morning after pill.

Yet, I feel I must, and the reason is that, as soon as we allow abortion at one point but not another, we are drawing a line. At some arbitarily chosen hour of some day of gestation, we would be drawing an ethical line at which the fetus becomes a human being when it crosses it.

The precise drawing of this line, is necessarily arbitary,(if only due to the impossiblity of knowing exactly when conception occurred) and this raises a profound question for all human life everywhere: If we ever choose to draw a line between what is human and what is not, on a purely arbitary line, how can we not simultaneously devalue the distinction between humanity and inhumanity?

Put another way, how can we in one instance uphold the right to life as the most sacred ethic, while in another freely admit we give or withold it on the basis of an arbitary legal fiction?

quote:
I said no such thing. I said that "we" have no business interfering with the decision that this fetus' parents have to make.
It is by definition somebodies business, whether it is the parents, or the governments. (Induced) Abortions don't happen by themselves!

There are two grounds on which a mother may choose to abort an ill fetus, one is in her best interests, the other in the fetus' best interests. Your phrasing implied you were thinking primarily of the latter.

Hence, in the case of a fetus "destined for a life of pain", somebody is making a decision on behalf of that fetus.

Now, "On behalf" means "to act in the best interests of..". You cannot do this in the case of something which does not have the right to the consideration of it's best interests.

If you say the parents should in these cases, act in the best interests of the fetus, then you are saying they have a responsiblity. And if they have a responsibilty, the fetus has a reciprocal right.

(The reciprocation of X's responsiblity to Y with Y's rights with respect to X is an axiom of ethics)

quote:
Because I think good parents probably will consider whether or not their fetus will live a life of pain is not inconsistent with my belief that the embryo is not a full human being.
Again, in many cases, major fetal abnormality is not picked up till second trimester. You're use of "Embryo" is thus misleading, and would seem to conflict with your previous statement on 2nd and third trimester abortion.

quote:
Remember that the "life of pain" is going to happen to a born child, not the embryo.
I see a philosophical problem here with making choices supposedly in the interests of the fetus:

The parents of the unborn will presumably believe one of two things about what happens to the fetus if aborted:
1) Goes to some kind of heaven/eternal existence
2) Consigned to eternal oblivion of non-existence.

The problem, if you believe the first of these, is that, logically, abortion would be in the best interests of the fetus for every unborn, since all of us are destined to suffer a good deal of pain in life, and for a fair proportion of us, that may involve years of physical pain at some point during our lives.

Far better simply to go directly from the womb to eternal bliss? For all individuals?

Presumably pro-choice people believing this argument should be campaigning and forming pickets outside maternity wards on the basis of the suffering being inflicted?

The problem with the second position is a little more abstract, but, if one takes the decision to abort, obstensibly on the behalf of the fetus, then what one is saying is: "It would be better, for you, if you do not exist".

But in what sense "for you" if there is no "you"???

It is just the same in the first person. I cannot say "It would be better for me if I did not exist" because there would be no me for it to be better for.

The parents can logically say "It would be better FOR US, if you do not exist" (Or "for society" etc.."), but it is a philosophical non-starter to say "for the fetus". This doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but we should state the case accurately.

On to Laura:

quote:
Has *anyone*, especially Matt, read the Easterbrook article I linked to -- it holds what I consider to be a compelling legal and medically based argument for allowing abortion to about 11-12 weeks and no later.
Yes Laura, I read it, I meant to reply, but got distracted by defending myself from allegations of BNP membership! [Snigger]

It was a very good article in many respects, but, fell into a few classic "Theories of Mind" traps with respect to EEG which I will comment on properly later.

As a brief example of the inherent flaws in his brain-wave paradigm: A fitting epileptic, will go into EEG "flatline"...they are not brain dead. There are many other examples. The whole issue of fetal monitoring (both ECG and EEG) and it's interpretation is hot potato at the moment, and his intepretation of the EEG is, shall we say "creative". I will follow this up.

quote:
And Matt, as to gross-out; I watched a pretty disgusting medical procedure the other day -- my natural disgust at its nastiness doesn't make surgery wrong.
I find it mildly insulting you think my objection would be on the grounds "it's gross". I'm probably the only person in this discussion to hold half a human face in my hands i a medical school dissection lab. [Snigger]

When you see piles of emaciated corpses on footage from auchwitz, your reaction is not to be sickened because it's "gross" is it?? It is to be sickened because it is an obvious affront to humanity.

Images of a fetus, killed by saline abortion, it's skin burned in manner similar to a napalm victim, (leading abortionists to refer to such fetuses as "Toffee Apple Babies"...charming people!) are not sickening because they are "gross". They are sickening because they are an affront to our humanity.

Finally..to Wanderer:
quote:
When is the legal time limit on abortion in the USA? Over here it is 24 weeks, having come down from the original 28 weeks. Both of these are based on viability.
I wish!!! In practice the 1990 act in the UK increased the abortion limit. the original 1967 abortion act was pretty strict on 28 weeks.

The 1967 act (as ammended 1990) has the following provisions (Number in brackets is the number of abortions carried out under that provison in 2000:

A)Risk of life to the Mother (141)

B)To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother (1654)

C)Risk of unjury to the physical or mental health of the mother great than if the pregnancy were terminated (170,167)

D)Risk of injury to the physical or mental health of existing children (9593)
E) Substantial risk of the child being born seriously Handicapped (1833)
F)In an emergency - to save the mothers life (1)
G) In an emergency -to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother (2)

In 1967, the 28 week limit applied to most catagories, but in 1990 the 24 week limit was applied to only Catagory C and D.

The consequence is, that all a doctor has to do is tick the Catagory B box post 24 weeks rather than the Catagory C.

The problem is "grave permenant injury to MENTAL health" in B is entirely subjective assessment of the doctor ticking the form.

1654 abortions were performed in the year 2000 under provision B.

A fair percentage of these are probably late "abortion on demand", because if there was a real threat to the mother's physical health the doctor would go for A, F, or G.

matt
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
If fetuses are as fully people as, say, my next door neighbor, how about “spontaneous” abortions – the number of which is very high?
Should we fish them out of the toilet and bury them?
I am sorry to be so graphic and gross, but as fertile women know, life is pretty gross, if you define life in terms of tissue rather than relationships.
And, I have heard that Jews have an ancient custom of not praying Kaddish for infants until they are 30 days old – by which time their family has formed a relationship with them (I assume that’s at least part of the reason).
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
People spontaneously die throughout life. The fact that many don't make the first hurdle doesn't reduce the worth of their lives.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Matt, I don't want you to think I've rudely quit reading your painstaking posts but I am going to quit replying to this thread because I believe I'm just repeating myself now and others (like Laura's link) say it better.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
What Twilight said. I've explained my position, you don't accept it, you've explained yours, I don't accept it. I think we'll just have to leave things there.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
If fetuses are as fully people as, say, my next door neighbor, how about “spontaneous” abortions – the number of which is very high?
Should we fish them out of the toilet and bury them?
Threefold reply:

First, some people do choose to hold a memorial of some kind for miscarriages or in some way "mark" them.

Second, Burial rights as an indication of humanity seems false to me. Both because a) some sentimental people bury cats and dogs with ceremony and b) because some people dispose of humans with virtually no ceremony.

Your correlation between burial rites and human rights seems highly questionable therefore.

Third, to someone who believes in a God with for-knowledge of events, an spontaneous and induced abortion are manifestly different events.

In the case of an abortion, either God intended it to become a person (in which case abortion should not be performed) or he would have miscarried it anyway (in which case the abortion is unneccessary).

The third of these points is an openly religious argument, and hence I have not used it before on this thread, but the question is openly religious. (refering to burial rights etc).

matt
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
'become' a person - exactly.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
'become' a person - exactly.
The part you quote out of context is from a theological argument.

Being a nice sort of chap, while taking up the theological side of things I hypothetically conceeded to the pro-life view from a physical/secular ethics perspective.

I suppose you could phrase it as: "Even if on a secular basis we say that the fetus is not yet a life, on a religious one, the case to be proved becomes even tougher due to God's fore-planning. A fetus which is yet to "become" a human being physically is already concieved as person in the heart of God."

I don't actually believe the "Even if" myself, religion set aside. I raised a religious response to a religious question (about ceremonial burial).

As I said, I wouldn't do so, except in response to a religious argument.

matt
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:
quote:
[(Matt, I don't want to get into 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions with you; I'm mainly against them.)
Very commendable. Your position is very close to what I wish I could take as my own. I quite agree, I find it very hard to maintain a strongly anti-abortion stance with early (pre 9 week) abortion, or (at the extreme) the morning after pill.

Yet, I feel I must, and the reason is that, as soon as we allow abortion at one point but not another, we are drawing a line. At some arbitarily chosen hour of some day of gestation, we would be drawing an ethical line at which the fetus becomes a human being when it crosses it.

The precise drawing of this line, is necessarily arbitary,(if only due to the impossiblity of knowing exactly when conception occurred) and this raises a profound question for all human life everywhere: If we ever choose to draw a line between what is human and what is not, on a purely arbitary line, how can we not simultaneously devalue the distinction between humanity and inhumanity?

[emphasis added]
I think you have finally shown your true colors, Matt. All this time you have been arguing a very hard line, and it turns out you don't 100% believe in it yourself. But you have beaten the rest of us over the head with long, tedious posts trying to get us to agree that legal life begins at conception. But despite your personal justification for "conception", you are just drawing an arbitrary line, too.

Perhaps if you had been honest from the beginning, instead of taking a hard-line stance, this could have been a genuine discussion and debate about the difficult issue of deciding where to draw the line in that gray area between conception and birth. I doubt we would have come to any definitive agreement, but I suspect there would have been a more inclusive discussion and perhaps more shipmates would have seriously pondered how they felt. As it is, this is just another "he says, she says" pseudo-debate and 99% of us will go away unchanged or even hardened in our pre-existing views and opinions.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Oh, and by the way:

quote:
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic:I see a philosophical problem here with making choices supposedly in the interests of the fetus:

The parents of the unborn will presumably believe one of two things about what happens to the fetus if aborted:
1) Goes to some kind of heaven/eternal existence
2) Consigned to eternal oblivion of non-existence.
You forgot option #3) Believes in some form of re-birth/reincarnation.

I haven't brought this up until now, because I presumed that arguments in this thread were intended to be based on the Christian belief in a single after-life. But if you include #2, you need to include #3.

And also #1A) Belief that miscarriages, stillborn babies, unbaptized babies, etc., go to some non-Heaven afterlife (e.g., Limbo, Purgatory, or even Hell?).
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
I think you have finally shown your true colors, Matt. All this time you have been arguing a very hard line, and it turns out you don't 100% believe in it yourself.
Not at all...my comment "find it very hard to maintain a strongly anti-abortion stance with early (pre 9 week) abortion, or (at the extreme) the morning after pill." was a comment on my emotive response. Of course, I find it much harder to feel a “gut instinct” response against seeing someone flush out a test tube with a microscopic zygote in it, than seeing a 20 week abortion. That was all I was saying. Late abortion is a no-brainer in that sense.

Ethically, and theologically, there are arguments which apply identically to both.

quote:
debate about the difficult issue of deciding where to draw the line in that gray area between conception and birth.
The very act of "drawing a line", wherever that line is drawn, brings into play the idea of having "qualifying criteria" for full humanity status.

This concept is a profound undermining of all ethical principles and creates a paradox.

The paradox is founded in the fact that ethics only apply to people. If an entity is not a person, then ethics don't apply to it. Hold that thought.

When we debate what criteria define “personhood” therefore, those criteria cannot themselves be ethically derived, since this would create a circular argument. (Ethics only apply to people, and it is in debate whether the entity in question is a person, so to use ethics in deriving the criteria puts the cart before the horse)

This means, it is, by definition, impossible to “draw a line” based on ethics.

The line is, in itself, the very definition of who ethics does and doesn’t apply to. Hence the placement of the line can never be “unethical”. It serves as the marker of where ethics begins.

The impact of what intially seems a trivial logical anomaly is disturbing, because once we understand that the location of the line is not, in itself, an ethical decision, the position of that line becomes ethically completely fluid. You can set it wherever you like: At birth, at 2 years old, 20 years old...

It goes further: You can put in any criteron you like: eg. “you must have blue eyes to qualify as a person”. Your “line” will never be “unethical” because it is the only marker of where ethics begins...if you are on the wrong side of the line, ethics don't apply to you, because you are not a person.

Hence, the only ethical solution for coherent ethics is to abandon the idea of “drawing a line” at all and move instead to the concept of prima facie right to personhood.

Yet this principle of prima facie right is made null and void by a pro-choice stance, since this (as we all seem to agree) involves drawing a “humanity line” somewhere, and in the process draws a line right through the idea of ethics altogether.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Well, heck..I thought my posts were overlong and pedantic enough already...but since you asked:

quote:
You forgot option #3) Believes in some form of re-birth/reincarnation.
Actually, I considered it...but it goes with out saying,from the fetus perspective you might send it on to something better, or send it to something worse, if worse see my next comment..if better, see comment about heaven.

quote:
go to some non-Heaven afterlife (e.g., Limbo, Purgatory, or even Hell?).
Hell?? I felt it was a pretty safe bet that a mother who believed having an abortion would send her baby to the fiery pits of eternal hell probably wouldn't have an abortion on the grounds of "The fetus' best interests".

This sort of seemed to go without saying, and I thought it might have been insulting to most people's intelligence to include it.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
A fetus could, on this measure, be "Ethically" aborted in 1970 at 30 weeks, but only aborted at up to 23 weeks in 2003?
Matt,

You may have reached the logical conclusion of a philosophy which thinks in terms of an absolute right to life.

But not all of us think that way. Suppose that one thinks about ethics in terms of weighing up the available options and selecting the best (or least worst).

With that as a paradigm, then it doesn't seem logically incorrect to argue that advances in technology, by opening up additional options, change which is the "least worst" option, and therefore the ethically best decision.

If killing the fetus is a worse option then letting it live, but for the State to compel a woman to continue to carry a fetus is worse than leaving her free to choose to discontinue, then a viability criterion may represent the best legal option, depending upon the degree of weight that people give to these two principles.

The fact that children can't survive on their own until age whatever is beside the point - the point is that once they can survive outside the womb then expelling them does not equal killing them; the two principles (the life of the fetus and the woman's autonomy over her own body) are no longer totally opposed.

You may say that the horrific reality of present day abortion is a long way from philosophical niceties.

But at one extreme (killing a viable baby without extra-ordinary justification - such as the life of the mother being at risk) I think most of us would agree that it's wrong.

You seem to be saying that you have to "hold the line" in the case that represents the other extreme (the morning after pill) because your ethical system can't cope with grey areas.

Russ

PS: neat name, Twilight. Life is more complex than light and darkness. Wish I'd thought of that...
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
{Secret cry for help; please send Matt and me to a clinic for people-who-can't-stop-talking-about-this.}

I read a good book a few years ago about the whole abortion stalemate and our inability to reach a compromise. The writer, whose name I've forgotten of course, said that our biggest problem was this fear both sides have of "opening the door." Pro-Choice can't disallow late term abortions because it would "open the door" to ending legal abortion. Right to Life can't allow morning after pills or stem cell research because it would "open the door" to a mind set that allows abortion.

I agree with the writer that we don't need to fear each other and that we can start chipping away at the ends off our time lines and someday meet in the middle.

What we usually can agree on is that there are far too many abortions each year. I'm shocked at the number of young women who seem to use abortion as a form of birth control. If both sides would work harder to encourage the use of reliable birth control, abortions could probably be reduced by about 90%.

Most abortions are due to unwanted pregnancy and most unwanted pregnancy is a result of insufficient birth control. What if we really worked to teach young people the importance of responsible birth control? What if we told them that while condoms are good at preventing disease they aren't very good at preventing pregnancy? What if we told girls that trusting their boyfriends to "take care of that side of it" was risky business indeed? What if we told them that their boyfriends were actually likely to love then less if they got pregnant? What if we told Christian girls that seeing a doctor to get Norplant or the pill before starting a sexual relationship with their boyfriend was not evidence of a pre-meditated watonness but evidence of a responsible young woman? What if we encouraged use of the morning after pill? What if we worked to find a better pregnancy test so that girls could find out whether they were pregnant after the first missed period? If we could reduce abortion in large numbers then maybe we would have a better chance of keeping it legal for the women who really need to have that option open.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
I'd stop you, Twilight, but rereading this thread has sapped my will to live. So you'll just have to stop yourself. If you really want to.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:

Doctors never declare a person dead if they are brain dead since their other organs are still active.
Bzzzzzt!! Wrong. But thank you for playing. Brain death is exactly the criterion doctors use to ascertain that someone is dead.

http://www.transweb.org/qa /asktw/answers/answers9509/braindeath.html - I draw your attention to the following:

quote:
Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain.
and:

quote:
A person who is declared brain dead is legally dead.

In Iowa (and most other states) two physicians must declare a person brain dead before organ donation can proceed.
Now, how accurate are your other statements I wonder?

I do trust you haven't come here merely to crusade?
I have not had time to keep up with this thread (Direct TV went out of business darn it and I am waiting for SBC yahoo to send out their equipment), I am jumping on here off and on SoF from work. I am though going to send my mom an e-mail since this is so her...she is a neurologist and she hails from Iowa. I will report back her answer later since you got me curious.
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
I cannot let Laura's postings about the relationship between abortion and breast cancer go unchallenged.

With respect, they were the most appallingly inaccurate, biased, misleading surveys of the scientific evidence I have yet come across.

Laura's posts would fail to pass muster in the editorial pages of the most blatantly 'pro-choice' publications as their inaccuracy would leave the publication open to legal challenge.

The fact of the matter is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE have found a link between induced abortion and breast cancer.

Some 28 out of 37 worldwide studies have found an increased likelihood of breast cancer among aborting women.

Before I indulge in a little block quoting of my own let me first turn my attention to the work of Professor Joel Brind, which was disparaged by Laura.

Joel Brind's work was comprehensively examined by the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).

The RCOG concluded that Brind's epidemiological studies into a link between abortion and breast cancer 'had no major methodological shortcomings' and 'should not be discounted' which is just as well since Professor Brind is a respected academic and authority on the subject.

Most of the studies into the abortion breast cancer link have been conducted by abortion supporters. The first study was published in an English publication in 1957 and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 relative risk or 160% increased risk of breast cancer among women who'd had an induced abortion. [Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63]

These studies suggest that an induced abortion cause biological changes to occur in a woman's breasts which make her more susceptible to breast cancer. This is one of two ways in which abortion causes breast cancer. Delayed first full term pregnancy is a second way in which abortion causes this disease.

Abortion is an "elective surgical procedure and a woman’s exposure to the hormones of early pregnancy -- if it is interrupted -- is so great, that just one interrupted pregnancy is enough to make a significant difference in her risk" [Professor Joel Brind, President, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Endeavour Forum Public Meeting, August 24, 1999, Malvern, Victoria, Australia].

Because western women already face a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of about 12.5 percent, boosting that risk by even a small percentage through the procurement of a single induced abortion is comparable to the risk of lung cancer from long-term heavy smoking. Approximately 1 in 100 women procuring an abortion is expected to die as a result of abortion-induced breast cancer.

An Authoritative Medical Text for doctors who specialize in breast diseases discusses the causes of breast cancer. It states that the exposure of the breasts to oestrogen for long periods of time proportionately increases breast cancer risk, and it specifically identifies abortion as a risk factor. It says, "Long-term exposure to endogenous oestrogens (early menarche; late menopause; late age at first full-term pregnancy; and being overweight, leading to increased aromatization of circulating androgens to oestrogens) appears to increase cancer risk. Risk is decreased only with early menopause (natural or artificial) and childbearing. However, first-trimester abortion increases risk." [Robert B. Dickson, Ph.D., Marc E. Lippman, MD, "Growth Regulation of Normal and Maglignant Breast Epithelium," The Breast: Comprehensice Management of Benign and Malignant Diseases, edited by Kirby I. Bland MD and Edward M. Copeland III, MD; (1998) W.B. Saunders Company; 2nd edition; Vol 1, p.519.]

The Medical Text cited the Henderson lecture to support the statement that "first-trimester abortion increases risk." Henderson said, "Recently, we found that a first-trimester abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, before the first full-term pregnancy is actually associated with an increase in the risk of breast cancer." [Henderson, B.E., Ross R., Berstein, L.; "Oestrogens as a cause of human cancer," The Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California: Cancer Res 48:246-253, 1988]

The Henderson Lecture was published in 1988. The statement asserting that abortion is linked with increased breast cancer risk was based on two studies, the first of which Henderson co-authored and was the first published American study. [Pike MC, Henderson BE, Casagrande JT, et al. "Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women," Br. J. Cancer (1981) 43:72-76; and Hadjimichael OC, Boyle CA, and Meigs JW, "Abortion before first live birth and risk of breast cancer," Br. J. Cancer (1986) 53:281-284.]

Scientists from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control, Bruce Stadel and Phyllis Wingo, and two other prominent epidemiologists were convinced of a link in 1986. They co-authored a letter to the British journal, Lancet, and said, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." [Feb, 22, 1986, p. 436] They acknowledged the independent effect of an induced abortion on breast cancer risk at a time when there were only two American studies linking abortion with the disease. [Pike et al. (1981)

Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study to determine if induced abortion raises breast cancer risk. The study found that, "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women."

High Risk Groups

Daling identified 3 high risk groups and reported these findings:

1) Women under the age of 18 or over the age of 29 who obtained induced abortions have more than a twofold increase in risk.

2) Women with a family history of breast cancer who procured an abortion were found to have statistically significant risk increases of 80 percent.

3) Teenagers with a family history of the disease who procured abortions before the age of 18 were found to have incalculably high risk. All 12 women in Daling's study with this background were diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 45. [Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:505-14.]

An additional high risk group was identified by Dr. Amelia Laing of Howard University:

1. African American women had a 50% increased risk before the age of 40, a 180% increased risk between the ages 41 and 49 and a 370% increased risk after age 50 if they'd ever procured at least one abortion. [Laing et al. (1993) J Natl Med Assoc 85:931-9]

A subsequent study by this author comparing sisters, one of which had procured an abortion, reported a 144% increased risk. [Laing et al. (1994) Genet Epidemiology 11: A300]

Jane Orient, MD, a spokeswoman for the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told World Net Daily that, “If you look at the number of studies that show a connection, they vastly outnumber the ones that don’t, and the ones that don’t have been criticized for serious methodological flaws.” She reported that the elevated risk is “substantial, particularly in women who abort their first pregnancy at a young age and who have a family history of breast cancer. It’s something like 800 percent.” She added, “I think (doctors) should inform patients about this,” and the information “should include the potential connection with breast cancer as well as the long-term psychological risk.” [John Dougherty, “Can doctors be sued over abortion? Those who don’t inform patients of breast cancer link could be targets,” World Net Daily, <www.worldnetdaily.com>, March 27, 2002]

In short there is very good evidence of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Those soi-disant 'pro-choice' activists who decry research results they dislike expose their real contempt for women's health as well as their Stalinist disregard for open debate.

Increasingly the focus is shifting from research into abortion and its contraindications - there are plenty of studies showing links between abortion and morbidity to be getting along with - and towards achieving fully informed consent amongst aborting women.

Off course, groups like the aforementioned Planned Parenthood use every legal ruse to prevent women from accessing accurate, non-biased information about the health and psychological effects of abortion.

But then Planned Parenthood have an ideological (they were founded by racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger) and financial interest in promoting abortion. So Laura, Planned Parenthood leave a lot to be desired as reliable sources on abortion and breast cancer - as I have shown.

Given the overwhelming evidence of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer - 28 out of 37 worldwide studies - Laura has some chutzpah talking about 'pro-life misinformation'.

I am happy to debate pro versus anti-life positions on various grounds but I will not stand for a willful misrepresentation of the scientific record.

Women's lives are too precious and breast cancer is too deadly to allow honest, accurate discussion into its causes to be stymied by those with an ideological axe to grind.
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
On May 17, 2001 Dr Thomas Stuttaford a pro-choice medical columnist and trustee of the Birth Control Trust, wrote in The Times:

“Breast cancer is diagnosed in 33,000 women in the U.K. each year; of these, an unusually high proportion had an abortion before eventually starting a family. Such women are up to four times more likely to develop breast cancer.

“A report by the Royal Statistical Society shows that a termination of pregnancy interrupts the cellular changes that occur in the breast during pregnancy. Once the woman has had children, the effect is less because the cellular changes have been completed....”
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
I agree with virtually everything Paddy has written on this thread but for one thing.

He wrote about immigration:

As for accepting more immigrants. There are several major problems:

- We currently need 1.2 million a year. We're only taking in 200,000.
- Doesn't do much good for race relations!
- Migrants tend to settle on the major cities like Birmingham, London, Manchester...but these aren't the areas with population problems. They need to settle in places like Wales. Now presuming you don't believe its right to force people to settle somewhere, we've got a slight problem!
- Also its morally wrong to steal doctors/nurses and other workers off countries that need them more. For instance, we are currently importing a lot of doctors from South Africa (1/4 of the NHS is going to retire by 2005) - but ZA needs these doctors more than we do (AIDS crisis!).

Yes there is a problem with the birth rate in the UK and much of the western world - currently below replacement rate and hence the pensions crisis now and welfare state crisis to come.

Yes we aren't taking in nearly enough immigrants.

BUT NO, TAKING IN INCREASED NUMBERS OF IMMIGRANTS DOES NOT WORSEN RACE RELATIONS.

The only thing which harms race relations is that European disease, known as 'racism'.

There is nothing inevitable about an increase in community tensions with an increase in the number of immigrants.

No, I don't think Paddy is a segregationist, I just think he got his thinking muddled on this one.

That European disease is in many ways, guilty of the current abortion situation of course; many of the activists who campaigned for contraception and the 1967 abortion act were members of the British Eugenics Society (BES).

It is no accident that the Brook birth control clinics were set up by eugenicist, Lady Helen Brook with office space from the BES after she had taken fright at the fecundity of Irish and Afro-Caribbean immigrants compared to the 'native' population.

Turning my mind to some of the earlier posts which expressed the most libellous and silly sentiments against pro-life activists, I must pick up on those made by Elizabeth Anne, Zeke and Merseymike.

They expressed dreary variations on the theme of 'pro-lifers care about life in the womb but not out of it'.

I had thought such ignorant, uneducated thoughts went out with the ark but it appears not.

So just to use myself as an example.

I was a member of the Labour Party but let my membership lapse once the Blair government whipped through reductions to single parent benefit back in '97.

I am a member of the Child Poverty Action Group.

I am also active in Amnesty International.

I believe in redistributive taxation and oppose any cuts in welfare benefits whatsoever.

So put that in your stereotypical pipe and smoke it!
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Having been personally attacked by Ms. Byronic in a most outrageous way, for posts recognized as well-balanced and which were intelligently engaged by everyone else, rather than by fonts of drivel and quotes torn from so-called pro-life websites. I refuse to deal with an insulting crusader of this sort. I expect an apology.

[ 06. February 2003, 04:27: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ms Byronic:
Laura's posts would fail to pass muster in the editorial pages of the most blatantly 'pro-choice' publications as their inaccuracy would leave the publication open to legal challenge.

The fact of the matter is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE have found a link between induced abortion and breast cancer.

Some 28 out of 37 worldwide studies have found an increased likelihood of breast cancer among aborting women.
This is simply not true, as has been pointed out. Hysterical repetitions of studies which failed to take into account critical controlling factors, and which are repeatedly cited by people with an ideological agenda cannot be taken as seriously as those by truly independent organizations. I have no stock in believing one way or another on the breast cancer issue, which is in any case irrelevant, as Matt pointed out.

I'm sure Ms. "Byronic" would not wish us to use the medical risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth against the pro-life position.

Abortion is either right or wrong. Whether it has other risks attached to it is a secondary question not finally of interest from an ethical point of view.

[ 06. February 2003, 04:26: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
Laura, you weren't 'personally attacked' your posts were disputed in a robust and no-nonsense fashion.

If you are prepared to apologise to the Pro Life Community for your libellous comments about 'misinformation' I'm perfectly prepared to extend the olive branch to you.

The fact of the matter is that you wilfully misprepresented the scientific record in your posts. I thought that deserved a rejoinder.

If you want to take it further and have my posts excised from the thread and my name removed from the list of approved posters you are perfectly free to do so. I would consider such an action to be a Stalinist offence against freedom of speech and unworthy of a 'Christian' website.

I 'engaged' with the discussion on abortion and breast cancer by disagreeing with your post - which I thought dishonest and lacking in rigour.

I commented on the content of your post - as anyone is surely within their rights to do - and countered it with reference to plenty of research studies.

Do I have an interest in the issues? Yes. Four of my close female, first and second degree female relatives have contracted breast cancer. One of them has died from the disease. I am particularly allergic to efforts to stamp on discussion of the causes of breast cancer for political reasons.

And I reserve the right to engage with and challenge individuals who misrepresent the scientific record for their own political purposes.

I will be charitable and assume that you weren't aware of the weight of evidence linking induced abortion with the incidence of breast cancer.

But then before you libelled pro-lifers you should have done your research.

As I said, women's lives, in my case, my aunts life, was too important and breast cancer too deadly a disease for honest and accurate debate on its causes to be shut down by misleading comment.
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
Having re-read Laura's post it seems to me that she is in denial.

I'm afraid that it simply IS TRUE that THE MAJORITY OF RESEARCH STUDIES HAVE FOUND A LINK BETWEEN INDUCED ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER.

Some 28 out of 37 worldwide studies have reported an elevated breast cancer risk amongst aborting women.

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, I'VE EVEN GIVEN REFERENCES, I'M NOT MAKING THE SCIENTIFIC RECORD UP!

That's not hysteria (I'm not having hysterics, I think its tragic) that is a matter of fact.

I think Laura should apologise to me for accusing me of lying.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Ms Byronic, it seems to me that Laura was simply stating the obvious. That despite the studies so far conducted there is no proof either way of a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Now, I'm no expert on epidemiology but the problem all such studies have is that of accounting for other influences. Many different factors will influence the incidence of breast cancer; including such things as diet, smoking, environmental factors (eg atmospheric pollution). Some of these may well be correlated with abortion rates - for example, if abortions are more common among poorer women who are concerned they may not be able to properly care for a child then these women may have poorer diets or live in areas with greater air pollution. If that is the case then a study which doesn't correctly account for such influences will probably produce an apparent increase in breast cancer rates among women who have had abortions. The study will need to be designed to account for these factors (eg: include measurements of air pollution where the subjects live), and preferably involve a large number of subjects. Older studies will often have failed to account for factors only later found to be important, and often the information needed to reanalyse the data taking into account new knowledge will not be available. A statement about 28 of 37 studies showing an effect are pretty irrelevant - you need to know the quality of each study and what factors have been included at the design stage.

Finally, some brief comments that struck me from your long post. To say that abortion increases cancer risk because of delayed first birth isn't relevant - most women who have abortions weren't planning on having a child at that time, so the abortion itself won't necessarily influence when the first child is born.

I find the discussion of hormonal changes during pregnancy and abortion to be a plausible mechanism. But then again, women on the pill are exposed to different levels of hormones - and many of these women will have an abortion if they get pregnant, and I wonder whether the effects of the pill are accounted for. I'd also expect similar hormonal changes, and hence increased cancer incidence, as a result of miscarriage - has anyone conducted any epidemiological study relating natural abortions to cancer?

Alan
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Ah - clears throat nervously - Ms Byronic? On the matter of abortion and breast cancer, I have no idea whether Laura or you are correct. The evidence you both amass is impressive, but I lack the medical expertise to analyse it. However, the tone you are taking is a bit hard to handle. When you say:
quote:
I cannot let Laura's postings about the relationship between abortion and breast cancer go unchallenged.

With respect, they were the most appallingly inaccurate, biased, misleading surveys of the scientific evidence I have yet come across.

Laura's posts would fail to pass muster in the editorial pages of the most blatantly 'pro-choice' publications as their inaccuracy would leave the publication open to legal challenge.
you are coming out with all guns blazing. As someone who has no official standing, but who has been around for a while, I'd like to say that this isn't the way debates in Purgatory normally go. We do disagree with one another, very strongly at times, but we try to preserve a tone of calm rationality. Such a full frontal assualt is far more the province of Hell. And by being over emotive in Purgatory you run the risk that folk won't take your actual points as serioulsy as the may deserve.

I'm butting in to say all this. Strictly speaking it is none of my business, and normally I suspect a Host would be having a quiet word. However, I also suspect that - since Laura is not just a Host but an Administrator - if one of them were to speak it might look like "the Establishment" closing ranks. That isn't the way things work round here, but the tone of your remarks also doesn't fit in with what the rest of us are used to. If you could tone things down a little I suspect you would find people here more ready to listen to you.

Hope this helps - apologies if it doesn't.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Dear Ms. Byronic,

You clearly are unfamiliar with serious, robust debate if you believe what you are doing constitutes same. As Alan pointed out, you (and many pro-life readers) are reading into studies propositions for which they do not stand. You accused me of "willful" dishonesty and incompetence at reading, for which I still await an apology. I have neither slandered the pro-life community, nor the scientists in the studies you mention. I have respect for the principled pro-life position, which it is unnecessary to support with bad science. Whatever any study says about the physical effects of abortion is a secondary matter to its ethicality, which is the primary question. If in the end there does prove to be a link regarding abortion and breast cancer (as there has been for breast cancer and alcohol consumption) this will not affect my position on whether abortion should remain legally available any more than it affects my position on whether alcohol should continue to be legally available.

Further, as to your asserted reasonableness in engaging in debate, I hold this up for all to consider:

quote:
If you want to take it further and have my posts excised from the thread and my name removed from the list of approved posters you are perfectly free to do so. I would consider such an action to be a Stalinist offence against freedom of speech and unworthy of a 'Christian' website.
I've never seen a straw man this big on the Ship-of-Fools. In fact, I've rarely seen one this big in real life.

If you want to attack me personally any further, I'm sure one of my fellow hosts here will tell you to relocate your argument to Hell, so that you will not further distract from the important points being debated here.

And it's an exceptionally cheap shot to bring up a relative with breast cancer as if this is to convince us of the evils of abortion. You are arguing with a person who has two relatives who suffered from breast cancer, and many more who had assorted other sorts of cancers which killed them. A reasoned person does not flog another reasoned person in debate with personal tragedy in order to win points. And frankly, I'm not the person you want to get into a family-tragedy competition with, believe me.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I initially had some interest in this thread because ++Rowan is a superb theologian, as I previously mentioned. Judging from his past work, I am sure that he would not have seen this topic in isolation. When I periodically visited again, I was struck by an overall impression which by no means applies only to this topic.

In relation to any moral issue, and regardless of one's individual position, it just does not work to argue purely from a standpoint of natural consequences. (I'm sure we all are agreed that it is wrong to steal - that would not be altered by whether or not one was caught.) Many times, during my own lifetime, I have seen theologians (who attempted to write popular rather than scholarly works), preachers, et al, find that the points they were trying to make were lost when a natural consequence they used for illustration no longer existed, perhaps because of a change in society's views.

Despite the C of E's official position 'against,' obviously ++Rowan is in a situation where most people see the availability of abortion as a necessity. On this and any issue, it is always quite interesting to see how a moral point may be treated when it is contrary to general viewpoints.

Those who believe abortion is a murder cannot present (for example) a connection with breast cancer as a logical defence of the argument. There is no logic in that at all.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Ms Byronic -- "The European disease of racism"?

Excuse me.

Please say that with a straight face to the formerly Indian inhabitants of eastern Africa who were so badly treated by the original inhabitants.

In fact, please say that with a straight face to the members of any minority group that looks different to the majority.

Of course (some) Europeans are racist. So are some of every group on this earth. Racism is, oddly enough, not race-specific. And by suggesting that all, and only, Europeans are racist, you are indulging in a most unpleasent bit of stereotyping.

John Holding
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Those who believe abortion is a murder cannot present (for example) a connection with breast cancer as a logical defence of the argument. There is no logic in that at all.
Just so. Because if you do, you end up having to accept the consequences if it turns out that abortion has some beneficial medical effect.

The first question is: Is it right/wrong?

The second is: Ought it be legally prohibited? (there are wrong things that are not legally prohibited).

The third through 5 millionth are: What else do we know about abortion? Is it bad for you? Is it psychologically damaging in the short term? In the long term? Is it what I must do in these circumstances in which I find myself? Is it selfish? Is it courageous? Does it confer any benefits? et-bloody-cetera.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Lest I be misunderstood - the last paragraph of my previous post had to do with faulty construction of logical arguments. I was using an example related to this thread, but by no means implying that logical errors are confined to any particular topic!

I also was referring to such fallacies in any case where anyone is seeking to set forth a logical argument - it was not intended as a lack of awareness of "et-bloody-cetera." Once anyone disregards logic, further development of any theme tends to fall further and further into what is irrelevant (to that argument) in order to keep from contradicting oneself.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
I got you, Newman's Own! I was just amplifying.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
[HOST MODE]
Just to be clear, I'm now posting in my capacity as a host of this board. I am doing this to clear a few things up before they get out of hand, as they have a potential to do so. What I say here should be taken as an official view as host, and seperate from my personal views expressed earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Ms Byronic:
Laura, you weren't 'personally attacked' your posts were disputed in a robust and no-nonsense fashion.
I fail to see how your initial statement (for example, "With respect, they were the most appallingly inaccurate, biased, misleading surveys of the scientific evidence I have yet come across.
Laura's posts would fail to pass muster in the editorial pages of the most blatantly 'pro-choice' publications as their inaccuracy would leave the publication open to legal challenge.") could be considered as anything but a personal attack - an accusation of bias and innaccuracy with an implication that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead, and even that her post was potentially illegal.

Lauras' request that you apologise for this blatant personal attack has been ignored. I will repeat it. Apologise for the personal attack on Laura.

quote:
If you want to take it further and have my posts excised from the thread and my name removed from the list of approved posters you are perfectly free to do so. I would consider such an action to be a Stalinist offence against freedom of speech and unworthy of a 'Christian' website.
This comment is particularly strange. We have two routes initially open to take things further - reasoned discussion here in Purgatory or open a more thread in Hell where more heated exchanges are better suited. In this case Laura has chosen the first, and exhibited considerable self restraint. At this point, after you have apologised for the personal attack, you are welcome to continue to discuss this issue here within the guidelines of Purgatory (if you haven't read them yet I advise you do so).

If you fail to apologise for the personal attack or continue with your current posting style you will, however, attract the unwelcome attention of the Hosts and Administrators. In that case the powers available to suspend your posting rights or ban you entirely may well be enforced. That is inorder to maintain good order on this site so that people here can continue to debate in a reasonable and free manner.

As with any hostly or administrative comment, if you disagree with this then please take it up in the Styx rather than derail this thread. Post the apology to Laura here, however.

Alan
Purgatory Host
[/HOST MODE]
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Err. Ms Bryonic??

See that little number #3942 next to where it says "apprentice" under your name?

and see the little number #10 next to where it says ADMIN by Laura's name?

That's 3982 reasons why you should be just a tad more respectful..in purgatory at least.

If you want to scratch each others eyes out...take it to hell.

Goodness knows, I sail fairly close to the wind most of the time I know. You made some good points, but tone down a little or else get yourself a soapbox at speakers corner.

That said, I want to go back to a comment Tubbs made earlier in response to some of my posts:

quote:
I’m not sure what took my breath away more – your complete lack of respect for your own peers
It got diverted by the BNP thing, so I didn't get to comment on this aspect.

It seems relevant again since the breast cancer thing has reared it's head again.

Basically, I alluded to the fact that the pro-choice agenda influences a great deal of studies.

What I think people may misunderstand, is that I am not saying the scientist with a pencil and paper in hand is faking results or anything of that nature.

The issue here is publication.

The scientist on the ground who does the research may be completely honest, however, for their findings to become known, their work must be published.

Getting an article published in a respected medical journal means having it approved, by peers, then your boss, then various editorial boards within the journal's establishment.

There is a great deal of competition for column inches in these journals, and as a result, selecting what gets published and what doesn't is a highly political process.

Now, any paper which throws into doubt the safety of a practice performed on 200,000 women a year in britain and 1.2 million women a year in america while generating millions in profit is going to have to have absolutely iron-clad proof to get published.

Hence, there is a publishing bias towards the pro-choice papers.

Hope that makes sense.

matt
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Quoting myself..
quote:
That's 3982 reasons...
err...that'll be 3932 reasons...evidently.

*a puzzled matt scatches his head and wonders if this thread has so fried his brain he can no longer do simple maths..*
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
matt, yes there is competition to publish in journals but that usually means that the scientists writing the paper (and it almost always is a collaboration these days) work harder to make sure their work is of the highest possible standard and then try to get their work in the best possible relevant journal. Good science will always be published somewhere, though I admit there can be a tendancy towards not publishing particularly contraversial work in prestigious journals if there's a fear it may damage the journals reputation - on the other hand less prestigious journals tend to grab them up as if it's true it will greatly increase their reputation.

I'm not sufficiently knowledgable about the prestige of the medical journals which the papers Ms Bryonic cited are published in to judge how good they are. But, that work casting doubts on the safety of abortions re: long term cancer risks was published.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Picking up on a point Matt offered, I have no desire whatsoever to scratch anyone's eyes out. It would ill beseem an administrator, whose arguments are just as up for debate as anyone's. However, it is, as several people have heart-warmingly noted [Smile] , unwise and also poor form to call a person who's been around the block a bit, logically speaking, a dishonest, negligent moron.

[clarification]

[ 06. February 2003, 18:15: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Matt : I can't agree about the profit motive, at least not in the UK, which has a non-profit making health system. If abortion was banned tomorrow, do you really think that medics wouldn't have plenty of other things to keep them occupied - waiting lists are still a reality.

Could it be that many doctors, even those who are themselves not totally happy with abortion, nevertheless recognise that it should be available ? And medical opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to the anti-abortion movement, as I am sure you realise.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
That does indeed explain it better - thank you Matt. I don't know enough about the medical journalism / research field to judge whether or not your rational is accurate tho'. (Hope that makes sense, it's late and I'm sooooo tired [Snore] )

Tubbs
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Byronic to Ship, 15 Jan: Hello everybody - I'm new here, so please be gentle!
quote:
Ship to Byronic, 6 Feb: Hello Byronic - we're new to you here, so please be gentle!

 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Ms. Byronic appears to have insulted and vanished....
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Any chance she was a sock puppet?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Any chance she was a sock puppet?
This possibility has been considered. There is a remarkable similarity in their apparent raisons d' etre (apologies for absence of accenture).
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Whose in particular?

m (feeling a bit thick-must be the mittelschmerz)
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
multipara,

You are driking Passover wine already?

Greta
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Greta, old bean, have pity:

Only 21 drinking days till Ash Wednesday....

cheers,

m
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
Matt : I can't agree about the profit motive, at least not in the UK, which has a non-profit making health system. If abortion was banned tomorrow, do you really think that medics wouldn't have plenty of other things to keep them occupied - waiting lists are still a reality.
The motivations for cover up are political (both government and medical politics) as well as purely financial. It's not merely the money made, it's the money that would be lost were law suits etc. The sheer numbers of abortions involved would create a NHS scandal of monumental proportions.

We're talking about a 40% increase in chances of getting breast cancer here...once you start on a cover-up policy, the political implications of going back on that are huge.

You can see a panorama special on it now: "Government has just admitted breast cancer abortion link...yet first paper on this was published in 1957. Why have we been lied to?"

quote:
Could it be that many doctors, even those who are themselves not totally happy with abortion, nevertheless recognise that it should be available ? And medical opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to the anti-abortion movement, as I am sure you realise.
Actually, I disagree. There has been a huge upturn of interest in fetal medicine in recent years. It is now possible to perform surgical procedures on a fetus in the womb. Of course this is incredibly expensive, and if the option is there simply to "flush the fetus" and start again, it makes funding hard to come by. Hence doctors in this field have to assert strongly a moral right for the fetus to be treated.

Many of those working in neo-natal paediatrics are also pro-life because they work with babies which are of such gestational age that they could still be terminated if in the womb. The top neo-natal physician in the country is a staunchly pro-life evangelical Christian.

Increasingly, even normal GPs are highly disallusioned with abortion and get very frustrated with women returning for multiple abortions...using it as a form of birth control.

A great many doctors would like to see the issue taken out of their hands to be honest. Doctors are feeling increasingly unhappy about being moral arbitrators. Many would like to see "abortion on demand" as law, (which technically it isn't at the moment) NOT because they approve of abortion, but precisely because they disaprove of being put in the position of having blood on their hands by signing abortion certificates, as currently they must.

matt
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Matt wrote:

quote:
Increasingly, even normal GPs are highly disallusioned with abortion and get very frustrated with women returning for multiple abortions...using it as a form of birth control.
The friend I had at university who’d worked as a nurse in an abortion clinic said that these women made up a small minority of their clientele. But your comments about them being considered extremely frustrating are spot on. She said that she despised them … She also said that most people who attended the clinic she worked at were “victims” of contraceptive failure / a night of stupidity and weren’t ever seen at the clinic again. The other small minority were the horror stories – the rape and incest victims etc.

quote:
The motivations for cover up are political (both government and medical politics) as well as purely financial. It's not merely the money made, it's the money that would be lost were law suits etc. The sheer numbers of abortions involved would create a NHS scandal of monumental proportions.

We're talking about a 40% increase in chances of getting breast cancer here...once you start on a cover-up policy, the political implications of going back on that are huge.

You can see a panorama special on it now: "Government has just admitted breast cancer abortion link...yet first paper on this was published in 1957. Why have we been lied to?"
Paddy mentioned a study undertaken in Finland that “proved” the link between abortion and an increased risk of suicide. A link to the full text of this study is included earlier in the thread. The study’s writers did say that there was a link between abortions and suicide but they also pointed out that all the women in their sample came from lower income groups. They recommended further research into the subject to see how important these other factors were. I suspect that the writers of the cancer studies being cited would say the same as it may be a combination of factors that causes an increased risk rather than just the one.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
A great many doctors would like to see the issue taken out of their hands to be honest. Doctors are feeling increasingly unhappy about being moral arbitrators. Many would like to see "abortion on demand" as law, (which technically it isn't at the moment) NOT because they approve of abortion, but precisely because they disaprove of being put in the position of having blood on their hands by signing abortion certificates, as currently they must.
But the doctor has the choice whether or not to peform abortions or sign certificates doesn't s/he? [This is my understanding anyway - as it is one of the explanations given for why NHS abortions are more difficult to obtain in some areas than in others]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
This is going back a way on this thread now..

Laura posted a review of Evidence concerning the Abortion/breast cancer link..claiming that there was none.

First, someone said that a pro-life campaigner who believes abortion is in itself immoral would not fight on the breast cancer battleground.

I think this is wrong on two counts.
1) If you believe something is wrong, your primary motive is to contain or put a stop to it, by whatever ligitimate means. If abortion on demand was ended or decreased due to breast cancer, less babies would be aborted. If this is primarily a moral issue, we are primarily concerned with the end moral outcome.

2) I consider abortion immoral to mother and child. I believe that many women are misled into exactly what action it is they are performing when they elect to have an abortion. Abortion has long term psychological impact. Having a pro-life view point for reasons concerning the fetus need not rule out having an anti-abortion view for the benefit of the mother.

Anyway, that said: I promised to research the article Laura posted article and I have.

First, I suggest going to
http://www.cmf.org.uk/index.htm?helix/win03/brecan.htm

After reading that article Laura, if you have any arguments with it, I cordially invite you to e-mail the author of it, Dr. Greg Gardner at g.gardner@euphony.net He will be far better able to discuss it with you than I.

Some relevant information on the source of your article, Planned Parenthood:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation's oldest and largest abortion provider, is an organization which is supported by U.S. taxpayers. For this reason, it is the most well funded abortion provider in the nation. In the period from 1987 until 1998, Planned Parenthood received a total of $1.4 billion in taxpayer money,(STOPP). PPFA received $176.5 million in government grants and contracts in the period between 1998-99, roughly 75% of which (or $132.4 million) originated from the federal government’s Title X and Title XIX programs. Forty-four million dollars was provided by state and local governments.

PPFA provided 1,939,039 abortions between the years 1977 and 1995. PPFA’s 1998-99 Annual Report reported that it provided 167,928 abortions in 1998 and 165,174 abortions in 1997. PPFA grossed $60 million in sales of the abortifacient Pill in the period 1997-98, and $45 million of that figure represented its net profit.

PPFA’s total revenue at the end of the 1999 fiscal year was $660.7
million. With its expenses reported at $534.9 million, the abortion provider reported a total profit of $125.8 million. Assets were reported at a cool $536.3 million for this “non-profit” organization.

That in mind..one might want to consider their motivations carefully.

Having read the article from CMF, I would highlight to you the following conflicts between the two articles:

1) The PP article starts by describing the hormonal hypothesis, and quotes papers that have supported it (Brumsted & Riddick, 1990; Westhoff, 1997). However, in the next sentence, the PP article simply reports: "Attempts to prove this theory, however, have failed". Note that this claim is not followed up by any reference. It is a completely speculative statement, inserted by PP. They also omit studies going as far back as 1980 in rats showing a rise from 6% incidence to 78% incidence for mammary carcinoma in rats who had induced abortion with respect to a control group. (Russo J et a American Journal of Pathology 1980)

2)Their stated reasons for studies being unreliable are highly misleading.

quote:

quoting PP study


A number of factors may render a study unreliable:

Miscarriages and induced abortion affect a woman's body differently but many studies have not distinguished between them.

Many women do not report miscarriages because they are unaware they have had them.

Abortions are often unreported because of the privacy of the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
Their first point is highly misleading. There is no reason for a miscarriage to raise cancer rate because miscarraige usually occurs precisely because hormonal changes do not occur.

If lumped together with abortions in statistical analyisis, this will make results unreliable, BUT it will make them unreliable in the direction of UNDERestimating the link between abortion and breast cancer. This is the first example of a direct attempt to mislead by the PP article.

Their second point concerning non-reporting of miscarriages is again directly misleading. If the true number of miscarriages were known, this *may* suggest that both spontaneous and induced abortion were equally likely to increase breast cancer, but it makes no difference when comparing full term pregnancy with abortion (of either sort).

Their third reason is the key argument of the link-debunkers, yet it is deeply flawed.

It's called the response bias argument and is entirely speculative. It states that "Women who have breast cancer are more likely to admit to having abortions than those who have not". It seems equally arguable, that given abortion can generate denial that women who develop breast cancer might deny abortions.

The only reason for ever proposing this comes from a swedish trial in 1991 (Lindefors-Harris et al) which the PP article draws heavily on.

In their study 7 women who reported abortions weren't on the national registry of abortions and were thus thought to be making them up. This is the only basis for the "response bias" theory.

It was torn apart in 1998 when it emerged the registry wasn't complete anyway, and it was therefore quite plausible the women weren't making it up.

3) This leads to the third point. PP cites a Danish study (Melbye M et al 1997) as clearing muddy waters and showing there to be no conclusive link.

quoting the PP article again:
quote:
Before Melbye's seminal study appeared in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the body of published research showed inconsistent and inconclusive evidence[quote]

This study is recognised as being one of the worst epidemiological studies of the decade. First, over 60,000 women who had abortions and should have been in the study were excluded.

Second, they considered breast cancer since 1968, but only abortions from 1973! This is utterly bizzare, one cannot put the effect before the cause. It's such a basic mistake it actually smacks of intentional misleading.

4) Intentional misleading seems to be a recurring theme of the PP article however:

Brind carried out an analysis of many studies reaching the conclusion that the majority showed a link between breast cancer and abortion.

The PP article critisises it in the following paragraph:

[quote]In 1996, Joel Brind and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 28 published reports describing 23 studies on induced abortion and breast cancer. Based on these studies, the authors calculated that induced abortion places women at a slightly increased risk for developing breast cancer (Brind et al., 1996). This analysis has been criticized for attempting to calculate the odds for developing breast cancer from widely varying studies (Blettner et al., 1997), some of which have been criticized for methodological flaws and for failing to calculate their results from the raw data of the original studies (Melbye et al., 1997).
Note that last name there? "Melbye"? Sound familiar? Yes. It's exactly the same study which PP had earlier in their article cited as defence of their position!!

The melbye study was one of the handful of which in Brinds analysis did not show an abortion/breast cancer link!! Yet PP are critisising this study, saying it shouldn't have been included in Brind's study because it was flawed!!! This would make Brinds findings STRONGER, not weaker!!!

I had to re-read this article a good few times to actually believe PP had done this. On the one hand, citing an article, then slating it only paragraphs later, and not only that, but making it LOOK like they were discrediting Brind's study, when in fact their slating of Melbye makes Brind's findings even stronger!!!

This is an long post so I'll call it a day there. There could be more, but essentially Laura, the PP article you quoted is not only flawed scientifically, but it's downright devious and dishonest.

matt
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Okay, now I'm really confused as I read the quote you posted as

quote:
Before Melbye's seminal study appeared in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the body of published research showed inconsistent and inconclusive evidence ...

This study is recognised as being one of the worst epidemiological studies of the decade. First, over 60,000 women who had abortions and should have been in the study were excluded <snip>

Brind carried out an analysis of many studies reaching the conclusion that the majority showed a link between breast cancer and abortion.

The PP article critisises it in the following paragraph:

[quote]In 1996, Joel Brind and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 28 published reports describing 23 studies on induced abortion and breast cancer. Based on these studies, the authors calculated that induced abortion places women at a slightly increased risk for developing breast cancer (Brind et al., 1996). This analysis has been criticized for attempting to calculate the odds for developing breast cancer from widely varying studies (Blettner et al., 1997), some of which have been criticized for methodological flaws and for failing to calculate their results from the raw data of the original studies (Melbye et al., 1997).
The bits in bold I read as critcisms of Melbye's "seminal" study rather than defences of it. [Confused] And that PP was disputing Brind's findings as he took data from studies where the orginal methodology was flawed. Is this just me or do others read Matt's quote in the same way [Paranoid]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Me, too.

I'm sorry, being fully employed, I simply don't have the time this week to pursue the breast cancer angle the extent to which it deserves, which I've said I believe is irrelevant to the central question. To the extent that Matt suggests a cover-up based on financial interest, I still think it is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I acknowledged that PP conducts abortions; however, this is irrelevant to the accuracy of the studies they cited, which were done by independent organizations. I mean, organizations most people regard as unbiased. I realize that Matt believes the RCOG to be part of the conspiracy because they supposedly benefit by the availability of abortion. [Roll Eyes] For example, this study seems to have been well done, utilizing a large cohort, in Denmark, where the issue isn't much of a controversy, and so you'd expect less political pressure to find either way. JAMA Denmark Study Abstract

I have to say, contrary to the claims of left-wing conspiracy, it's been very much my experience in the field that "pro-lifers" will latch onto anything that might work, anything at all, that might "scare" a woman away from having an abortion. I think that to be intellectually risky approach, as it sets the whole debate on an unsound footing, and distracts from the very important central question. Matt disagrees, and seems to think scare tactics, even if based on incorrect information, are a net good. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

In the end, I think it unlikely that any fear of breast cancer, or anything else that the opposition can manipulate into a fear will stop a woman determined to abort from doing so.

And let's consider the risk even if we assume the 40% figure is true. A 40% increased risk of breast cancer is statistically not much of an increase, considering the lifetime risk of same. As a comparison for the following, consider that smoking increases one's risk of getting lung cancer by 2,000% according to National Cancer Institute figures.

The lifetime risk of breast cancer is thought to be about 8%, risk of death 3.6%. See, e.g., AAFP Article on Breast Cancer risk. That is, over a whole lifetime, eight women in 100 will contract breast cancer, and 3.6 will die of breast cancer. A 40% increase (if true, which seems doubtful) would mean that for women who had had abortions, 11.2 would, over the course of a lifetime, contract breast cancer. That's 3.2 more women per 100.

Other studies have shown an association between breast cancer and the olive oil consumption (twenty-five percent), a birth weight of more than eight pounds in women (thirty percent), and a weight gain of more than forty pounds after age eighteen (forty percent). Nobody is excessively focussing on any of these, that I can tell.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
As a footnote, Brind wrote letters commenting on the Mabye study which were responded to in JAMA (the Jnl. of the American Medical Association), and pretty much showed that he didn't understand the studies he was criticising, or the ones he relied upon. I'll try to find those in an on-line placy for your reading pleasure.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
The bits in bold I read as critcisms of Melbye's "seminal" study rather than defences of it. And that PP was disputing Brind's findings as he took data from studies where the orginal methodology was flawed. Is this just me or do others read Matt's quote in the same way
YES! exactly!!!
Arrrrrghhhhh!! I made this very point!!!!!

Melbye's study showed NO link between breast cancer and abortion. (And they use this study as a keystone of their defence).

Planned Parenthood have been DELIBERATELY misleading, in such a way that no one not well used to reading these papers would cotton on to.

Let me explain:

Brind did something called a meta-analysis. This is a term which needs explaining to understand what PP are sneakily doing here:

A meta-analysis isn't doing a study yourself. Instead it's where you look at all the studies that have been done in a particular field, gather them all together and use statistics to see what the net result of all the studies is.

So, for example, you might have 2 studies showing a weak positive link, and one study showing a very definite negative link for a particular thing.

Using clever statistical equations (which factor in things such as the size of relative studies) you can work out what the big stastical picture is from all these little studies.

Now, ANY meta-analysis will contain some studies which are pro. and some studies which are anti because you simply take ALL the studies on a particular study and throw them in the statistical melting pot and see what comes out.

As a very simple example (it doesn't work quite like this) If one study showed a +20% risk factor and another showed a -5% risk..the result of the meta-analysis would be +15%. In reality the stastics aren't that simple, but that's the principle.

Now, Brind's meta-analysis of over 20 other studies showed a highly significant linkage between breast cancer and abortion.

However, one of the studies included in this meta-analyisis was a study by Melbye. This was one of the studies which showed NO link between abortion and breast cancer. It's inclusion shows Brind's fairness. Had he not included Melbye's data, the link between breast cancer and abortion would have been even more dramatic.

Now, earlier on in the report PP used this study in defence of their argument and they praised it.

Yet only Paragraphs later they critisise Brind for including it! The same study goes from being "seminal" when it suits them, to being "methodologically flawed" when Brind uses it!

BUT THIS IS NOT THE MAIN ISSUE...The main issue is that Brind using it made hisresults LESS impressive, NOT more so! Had he not included the melbye study in his meta-analysis, the link would have been even stronger! They make what is actually a compliment of Brind's findings, look like a flaw in them!

And there is absolutely no way this is an accident. It's entirely intentional.

in summary, their critisism of Brind's use of Melbye is:
1) inconsistent - they quoted it themselves.
2) They seem to be implying that the Melbye study was in some way critical to Brind's results, or it's flaws undermine Brind's results. Quite the opposite!!! It's inclusion made Brind's results less dramatic than they would otherwise be!!!

I had to read this paper a good few times to believe what I was seeing here. It's quite astonishing.

Matt
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
Matt disagrees, and seems to think scare tactics, even if based on incorrect information, are a net good. We'll have to agree to disagree on that
That's not at all what I said. Unfounded scare tactics would be bad, because in the long run it would undermine the pro-life arguments.

You're addition "even if based on incorrect information" is something from your own imagination Laura.

If it is true that there is a significant breast cancer/abortion link and that results in a fall in abortion rates, of course I would consider that a good thing. However, if there is not a significant link, I would not promote lying. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that...

quote:
As a footnote, Brind wrote letters commenting on the Mabye study which were responded to in JAMA (the Jnl. of the American Medical Association), and pretty much showed that he didn't understand the studies he was criticising, or the ones he relied upon. I'll try to find those in an on-line placy for your reading pleasure.
The nature of meta-studies is that you do not need to understand that much about the individual studies involved. The results are the crucial factor. A meta-study is a purely stastical analysis.

Second, Brind did not "rely upon" Mabye study! As I've said several times before now..it was one of the studies which showed NO link...he included it out of fairness.

matt
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Thanks for clearing up the issue of whether scaring people off using bad science was good -- I misunderstood your position, Matt. You also misunderstood my contention regarding evidence. I have no doubt that there are studies that may show an association. What I'm looking for is a statistically significant correlation. And there still hasn't been one.

Ah, Brind. I understand metanalysis, believe it or not, and have done same; I've even used the "clever equations" you describe. Brind is in a class by himself in the deception arena, though.

In the Humanist magazine, Joyce Arthur discussed Brind. Here's a link to the article -- it is through a pro-choice online source, but the article is from The Humanist, an independent publication. Abortion and Breast Cancer -- A Forged Link

"Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at New York City’s Baruch College, is a tireless proponent of the ABC link. He has devoted an entire website to the issue, zealously named www.abortioncancer.com. The website says Brind “has written and lectured extensively” on this topic since 1992, but his lecturing is confined to the anti-abortion speaker circuit, and he has published only one peer-reviewed research paper on the supposed connection between induced abortion and breast cancer. This 1996 paper, a "meta-analysis" study, has been heavily criticized. Brind pooled the data from 23 studies on the ABC link and came up with a 30% increase in risk. However, most of the studies he included were those flawed by reporting bias, so it was a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out". Brind's work has been supplanted by a December 2001 review of 28 studies of the ABC link by a British researcher, who concluded there was "'insufficient data to justify warning women of future breast-cancer risk when counselling them about abortion.'"
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Basically, the anti-abortion movement will jump on any irrelevant piece of information if it thinks it can be used to advance their case.

Fact is that it doesn't work. This thread has done what most similar threads have done in the past - convinced me that they are wrong and need to be opposed.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
However, most of the studies he included were those flawed by reporting bias, so it was a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out".
But this "Flawed by reporting bias" thing is in itself a conclusion that needs to be justified.

It is a speculation that brinds results are due to some kind of reporting bias, and it's not a very well founded one.

The suggested reporting bias is that women who don't have breast cancer are less likely to admit to having abortions, and hence this biases the results. But you can't simply write off all the figures on the basis of that speculation.

Second, as you you understand meta-analysis, I note you didn't pass comment on the planned parenthood article's misleading Melbye reference?

Melbye was one of the few studies which did not show a link in Brind's meta-analysis. As you will no doubt realise, for PP to critsise the methodology of this study in their review of Brind's meta-analysis is misleading, as, if Melbye was excluded as a bad study, the outcome of the meta-analysis would be stronger not weaker. No one would detected that from the PP article.

matt
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
This will probably be one of my last if not final post on this thread for a while (ever?) - I don't think the hosts will appreciate all the subtle nuances of my finely honed arguments. So apologies in advance for its length.

Earlier on a number of posters including the hosts took umbrage at one of my messages. The hosts demanded that I apologise for the 'personal' nature of my comments.

Well I have no intention of doing so. I stand by everything I wrote.

Hilariously, when I didn't respond immediately to the complaints, some suggested I was a 'sock puppet'. 'A possibility being considered' Laura said grimly. Well just for the record, no I'm not.

As an aside - I think it a pretty poor show for anyone to 'demand' an apology. Apologies should be freely given not coercively extracted. I also find Laura's hysterical demand a bit rich in the light of many of her previous posts - she hardly shrinks from personal comment, abuse and how shall I put it - economy with the actualite - when the argument doesn't go the way she wants.

It smacks of pots and kettles. And giving it but not being able to take it.

I have alluded before to the lack of respect for freedom of speech on this board only for Laura to shriek characteristically: 'Its a straw man'. However my straw man was given substance by Alan Cresswell's threats - for that is what they were - to have me hauled off to hell.

My argument goes beyond the issue of abortion and its link with breast cancer it extends to the bias and partisanship shown by the hosts - which I consider to be foolhardy and damaging. The pro-life point of view is simply not treated respectfully here. As demonstrated by the treatment meted out to posters who express pro-life sentiments. If they do so consistently they are accused of 'crusading'. Those consistently expressing the opposing point of view meet with no such claims, however.

The reason for all this is not hard to divine - Laura and Alan are fanatically pro-choice. Laura thinks pro-lifers are engaging in an issue which is 'none of their business' - her words.

Unfortunately this fanaticism is at variance with her duties as a host on this thread.

It simply is the case that her postings on abortion and breast cancer would not meet the strict criteria of editors in mainstream publications. Her postings are riddled with inaccuracies, she relies heavily on biased sources, libels her opponents and makes unsustainable assertions - (for example that there is no independent statistically significant evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer -

wrong - there is. In fact some 16 statistically significant studies have reported an elevated risk of breast cancer amongst aborting women).

You couldn't get away with that in the print media - I'm an editor, so I should know.

Another bad habit of Laura's is that of rubbishing studies which have reached conclusions she is unhappy with. A phrase in Americaneese which appears with alarming regularity in her posts is 'bad science' - no doubt respected international authority on all scientific disciplines is one of the quivers in her overful bow.

Forgive my sceptism, Laura, but I doubt you know what you're talking about.

There are some 28 studies out of 37 studies have reported an increased risk of breast cancer for aborting women - so thats 28 studies for you to trawl through and denounce at your leisure.

You and others can also denounce the researchers who have reached those conclusions and assert that they are trying to 'frighten' women out of abortions - hmm yes, abortions really are a pleasant trip to the seaside aren't they.

You can also pretend (unconvincingly) that you really do respect the pro-life point of view but don't see the relevance of a risk to mortality and morbidity implied by an elevated risk of breast cancer.

But I disagree. There is a profoundly moral issue at stake - in their zeal to protect and promote abortion, abortionists are showing a casual disregard for women's lives. They are as guilty of tobacco manufacturers in their use of dirty tactics and efforts to deny evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer.

The most that can be said about abortion and breast cancer is that the links are not yet conclusively proven. However, the majority of studies have reported a link and women considering aborton should be informed of this fact. Breast cancer is still the biggest killer of women in the western world.

Its a long way from saying - as Laura did before she was caught out - that the link between abortion and breast cancer has been 'debunked'.

In the 1950s, before a link between consumption of tobacco products and lung cancer had been definitively proven, some conscientious doctors were warning their patients of the weight of evidence linking the two.

Some interested parties would no doubt have complained that consumers were being unduly panicked into giving up their cigarettes. But history judges these doctors differently. Who knows how many lives they saved by treating their patients as grown ups and informing them of the potential risks of tobacco consumption.

Oh yes, Laura dislikes my reference to female relatives who suffered from breast cancer - she thinks she would 'win' a family tragedy contest. Well dear, if you want to go head to head with a holocaust survivor's grandchild, fine.

I'm sure by now the hosts are veritably bursting with indignation at my intemperate post. I say to them: If you yourselves insult your posters expect them to respond in kind.

***

Laura, in her own words.

Here for your delectation I reproduce some of Laura's unlovely comments on this thread:

'Paddy, I recommend you stop cutting and pasting bogus statistics and half-truths in interminable posts and engage the issue. None of the statistics (I identified at least two that are baldly incorrect, and I'll go off to get the 'sources on it) Paddy, I recommend you stop cutting and pasting bogus statistics and half-truths in interminable posts and engage the issue. None of the statistics (I identified at least two that are baldly incorrect, and I'll go off to get the sources on it)'

She didn't make good her promise needless to say.

'I hate to say it, but these were many of the reasons that abortion was extremely difficult to obtain under a certain German regime I won't bring up, but just allude to gently'

I'll just to allude to Laura's poverty of historical knowledge gently. Adolf and chums prohibited abortion for fine Aryan specimens, not because of any deeply held belief about the sanctity of life but because they wanted to drive up the birthrate.

They also actively encouraged abortion amongst ethnic groups they disliked, the Jews for instance. According to Adolf Jewish women should be encouraged to abort their children, 'the more the better' he proclaimed. Not the first or last example in history of abortion being used for means of social and racial engineering.

According to Laura:

'As to the birth rate issue (an instrumental and not a principle-based argument), with which many anti-legal-abortion groups here in the US are concerned; they also cite the dropping birth rate, but what they're mostly talking about is the birthrate among whites, for the most part, because they are concerned that America will shortly be overrun by blacks, Latinos, Asians ... in other words, that America will shortly be overrun by Americans.'

An argument for which she provides no credible evidence - in other words a libel.

Funnily enough she doesn't mention the long links between the abortion/birth control movement and the racist eugenics movment. Wasn't it Margaret Sanger, member of the American Eugenics Society and heroine of the abortion movement who called for the extermination of 'human weeds'?

'It was an extraordinary thing for me to look out my window on Wednesday this week and see hundreds of thousands of people marching against something that is none of their business. But since our dear state and federal gov'ts seem determined to get involved, I want there to be a letter on file from the dear Supremes telling them to bugger off.'

How charmingly put!

***

After all that it is a bit rich to squeal about being insulted, don't you think Laura? Like I said, you like to give it but you won't take it. Or putting it differently: Take out the mote from your own eye.

If Laura and Alan think my post insulting I can only suggest that they get out more.

Well so long guys and gals. I expect to be frogmarched out of here any moment now. Its a shame that free speech is not tolerated here while certain individuals are at liberty to lie with impunity and insult without shame. Such is the nature of Stalinism in Cyber space.
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
Regarding Laura's comment 'garbage in, garbage out' on the work of Professor Joel Brind.

His work has been 'heavily criticised' by those in the abortion industry - not by his peers. In fact the UK's RCOG assessed his work and pronounced it had 'no major methodological flaws and can not be disregarded'.

I think Laura is coming dangerously close to impugning an academic's professional reputation.

This is surely not the job of a host. It could also have legal implications for the website. So I suggest that she desists.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
I have alluded before to the lack of respect for freedom of speech on this board only for Laura to shriek characteristically: 'Its a straw man'. However my straw man was given substance by Alan Cresswell's threats - for that is what they were - to have me hauled off to hell.

*snip*

Its a shame that free speech is not tolerated here while certain individuals are at liberty to lie with impunity and insult without shame. Such is the nature of Stalinism in Cyber space.
[Killing me]

All right, whose sock are you? There is no way anyone could actually say this with a straight face.

On preview, my God, you ARE serious. [Eek!] Don't you worry your pretty little head about legalities, we've got it covered. Thanks for your concern, though.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Oh, so it's by-ronic? A few posters had previously rendered Ms b's moniker as "bryonic" which made me wonder if she posts elsewhere as "embryonic".

And to think we thought she'd gone...well, after that little hissy-fit maybe she will.

cheers all,

m
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
No, she's currently throwing a temper tantrum in the Styx.

*sigh* I DO wish people who threaten to leave would once, just once, have the common decency to follow through on their threat.
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
Well yes, I am serious. Thanks for the comment about my bloody attractive boat race - I agree it is cute.

Are you sure you have legalities covered? Really? You shouldn't tempt fate with overconfidence.

Still harping on the sock puppet theme - let it go sister.

This board may be good but it aint that good that people can be bothered to create the said sock puppets.
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
And - deep sigh - I wish people would read my posts properly - I didn't threaten to leave, I alluded to threats to have me removed by security.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Huh. Considering that I have personally caught out over two dozen sock puppets, I'll have to say that here is yet another instance where you don't know what you're talking about. Though I note that hasn't stopped you from shooting off your mouth to date.

And yes, I'm sure we have the legalities covered. Again, thanks for your concern.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ms Byronic:
And - deep sigh - I wish people would read my posts properly - I didn't threaten to leave, I alluded to threats to have me removed by security.
I guess I'll just have to chalk it all up to wishful thinking. I don't suppose you could take the hint and just go on your own, could you?
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Ms B you've said you're leaving so I doubt if you will ever read this, but I have to say that I found your outburst extraordinary. You are still fairly new about here, so the convention is that you should be treated gently, therefore all I will say is that everything you accused Laura of I found to be true of your own post. If you want to stay around, please read more widely on other threads to see how debates here are conducted. And if you really want to have a go at someone then start a thread in Hell - that's what it's there for.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Admin hat on

Ms Byronic, as you have opened a thread in the Styx, I will shortly be posting there in response.

I will not, however, be replying to all the points of your lengthy post above, however, because most of it is irrelevant to the issue to which you should be turning your attention.

At the top of p. 9 of this thread, Alan Cresswell posted with his host hat on and said you should apologize for your personal attacks (commandment 3). As you have refused to do so, you are in violation of commandment 6: Respect the hosts.

If your next post on this thread is not an apology, I will suspend your posting privileges for two weeks.

RuthW
Member Administrator
 
Posted by Ms Byronic (# 3942) on :
 
Did you? Well show me how in my capacity as a host I have posted inaccurate or libellous comments. Show me something I have got wrong and I will honestly admit to it.

And cheers Erin, you're quite the charmer aren't you?

If you want the thread to be anodyne and bland, go ahead throw difficult customers off. It won't do anything for the quality of debate though.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Admin hat still on

I'm going to assume we cross-posted, Ms Byronic, and that you did not see my post before hitting "reply" on your last post.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
I'm absoluted stunned at all this. What can I say? To the points worthy of address, I'll say that Ms. B entirely misunderstands my position. To the extent that I have occasionally made strong remarks in connection with my views on this very fraught subject, or that these remarks have gotten in the way of expressing my reasoning on these subjects, I am sorry to have clouded the issue.

I'll clarify.

1. I respect the principled pro-life position, although I disagree with it. I have been engaging these issues for many years, and my position is also principled. I have yet to hear a pro-life representative on this thread acknowledge my principle, behind which lies much thought, on this score. Maybe today will be my lucky day.

2. As to the fraught issue of the abortion-breast cancer link, I hereby state that I will cheerfully accept a convincing study that shows a link between abortion and breast cancer. I accept the studies that say that my alcohol consumption puts me at higher risk, even if I don't like that result. I have yet to see a convincing study. Mr. Brind's work, while passionate, does not rise to the level of establishing a positive link in order to be conclusive on the issue, which science rarely is in any case.

3. Hey, I'll go even farther -- to the extent that having children early in life (which I did personally, by the way) confers some protection against breast cancer (which is reasonably well-established, I believe), then abortion *and* not having children early must both represent some level of, if not risk, then a missed opportunity to receive a protective benefit.

4. But, (and I think I'm saying this for the fifth time, at least), whether or not abortion raises the risk of breast cancer does not and never will affect my view of whether abortion should remain legally accessible.

Because, as I see it, the first and most important question is: is abortion morally right/wrong? Yes? No? Under certain circumstances? Never?

The second question is: Assuming it's right/wrong how ought society to treat demand for it?. E.g., should it be legal? Until when? What rights has a fetus? By itself? As against a grown woman? What responsibilities does a woman have toward the fetus? What rights/responsibilities has a man?

The third to millionth questions are: What else do we know about abortion? Does it causes other conditions? Does it hurt women? Psychologically damage? Help? Etcetera.

And that's how I see it.

Peace to you all.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
....and one other thing.

I formally apologize to Matt the Mad Medic for not taking his suggestion to drop the whole bloody ABC thing ages ago. He was absolutely right that this is not a good forum in which to *debate* the state of medical research. In contentious issues, this means that both sides end up waving studies in each other's faces, and criticising the methodology of the other's studies. And that this is especially unfortunate when the scientific argument is a major distraction from the main point at issue. Matt, you were right. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
(More tidy-up)

Matt, you said

quote:
But this "Flawed by reporting bias" thing is in itself a conclusion that needs to be justified.

It is a speculation that brinds results are due to some kind of reporting bias, and it's not a very well founded one.

The suggested reporting bias is that women who don't have breast cancer are less likely to admit to having abortions, and hence this biases the results. But you can't simply write off all the figures on the basis of that speculation.

Second, as you you understand meta-analysis, I note you didn't pass comment on the planned parenthood article's misleading Melbye reference?

Melbye was one of the few studies which did not show a link in Brind's meta-analysis. As you will no doubt realise, for PP to critsise the methodology of this study in their review of Brind's meta-analysis is misleading, as, if Melbye was excluded as a bad study, the outcome of the meta-analysis would be stronger not weaker. No one would detected that from the PP article.
But, Matt, IIRC you made the same unfounded contentions about the RCOG, that they must be biased, and their study is no good. I'm not saying that Brind is wrong because he's biased. I'm saying he's wrong AND he's biased. It's okay to be biased if you don't color your work with it.

I understand your point regarding the meta-analysis and Mabye's study. I certainly concede that PP's article could be regarded as misleading on that specific score, if you read it in the manner described. That does not mean that Brind is right, though.

[ 12. February 2003, 17:25: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
[tangent]
quote:
Breast cancer is still the biggest killer of women in the western world.
Wrong!!!

The death rate from heart disease is very much higher.

[/tangent]

Moo
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:

Because, as I see it, the first and most important question is: is abortion morally right/wrong? Yes? No? Under certain circumstances? Never?

The second question is: Assuming it's right/wrong how ought society to treat demand for it?. E.g., should it be legal? Until when? What rights has a fetus? By itself? As against a grown woman? What responsibilities does a woman have toward the fetus? What rights/responsibilities has a man?

The third to millionth questions are: What else do we know about abortion? Does it causes other conditions? Does it hurt women? Psychologically damage? Help? Etcetera.

And that's how I see it.

Peace to you all.
Couldn't be more clear - and admirably put.

They are independent propositions however - a private moral decision, or a widely held consensus that something is morally wrong does not mean that demand for it should necessarily be unmet or that there has to be a law or policy banning it. Law-makers may be elected to regulate it or not and permit individuals the moral choice whether to join in or not.

You may, for example, consider prostitution or gambling* morally wrong on grounds of human exploitation or abuse or on grounds of the risk of participation of organised crime. It does not follow from that the State should not regulate who provides these things and how those activities should be regulated, in order to meet demand by those who regard prostitution or gambling as morally neutral or morally acceptable.

To put it another way,I know that my private moral stance on abortion is not necessarily equivalent to the public consensus on whether seeking or performing an abortion is morally acceptable behaviour. The evolution of public law and public policy on abortion depends upon who is elected to create law and public policy on abortion and thus to influence such things as whether abortion should be a crime, whether it should be available in hospitals, whether it should be funded by Medicare or the NHS and so on. The rest of us - whether pro-life or pro-choice - are standing on the sidelines trying to influence that process. That is not to belittle moral debate between the two camps or to deny the power of public opinion. It is simply, currently, the way the system works.

It does seem to me that both sides may have unexamined assumptions about the morality of killing.

A number of the pro-life opinions on this thread have sought to use one set of facts or another in a selective manner to argue the correctness of a moral position that amounts to "Killing is wrong. Abortion involves killing therefore abortion is wrong." (The use of competing epidemiology studies in incidence of breast cancer is a case in point. Abortion is wrong because it might give you breast cancer?) Yet we don't have a consistent moral position on when killing is wrong. The same act of killing may be murder, death in war or justified as self-defence or non-culpable due to insanity.

The pro-choice side must also square up to the question of killing - in their case of the balance between the interests of the "humans" over those of the "becoming humans", whether justified on the grounds of choice, financial circumstances, threats to maternal health, genetic disorders and so on. The debate over how late in gestation should abortions be performed illustrates this. Implicit in the debate over survival outside the womb, foetal brainwaves and so on is the question of in what circumstances do the interests of the "becoming humans" deserve protection or even prevail over those of the "humans". Abortion is terribly final - that particular "becoming human" won't be coming around again in our belief system. That finality means, for example, that it's not enough to say "It's going to happen, so let's regulate it or provide it", without examining the justification of killing.

I have undoutedly over-simplified by not providing more specific examples or directly engaging in debate with other participants - but then it seems to me that both sides must examine their stances against Laura's three questions.

Can't add any more right now - it's getting late here.

* Why those two? They are both examples of legal, regulated industries in New South Wales - and there are good moral arguments against both activities, just as there were equally good public policy reasons for regulating them. I feel moved to starts threads on both, so I shall check Dead Horses and Limbo first.
 
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :
 
Laura - I wanted to post this yesterday but my connection suddenly disappeared. I'll cut & paste what I wrote then, anyway...

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Maybe today will be my lucky day.
Laura, it’s your lucky day.

I know that I haven’t posted on this thread (I, well, I just couldn’t bring myself to) and maybe that means that jumping in now is inappropriate, so sorry if that’s so.

However, I wanted to say that as someone who holds to a pro-life position, I absolutely and unreservedly acknowledge that your position, Laura, is principled, well thought-out and (hold onto your hats everyone) reasonable.

We disagree – probably strongly – but that is hardly amazing where an issue is so emotive and difficult to handle.

But frankly if we can’t all get over ourselves and work as much as we can to help and support women who find themselves facing a crisis pregnancy whatever we think about their eventual decision we’re all in trouble. The legality or otherwise of terminations has little to do with this, it seems to me.

And if that makes me not ‘pro-life’ in the eyes of some others, frankly, I can live with that.

bird
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Thanks Birdie, and you make some excellent points about the need to work together to help people.

Duo Seraphim,

Yes. I agree that these are also independent questions -- in keeping with what you say, I do not (yet) support legalized euthanasia in the United States, for all sorts of *policy* reasons,though I do not think that suicide when suffering painfully from a terminal illness is wrong. There are those who believe prostitution wrong, but who think it probably ought to be legalized and regulated, for policy reasons.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think the status of the humans are always higher than those of the becoming humans.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
MM, that is my position too, as outlined earlier. However I still think that the foetus, as personne en devenir is worthy of enormous respect, and I am concerned about the high abortion rate in this country and elsewhere. It seems to me that if really reliable contraception was easily available then we ought to see a dramtic decline in the number of abortions, and maybe even an emotional change in the way in which it is regarded.

Therefore it puzzles me that some of those most deeply opposed to abortion (on the grounds that the fetilized agg is fully human) are also deeply opposed to contraception (because the sexual act must always be open to the possibility of creating life). I can understand the logic of their position, but only if the debate takes place in a completely abstract and theoretical manner. Once you include the effects of this position on the lives of individuals ISTM that this appraoch is untenable.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I agree with you on all those points, Wandering. I think that it would be useful if we could all pool our thoughts to consider how abortion might be minimised - but unfortunately I have found that the anti-abortion movement are not interested in anything other than the total prevention of abortion.
I also feel very angry when those who oppose legal abortion also vote for cuts in single parent benefits and/or access to housing on the grounds that they 'should have been more responsible'
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
However, I wanted to say that as someone who holds to a pro-life position, I absolutely and unreservedly acknowledge that your position, Laura, is principled, well thought-out and (hold onto your hats everyone) reasonable.

We disagree – probably strongly – but that is hardly amazing where an issue is so emotive and difficult to handle.

But frankly if we can’t all get over ourselves and work as much as we can to help and support women who find themselves facing a crisis pregnancy whatever we think about their eventual decision we’re all in trouble. The legality or otherwise of terminations has little to do with this, it seems to me.

And if that makes me not ‘pro-life’ in the eyes of some others, frankly, I can live with that.

bird
Birdie, you have got this so right. I, too, hold a pro-life position - in my case based on my conviction that a civilised society must protect those who cannot protect themselves, including "becoming humans" who deserve the chance to be born.

But we must also act in justice to those who are facing the decision to terminate their crisis preganancy. We owe it to them to address the social and financial issues that made the pregnancy a "crisis" in the first place. Is it lack of opportunity of education or work? Of cheap readily available child care? Of adequate paid maternity leave? (In Australia, this is currently left to the conscience or otherwise of individual employers.) Of access to reliable contraception? Or that they know that they have our love and support, whatever their decision?

< Tangent Alert

Laura, you and I would agree both on maintaining the current legal ban on euthanasia and on the right of the terminally ill to choose suicide. That choice must,however, be their clear and voluntary choice, reached independantly and without pressure, actual or perceived.

End of Tangent Alert.>
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Credit to Laura for some very rational and reasoned posts....

Hey...I like Bryonic..she makes me happier about my own position on SoF! Contrary to what may be most people's perception, I don't take any great pleasure in being the "fundamentalist fringe" in most debates!

Laura, you're american right?? When I think about that...it sorta makes more sense that you would be pro-choice.

I'm english, and here, there really is no political debate about abortion. It is unthinkable that any front-bench Member of Parliament would openly declare themselves "Pro-Life" with respect to political policy.

Having looked at how Pro-choice/Pro-life is cynically used as a political football in the states, I can well imagine that I would probably withdraw from the debate altogether and refuse to state an opinion. (Which I guess would make me pro-choice by passive default).

So, if I have been unfair on you in not giving enough weight to the cultural gap with which we are both coming to this, I apologise.

Likewise, I hope you should appreciate that I come from a country where, since there is no significant political debate on this subject, my views are probably arrived at with a good deal less "political baggage" than your average american pro-lifer, and I'm certainly not wild eyed, spitting fire and standing outside abortion clinics with billboards.

Mutual points for consideration there I feel.

quote:
1. I respect the principled pro-life position, although I disagree with it. I have been engaging these issues for many years, and my position is also principled. I have yet to hear a pro-life representative on this thread acknowledge my principle, behind which lies much thought, on this score. Maybe today will be my lucky day.
I don't doubt your pinciples on the ethics of this in the slightest.

I differ with you about the facts of the matter which determine which ethics and principles come into play.

Consider the following:

"Given the facts of the situation are X therefore we ought to do Y"

In such a statement, everything before the "Therefore" is factual, everything after the therefore is ethical. (A matter of principle).

It seems to me, that the main area of disagreement in the abortion argument is about the X clause, not the Y clause.

Hence, we are disagreeing principally about facts, not ethics, eg:
Step 1 "Is the fetus a full human being? Yes/No" (A question of fact)

Step 2 "Therefore we can/cannot abort it." (The Ethical implication.)

Now, given that we believe each other mistaken about the facts of the matter, I have absolutely no problem with your ethical principles which you then apply to your understanding of the facts.

I am not in any way morally questioning logical ethical implications of the factual conclusion you have reached Laura. One must, of course, follow through on the logical conclusion of one's understanding of the facts, and I respect the fact that is what you do.

If I held the same view of the facts, I would hold to the same ethical conclusions and principles and come to the same conclusions.

Which I think is the same thing as saying I respect your principles?

Does that make today your lucky day? [Love]

quote:
4. But, (and I think I'm saying this for the fifth time, at least), whether or not abortion raises the risk of breast cancer does not and never will affect my view of whether abortion should remain legally accessible.
I agree. My argument is not that ABC link should make abortion illegal. It's that, if it exists, it should be made in high profile public awareness.

this is because:

1) A woman's right to accurate unbiased information on health care procedures she volunteers to undergo. I think we would both agree that the politics of both the pro and anti abortion lobby are hindering this at the moment.

2) Were an ABC links proven and publicised it would probably lower abortion rates by, lets say, 5 or 10% and (from my pro-life viewpoint) that would be a benefical by-product, because it would be 10,000 babies a year not being aborted who otherwise would have been. I consider that a good thing.

A word of caution on the ABC link though: I feel the pro-life lobby could shoot themselves in the foot. Most experts agree the effect would be limited to 1st trimester abortions. One could imagine a situation where doctors recommended women wanting an abortion to put it off having it until well into the second trimester to avoid the hormonal problems.

Horrible thought. Not something anyone wants to see I'm sure.

quote:
Because, as I see it, the first and most important question is: is abortion morally right/wrong? Yes? No? Under certain circumstances? Never?
Actually, I'd say that's the last question. The final decision "is it right or wrong?" is the last step in the chain of reasoning, it's not the starting point...but I know what you are getting at.

quote:
The second question is: Assuming it's right/wrong how ought society to treat demand for it?. E.g., should it be legal? Until when? What rights has a fetus? By itself? As against a grown woman? What responsibilities does a woman have toward the fetus? What rights/responsibilities has a man?
I'd say questions such as "What rights has a fetus?" comes before what you have listed as the first question. Surely it is in answer to the question "What rights has the fetus?" we reach the conclusion as to whether abortion is morally right or wrong? If the fetus has no rights, then clearly abortion is not intrinsically morally wrong.

If it does have rights, then it is the interplay between the rights of the fetus and the mother that make the decision of the morality of abortion.

quote:
The third to millionth questions are: What else do we know about abortion? Does it causes other conditions? Does it hurt women? Psychologically damage? Help? Etcetera.
On one level, (the intrinsic morality level), I agree entirely with you Laura. However, they play a part in the legal question to some extent, because they may play a part in the extrinsic morality of the situation.

After all, Heroin is illegal, but it isn't intrinsically immoral it's just considered so bad for you as an individual, and bad for society as a whole, that the government bans it for the protection of the people.

Likewise, I suppose you could suggest abortion was so bad for you / bad for society that it ought to be illegal. It's a whole different approach to the debate of course, maybe it's an interesting debate all of it's own.

quote:
I formally apologize to Matt the Mad Medic for not taking his suggestion to drop the whole bloody ABC thing ages ago. He was absolutely right that this is not a good forum in which to *debate* the state of medical research. In contentious issues, this means that both sides end up waving studies in each other's faces, and criticising the methodology of the other's studies. And that this is especially unfortunate when the scientific argument is a major distraction from the main point at issue. Matt, you were right.
Yes, it panned out pretty much as I predicted. The discussion was exclusivist to those of us with experience of scientific journals etc, and ended (as I thought it would) in waving journal references at each other.

I kinda figured it would probably end up in an excruciatingly dull debate over whether Scientist Smith would have been better off using a t-test instead of a Chi Squared and other such diversions. Still, we live and learn.

I critisised comments in the papers Laura referenced and Laura said:
quote:
But, Matt, IIRC you made the same unfounded contentions about the RCOG, that they must be biased, and their study is no good.
Yes Laura, but I made that statement in an informal context on a discussion board. If I was going to publish a paper I wouldn't dream of writing what I wrote about RCOG in the informal manner I did here.

quote:
I'm not saying that Brind is wrong because he's biased. I'm saying he's wrong AND he's biased. It's okay to be biased if you don't color your work with it.
I'd admit his biased. Everyone is biased one way or the other, but I simply do not see anything to suggest he is "wrong". IF you said you found him "Not yet fully convincing"Yes..ok..I'd let you have that.

quote:
I understand your point regarding the meta-analysis and Mabye's study. I certainly concede that PP's article could be regarded as misleading on that specific score, if you read it in the manner described. That does not mean that Brind is right, though.
Agreed, it doesn't make Brind right, but as you must appreciate, my point was that PP were (to be polite) less than transparent? It made me feel the whole tone of the article was one of "spin" rather than in the spirit of a balanced scientfic review.

What's worrying is that I think it's symptomatic of BOTH sides whole attitude to this issue. As I stated at the top of this post, the "political football" nature of the abortion debate in the states renders any meaningful scientific study impossible.

For my money, it looks like there is an ABC link of some sort. Of what magnitude? Very hard to say, and at that point everything becomes mired in deception, politics and propaganda on both sides.

matt
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
quote:
I'm english, and here, there really is no political debate about abortion.
What a curious comment. ISTM that abortion is always being debated somewhere, periodically breaking into the political arena. Certainly there was a lot of heated discussion when the legal limit was revised downwards from 28 weeks to 24, as there were strong arguments put in favour of 18, as well as abolition. (Hmmmm - that was in 1990, which only seems like yesterday to me, but probably feels like a long time ago to the youngsters on board.)
 
Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
Wow, is this thread still going?! Like all debates on abortion it is has long since departed company with reason and logic. This horse has been well and truly flogged. Whether to death or not is up to our lovely host of course.

First to put my cards on the table, I am not a pro-lifer and accept abortion is necessary in some circumstances. However the arguments used by the pro-choice lobby, often have little to commend them.

Listen up you abortion defenders - there is only one primary moral issue in the abortion debate viz has the "fetus got any legal or human rights?". The issue of freedom of choice is irrelevant - yep, irrelevant, to the whole debate. Why? because society routinely does not allow us to choose what is immoral, thus the question of morality is divorced from the question of choice or freedom of action.

Morality concerns the question "What should I choose to do?". Face the moral issue and then you know how you should choose. If something is immoral, no argument about freedom of choice can make it moral. To say otherwise is really because very many pro-choice supporters appear to try and avoid and duck the moral issue of fetus rights. But in my opinion they should not be afraid to do so.

All debates about the morality of abortion should focus only on two questions:
a) does the fetus have human rights?
b) if a is answered positively, do those fetal rights or needs always outweigh the needs of the mother, family or society?

Individuals in the above debate implicitly take their own moral stance to the question of "is abortion morally right" as either a "Never" - i.e. they answer question a) above positively; if "Always" - they answer question a)above negatively; or if their stance is "Sometimes" - they are agnostic about question a) and/or say no to question b).
Simple as that.

I thought someone should be arrogant enough to cut the gordian knot after 400 posts. And we can safely say that the actual question posed by the OP is absurd as Anglicans have no more of a contribution to make to the abortion debate than anyone else. "do enough"? - doing what exactly? Quite silly, I must say.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Fatprophet is right that, I think partially because of the OP, this thread has not really gotten into the central questions very much. I'm starting a new thread in which to debate these issues more cleanly and without the ABC discussion, and in fact, I'd like to stipulate that there be no discussion on the new thread of anything like ABC. In order that we not end up whacking each other over the head with scientific papers.

What we're looking for here, is a thread which will be worthy of the Dead Horses board. That helps me refine the questions, which for inclusion in DH must be a vexed issue with polarized positions and these positions must be at heart mutually exclusive. A DH debate must drive a significant number of people insane, including several hosts.

DH Questions:

Is the fetus a legal "person" for the purposes of legal rights and legal protection, such that to abort ought to be outlawed in the same way that we outlaw unjustified killings of persons?

Matt, if the UK formulation needs to be different, please restate the question as needed. In the US, only a "person" has Constitutional rights. A fetus has been held not to be a "person".
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I am happy to hear that the new Archbishop opposes abortion. Unfortunately I live in the US and official lack of respect for life (Episcopal church seems to think abortion and euthanasia are acceptable while having some opposition to capital punishment) is a major reason for my departure. I converted to Roman Catholicism in the year 2000.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I would argue that voluntary euthanasia shows far more respect for life than keeping people 'alive', against their will, without any quality of life at all - but thats another issue.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Basically, I'm the 'anti-homicide candidate', Mike (although I am not actually running for anything) and I think people should not be put down (as our 15-year-old dog with inoperable cancer was) just because of extreme pain or old age. Kevorkian is a serial killer and should have life in prison with no parole.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I would argue that voluntary euthanasia shows far more respect for life than keeping people 'alive', against their will, without any quality of life at all - but thats another issue.
I'd agree with you, if it weren't that under the US system, one might be choosing suicide because one's insurance wasn't adequate to provide necessary palliative care, or in some cases, necessary treatment. What I don't want is people "choosing" euthanasia, rather than beggaring their families with care they ought to receive. When we have a just-er system of medical care, then I'll consider legal euthanasia.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
There is also the issue of pressure from other parties...and there is a very real concern that a chronically ill or disabled individual and /or his medical attendant(s) might be subjected to (not always) covert pressure from family members to hasten the demise of that individual.

No, I'm not speaking in jest or hypothesising-these scenarios are very real and the motives of family in requesting/pushing for euthanasia may not necessarly be as base as desire for gain-carer fatigue can be enough.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Sorry for the double post,but the above is definitely other-thread material-and someone else can start it!

cheers,

m
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Sorry for the double post,but the above is definitely other-thread material-and someone else can start it!

cheers,

m
Agreed, and I'll start one when I can find the energy -- or maybe someone else will.

I, too, have heard anecdotal accounts of disabled persons being urged to sign DNRs when in the hospital for unrelated things like pneumonia.
 
Posted by Gambit (# 766) on :
 
Sorry for my late two cents but having read this entire thread the one thing that bugs me is

quote:
Ms Bryonic declaimed:
Take out the mote from your own eye.
Surely that is

Remove the beam from thine own eye, before removing the mote from your brothers.

Sexist is my translation from the Greek admittedly, but no-one is told to remove the mote from their own eye.

Sorry.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Thanks for the response, all, but I am not up to starting a new thread right now.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I, too, have heard anecdotal accounts of disabled persons being urged to sign DNRs when in the hospital for unrelated things like pneumonia.
[tangent alert]

I heard a story about a severely disabled man who had just undergone surgery. While he was in the recovery room, a social worker came in and wanted him to sign a DNR. He yelled, " I'm thirty years old, and I don't want to die yet."

The head nurse came in and asked him why he had verbally abused a staff member. He replied, "Because I couldn't reach anything to throw at her."

[/tangent alert]

Moo
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0