How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 So What Is It If It Survives   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

So What Is It If It Survives

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


0 posted 09-18-2008 09:15 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


an abortion attempt ?

A human being or a medical error?


.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


1 posted 09-18-2008 10:01 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

until someone can convincingly harmonize abortion with the principle primum non nocere, then it is hard for me to think of it as a practice of medicine at all.

It would be a survivor, and would remain, as before, a human being.

Stephen

  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


2 posted 09-19-2008 12:38 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"It"?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


3 posted 09-19-2008 01:21 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Huan Yi,

                     What is the limit beyond which abortions become illegal procedures, Huan Yi?

     What is the earliest point at which a fetus is viable outside the womb, Huan Yi?

     There are situations where such things become more complex, such as when the pregnancy suddenly threatens the life of the mother, yes.  I believe there are some questions you cannot answer honestly in advance, and any attempt to do so is unrealistic.  I have surprised myself frequently in all sorts of directions, and I fondly wish I might continue to do so.  Legislation to govern these things in advance will probably not come to grips with the questions in the depth that they require.

     Outside these somewhat unpredictable and highly unusual situations, there is a gap between the point of viability on the one hand and the cut off point where abortions are legal on the other.  You muddy the waters.

Why?
  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


4 posted 09-19-2008 02:00 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


In the UK it would be a medical error.

In the UK any abortion performed over 21 weeks requires that the foetus is terminated by lethal injection before the procedure is undertaken, in practice this doesnít always occur. This results in one in thirty foetuses surviving the procedure.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393315-details/One+baby+in+30+left+alive+after+medical+termination/article.do

In the UK a legal abortion can only be performed up to 24 weeks, in the US some states allow abortions up to 28 weeks. Viability without medical intervention is around 28 weeks, with modern medical intervention itís around 24 weeks though in a few rare cases itís as low as 21 weeks. The record for the earliest surviving premature birth is a tad over 20 weeks.

In France the limit for social abortion, an abortion undertaken for any reason other than a medical condition, is 10 weeks.

Iím pro-abortion but believe that the gap, or the potential lack of a gap, between  legality and viability is untenable. I think France has it about right.

Another good question Huan.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


5 posted 09-19-2008 02:08 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act


.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


6 posted 09-19-2008 08:23 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

The viability argument/criteria is fallacious.  So a fetus is not "viable" without medical intervention, therefore it is not human?  A newborn without immediate parental intervention will also surely die.

What is the reasoning behind choosing "viability" as the criteria for personhood?


Bob,

As always I appreciate your efforts to show others issues aren't always black or white ... and that there are exceptions to any rule.  However, in the abortion story, as with anything else, neither should exceptions define the rule.

Stephen
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


7 posted 09-19-2008 08:40 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Grinch


If I understand the article,
injections prior to abortion
are intended to kill the foetus
while in the womb.

At least that keeps things legal. . .


.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


8 posted 09-19-2008 09:02 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Sometimes questions like this crop up to show us our absurdities.  For example, In 2004 Scott Peterson was charged with "double homicide" for murdering his pregnant wife (setting a precedent and undermining our current legal views of what constitutes personhood).  And though most people unquestioningly felt that killing a pregnant woman was somehow more wicked than killing a woman, and not just collateral property damage (or some other euphemism), our current abortion laws flew in the face of that feeling, and the ruling.


The very question of what to do with a survived abortion attempt, likewise, is an indicator that absurdity is afoot.  Anytime you have one room with medical professionals who are trying to kill, and another with medical rescue professionals on standby in case the first group fails, you have a tragic form of comedy.  


Stephen  
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


9 posted 09-19-2008 10:51 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

quote:
Sometimes questions like this crop up to show us our absurdities.


No doubt.  

I think Grinch is closest to an agreeable answer, because I think John is asking us to decide when conception becomes a protected life under law.

Let's just jump the gun, and I'll ask, are nocturnal emissions manslaughter?

I'll jump the gun twice and reply--some things are simply not in your control--

like my medical procedures.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


10 posted 09-19-2008 11:35 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Karen,

With all affection, I think you may have indeed jumped the gun.    


a gamete does not have its own set of genetic code, but is merely a specialized cell of the parent.  Embryologists will tell you that a fetus is an entirely new human organism, not something like a reproductive cell or an organ.  So, no, nocturnal emissions aren't any more murderous than menses.  No jokes here promise?  


What does philosophical discussion have to do with my personal control?  (I never claimed or wished that anyway)  What I do have control over however, is my answer to the question of whether the clinical practice of abortion reflects the true spirit of medicine, the first principle of which is:  "first, do no harm".  And I don't think it does. And since philosophical ideas underlie all stances on abortion including the "its a woman's body" argument, let all of them be respectfully questioned, including my own.  


Lastly, legislation, for good or ill, guarantees that somebody will always have some control of our medical procedures among many other things.  Thankfully, American Government provides a system where laws can change, and sometimes for the better.        


Stephen
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


11 posted 09-20-2008 12:14 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I think Grinch is closest to an agreeable answer, because I think John is asking us to decide when conception becomes a protected life under law.


In addressing this, I'll ask again why "viability" (defined as being able to survive without medical intervention) is an agreeable answer to what constitutes personhood?  Are insulin-dependent diabetics less than human?


The question is still, whether or not the fetus is a human being.


Stephen
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


12 posted 09-20-2008 12:19 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

The question is...

I don't really have any.

What I have are legal rights.

I intend to keep 'em.

Now if you'll excuse me, I like to keep my medical doors of procedure shut.

Just ask anybody.

*laughing*
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


13 posted 09-20-2008 12:29 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Karen,

If the laws changed would you still feel the same contentment with legal status quo?

Do realize that the pro-life position is not about taking away a woman's rights, but about trying to establish the human rights of the unborn.  I don't question whether an abortion should be allowed to save a mother's life.  I do question whether one person's personal 'choice' should be honored above another's right to live.


I know this is a touchy and difficult subject.  Don't want you upset with me.  Only discuss if it is conducive to our good relations m'lady.  K?


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


14 posted 09-20-2008 12:36 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

On a lighter note, Karen, I would like to point out that if you're truly keeping your doors shut, then we're discussing someone else's rights, not yours.  


Stephen
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


15 posted 09-20-2008 12:40 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

It's okay.

I just doubt you and I will ever agree.

I don't even know why I'm showing up in this argument.

I'm pretty sure I just had myself surgically removed from it! I'm just glad my uterus wasn't like...a catalystic converter or somethin'...

<--cracking myself up again

heh

I guess I'll e mail ya the punch line. *snort*
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


16 posted 09-20-2008 12:44 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Um ... please do.  (great silent apprehension following)

Can I pray it gets spam filtered?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


17 posted 09-20-2008 03:50 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Abortion is the likeness to committing Capital Punishment on someone that never even got to make a choice, let alone commit a crime for such a crime-like sentence in conclusion.  I don't even believe in Capital Punishment for criminals, therefore, I certainly will never accept such a thing for innocent children not even out of their mothers' wombs.

    

[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-20-2008 10:35 AM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


18 posted 09-20-2008 07:39 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

If the president of the United States had a terminal illness that required him to have a liver transplant would it be morally correct to take the liver of the only suitable donor without his\her consent if the procedure would result in the death of the donor?

If another surgical procedure was available which meant that the donor only needed to be connected physically but permanently to the president would it be morally correct to do so without the donors consent?

If the donor consented to the second procedure but after 28 weeks requested that the connection be removed would it be morally correct to deny the request even though the president would die?

If the donor is unable to give consent, in a coma perhaps, is it morally acceptable for the connection procedure or liver transplant to be undertaken?

If your morality is anything like mine youíll answer each of the above questions with an unequivocal NO, but why?

If you take the first question and break it down itís a straight decision between the rights of the President and the rights of the donor to determine their future survival. There seems to be a fundamental moral rule that apportions each  individual the right to life. I believe that this right also includes a clause or caveat that the individual has the right to choose, that right canít be overruled or negated by the rights of another. Thatís why it Ďs morally incorrect to elevate one individuals right to life over another individuals.

The second and third questions raise the issue of whether an individual should be free to determine how they live their life without, in some special cases, being obligated to base their decision on the indirect effects that decision has on others.

In the right to live your life the way you want to the caveat is that although the individual has a moral right to self-determination that right does not however overrule or negate the same right afforded to others. In simple terms that means that itís not morally correct to make a decision regarding the way you live your life that impinges on anotherís right to live theirs.

At the same time however there also seems to exist a moral get out clause pertaining to those special cases I mentioned. It would seem that this says that you are not obligated to base those decisions on  the right to live that other individuals have where the effect is not solely dependant on your decision alone. Evidence of the get out clause in action lies in the answer to question three. If the donor decides to live his\her life disconnected from the President the President dies, this would seem to impinge on the right of the president to live. The get out clause however allows the donor to abdicate responsibility because he\she is not obligated to take into account the viability of the President to live.

Question four, if you answered no, clearly shows that the right to life and the right to determine the way you live your life is always presumed to exist without direct evidence to the contrary. This suggests that the unborn foetus does possess the right to live but as stated above viability determines that ability.

I believe that based on the above a woman should have the right to determine how she lives her life and if that necessitates having and abortion then Iím fine with that. I also however believe that  a foetus that can survive independently from the mother, with or without medical intervention has the right to live.

Which is why I believe that the French option of  ten weeks, giving sufficient gap to err on the correct side of viability seems to be the most reasonable.

Iíve probably failed to get across what I mean as clearly as IĎd like to, itís a complex topic and time restrictions arenít conducive to clarity so if you have any question just shout and Iíll try to answer as soon as possible.

Stephan,

As a side issue there are 42 million abortions a year, what do we do with all those unwanted children if abortion is suddenly stopped?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


19 posted 09-20-2008 09:52 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
What I do have control over however, is my answer to the question of whether the clinical practice of abortion reflects the true spirit of medicine, the first principle of which is:  "first, do no harm".  And I don't think it does.

Neither, then, would the battle against cancer, Stephen. Radiation and chemotherapy both contradict your precept of "first, do no harm." They contradict it big time.

quote:
As a side issue there are 42 million abortions a year, what do we do with all those unwanted children if abortion is suddenly stopped?

Your question, Grinch, presupposes that abortion can be stopped. History would suggest the better question would be what do we do with all those women undergoing substandard and unsafe procedures in someone's back room?


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


20 posted 09-20-2008 10:47 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Your question, Grinch, presupposes that abortion can be stopped.


I was trying to keep the backstreet abortionists argument in reserve Ron.



As you rightly say though you canít stop abortions being undertaken, legally or illegally they will always take place. My feeling is that itís better to control the when and how, while chipping away at the why, than it is to try to stop it all together.

Primum non nocere ďfirst, do no harmĒ as you also rightly point out isnít always the aim of modern medical practitioners. Itís often replaced with Primum succurrere ďfirst, hasten to helpĒ which is probably more apt in the case of abortions.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


21 posted 09-20-2008 02:26 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Well, Stephen, I guess you were not amused.

*grin*

But my second choice punchline, in answer to John's question was:

"A Registered Voter"

----------------------------->ducking and running!

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


22 posted 09-20-2008 08:48 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Two cents.

I remember a very vivid time back in the late 1960's when, in a tout of disregard, my brother said to my parents, "I didn't ask to be born."

It was a great symbolic moment for all of us.

Does a child, a newborn, an embryo, have thought process? I believe they have senses, like a pin prick, and react. Are they thinking? I don't know.

I just remember how that very statement caused deep concern, and some highly questioned thinking processes.

" It matters not this distance now  " Excerpt, Yesterday's Love
~*~
KRJ

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


23 posted 09-20-2008 10:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear folks,

           It strikes me, as I read along, that the concept of rights is generally presented as something related to responsibilities.  I have certainly heard rights presented to children and adolescents in those terms, when we are training them, and I know that they were with me when I was staggering toward that adulthood that I suspect will someday descend.  Or at least the inner feeling of it.

     It also strikes me that the notion is conspicuous by its absence from our conversation about "The rights of The Unborn."  What are "The Responsibilities of The Unborn."  If in fact the mother dies as part of the birth process, and we have given the unborn child "rights" that are in fact real rights and not some legal fiction that is designed as a sop to a voting block of fringe loonies, shouldn't that fetus, now a child, be put on trial for a minimum of involuntary manslaughter and jailed?  Otherwise, granting of "rights" to a fetus in the womb seems a ridiculous legal charade to cover the attempt of the religious right to impose an archaic religious standard on the rest of the population.

     It does nothing to decrease the number of abortions, which are apparently about stable whether they are legal or not.  The difference it does make is not in the number of abortions, but in the number of women who undergo them who are maimed or murdered by the process.  The pornographic pictures of aborted fetuses that the anti-choice folks are excited by will not go away.  What will happen is that we will be able to add to them  further pictures that will add to the smugness of the anti choice people showing the dead bodies of women who have died from botched illegal abortions, and we will be able to criminalize women who try to get what is now a procedure that is legal and reasonably safe.  The more looney of the religious right wing loonies will have to find other people  to murder for other issues of course, perhaps for being the wrong brand of Christian or not believing in The Virgin Birth in the approved fashion of that person's chosen brand.  That should be no problem.  Hindus and Muslims and Jews have their own brands of loonies as well.  There's always room for someone else to disagree with at the table; hate is very brotherly that way.

Sincerely yours,  Bob Kaven
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


24 posted 09-20-2008 11:52 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I understand that life may be lost in the duty of defending a life that is threatened by someone else.  Such is the case where a Police Officer may come to the extreme that he uses his gun and shoots someone to save his life or someone else's.  But for the Police Officer, it is still his duty to minimize conditions that bring about that kind of extreme and only to resort to it as a last resort and defense against a life threatening threat. He can't just use his gun by request and urge of another, when there is no serious danger at hand.  And that is the way I think it ought to be with abortion.  If the mother's life is not threatened by the child because of a complication, then there should be no right to act against the child's life, for the child poses no threat to anyone.   Abortions that are not necessary to save the mother's life, are an unnecessary act directly against someone's life, in this case the child's life.   The law is humane enough to give Charles Manson the right to live and not undergo Capital Punishment.  When will it also be humane enough to give at least that much respect to an innocent child in a womb: the right of the child's life not to be taken just because he/she is not wanted by a parent?

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> So What Is It If It Survives   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors