»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
So What Is It If It Survives
| Philosophy 101 |
|
So What Is It If It Survives |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. an abortion attempt ? A human being or a medical error? . |
||
| © Copyright 2008 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"It"? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
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 doesn’t 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 it’s around 24 weeks though in a few rare cases it’s 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. I’m 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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
quote: 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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: 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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
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 againheh I guess I'll e mail ya the punch line. *snort* |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Um ... please do. (great silent apprehension following) Can I pray it gets spam filtered? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
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 you’ll answer each of the above questions with an unequivocal NO, but why? If you take the first question and break it down it’s 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 can’t be overruled or negated by the rights of another. That’s why it ‘s 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 it’s not morally correct to make a decision regarding the way you live your life that impinges on another’s 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 I’m 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. I’ve probably failed to get across what I mean as clearly as I‘d like to, it’s a complex topic and time restrictions aren’t conducive to clarity so if you have any question just shout and I’ll 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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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: 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I was trying to keep the backstreet abortionists argument in reserve Ron. As you rightly say though you can’t stop abortions being undertaken, legally or illegally they will always take place. My feeling is that it’s 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 “first, do no harm” as you also rightly point out isn’t always the aim of modern medical practitioners. It’s often replaced with Primum succurrere “first, hasten to help” which is probably more apt in the case of abortions. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
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 Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
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 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
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? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Bob, I typically find that people resent any argument based largely or solely on religious beliefs. "Because God said so" isn't very convincing, save perhaps to those already convinced. It works both ways, though. Your last post seems to take potshots at the religious for seemingly no other reason than that some of them disagree with you. That, again, is only going to convince those already convinced. I think that most people of faith would argue that murder is wrong. I don't think that makes murder a religious issue, and I don't think it would be prudent to dismiss arguments against murder just because they were made by people you appear to dislike. Similarly, abortion isn't a religious argument. In my opinion, trying to make it one only clouds the issues. On an unrelated note, I know how you value references, so perhaps you could give us some support for your contention that "abortions . . . are apparently stable whether they are legal or not?" That seems a little hard to either prove or disprove, so I'm guessing that's more of a guess than a statistic. Would that be a fair assessment? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, There was a large study, worldwide, published in The Lancet in 2007 that has apparently aroused a great deal of interest. It's pretty much crowded other stuff off the google site, though I will continue looking. Fortunately for me, it supports the position I took. I did do some research, after all, before I started talking. The articles I site here emphasize different aspects of the study. I should try to see if I can get a copy of The Lancet someplace. I confess to not being good with the computer, so I think there's one reference that crops up a few times and doesn't show up. Have a look see. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]http://www.nytimes.com/ 2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/URL][/URL] ]http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/27/485] http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/27/485[/URL] 3/ http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-richards29oc t29,0,5137479.story?coll=la-news-comment The references are all pretty solid. I think I omitted the one from The Nation. I generally make a point of doing that; but if you're interested there is a good article there by Katha Pollitt. I'm not against religion, Ron; I'm against religion that attempts to make government policy about what goes on in bedrooms and how women deal with their bodies, and how those of us who don't happen to believe in their particular brand of religion need to follow their religious rules. I lost confidence in that sort of thing when I heard people at an anti-choice rally cheer for the guy who shot a couple of GYN docs working at two women's health clinics in Boston. It's been a long time, so I may have gotten my facts off a bit, but I remember a receptionist died and other folks were shot. Big celebration. And if you haven't heard the lecture about with rights come responsibilities, allow me to express a certain amount of surprise. It's a common point. The point I was making is that in talking about granting rights to fetal tissue, there is but half an argument being set out, since these fetuses are not actually being expected to act in a responsible fashion till much later. Certainly some of the politicians who scream most loudly for their right to life before they are born, give the appearance of being grimly determined not to feed them, house them or educate them or attend to their safety until they can vote. Even then, that will often depend on their race. Should the child be unfortunate enough to run afoul of the law, this is one of the few countries in the world that will execute a child of 18 or under, in some cases even if they are too simple minded to understand what they are in trouble about. Why would I not assume that the politicians are pandering to a right wing religious voting block when the same politicians make no particular show of having any other moral commitment to the values these religious are supposed to espouse on a daily basis, but which are not hard core vote-getting issues? I respect the religions; the people who exploit them cynically for power, I confess I am troubled by. Any religion, when it loses touch with the love that is at the core of it, threatens to become demonic. I would have to include the extremes of rationalism that science can extend to at times. We really need to bring a little of everything we have in order to express our humanity. Fairy tales tell us that it's unwise to exclude folks from the party, like the witch who put the curse on snow white, who wasn't invited to the christening. But I'm getting too psychological here, and it's almost four in the morning here. Best wishes to you Ron, and thank you for your considerate letter. I so frequently get better than I deserve from you. Best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: What’s the answer then Ess, presumably you‘ve thought about what we‘re going to do with all those kids? If it were possible to stop all abortions tomorrow (better Ron?) what exactly do you propose that we do with the 43 million kids? Could we find homes for all of them? I could probably take one, two at a push, it’d be a long term commitment though and would probably adversely effect my standard of living but I’m willing to accept that cost. How many can you take in? Surely you can manage one, Bob must be able to manage two and I reckon Ron can manage another. That’s six. All we need to do now is to find homes for the other 42,999994. I think you’ll find though that come next year I won’t want another. Well that’s not exactly correct, I’ll want to take on another, I love kids, but I just couldn’t manage another either financially or physically - my wife and I aren’t getting any younger. Hopefully you can understand that there comes a point where taking on another child just isn’t possible. Now I just feel bad - I really want to help, I’ll tell you what instead of taking the kids in can’t we just pay towards their upkeep - a tax increase perhaps to meet the costs - I could go for that. How much is it likely to cost? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article632126.ece £180,000 per child!! That’s £8700 a year per child for 21 years!! That’s £374100000000 a year in total!! That’s about £56 per year for every man woman and child in the world but obviously not all of them can contribute - lets say that 20% can contribute. That raises the cost per contributor to £283 a year - I can live with that. But hang on - next year there’ll be another 43 million additional kids which will add another £283 if the number of unwanted kids stays exactly the same, and every year after that it’ll rise by the same amount. Unless of course all those kids start having kids when they hit sixteen. My head hurts thinking about it. I’m stumped Ess, I don’t think I can afford to keep paying out for all those kids - put me out of my misery - what’s the answer? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, Very interesting. You're a wise one, Mr. Grinch. While I was doing some checking to answer Ron, I ran across this citation from the L.A. Times, my home town paper, which speaks to the very thing you're talking about. Enjoy. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-richards29oct29,0,5137479.story?coll=la-news-comment All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch quote: You make it sound as if we are not already dealing with the problem the way it is right now. There are already people wellnigh everywhere that need special care. Other children, elderly folks, handicapped, people in jail, etc We have examples in every group. Of course it is crowded and difficult in many cases, but their right to live is still defended by the law and no one, caregiver or otherwise, may take their right to live away only because they don't want them or the burden of taking care of them. In short, the answer, the right answer, is to help them and others that need help as much as we possibly may. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I am appalled at the lack of woman voice in this thread. I sincerely hope my joking didn't contribute to that, but even as I type those words? I laugh. Y'guys don't really think you control shtuff, doya? (Ladies? I think they think they do.) Ya'll don't really control anything. NEVER DID. I hope that fact isn't news to you. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Serenity, I think it depends on which women I'm talking to and what the discussion is about. I get the response you've just offered sometimes, and I believe that it's true. And sometimes I get the response that says that men have held us back from our attempts to gain legitimacy and equality in the world. And I believe that's true. I believe a number of viewpoints are true, Serenity, and I don't think any of them has a complete lock on the truth. I used to want to get a group of women who disagreed about this and close them in a room to argue it out until they were finished. I realized that this was a solution that wouldn't work; and that all the points of views, and lots of others too, had a piece of reality, and that the problem was how to put it all together. People as a rule don't want it put different points of view together at this point. People, I believe, would rather win than understand. Not that I want to generalize or anything. One of the reasons that it takes so long to get any good at tai chi chuan is that you have to learn the lesson called "investing in loss." Unless you learn that lesson—and I haven't even finished learning this version of the form yet, let alone reaching the point of actively working on this lesson—you will always be at the mercy of somebody who has learned it. You betray yourself by tipping your hand as you go in for the kill. Someone who has learned to "invest in loss" will understand what you are doing better than you do, and allow you to defeat yourself. Why do you allow yourself to voice only this half of the truth, Serenity, when there is more to it? Do you believe women's voices are unwelcome here? The study I quoted is much too complex to be categorized as gender biased, and I see no indication that you looked at any of the data from it. If you did, of course, I apologize. But I did mention the article by Katha Pollitt in The Nation, which should address some of your concerns. Why not give it a look? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
bob? I'd consider that first paragraph less insulting if you didn't preface it with: "I think it depends on which women I'm talking to and what the discussion is about" tsk... Okay, I'm willing to concede there are women who want to have that pat on the head. I ain't one of 'em. I had an abortion. I'm damned glad I did. I would have a completely different life, and probably wouldn't have the children I have now if I'd chosen to proceed with a pregnancy that would have resulted in a cocaine addicted baby. (That was just the least of it, Bob. We have no idea if the baby would have been born at all, actually, or it could have been Einstein, I have NO IDEA--I chose to abort.) I chose. I chose to abort. Got it? Do not placate me. (Do you sense I'm a bit peed off now?) You should.  YOU do not get to talk to me about chi chuan--no--and you don't get to talk to me about "investing in loss". And you want to know why I think women are not talking here? Because, Bob, until you've talked to a woman who has reversed her entire natural cycle creation, you can't understand what it means to invest in loss. bleed that is an investment in loss I don't mean to be that harsh, but it's that harsh. "Why do you allow yourself to voice only this half of the truth, Serenity, when there is more to it?" I was being gentle, Bob. You don't know what it means to be two people at once. Only women know that. and only for a short time, at that. I really think you peed me off, Bob. But I'll get over it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Karen, Sorry. If I’ve inadvertently offended you I apologise, that‘s the last thing I wanted to do. I was simply trying to point out what I honestly believe, which, in essence, is that whether to have an abortion or not to have an abortion should be decided by the expectant Mother. At the same time I believe that the potential suffering, of all parties, should be minimised by reducing that window of choice to the first ten weeks. I’m not (quite) stupid enough to believe I can control what other people do or think, all I can do is add my voice and opinion to the debate in the hope that it might make a difference. I guess I’ve done that so I’ll just leave it there. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article625477.ece . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Serenity, Exactly what is insulting about that first paragraph? and why do you think I am being critical of your having an abortion? or anybody having one, for that matter? I was reacting to your comment about men's thinking about control of the world. Do men control the world? The truth is I wouldn't know how to get a measurable answer to that question, or any kind of objective answer. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody else did, but I don't. I know that I've gotten two sorts of answers to that question from women over the years. Women really run everything. Women have been kept from having any power by men for a very long time. There is nothing to argue about here, Serenity. Those really are the kinds of responses I've gotten. What is patronizing about that? It's reportage. Is the truth that women run the world news to me? That fact that some women think they do sometimes is not news to me. The fact that this is even true in a way is not news to me either. Is the fact that women are kept in a position of relative powerlessness by men news to me? The facts that some women believe this to be true is not news to me, no. The fact that this is even true in a way is not news to me either. Nor has it escaped my notice that both points of view contradict each other and that I agree with both of them. What you choose to listen to of what I say is up to you; it's entirely your choice. I have nothing to say about it. Once the words leave my mouth, I loose control of them. This discussion is apparently an example, since I can't recognize anything I said from your reaction to it. If I want to talk about tai chi, you certainly don't have to listen. In fact, I recommend that you don't. If the knowledge is offense or if you don't agree with it, I'm happy to have it for my own, to work on understanding as best I can by myself. I find it almost impossible to integrate as it is; though I must say, I owe you some thanks for the practice. You might also check out that Katha Pollitt article in The Nation to get some idea of what I was talking about. I'm not interested in patting you on the head. Nor am I interested in being seen as somebody who thinks anybody but you should be making choices about your body. Nor do I recall having said anything to that effect. Pro choice. Pro-choice doesn't mean that I think women run the world all the time. I take the yin-yang business seriously. Bob K. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: One obvious difference between your bizarre analogy and gestation, is that the unborn is in no way permanently "connected" to the mother. Nine months is a far cry from that. Another problem is that you can't account for why the example of a mother who decides to abandon her week old baby (who also cannot survive without the mother's actions, even if that action is only as much as arranging for an adoption or turning the child in to Social Services) does not also apply in an analogous way to pregnancy. For with either the newborn or the unborn, survival is impossible without the mother. Though we would all wish for more (a life long commitment) a mother only need to go through with having the child, and following through with making arrangements for adoption / foster care. quote: We would continue to make adoption and foster care more attractive (adoption tax credits and cost control helps here), and concurrently work socially/financially to help young mothers choose to keep and care for their children. The rhetorical trick in your statement is in the idea of "unwanted". the question is, unwanted when and for how long? Does a system which sheepishly calls the unborn child "products of conception" or some other conscience-numbing term, encourage people to persevere in hard times, to doubt their desperate (but possibly temporary) desire to just end things, to seek other alternatives? I would bet some honest counseling about fetal development (with the visual clarity that is possible with our present technology), and later the introductcion of the child through birth would cure an astoundingly large amount of "unwanting". It's much easier to not want whom you've never met and bonded with. The abortion industry plays on this unfamiliarity I believe, and widens the divide even more by being ambigious (if not outright denying it) about whether there is an actual killing of a human being involved. Ron: quote: Pardon me, but that's sophistry. No system is perfect; Nor can any philosophy be kept to a tee I supose; But destroying some good cells (which will mostly recover if the cancer itself is survived) along with malignant cells to possibly save a person's life, cannot be compared with killing an unborn human being for another person's ease. Remember, I am not questioning the right to abortion where the mother's life is in jeopardy. So what exactly IS the medical condition that is treated by abortion? You're not seriously going to try and equate pregnancy with Squamous Cell Carcinoma? The tight logic you are usually known for Ron, should not miss the unalterable fact that a human organism in early development isn't a tumor. Grinch: quote: I asked Ron this, now I'll ask you ... What medical condition does abortion treat? Bob: quote: I don't agree with that for a couple of reasons. I have read that the quoted numbers of women's deaths due to "back alley abortions" prior to Roe Vs. Wade is simply false. Bernard Nathanson, once-abortion-advocate and abortion MD, wrote that the quotes about "10,000" per year were not based on real stats which have apparently proven to be somewhere closer to 60. And even if there were many deaths unreported, the commonly claimed figures are exaggerated to say the least. Secondly, it is reasonable to think that a system which makes abortions easier and safer, and sanctions them, would yield more of them. This is especially true if the system is somewhat designed in concord with our legal tendency (except in certain telling cases) of viewing the fetus as not-a-human-being. "Uterine Content" and "Products of conception" and professional assurances that what is being destroyed is not really a person yet, contribute to the "sellability" of abortion. Spared from this, I am sure that scores of women would be dissuaded from that course of action. If the fetus is not a human being worthy of protection, then why not make life easier via abortion? If the counter argument is made that I am basing this on intuition and not statistics, I will point out that the pro-abortion argument is neither based on statistics, but rather a "gut" feeling that desperate women will have it done whether "safe and legal" or not. I simply think given the better information, it would not at all be the case. Of course you will always have some. But if "people will do it anyway" is any kind of argument against abortion being illegal, it is an argument against anything being illegal. quote: This is really avoiding the arguments. Though Christians have the best metaphysical / ethical foundation from which to argue protection of the unborn, the pro-life arguments out there aren't exclusively religious. They are based upon the same moral (and legal) principles most non-Christians hold concerning human rights in other contexts. They are also based upon rational and scientific principles. The fact is, you are only speaking of the weakest arguments for pro-life if you think it's exclusively presented in King James paraphrase. Scott Klusendorf and Francis Beckwith are two proponents of the pro-life position you should consider. http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Life-Against-Abor tion-Choice/dp/0521691354/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222149346&sr=8-1 quote: Well I'll use a wholly non-religious argument to counter your pro-abortion argument: I'll begin with a question. How can you scientifically support the premise that this is only a question of how women deal with "their" own bodies. Is it scientifically tenable to say there is only one body involved after conception? quote: Understandable Bob. But positions cannot be rightly judged by their abuses or extremes, else you're either attacking a straw man, or letting a straw man scare you away from the real field. Maybe a few abortion doctors are also baby killers (born babies). But it would be irrational for me to let that that determine my thoughts about abortion. I detest the killing of abortion doctors just as much as I detest the killing of unborn human beings. quote: It seems to me you've made it sound like a temporarily comatose patient should be held responsible for causing his family financial and emotional hardship for having a stroke. We still grant those people rights too. The fact is there is a myriad of situations where we grant rights to humans who have no, or very little responsibility. The newborn being the most obvious thorn to your argument about rights demanding responsibilities. Unless I've misunderstood you here ... quote: Agreed Bob. But the desire to protect human life is not necessarily a power move. If those who want to protect the unborn are often inconsistent by being against social programs to help women and children, then that is a whole other issue. But this is not always the case. Jim Bouder on this very forum occasionally, I believe is both pro-life and a social activist. Lastly, I don't think that the issue is necessarily one that has much to do with feminism, except for the fact that women are the most immediate decision-makers because of childbearing capacity. Neither do I think that disagreeing with someone else's choice (based upon principle), means that I have the right to despise them or doubt that there were challenging "reasons" involved. Bob talks about love and understanding, and I think we need that as much as possible. And women should be welcome to this thread. I suppose the decision for anyone not to join the discussion also has to do with "choice". Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-23-2008 11:28 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I read some of your links, Bob, at least those that worked. I'm not sure a study conducted by a "reproductive rights group" is one I would consider unbiased, and I think that's important when a large part of the study is based on estimated numbers. I think Stephen's argument is much more compelling. Even more convincing, at least personally, is that I know a woman who had an abortion. I knew her well enough to know she wouldn't have done it if she had felt at all unsafe. It's anecdotal, sure, but it suggests there was at least one child who might have lived had abortions been a little less easy to get. quote: First, Stephen, I think the comparison is apt enough. In both instances, we're talking about ridding a person's body of unwanted cells that have the potential to adversely effect their life. Second, my comments weren't meant as a defense for abortion. Rather they were intended to suggest your "Primum non nocere" argument was, well, frankly a bit of sophistry. It is, after all, a tenet of modern medicine that is quickly put aside when it makes sense to do so. As such, I don't think you get to legitimately use it as a rule that pits abortion against "the true spirit of medicine." quote: Pregnancy, of course. Or would you disagree that pregnancy is a medical condition, Stephen? One with far reaching effects on a person's life? Or would you perhaps argue that we shouldn't treat conditions that are ultimately self-induced and avoidable? You know, like pregnancy, lung cancer, adult onset diabetes, most instances of high blood pressure, yada yada yada? quote: No, Stephen, not anything. We still need laws to protect people from other people. At issue, I think, are the laws designed to protect people from their own flawed natures. You know, like prohibition? Or, for that matter, recreational drugs, prostitution, and gambling. Laws that try to legislate morality don't work. They never have and I suspect they never will. Congress can't rescind the laws of physics and they can't stop people from being people. quote: And there's the whole crux of the matter, Stephen. In this particular thread, we see exactly the reverse of that ambiguity, by yourself, Stephen, as well as by Essorant and Grinch, I think. Just about every post in this thread speaks of a human life when neither its humanity nor its life have been agreed upon. No one disagrees with the sanctity of human life. Arguments that pit the life of a child against the life style of the mother are simply songs being sung to the choir. We all agree. What we have not agreed upon is when that life comes into existence. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’m not even a mother Stephen but I still feel permanently connected to my kids but if you want to quibble that it’s not a physical connection I won’t argue the point. Change the length of time the connection the donor has to sustain to nine months - does he\she have the right to request to be disconnected after 20 weeks? quote: That’s just not true though is it, the orphanages of the world are full of kids separated from their mother at birth that are evidence against your statement regarding newborns. In addition this thread itself is based entirely on the premise that unborn foetuses are capable of survival from 20 weeks when separated from the mother. quote: I think I’ve already pointed out the fly in that particular ointment - we cannot possibly support 43 million orphan kids every year - we can‘t even support the number that are born now. Saying we should or we could is all well and good but at some point you have to face the fact that we simply can’t. quote: Fine, so you’re suggesting that the an attempt is made to get the mother to bond with the unborn child, I don’t think that’s unreasonable as long as after the attempted bonding if the mother still wants to go through with the abortion she’s free to do so. quote: I don’t think we ever will Ron but I don’t mind trying: My definition of life, in this case, would be the point at which the foetus can survive, with or without medical assistance, when separated from the mother. That’s based on the premise that the ability to live is a fundamental requirement to possess a quality that can be described as lfe. Specifying that in terms of weeks is a little more difficult, medical science is permanently pushing back the boundary but at present it stands at around 20 weeks. Which is why I suggested half that - 10 weeks - as a reasonable upper limit after which social abortion shouldn‘t be permitted without further investigation. [This message has been edited by Grinch (09-23-2008 06:37 PM).] |
||
|
echolong Junior Member
since 2008-09-17
Posts 22 |
First, Stephen, I think the comparison is apt enough. In both instances, we're talking about ridding a person's body of unwanted cells that have the potential to adversely effect their life. The difference of those cells Cancer cell growing will kill a life. Fertilized egg growing will produce a live-offspring "the true spirit of medicine." Abortion kills mother, hurt mother, and hurt function of fertility. And there are many side effects including mental problems such as depression. Pregnancy is a natural reproductive activity. It is not medical problem. But to abort “unwanted” pregnancy is like using drug, gambling, or smoking or secondhand smoking (like being raped ) is not a healthy thing. Is abortion killing life? Why do people freeze their eggs and sperms if they are not life? Pregnancy, of course. Or would you disagree that pregnancy is a medical condition, Stephen? One with far reaching effects on a person's life? Very right. This is how human species are still here today. Or would you perhaps argue that we shouldn't treat conditions that are ultimately self-induced and avoidable? You know, like pregnancy, lung cancer, adult onset diabetes, most instances of high blood pressure, yada yada yada? Why? Stephen is a nurse. But he is a person with mercy! We still need Laws that try to legislate morality don't work. They never have and I suspect they never will. Congress can't rescind the laws of physics and they can't stop people from being people. Law can stop people being self-righteous to kill. Abortion(except of being raped and congenital malformation) is not merely a moral issue which the moral judgment is to have the sex or not. Abortion brings many medical problems. Old Echo |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Right, Echo. So we should protect the mother from herself? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: only one set of cells is a malignancy, the other is a human organism according to embryologists. The comparison is ludicrous. quote: It is not a medical condition Ron, not exactly. Of course the medical community of OB/GYN services exists to manage the actual and potential conditions that accompany the birth of a child. If one may think of it as a "medical condition" or diagnosis, it is a very unique one with an important caveat ... The goal of medicine is to safely bring the natural process to completion, not to end it. Your argument fails to even mention these very significant differences. You're abysmally wrong to say that treating cancer is little or no different than abortion. Those kinds of arguments remind me of those which can see no difference between a parasite and a nursing child. "You lie because you don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment and what is has meant for garbage." (C.S. Lewis, Pilgrim's Regress) quote: More of your reasoning which ignores the most important distinction between any of these diseases and gestation. Only one produces another human being. And that is the crux of the whole matter. It matters little else if it has "far reaching implications" for one's life. Most things worth protecting happen to be troublesome too. quote: The pro-life argument in a nutshell. Thank you. quote: Sorry Ron, that's bunk. You already know that "protecting people from other people" has an intractable moral foundation to it. You merely exploit the fact that it has social benefits as well, and try to hide the other. But in addition to the moral side, the argument to make abortion illegal also has pragmatic and social implications which can be argued. The strongest argument however is human rights. Ideologies in the past which made certain classes of people less-than-human could have been argued (and were) using your methods. Heck, them colored slaves were mighty useful to us white folk, and those Jews sure were causing Germany a lot of problems. quote: Are attempts to curtail robbery murder or tax evasion, the same as trying to "stop people from being people"? Neither can congress rescind the laws of biology. And it's exactly my argument that they can't stop people from being people, even if they are in an early stage of development. quote: That's nothing new Ron. Consensus has never defined truth, or else heliocentrism started with Copernicus. Neither did the Fuhrer (and many who shared his philosophy) believe certain classes of people to be human. Lack of total agreement says nothing about truth, or about what we should strive to do. I do believe however, if the biological information were shown and given, along with the alternatives (and leaving off the intentional subterfuge) , there'd be much more agreement with the pro-life stance. quote: No one EVER disagreed with the sanctity of human life. What they disagreed on, always, was which groups were to be considered human. Perhaps another thing we're not agreed on is whether or not people can be duped about the truth, especially in matters where their personal lifestyle and "choice" seems to be constrained in some way. Grinch: quote: Before I answer, allow me to point out that this "donor" of yours is different in another significant way. In no way did that person's choice have anything to do with whether the other person ever came into being. I think if people could somehow choose to bring dependent humans into existence (initiating this symbiotic relationship) and then opt out before nine months came, the answer would not be a simple "yes they have the right to quit". Not denying the humanity, if you can come to that answer easily (or at all) I don't see how. quote: My answer is in the context of what I wrote (which you excluded): "you can't account for why the example of a mother who decides to abandon her week old baby (who also cannot survive without the mother's actions, even if that action is only as much as arranging for an adoption or turning the child in to Social Services) does not also apply in an analogous way to pregnancy. For with either the newborn or the unborn, survival is impossible without the mother." Without some action by the mother, a newborn child cannot survive. quote: And the fly in your ointment is the unsupportable claim that all women who go through a time of disallusionment or doubt will want to always want to give away their children, or will in no way be able to contribute to their upbringing. Your 43 million is a rhetorical and unreal estimation. Do you know how many mothers change their minds about adoption, to the chagrin of newly adoptive parents?? quote: There are laws designed for self protection, and not all of them are unreasonable. Underage drinking is one example. But the bologna factor in your argument is that there is no such thing as "only affecting oneself". Neither does Heroin abuse only affect the abuser. What about the father of the child or grandparents? And then there's the unborn human being him or herself. Stephen |
||
|
echolong Junior Member
since 2008-09-17
Posts 22 |
Right, Echo. So we should protect the mother from herself? Dear Sir Ron, Abortion is a medical procedure which has many side effects. Pregnancy to giving birth is nature process and it makes woman stronger physically and mentally. Old Echo |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Somewhere between 1 and 10% apparently. http://life.familyeducation.com/adoption/birth-parents/45794.html http://www.adoption-center.org/qanda.htm#changemind I’m feeling generous though, lets call it 50%, so now we have half of the 43 million in orphanages and half with mothers that you’ve suggested would receive financial support from the state, presumably via taxation. How much is that going to cost in total over the next 21 years? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
A few points: 1) "First, do no harm" is from the Hippocratic oath, which specifically forbade abortion as a medical procedure. People overlook the context, when they bring this into the argument. Greece of that Era divided responsibilities differently. Abortion was discouraged or punished, but infants were often left out on the hillsides to die. 2) THere is an article on the effectiveness of adoption as a strategy in dealing with abortion rates. The article doesn't condemn adoption, and neither do I; I'm impressed by it, by the feeling these parents show. The article talks about why the practice isn't a solution that deals with abortion. It's straightforward, and it's factual. It shouldn't discourage adoption. 3) The study I mention was vetted by The Lancet. It was peer reviewed. It's had about a year worth of feedback for folks to take pot-shots at experimental design and statistical analysis of the data. What is it about the statistical work-up of that data makes you believe that it's not been dealt with in ways that doing bring it within appropriate degrees of confidence for inclusion in a scientific study. Ron. Or is the word "estimated" supposed to mean something other than it's actual statistical meaning? It sounds as though you are trying to make it sound something like "untrustworthy," or even "falsified." What would you estimate the chances of that as being? In The Lancet. In a U.N. sponsored study? And where exactly would you suggest these data gathering problems might lie? 4) I am sorry that I haven't mastered the ins and outs of computer use. I do the best I can, but alas that's not very good, and I'm sorry not to give you better material to work with. I did make an attempt to indicate the link I found problematic; I was afraid that by eliminating it, my poor skills would knock out the rest of the data too. On the whole, I thought it better to bring the snacks to the party than to come empty handed. 5) Stephanos, sorry, but I think that right wing fundamentalists don't all come with King James embroidered on their display hankies. Some of them may even come with copies of Chuck Darwin tucked in their brief cases. Foolishness, like genius, is an equal opportunity employer, though it's hiring policy appears to be much more generous. 6) My understanding is perhaps incorrect, but I believe that carrying a child through to a full term delivery is apparently (and anti-intuitively) more dangerous than having an abortion, statistically speaking. There are a lot of reasons that GYN malpractice insurance premiums are possibly the highest among physicians, and why many GYN's get out of what would otherwise be a very happy field. This is one of them. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Or maybe not. http://www.geocities.com/everwild7/noharm.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If you happen to be the mother of a parasite, Stephen, you'd likely see it differently. quote: I know no such thing, Stephen. The need to protect people from people preceded all known documentations of morality. Sadly, the documentations that followed didn't content themselves with simply protecting people from people, but added to the recipe by including a lot of stuff they thought was important. Trouble is, different groups added different ingredients. Many, for example, are just as intractable about birth control as you are about abortion. Others would make women nothing but a vessel for birth, preferably male births. Why should we believe any of them wrong and you right? What makes your morality better than theirs? Morality has to be how a person lives their own life. It's what you get to teach your children, and it can even be what you advocate to your neighbors. It cannot, however, be the law simply because you think it's right. You have to come up with better reasons to pass laws than just because they jibe with "your" morality. quote: Nope, those are examples of protecting people from other people. quote: Again, you're being ambiguous, Stephen. How early a stage of development? The religions that refuse to practice birth control would likely have a different answer than yours. Why are they wrong and you're right? quote: So, uh, you would content that lack of agreement is proof you're right? Sorry, Stephen, but not everyone is Copernicus and, thankfully, not everyone is Adolph Hitler. You're arguing from the negative just equates every unproven contention to heliocentrism and suggests that refusal to recognize chimpanzee rights is an extension of the Third Reich. Copernicus and Hitler were wrong. That doesn't mean we should stop searching for what's right. quote: Just as you did in this post, Stephen? Many people place the potential for human life farther back in the chain of events than you appear to do. Once again, what makes them wrong and you right? quote: Ah, Echo . . . then we should force all women to have as many babies as possible. For their own good, of course. quote: I don't know, Bob, how about this quote from the article: "Anti-abortion groups criticized the research, saying that the scientists had jumped to conclusions from imperfect tallies, often estimates of abortion rates in countries where the procedure was illegal. 'These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data,' said Randall O'Bannon, director of education and research at the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund in Washington." quote: LOL. You are being much more gentle with Bob, Grinch, than I would likely have been. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Unwanted” seems the critical description here to which then comes the question: When do "unwanted" human lives never the less acquire the right to live ? . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You might have found an adjective you like, John, but your choice of noun phrase isn't the answer to the discussion. It IS the discussion. |
||
|
echolong Junior Member
since 2008-09-17
Posts 22 |
quote: Dear Sir Ron, you win. But don't start a petition. In your book, there is only either free abortion or forced birth, right? Given birth does make women more healthy and beautiful too. John, "unwanted" is sociological not biological. Biology wants it...nature wants it. My thought. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, quote: And Mr. O'Bannon has peer-analyzed these conclusions with what statistical experts. He has gotten his opinion published and you quote him as a biased source, without making note of that. You may indeed be completely correct about Mr. Bannion and the import of his opinion, but there is nothing in your citation that would reassure me as to that point. Whereas appearance in The Lancet conveys a considerable amount of information about the depth and quality of the information being presented. This, again, doesn't mean Mr. O'Bannon is wrong; clearly that would be a conclusion based on Ad Hominem prejudices. It does mean that a conclusion based on Mr. O'Bannon's say-so is insufficient in itself to be anywhere near convincing. If, of course, you disagree, I'd be interested in your reasoning. After all, it's possible Mr. O'Bannon is correct and has kept his critique from sweeping the scientific journals in a well-coordinated peer-reviewed counter-attack directed at the study and its conclusions for reasons that are beyond my understanding of his institutional interests. Usually scientists with competing points of view and well reasoned arguments cannot wait to respond in conferences and in journals, and the debate is quite lively. Often, about issues as fiery as this, it is carried in the popular press. For example, while the scientific data is pretty much settled about global warming, the popular press keeps the story alive, and politicians, whose interests are often served by them doing so, are happy to keep the pot stirred. In the scientific press, however, there's really not much question. If that were the case here, don't you think there'd be headlines everyplace about the big boxing match in this latest round of Pro-Life/Pro-choice debates? Pretty much quiet. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, though. I've gotten to the point where I've come to tell myself that raw egg is probably great for my complexion. Probably is, too. I've got to say, though, this is one great discussion. Best to everybody, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Echolong, Got any data on that assertion? Bob Kaven |
||
|
echolong Junior Member
since 2008-09-17
Posts 22 |
Women's life span depends on the balance of two forces, according to Thomas Perls, a geriatrician at Harvard Medical School. One is the evolutionary drive to pass on her genes, the other is the need to stay healthy enough to rear as many children as possible. "Menopause draws the line between the two," Perls says. It protects older women from the risks of bearing children late in life, and lets them live long enough to take care of their children and grandchildren. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.01/WhyWomenLiveLon.html Abortion is related to breast cancer http://www.polycarp.org/abortionbreastcancerbargraph1_files/abortionbreastcancerbargraph1_12703_image001.gif |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Echolong, I find the second graph more interesting than the first. If you could let me know what article it's from, I'd like to follow up. The data looks fascinating, and I appreciate your presenting it so willingly. I'd like to see some explanation of what the various studies did, however, who conducted the overall comparison study, authors, stuff like that. On the surface, though, it looks impressive. The first study said nothing about beauty, but then you were joking about that. Health seems a more interesting topic. Certainly it suggests that women tend to outlive men, but we already knew that. The question I thought we were looking at was the effects of abortion on long term health of the mother. My observation of the article didn't see any material addressing that. It did say that women who survived into their centenary years had children into their 40's as opposed to women who died younger. That doesn't establish a causal link—that is if a woman wants to live to be 100 years old she should have a baby in her 40's. It only suggests an association of some sort. My recollection is that the mortality rate from clinical abortions professionally performed remains less dangerous than carrying a fetus to delivery for the health of the mother on a statistical basis. I'd rather not have to rummage through old documentation to look for this data when others could do it as well, especially since my memory may well be faulty and I hate having egg on my face. But this is in fact my impression, and that is exactly the degree of certainty I have in it. Thank you for your interesting articles, and if you do have that data on your references, I'd really like to have a look. If it's too much of a pain. that's all right as well. Best to you, Bob Kaven |
||
|
echolong Junior Member
since 2008-09-17
Posts 22 |
dear Bob K http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html http://www.afterabortion.org/news/abortiondeaths.html |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Whenever we debate anything concerning public policy, you say that my stance is pure abstract morality, and yours is founded in the world of pragmatism and strictly necessary. It's a false claim. My point about morality has been that it cannot be divorced from your views anymore than mine. And my viewpoint is likewise just as rooted in the world of cause of and effect as yours. I just simply think you are skewing the data of reason, science, and morality to get at your conclusion. quote: This is an example of what I mentioned earlier, of how you misconstrue the pro-life position as a pushing of private abstract morals. The pro-life position has nothing to do with "my" morality. First of all, in a democratic society those who hold such a view are no small number, and those views should be represented. (Before you complain here, remember that you're the one who insisted that humanity was defined by consensus, not me.) Secondly, the argument really doesn't stand on abstract morality, but assumes a morality we all hold in common: the sanctity of human life. The rest of the arguments are based upon embryonic science and reason to show that it is untenable to say that a fetus is not human. Ron, have you read anything of Francis Beckworth's arguments? If you had, I don't think you would try to say that it's obviously an attempt to make into law someone's private morals (akin to someone thinking it's wrong to dance or wear cotton). If you do so, then you've made a straw man to attack which is nothing like the real arguments. quote: So are anti-abortion laws. Why should a fetus (which embryologists unblinkingly tell us are human organisms separate from the mother) be considered non-human? quote: Ron, if we're going to debate, at least remember the context of my quotes. I refuted the consensus view of truth merely because YOU had used it in argument for your position of legal-pro-abortion. Of course refuting your claim of consensus by popularity, doesn't mean that I believe the opposite (unpopularity = truth). I was rather disregarding popular opinion as a measure of truth altogether. My positive arguments refer to science, reason, and commonly-held-moral-principles. A head count was your argument and I was simply disregarding that as valid debate. That's not a negative argument ... that is refuting yours. Embryologists still tell is that a fetus is a human organism. Why should we confidently consider it non-human, to the point of sanctioning its killing? (And BTW, Copernicus was right, it was Aristotle who was wrong about Geocentrism. My point was the Heliocentrism was right all along even when everyone by popular opinion thought the earth was stationary.) quote: The questioning is granted. I never said asking the question was wrong. What I said is that there are and have always been wrong answers. Segregationists, slaveowners, and Nationalist Socialists under the Third Reich were dead wrong about their views of humanity. So are abortionists and those who believe the propaganda that a fetus is a non-human. As to beliefs that extend into mere potentiality, I (like you) feel that those beliefs should be limited to personal choices, though they may persuade whom they will. Why the difference? Because one is mired in abstract potentiality and the other in being. Embryologists tell is that fetus is a human organism in early development with a 4-chambered beating heart at 3 weeks, not a potential human organism. You're trying to link and draw commonalities between two very different arguments. You might even say the pro-life position (which would oppose making birth control illegal) represents a good balance between the Spirit of the Age mired in relativistic truth, and ultra-right religion which would impose personal convictions legally upon all. If a fetus is a human organism (not a potential), they warrant legal protection from arbitrary killing through abortion, in the same way a temporarily comatose patient on a mechanical ventilator would warrant protection from a vengeful family member "pulling the plug". Don't obfuscate the distinction between pure potentiality and actuality ... unless you want to argue that protecting your wife from others is invalid because she hasn't achieved self-actualization. Are we completely human Ron? Grinch: quote: You only feign generosity Grinch. Remember, I watch the movie every year at Christmas. You're really tight-fisted, since you are presuming that the total number of abortions will be unwanted at birth and henceforth. I would say it is more than reasonable to think that the propaganda of not-human-yet teaching makes them much easier not to want. I too was initially "unwanted" by my own parents since their pregnancy with me was 10 years after three children, unintended, and frankly unwelcome. It wasn't the best news, you might say. My mother literally cried at first. Never considering the professional-consumer-untruth that I wasn't yet human and could be disposed of conscience-free for a fee, they of course acquired a proper desire for me in time. They later concluded that I was a great blessing. Whether they still feel so, is up for debate. (kidding I hope) I also know a woman at work named Gail who has a 17 year old child born with severe spina-bifida who nearly died during correction, who is MR and is permanently in a wheelchair. She is the absolute sunshine of Gail's life, is happier than most "normal" people, brings joy to others, and enjoys being alive. I think if Gail had believed in a dehumanizing dogma, the escape-hatch would have been more attractive and likely taken. Nor does presumed financial difficulty mean that there will be no way, or that someone else will have to foot all the bill. I could have reasoned away my own two adoptions (about 20K apiece) for similar reasons. The point is, your number isn't realistic, because neither economics nor emotions nor circumstances are static. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No Stephen, the point is you’re avoiding the question. There are 43 million abortions a year, if they didn’t take place they’d result in roughly 43 million kids, they have to be looked after by somebody, either the mother with state support or the state alone so how do you propose we pay for them? I’ll make it easier - you can split them any which way you choose between state supported mother and solely state supported - how’s that for generosity? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, You are still presuming that all abortions are for sheer economic reasons. You are also presuming that the mothers who claim this can't support them in reality. You need to find the percentage of which this is a reality, and not just use the total number of abortions underhandedly. Until the question is properly asked, I can't be berated for avoiding it. Much like "Are you still beating your wife"? I just can't answer that one straightforward. Also, though I'll be willing to answer your question when you ask it properly, I'll still point out that the economics are secondary to the foundational question of humanity ... unless you want to argue for a benevolent genocidal program for the poor and economically challenged. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
If you really wanted to supply a credible answer to my question Stephen you could have found the figures you needed to do so in the time it took you to fashion your reason not to. Just to prove how generous I can be I’ve done the leg work for you The average number of adoptions worldwide is 260,000 130 million kids are born each year The world population is 6,602,224,175 - half of which live below the internationally accepted poverty line (can‘t afford the minimum recommended calorific intake). There are 43 million abortions a year Using the above figures at least 21.5 million mothers can’t afford to support themselves, let alone another kid, of those current adoption figures suggest that only 43000 would be adopted. That leaves you with an minimum of 21457000 unwanted kids per year. How are you proposing we pay for their upkeep? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, there's still so much wrong with your math, that I'll choose to await the final revision. quote: So half the world population lives below the poverty line ... therefore half of abortions are below the poverty line?? I would say that since most abortions occur in Western Industrialized nations, you need to keep googling for the correct figures. When it comes to legality, we're talking about U.S. abortion and adoption. What are the percentages of Mothers who are malnourished who have abortions in the U.S.? Much lower percentage living below the poverty line here wouldn't you say? I guess I'm not so generous as to do your legwork for you, but I know it's a lot less. You've been forced to cut it half, but there's more cutting to do if you want to talk realistic numbers. And how's that Genocide program for the impoverished coming along? If your statistical questions are about exploring how to care better for the poor, I'm for the discussion. If it is used as rhetoric for pro-abortion and how killing the unborn is distasteful but necessary, then I'll simply point out that my argument takes economic problems as secondary to human rights issues. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, Thanks for the answer, it was the one I was expecting. quote: That’s a recipe for disaster if ever I heard one. The economic problems are called consequences Stephen and, trust me on this, ignoring consequences is never a good idea. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch you want to address that faulty math? one half of the world's population is in poverty = one half of abortions are due to poverty? I'll gladly consider your question if you explain how this can be true. And BTW, secondary does not mean ignored. it's not an attempt to evade consequences, it is resolving to deal with them, come what may. If someone chooses to become pregnant, the resultant human life should be addressed not obliterated. And yes I do think that addressing this includes government helps and doing everything that can be done to fight privation. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, I've done some correcting of my own assumptions about abortion stats. It looks like I can grant you that 78% of abortions are in developing countries, while 22% are in developed countries. However I can find no statistics on the reasons given for abortions in countries outside the U.S. I'll keep looking. However of the roughly 46 million abortions per year worldwide, about 26 million abortions are legal and 20 million are illegal. In the United States, of the 1.3 million abortions per year, 21% give the reason of not being able to presently afford a baby. 28 % of these abortions are with those whose family incomes are less than $15,000. 38% of them are with those whose income is between 30k and 69k annually. Since we are discussing legality in the U.S., the numbers of unwanted or severely impoverished babies requiring "support" would be much less than the staggering number you first suggested. Again, more education on the scientific discoveries that human development begins to rapidly ensue at fertilization, more efforts to help mothers identify with the humanity of their unborn children, more fostering of pre-birth bonding, and increased efforts to provide alternatives such as adoption and foster care, will help significantly. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Okay, Stephen, now we're getting somewhere perhaps. Grinch wants to draw the line at ten weeks. You want to draw it at three? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Actually based upon embryology, I want to draw the line at confirmation of pregnancy; For while a beating heart is a vivid indication of humanness, it isn't a determiner. |
||
|
echolong Junior Member
since 2008-09-17
Posts 22 |
quote: Dear Ron, you just wanted to trap Stephanos. Do you think that every single cell needs to live its life fully without being disturbed? (you must want to mention bacteria) [This message has been edited by echolong (09-25-2008 07:21 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Or maybe not. http://www.parenting.com/article/Fertility/Postpartum/didnt-know-i-was-pregnant/2 |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Hello again, to all and to this subject: "So what is it if it survives?" Survival, by definition, makes the "it" non-static, or in the least dependent upon the energy of something or someone. And if the it is at all requiring of loving child care, then it is most likely a child, though I've attended to a few kittens, puppies, foals and calves, with loving care. The strangest was a duckling who thought I was his mommy. I didn't have to convince him he was a duck, but that I wasn't. I've probably said this before. This topic survives, by our discussion of it, which is fine by me because that means people are still surviving to do so. My question upon the topic is: How can I will a being to die, if I cannot will a being to live? I can't. It's my answer and not one I force upon others. I'm not innocent of anything. The thought of abortion stabbed my mind for a second. Just because I immediately removed the knife doesn't make me any better of a person than those who found it to be a solution. I found that what existed in my life as a problem wasn't as big as my determination and love I felt for my unborn child, and that just doesn't apply for all. Solutions are usually sought for problems. Problems: gamut/gamete. It's amazing how linked some words can be, or maybe my mind is just weird that way. And then we will always come to what defines a being, when, how, why, etc. I'm not apt to pro-forming terms as much as I am to educating myself and seeking out all I can, inward and outward, in order to simply live with my personal decisions, while respecting those of others. Though, some things are just not respectful or beneficial to any life. Which brings me to another type of energy surviving around the topic: Mental, emotional, and physical warfare toward a female, a woman, a mother. As if she doesn’t have enough from birth to deal with, internally, from her own self, from the moment she’s able to form an opinion, form a figure, form a mature reproductive system, and form a life capable of carrying a life. No matter what she chooses, there is warfare, from every direction on every level. The statistics posted are, by all means, rough. They do not include the unreported. I feel fortunate I am free as a person to have a personal choice. I'm careful not to exercise that right on a whim. I must correct myself here, for speaking in present terms. I'm no longer able to have another child. I have two: One hero and one miracle. I'll never see myself as all deserving of their special presence in my life. And I'm happy they have rights to their own personal choices. They, too, have to live with them. Many want to preach life but have no idea how to end the nightmare some are living, the madness and stupidity involved in many unwanted pregnancies, the pain of a parent who loves her child more than life but cannot provide. Even if a person seeks to nip in-the-bud what causes a child: Sex. No, wait, there are other methods of fertilization now. Good gracious times have really really changed. or have they? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Reg... just...thanks for showing up.  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
