After the murder of Dr. George Tiller, an acquaintance of mine pointed me to this article about him and some of his patients.
A couple of months ago a topic on this site had me trying to get to the heart of late term abortions -- why were they even necessary? I didn't get the specific answers I was looking for here and an Internet search didn't help much either. (To be fair, I probably only spent an hour or two on it.)
Anyway, I found the article I posted above to be eye-opening. The stories from his patients were very sad and I hadn't even realized how difficult it was to get an abortion past 16 weeks.
So anyway, I thought I'd throw this to the wolves and see what you think about this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that the killer of Dr. Tiller and Dr. Tiller himself committed the same despicable act(s). Both were wrong to do them.
Whoever shot him is an unjustified murderer, just like the person he shot.
It's easy to list a few sad stories and pretend that the thousands of children he killed were part of those stories. But that's what principles are for - so when you see a sad woman who really, really wants the living, viable child inside of her dead, you know that it's still wrong to kill a human being. Even when the parent wishes they didn't exist.
The part about the child going to die anyway really bugs me as an explanation. With that kind of reasoning, it isn't murder to kill anyone who has a fatal or chronic illness. Nice.
[ June 03, 2009, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
If you read Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men there's a neat little musing by the Sheriff Bell character regarding "right wingers" and abortion.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think it's easy to stand on the sidelines and say, "I would never do that."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kill someone? I'm confident about that.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Like I said .
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Kath, I respect your belief and your faith. However, the right of you to swing your arm stops before it reaches my face.
There is a big difference between Dr. Tiller and his assassin.
The Dr. believed, deeply, that what he was doing helped people. He did not kill for cash, or for pleasure. He performed what he thought was needed surgery. He was a man of faith, who practiced his faith by healing the mothers, and relieving special children of their pain.
The assassin was a hypocrite, who spoke of nothing by the preservation of life, all life, and proved it by killing.
You disagreed with the doctors ideas, rationale, and choices. That is great.
You strove to make his work illegal. The procedures he called surgery, and you called murder, you fight hard to make criminal. That is your right, and with your faith, your duty.
But just as you said that morality should stop a person from having an abortion in all cases, that same sense of morality was missing in the assassin, who should have said no to murder in all cases.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: However, the right of you to swing your arm stops before it reaches my face.
Not if you're about to bite someone.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think that was part of Kat's point, Darth_Mauve-- that the assassin was as morally wrong from her point of view as was Dr. Tiller.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's easy to list a few sad stories and pretend that the thousands of children he killed were part of those stories. But that's what principles are for - so when you see a sad woman who really, really wants the living, viable child inside of her dead, you know that it's still wrong to kill a human being. Even when the parent wishes they didn't exist.
But not everyone follows the same principles. And I don't follow the first part of this -- what do you mean by "pretend that the thousands of children killed were part of those stories?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Darth Mauve, you missed the fundamental point of my first post.
It is absolutely wrong to kill people. Even if they are little. Even if they are abortionists. It's absolutely wrong in both cases to kill living, viable human beings.
quote:You strove to make his work illegal. The procedures he called surgery, and you called murder, you fight hard to make criminal. That is your right, and with your faith, your duty.
You don't know this. You are making it up completely. I am happy to have a conversation about it, but I am not an avatar to which you can hang whatever you find most convenient to argue against. If you want to accuse me of something, you can't just make it up.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Part of the Abortion debate makes me very queasy, it's something that I don't even think I can rationalize.
It's not the act itself, because I can think of serious medical situations where an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, and as much as I abhor abortion for the sake of convenience, I think the government needs to butt out (since there are exceptions, I think the govt. has no right dictating just what they are). But the queasiness and unease that I get from some of these stories is this:
How sure are the doctors that the situation is, in fact, as dire as they tell the mothers?
How many mothers get second opinions? How many are led by doctors toward the decision to abort, because of the fear of having to watch their baby suffer and die needlessly?
Anecdotally, I know of two women who, after suffering through fertility problems and miscarriages, were recommended by doctors to abort when it seemed that their babies' condition would leave them with serious painful health problems, mental retardation, and early death. They both decided to ignore their doctors' advice and carry the pregnancy to term.
One of those was a girl in Young Womens with me and, last I heard, is thriving with her husband in Arkansas. The other is an active 14-year old who, other than a few internal problems at birth and a small amount of care to protect her kidneys on occasion, is very healthy and if I didn't know of her health problems I would not know her from any other 14-year old girl. She plays in the SCA and hopes to get into heavy fighting (where you wear armor and wail on people with rattan sticks).
So just how dire is the situation according to the doctors? For me, at least, I think they are the ones who need the most observation. People will believe doctors, because of that whole authority thing. It's their job to know what's wrong with you. How many abortions were unnecessary because a doctor misdiagnosed a problem? Or perhaps because they had a god-like eugenics streak in them? How possible is it to even know? Do they even perform autopsies on aborted fetuses?
That is what keeps me up at night when I think about abortion, that the mother of a wanted child thinks abortion is the only way, and kills her child needlessly.
If I were in such a situation, I honestly don't know what I'd do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Teshi,
This principle isn't of the "only 30% of the daily calories should come from fat." variety.
"Don't kill people" is among the most fundamental principles that exist. Saying that I don't know if I'd betray that if it was suddenly in my interest to do so is either quite insulting to me or else you do not understand how seriously I believe the "Don't kill people." rule.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: So just how dire is the situation according to the doctors? For me, at least, I think they are the ones who need the most observation. People will believe doctors, because of that whole authority thing. How many abortions were unnecessary because a doctor misdiagnosed a problem? Or perhaps because they had a god-like eugenics streak in them? How possible is it to even know? Do they even perform autopsies on aborted fetuses?
This has also been my husband's biggest argument and he, too, has known people who should have died young. One of them is the most improbable case you'd ever see and has lived a very hard life -- she has an extreme form of that brittle bones condition (can't remember the medical name) and her parents couldn't even hold her as a baby. She broke every bone in her hands multiple times when learning to write. She should have died in childhood and is now in her late 50's.
And I couldn't imagine anyone making a decision like this on the word of a single doctor. In many of the stories I read about in the article I quoted, the women got multiple opinions. Of course, even multiple opinions can be wrong. Medical science is not exact.
But I guess that's why I find myself thinking this should be the mother's choice, and not the government's.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
What it looks like to me was that Dr. Tiller was in the business of reducing suffering--of mothers and children. I see nothing despicable about that. In fact, I see nothing more admirable.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Kath, forgive me if I was wrong when I said that you were a Pro-Life believer. From your previous posts I assumed it was so.
You point out that you believe there is no difference from the murder the assassin committed and the murders the abortionist and the parents of the unborn children committed.
The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between the abortionist and the assassin.
It is not the results, which are eventually a matter of opinion, but the hypocrisy of the assassin vs the dedication of the doctor.
Before we go to far, let me explain the comment about matters of opinion.
Usually Pro-Life advocates say that abortion is murder because you believe that a person becomes a person at the moment of conception. Hence killing an unborn fetus is the same as killing a baby.
Usually Pro-Choice advocates say that abortion is a medical procedure that removes non-sentient cells with the potential to become a person, but that moment when they become a person happens at birth.
Most people are unsure where life begins, but they would rather be safe than sorry, so they lean toward Pro-Life unless dire circumstances make them hedge toward Pro-Choice. (Those circumstances include Rape, Incest, Pain and Suffering for a short term life of the child, or Severe Risk to the Mother.)
In the doctor's eyes, he was not committing murder.
In the assassin's eyes, he was committing murder in the name of life.
There is a difference.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Darth_Mauve: There is something else to consider here. Because while katharina seems to think that killing a human being at any time is wrong, most people do not believe this. Most people will kill in their own defense, or in the defense of someone else, particularly their family. I don't believe that most pro-lifers, even, think that killing is wrong in all cases, but rather that they think termination of a helpless, innocent life is wrong. So it may not be hypocrisy at all to kill in the defense of helpless babies. (I don't agree with this; I'm simply trying to climb into his point of view.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I hope this shines a spotlight on the practice of media folks like O'Reilly who personalize political issues and turn them into hatred against individuals, like Tiller:
quote:On Monday, Media Matters for America, a left-wing group that catalogs what it calls “conservative hate speech,” published a 2006 clip from Mr. O’Reilly’s radio show in which he said, “If I could get my hands on Tiller,” followed quickly by: “Well, you know. Can’t be vigilantes. Can’t do that. It’s just a figure of speech.”
Hate-mongering does have consequences, and there is most definitely a distinction between merely discussing issues or reporting news and turning it into a crusade against someone. Keith Olbermann's "worst person in the world" is no better.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's easy to list a few sad stories and pretend that the thousands of children he killed were part of those stories.
Note that he was one of a very few doctors in the country willing to perform this procedure. It wasn't cheap, and people had to travel to get to it. I really don't see him getting a lot of casual, walk-in business. It's entirely possible that he did, in fact, only get the sad stories because they'd be the only ones desperate enough to go to him.
Has anyone found any cases from this doctor where he aborted a viable fetus on the mother's whim, without medical reason to do so?
[ June 03, 2009, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But that's what principles are for - so when you see a sad woman who really, really wants the living, viable child inside of her dead, you know that it's still wrong to kill a human being. Even when the parent wishes they didn't exist.
Even sadder seeing a woman who really, really wants the child inside of her alive but fetal problems and uncontrolled internal bleeding are about to kill her and the child so the doctor makes the call to save the mother. Which is what happened to my mother-in-law, which is why she survived that particular pregnancy to go on and conceive and give birth to my future wife.
So I have to ask, if killing is utterly wrong in every situation: if the mother and unborn baby are both going to die without immediate action, what should the doctor do?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think it's easy to stand on the sidelines and say, "I would never do that."
Actually, I think saying, "I would never do that," can serve a useful purpose.
It serves as a bulwark against temptation...as long as it lasts, that is. If you've told yourself, "I'ld never do that," and are confronted with the opportunity to do that, it can help.
The trouble comes when the temptation is so great that the 'never-ever' promise fails-because then it's suddenly not such a big deal to do that thing, or other things, since after all you've already broken a big promise to yourself. But if the time never comes when the promise does fail, it can still serve as a powerful defense.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I don't especially want to comment on the killing of Dr. Tiller. I'm posting because I am a mother who has gone through a very dangerous pregnancy and almost died giving birth (to Aerin). It's easy for me to say "this is what I would do" because I did it.
I am pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. I also believe that the baby's life is more important than the mother's and that the baby's life should be her priority. I believe that if a woman is not prepared to die for her child, she shouldn't become pregnant. I understand that this is an extreme point of view. I don't hate people who disagree, I don't think they're evil, but I do think they are very wrong.
I had an advanced directive when I was pregnant with Aerin. I made one after the first time I nearly died and it became clear that I would be the priority, rather than her. That is not what I wanted, so I took the matter into my own hands. I was 100% willing to give my life for hers. My doctor was very understanding and supportive, but my husband and mother struggled with it. I prefer not to go into details, but there were times when Aerin and I were very close to dying. In the midst of my fear for her was peace that came from knowing that everything would be done to help her, no matter what happened to me.
I think that late-term abortion is murder, no matter what the circumstances. I have personally known 4 23-week babies. These children were and are very sick and have little chance for a "normal" life. They could not be more precious to their parents and to the doctors and nurses who devote themselves to their care. Their lives are not filled with torturous suffering, which I think is a common misconception. In my work with the March of Dimes I have met dozens of babies who shouldn't have made it but did. I have also met many parents of tiny angels who are so thankful for whatever amount of time they had with their children, even if it was just a few minutes.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Actually, I think saying, "I would never do that," can serve a useful purpose.
It serves as a bulwark against temptation...as long as it lasts, that is. If you've told yourself, "I'ld never do that," and are confronted with the opportunity to do that, it can help.
What can be really helpful in understanding other people (which I'd guess is a prerequisite to persuading them, a lot of the time) is not to say "I'd never do that" but "what circumstances would get me to do something like that?"
I think for most things you can arrive at an answer. It might take a lot to get people to do some things, but consider addiction, mental illness, threats to your safety, etc...these can powerfully warp motivation and values.
Interestingly, I think this might serve as an equally - or more - effective bulwark against temptation than a simple declaration that "I would never do that." Or, rather, it erects signposts on the roads to serious mistakes.
In other words, "I intend to live my life in such a way that I avoid pressures that might make me do something like that" is a different statement than "I would never do that", and I think might reflect a more realistic and compassionate view of why people do things that are wrong.
Edited to add: I don't intend to accuse katharina or anyone else of being more prone to having a late term abortion than someone else because they haven't arrived at a theory about circumstances in which they'd have one. Maybe for some people, pretty much nothing can get them to abort a pregnancy. I don't intend to challenge this stance in specific individuals. I was speaking in more general terms, and trying to non-confrontationally explore the question of how best to inoculate ourselves against doing things we think are wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Darth Mauve, you are still wrong when you summarize what you think I believe.
I don't know why. I've been very clear. Both Dr. Tiller and Dr. Tiller's murderer committed the same descicable and sinful act.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Is a late term abortion safer than a c-section? We are talking about viable fetuses here, so is the procedure any safer than delivering the child early?
quote:Even sadder seeing a woman who really, really wants the child inside of her alive but fetal problems and uncontrolled internal bleeding are about to kill her and the child so the doctor makes the call to save the mother.
In a case like this, of course you save the mother. But, I firmly believe the first goal of the physician should be to save both, and I believe for many obstetricians that is the goal. If the baby is not viable yet, then naturally you do what is necessary to save the mother. I have no problem with procedures that truly save a woman's life - like in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Belle,
That's why the "viable" part is so important here. If the baby is viable, it can be delivered rather than killed.
(And don't anyone list a few crazy exceptions and pretend that justifies all the other murders.)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Darth Mauve, you are still wrong when you summarize what you think I believe.
I don't know why. I've been very clear. Both Dr. Tiller and Dr. Tiller's murderer committed the same descicable and sinful act.
I don't think he misunderstood you. He just offered a different perspective.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He evaluated me at the beginning of his post and still got it wrong.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You know, you could just provide correct information instead of stating that the guess was wrong. Might save some trouble. Your posts in this thread have certainly been consistent with a pro-life believer. What about that assessment is wrong?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: He evaluated me at the beginning of his post and still got it wrong.
You've accused him of this a couple of times now but you haven't corrected him. I'm afraid I'm confused about what part is untrue and what you feel the truth is. It might help facilitate the conversation if you clarified.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have provided correct information. I can't cover all the things I am not and don't believe. I've stated very clearly what I do believe.
Dr. Tiller killed children that could have lived outside of their mother. That's murder. It's the same as shaking a baby to death at two weeks because they are crying too much. It's the same as throwing a baby in the trash during prom. It's the same as smothering a kid because they have spinal bifida. It's deeply, profoundly wrong.
The person who murdered Dr. Tiller also committed murder, and that was also deeply, profoundly wrong.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
(And don't anyone list a few crazy exceptions and pretend that justifies all the other murders.)
Still waiting to hear what frivolous late term abortions Tiller performed. There may have been some, I dunno, but no one has presented any yet.
And I don't think my example justifies anything beyond the need for a "mother's health" exception in any abortion restriction legislation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are starting from a flawed and unproven assumption if you think that the abortion clinic actually turned women away unless a c-section would certainly kill the mother on the table.
Do you have any evidence for that assumption?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I have also met many parents of tiny angels who are so thankful for whatever amount of time they had with their children, even if it was just a few minutes.
A good, close friend of mine lost her daughter after 40 minutes of life. They wrapped her in warm blankets, held her, sang to her, and prayed for her. They loved her as much as humanly possible in 40 minutes. She died in warmth, peace, and comfort. To me, this is a humane way to allow a life that cannot be saved to end. I cannot accept late term abortion as a humane alternative.
Also, as good as ultrasound has become (even the 4D ultrasound) it is still not as good as examining a child directly. There are things doctors cannot know just through ultrasound. They can make mistakes, and mis-diagnoses. Just as I am against the death penalty because it is possible that an innocent man will be deprived of life, I cannot sanction late term abortions based on ultrasound diagnoses because there is a chance, however remote it might be, that a doctor is wrong. Had the doctors been wrong about my friend's baby, then she could have been saved. Even in this case when they were not, she was allowed very precious minutes with her child she would not today trade for anything.
The article mentioned women who have late-term abortions because of cancer. I actually had a "chemo friend," someone who had chemo at the same time as me and we talked together, who found out she had cancer during pregnancy. There was no doubt at all in her mind - she delayed chemo until her child was safely delivered. I could understand inducing labor early, and delivering quickly so that one could start chemo as soon as possible, but I cannot understand a late-term abortion.
And yes, kat, I understand. I'm hoping someone who believes Dr. Tiller was acting correctly can explain to me why the late-term abortion is preferable to a c-section.
Chris, what is your definition of frivolous? To me, destroying a viable fetus is always going to be frivolous because the option exists to instead deliver the child.
We should always, always err on the side of life.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I have a very, very difficult time believing that any woman would have a "frivolous" late-term abortion. The procedure is extremely difficult to obtain and horribly painful and traumatic; it's not like there are women just wandering into abortion clinics in their third trimester saying "Man, this pregnancy thing is really cramping my style." I mean, I suppose that's theoretically possible, but I very much doubt it, and it's certainly anything but commonplace.
Here's another excellent article on the subject, written by a woman who had to have a late-term abortion, in response to Pres. Bush signing the Partial-Birth Abortion Act in November 2003.
quote: Supporters of the ban have argued that this procedure is used on babies that are "inches from life." But in the bill, there is no mention of fetal viability (the point at which a fetus could live independently of its mother for a sustained period of time). Nor is there any mention of gestational age. Thus, the ban would cover terminations at any point during pregnancy. (In fact, Roe v. Wade already protects the rights of a fetus after the point of viability, which occurs sometime after the 24th week of gestation, in the third trimester of pregnancy. Massachusetts bans all abortions at and beyond the 24th week, except to protect the life or health of the mother. Indeed, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, in 2001 there were only 24 abortions after the 24th week, out of a total of 26,293 abortions.) By not mentioning viability, critics say, this ban would overturn Roe v. Wade, which clearly states that women have the right to abortion before fetal viability.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I am definitely not a proponent of abortion, but I would definitely not take on the label "Pro-Life." I have no plans to ever set foot inside an abortion clinic--the thought of it makes me feel ill--but I am not going to picket one, either, or join any groups. I think abortion for anything less than the extremes already cited in this thread is wrong, and even under those circumstances is a terribly sad, tragic thing.
I would not want to be a party to an abortion. I have to admire people like Dr. Tiller who can stomach that kind of work, because I would not be able to live inside my skin being around that day after day--or even once. I fervently hope never to be in that position to make that terrible, terrible choice. I have sympathy for those who have been there. I could very well be there one day, facing that with my wife. It's not a possibility I like to dwell on, but it's definitely something we should iron out together, painful as the conversation would be.
It is sad to see staunch Pro-Lifers being painted with the broad murderer and hypocrite brush after this murder. I don't agree with much of what they do in their cause, but there's no need to assume that they're all just a gun or a bomb away from doing the same thing as Dr. Tiller's murderer.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Well said, Belle.
quote:The article mentioned women who have late-term abortions because of cancer. I actually had a "chemo friend," someone who had chemo at the same time as me and we talked together, who found out she had cancer during pregnancy. There was no doubt at all in her mind - she delayed chemo until her child was safely delivered. I could understand inducing labor early, and delivering quickly so that one could start chemo as soon as possible, but I cannot understand a late-term abortion.
One of Aerin's neighbors in the NICU was born early exactly because of this. His mother waited as long as she could and he was delivered via C-Section. Today he is thriving and she is in remission.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: The article mentioned women who have late-term abortions because of cancer. I actually had a "chemo friend," someone who had chemo at the same time as me and we talked together, who found out she had cancer during pregnancy. There was no doubt at all in her mind - she delayed chemo until her child was safely delivered. I could understand inducing labor early, and delivering quickly so that one could start chemo as soon as possible, but I cannot understand a late-term abortion.
And yes, kat, I understand. I'm hoping someone who believes Dr. Tiller was acting correctly can explain to me why the late-term abortion is preferable to a c-section.
As far as chemo goes, I would say it depends largely on the situation. Sometimes, cancer comes upon you quickly and virulently. In the space of a few months, you can go from no cancer to a tumor the size of a baseball. It's all risk analysis, and I would say that if chemo can safely be delayed, it probably should, but then again -- pregnancy and the associated hormones have been known to make certain types of cancer worse. So I just don't know how to lump all cancer patients into the same category. I can definitely see cases in which the prompt removal of the fetus may be necessary and while I would hope that she would choose a c-section at 32 weeks, I have not heard of a case in which a woman had that option and failed to take it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Another issue that bothers me (sorry, I keep thinking about the cases in the article and then wonder how I would have responded) - the case where the woman is pregnant with conjoined twins. The parent said that if they were separated, only one would survive and that one would die after lots of organ transplants. Really? They knew all this in utero?
I watched one of those Discovery Health shows on the separation operations of cojoined twins. One thing that struck me was that once they opened the twins up and visually looked at the liver, they could see where each liver had its own blood supply and could be separated more easily (or something similar). What struck me was how shocked the doctors were, they kept saying "We didn't see this, we didn't know." These twins had been examined in the flesh and had countless ultrasounds, CT's, MRI's, you name it - and the doctors still didn't know exactly what they would face until they did the surgery.
This family in the article destroyed any chance their twins had at life based on an ultrasound diagnosis - that to me is wrong. They can't know, not for certain, what would have happened to their twins had they had a chance at life. Technology changes all the time - the day may have come very soon that separation was possible for them. Or, it may have been possible all along and the doctor made a mistake. They didn't know, and they didn't give their children a chance to find out what sort of lives they might have had.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You are starting from a flawed and unproven assumption if you think that the abortion clinic actually turned women away unless a c-section would certainly kill the mother on the table.
Do you have any evidence for that assumption?
I have made no assumptions. I have not said that they have turned anyone away. I don't know. I did suggest that the cost and travel may limit his practice to desperate people, but I don't know that for sure. That's why I'm asking, repeatedly, for some statistics on his patients.
Whereas you seem content to assume that most of his patients were not in dire straits, of the sort mentioned in the article.
Chris, what is your definition of frivolous?
An abortion for convenience, rather than medical necessity.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Second, "viable" is difficult to define. With extreme intervention, we've seen miracle babies born at 25ish weeks and live to tell about it. But the odds are low, the cost is high, and the risk of long-term disabilities is huge.
This is not accurate. A 25-week baby is no longer that uncommon and has a reasonable chance of living. Even 24-week babies are no longer viewed as that rare. As I mentioned, I personally know 4 babies who were born at 23+ weeks and this was 3.5 years ago.
Why is the cost and risk of long-term disabilities a factor? Aerin has long-term disabilities from being a micro-preemie. I'm sorry, but this is an issue that I am incapable of being objective about. Who are any of us to say what life is worth living? Can you look at my 3 children and say that the twins' lives are more valuable and more worth living because they are typically-developing? Should we have killed Aerin or done nothing to save her so that we could have the money that we have spent both to save her life and now to treat her disabilities? (BTW, it is our money - we have never gotten any assistance from any public or private programs or charities.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Please note, I am not trying to convince anyone that abortions are desirable. Just offering a reason why I support the "mother's health" exclusion, and why the scornful accusation that there's never a good reason bugs me.
I would like to see far fewer abortions. I was an adopted 7-month preemie myself. I support comprehensive sex education and better adoption laws, including dropping restrictions to allow homosexuals to adopt. But unless you can word an anti-abortion law that will still permit a doctor the choice to save the life of a pregnant woman, I will fight it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Chris,
There has been nothing to suggest that Dr. Tiller screened his patients and refused to perform some abortions. If he did, there's been no mention of it. The onus of proving the assumption that he only did the extreme cases where the mother would have died if a c-section was performed is on you.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:An abortion for convenience, rather than medical necessity.
If the fetus is viable, and c-section and/or induced labor carries no significant risks beyond the risks of the late-term abortion for the mother, then is any abortion chosen after viability frivolous? Or do you define "medically necessary" in terms other than just looking at the life of the mother?
To me, "medically necessary for the life of the mother" can only be applied to an abortion that takes place pre-viability. Post-viability, and that argument carries no merit with me - unless someone can prove to me that a late-term abortion would save a mother whose life is endangered when induced labor and/or c-section would be so much more dangerous as to no longer be an option.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M:
quote:Second, "viable" is difficult to define. With extreme intervention, we've seen miracle babies born at 25ish weeks and live to tell about it. But the odds are low, the cost is high, and the risk of long-term disabilities is huge.
This is not accurate. A 25-week baby is no longer that uncommon and has a reasonable chance of living. Even 24-week babies are no longer viewed as that rare. As I mentioned, I personally know 4 babies who were born at 23+ weeks and this was 3.5 years ago.
Why is the cost and risk of long-term disabilities a factor? Aerin has long-term disabilities from being a micro-preemie. I'm sorry, but this is an issue that I am incapable of being objective about. Who are any of us to say what life is worth living? Can you look at my 3 children and say that the twins' lives are more valuable and more worth living because they are typically-developing? Should we have killed Aerin or done nothing to save her so that we could have the money that we have spent both to save her life and now to treat her disabilities? (BTW, it is our money - we have never gotten any assistance from any public or private programs or charities.)
Darn it, after re-reading my post I realized this was going to shoot us into a tangent that I didn't want to get into. I was much more interested in the part about the cancer patients.
No, you're not objective here, but there's no reason for you to be. You made a choice that you feel strongly about and I'm glad it's working out for you. But other women have made the other choice and feel just as strongly that they made the right decisions for themselves and their families. I don't know any of those women, which is why I had to cite an article, but I found their stories compelling.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have no children, and I agree with her. If the baby can live outside the mother (which can be determined) and there is no reason to believe a c-section would kill the mother and an abortion wouldn't, then the killing the baby is wrong.
It is as wrong as smothering the baby upon birth.
[ June 03, 2009, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mrs.M I am glad that your choices worked out well for you and your family.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Katharina - I have not made any assumptions. There is nothing for me to prove or disprove. You have, however, made assumptions without proof. All I was asking is that you back them up. Or you could ease off from statements like:
"It's easy to list a few sad stories and pretend that the thousands of children he killed were part of those stories. But that's what principles are for - so when you see a sad woman who really, really wants the living, viable child inside of her dead, you know that it's still wrong to kill a human being. Even when the parent wishes they didn't exist."
What percentage of late term abortions are similar sad stories? You imply strongly that they are statistically meaningless, without any figures to back it up. And you follow it with the implication that women seeking late-term abortions all want their children dead. Also unfounded.
and
"(And don't anyone list a few crazy exceptions and pretend that justifies all the other murders.)"
Again, are there only a few? I don't know, but you seem to. And you may be right, for all I know. I'd just like to know what those numbers are.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Kansas law prohibits aborting fetuses that could live outside the womb -- a milestone that is generally reached midway through the second trimester -- unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." Dr. Tiller cited that reason for aborting hundreds of viable fetuses over the years at his clinic.
Dr. Tiller was well-known for providing abortions for women who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects. He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses. Some of his patients, he said, were drug addicted and some were as young as 9 years old.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And you follow it with the implication that women seeking late-term abortions all want their children dead. Also unfounded.
Considering death for the child is what abortion is, that's exactly what they want. There are probably other desires in there as well, but if they didn't want the child dead and gone, they wouldn't be going to an abortion clinic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:And you follow it with the implication that women seeking late-term abortions all want their children dead. Also unfounded.
Considering death for the child is what abortion is, that's exactly what they want. There are probably other desires in there as well, but if they didn't want the child dead and gone, they wouldn't be going to an abortion clinic.
I don't think that's a very finessed way of viewing the situation, and it's a volatile enough conversation that I think finesse is warranted.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You can phrase it differently for yourself.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sorry, I was unclear. You implied in that statement that wanting the child dead was the principle reason for a late term abortion. In at least some cases - my mother-in-law's included - that is emphatically not true. The decision was made by the doctor and mother together, with no time to wait, and it continued to affect her emotionally for many years afterward. She wanted that child.
Is that the norm? Or is it a tiny blip in the numbers? I have no doubt that many late-term abortion clinic clients do see the fetus as an inconvenience. What are the numbers? The experience of someone close to me defies your confident assurances, I see no reason to accept it without proof.
Which, again, may prove you to be correct. I don't know. But you telling me it's so will not suffice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If a fetus is already dead, or dying and going to be gone in a few weeks, then the woman's desire or otherwise for its death is quite irrelevant to her decision to get an abortion. What she wants in this case is a corpse removed from her womb.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know what you are asking, and I don't think it is at all a reasonable request.
And do the numbers really matter? What if it was only one? What if in all the hundreds and possibly thousands of abortions, there was only one viable baby killed even though the mother would have been physically fine.
Is just one dead baby okay?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
KoM, a D&C is not the same as an abortion. Also, what people are discussing is exactly the situation where a fetus is NOT, or at least not conclusively, dead, dying, or going to be gone in a few weeks.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote: Is just one dead baby okay?
It is okay? No.
Should all the other necessary abortions be stopped because of just one? Probably not.
I highly doubt the number are that extreme (in either direction), of course.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I am very interested to have someone address this idea that a late term abortion of a viable fetus rather than a c-section could ever be necessary to save the life of a mother. This goes so far beyond the usual debate about when life begins. You may not believe life begins at conception, and you may debate about where exactly life begins, but there is no question that it began AT or BEFORE the time when the baby can survive outside the womb.
That is just so obvious that I can't believe anyone could believe otherwise and could justify a late-term abortion when a c-section brings about the same result (ending a dangerous pregnancy for the mother) without killing the baby. And I AM thinking of the mechanics here. In order to kill the baby, what exactly does the doctor have to do? Probably put his hands on the baby, yet instead of lifting the baby out, a relatively simple motion, he kills it instead. Or maybe it's much more clinical with a simple injection beforehand. But the mechanics are still the same. The baby's body still needs to be removed whether he kills it before or after opening the womb. The mother's body still needs to be cut open to remove the baby, dead or alive.
It is absolutely horrific and unquestionably wrong. You may disagree with that, but I'd like to hear how you reason that out.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What I'd like to know is the number of late term abortions broken down by the reason for the procedure. How many were emergency procedures, how many were done to save the mother's life, how many were done to prevent the mother's crippling, how many were done due to fetal death, how many were due to diagnosed fetal problems, how many were done in cases of rape or abuse, how many were done for emotional distress, how many were done because the mother just wanted it gone. I don't think it's at all unreasonable and I hope someone is paying attention to them.
By your statements, you tend to lump them all under "the mother just wanted it gone" and that's the part that bugs me, since everything else you write is based on that. It's an unfounded assumption on your part.
I have acknowledged that late-term abortions have been performed when they shouldn't have, and I'm against it happening. You have not acknowledged that any late-term abortions have ever been necessary, and you are scornful of those who do. Since I owe my wife's life to just such a procedure, you're just going to have be scornful of me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I could be wrong but I remember a thread where the differences in risk to the mother between a late term abortion and a c-section were addressed. Was that here?
ETA: Here we go. CT was kind enough to provide lots of good information in a couple of posts on the last page of this thread near the bottom of the page.
[ June 03, 2009, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Because of privacy laws, is it even possible to get those sorts of statistics?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't know, but I'd like to see it. I typically stay out of abortion threads exactly because I don't think I can impose my beliefs on when life starts on someone else--but at some point I think it's obvious that life has indeed begun.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Privacy laws would prevent the exposure of names, but they had better be keeping track of reasons since states have rules about what is and isn't legal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am very interested to have someone address this idea that a late term abortion of a viable fetus rather than a c-section could ever be necessary to save the life of a mother.
A successful C-section is, as I understand it, considerably more difficult than a late-term abortion for a variety of reasons. It's also harder on the mother.
I'm also going to play devil's advocate here and ask a very hard question. (Don't, by the way, assume my answer to this one.)
What if the child has no chance of an independent life? If he or she will never fully grow into an adult, and will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep alive, and will never develop brain function beyond that of, say, a three-year-old? Does a parent ever have the right to say, "No, I can't take care of this child. It is not worth it to me to spend the rest of my life raising this child without ever being accorded the satisfaction of watching this child become independent, or even capable of conversation." Upon choosing to become pregnant, is a woman now required to care for the product of that decision no matter what?
Bear in mind that it's easy to make that call if you're not in that position. It's even easier if you've never had a child. But I'm honest enough with myself to admit that I would at the very least feel trapped by such a birth; it is not difficult for me to imagine feeling so incredibly resentful of the situation that I would not be able to fulfill my duties as a parent. And then the question arises: why should those be the duties of any parent? Is the life of an infant more important than the life of an adult, regardless of that infant's likely potential? Are there variables to consider there?
Most people react to these questions by seizing a central principle and clinging to it stubbornly, no matter what. But what I'm trying to point out by asking them is that the situation is far, far nuanced than that approach would suggest -- or is capable of suggesting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, that question is furthur complicated if the mother has other children to care for.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I suppose that's the problem with advanced methods of fetal observation, combined with the legality of abortions even into viability. It makes eugenics so much easier to enforce.
While I admit, I really don't know *what* I'd do, or think, in that situation, I'd like to think that my belief that a human life is sacred no matter what their physical or mental capabilities would trump. Otherwise, I'd be opening the door, even just a little bit, to becoming a complete monster. I just could not face anyone who was physically or mentally disabled ever again, if I made the choice to terminate.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I can answer these questions with absolute certainty because I have a disabled child I risked my life to give birth to. Here goes:
quote:Does a parent ever have the right to say, "No, I can't take care of this child. It is not worth it to me to spend the rest of my life raising this child without ever being accorded the satisfaction of watching this child become independent, or even capable of conversation."
No, they do not. Or, to delve deeper - they can say that after the child is born and surrender him to social services.
quote:Upon choosing to become pregnant, is a woman now required to care for the product of that decision no matter what?
She's required not to murder him. Again, she can choose to surrender the child to social services. Or to a family member, trusted friend, etc. who has the desire and capability to care for the child as he deserves.
Tom, I appreciate your forthrightness. However, it's hard for me to try to give you any kind of answer that isn't emotionally charged. The thought of feeling resentment towards a disabled child makes me terribly sad. How could I resent Aerin when it was my body that failed her? When she has brought so much joy to so many people? When she is already a junior-level lobbyist who has charmed state legislators and community leaders who have, in turn, voted and worked to help mothers and babies? She has inspired so many people, including her mother. Before she was even 3 years old, she endured more physical pain than most people do in a lifetime. Now that she's physically healthy, she leads a life where she has to take 13 steps sideways for every 1 step forward a typical child takes. She doesn't get a day off from the therapies that are her work. All this and she is still one of the happiest, fiestiest, charismatic, amazing children I have ever seen. She is the light of my life and the best thing that has ever happened to me (along with her sisters and father). The love you feel for your child totally eclipses everything else.
That's not to say it isn't hard. We have had to adjust every aspect of our lives. We have a disability trust for Aerin. We pay, out-of-pocket, for various treatments. We're fortunate to be able to afford this with relative comfort, but I would do whatever I had to if we could not. Ordinarily life activities (meals, baths, etc.) are much, much more involved for us. There are times I'm tired and discouraged and frustrated, but what mother isn't?
There are no guarantees, Tom. You can't guarantee that a healthy, typically-developing child won't become a drug addict who will ruin her life and ruin yours, spiritually and financially. Just because your child is healthy and free from misfortune early on doesn't mean that she will remain so all her life (though, as parents, that is what we all wish).
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Tom, Is adoption not an option in your scenario? I think I wouldn't find that situation any different than one where the parents for whatever reason can't care for their perfectly healthy child.
And really, why should any of us be put through hardships? Most of them that we deal with we didn't ask for, including caring for a severely disable child. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that some of us are put in situations where we are expected to fulfill additional duties. Thankfully, where parents lack the means or the desire to care for their offspring, others are often willing to step in and care for the children as their own.
In answer to these types of questions, I do find it useful to cling to central principles. If we are to say that a child's life has value proportional to their potential, where exactly does that stop? If a person is born into poverty into a 3rd world country, does he have less potential than someone born into a wealthy family who has opportunities handed to him? Or if we measure potential solely in what a person can produce, perform, develop, or otherwise contribute, does a mildly mentally retarded child have less value than a genius or even a so-called normal child? If I lose mobility, do I have less value than when I could walk, talk, or move?
Or is the importance of a life only decreased when loss of function is total, body and mind? Do we then categorize an otherwise human life as animal because that person cannot perform those functions that separate us from the animals? Isn't the fact that it is a human life and is "like us," if not in function, then at least in form and DNA mean something?
So ultimately, I would say it doesn't matter if the child is thought to have no potential (something it is almost impossible to say with any clarity or surety before birth)--if the parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child, that child should be given up for adoption. If there are no available adoptive parents, then better the child be cared for by an institution, hopefully provided with the fullest life possible.
Never does it become okay to take that life because it is thought to have no potential.
Edited to change the name at the top. I didn't realize that Tom was the one who posted the question. Sorry!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Another thing... I noticed that TomD mentioned the child not going past the functionality of a 3 year old. My daughter is 15 months. She is vibrant and communicative and full of energy and just a pure joy. And she's not even half way to 3 years.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sorry, I deleted my post after noticing you fixed yours. Now your last one makes no sense, so I'm posting again. Ack!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Hehe. And I saw that you deleted your post so I altered mine. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Katarain, I posted the link to the other thread above.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Tom, Is adoption not an option in your scenario? I think I wouldn't find that situation any different than one where the parents for whatever reason can't care for their perfectly healthy child.
And really, why should any of us be put through hardships? Most of them that we deal with we didn't ask for, including caring for a severely disable child. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that some of us are put in situations where we are expected to fulfill additional duties. Thankfully, where parents lack the means or the desire to care for their offspring, others are often willing to step in and care for the children as their own.
There are very, very few people who would willingly take in a severely disabled child. I know myself well enough to know that I could not care for a child damaged to the extent Tom described in his example, which is a very extreme case. What I would do with that child were I to become pregnant with one is, thankfully, not a choice I have had to make.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Another thing... I noticed that TomD mentioned the child not going past the functionality of a 3 year old. My daughter is 15 months. She is vibrant and communicative and full of energy and just a pure joy. And she's not even half way to 3 years.
This is a very strange way to look at it. Your daughter is a healthy, normally developing (or advanced, if she's communicating very well at 15 months) child. She is undoubtedly curious and inquisitive as she is on the path to becoming an intelligent woman. A baby who never reaches past the functionality of a 3-year-old is never like that. In fact, it's a somewhat difficult difficult state of mind to describe and comparing it to a normal child of any age is a bit of a stretch, but we do it because it's the best benchmark we have.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
That's a good point. I see that there really isn't any validity in my comparison--but it does not change my opinion about the value of said life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is adoption not an option in your scenario?
I think practicality forces us to admit that the number of parents lining up to adopt a child with serious disabilities has an upper bound.
quote:Never does it become okay to take that life because it is thought to have no potential.
Never? Let us note that there are more than a few medical conditions that we know will result in the death of the infant within days if not hours. Let us also, for the purposes of the thought experiment, assume that this birth poses a serious risk to the life of the mother. Is it worth risking the mother's life to give birth to a child you are absolutely certain is going to die? Or may be born without brain function in the first place?
If not, all you're quibbling about is price.
quote:My daughter is 15 months. She is vibrant and communicative and full of energy and just a pure joy.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not all parents would want an eternal infant, I would ask: would it matter if she were quiet, lethargic, and generally cranky and colicky? Does the fact that she's a "pure joy" to you matter in any way?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Thank you, kmmboots. I was definitely wrong at the method of the abortion. I found all of that deeply troubling. Deeply, deeply troubling. Not because it changes my mind, but because I can't help but personalize it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Is adoption not an option in your scenario?
I think practicality forces us to admit that the number of parents lining up to adopt a child with serious disabilities has an upper bound.
Certainly. But I did state that an institution is better than taking the life.
quote:
quote:Never does it become okay to take that life because it is thought to have no potential.
Never? Let us note that there are more than a few medical conditions that we know will result in the death of the infant within days if not hours. Let us also, for the purposes of the thought experiment, assume that this birth poses a serious risk to the life of the mother. Is it worth risking the mother's life to give birth to a child you are absolutely certain is going to die? Or may be born without brain function in the first place?
If not, all you're quibbling about is price.
There's a woman on another forum who has shared her experience with her baby who only lived a few hours after birth. The mother knew that this would happen before birth. Those hours were precious. Not only do I think the parents and family can get benefit from those hours, however sad it is, but more so I believe that the child has the right to those few hours of life. And yes, I think it is worth the risk to the mother's life. If death is a certainty to mother and child, then you save whoever it is possible to save.
quote:
quote:My daughter is 15 months. She is vibrant and communicative and full of energy and just a pure joy.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not all parents would want an eternal infant, I would ask: would it matter if she were quiet, lethargic, and generally cranky and colicky? Does the fact that she's a "pure joy" to you matter in any way?
The pure joy part would make me happier in that situation. But the part of my statement I wanted to stress was "communicative." But ultimately, no, it doesn't matter.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Is a late term abortion safer than a c-section? We are talking about viable fetuses here, so is the procedure any safer than delivering the child early?
quote:Even sadder seeing a woman who really, really wants the child inside of her alive but fetal problems and uncontrolled internal bleeding are about to kill her and the child so the doctor makes the call to save the mother.
In a case like this, of course you save the mother. But, I firmly believe the first goal of the physician should be to save both, and I believe for many obstetricians that is the goal. If the baby is not viable yet, then naturally you do what is necessary to save the mother. I have no problem with procedures that truly save a woman's life - like in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.
Yeas, at least at times. It depends on what is wrong with the mother, and what needs to be done to save her life too.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Let us also, for the purposes of the thought experiment, assume that this birth poses a serious risk to the life of the mother. Is it worth risking the mother's life to give birth to a child you are absolutely certain is going to die? Or may be born without brain function in the first place?
Yes, it's worth it. I made my choice knowing that Aerin had very poor odds. I didn't even have to think about it and I'd do it all over again in a heartbeat.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is your choice. Will you use the power of law to enforce your choice on others? And, incidentally, I am moderately convinced that the hypothetical you who made the other choice would be just as utterly convinced that it was necessary and right, and just as happy with her life. Humans are funny like that.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:That is your choice. Will you use the power of law to enforce your choice on others?
I use my vote, if that is what you mean. To take it further, I believe my choice is the right one and I wish it was the law that everyone had to choose the way I did.
quote:And, incidentally, I am moderately convinced that the hypothetical you who made the other choice would be just as utterly convinced that it was necessary and right, and just as happy with her life. Humans are funny like that.
I don't really understand what you mean by this. You don't know me well enough to declare how I would feel if I had made a different choice. Incidentally, I made the choice to carry both of my twins, which made my third pregnancy much riskier. So I can assure you that the "hypothetical" me could never exist.
I also think you don't approve of my choice, especially since it weakens your arguement that someone with the opposing viewpoint would do exactly what she said she would and act according to her beliefs.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Mrs. M -- I think you misunderstand. He is not saying what you would feel if you'd made the other choice. I think he's basically suggesting that a woman in a similar situation who made the other choice would also feel strongly that she made the right decision. The only thing you and this "hypothetical you" need have in common is that you both were carrying babies who were likely to have severe problems and also cause you injury.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I also think you don't approve of my choice.
I never claimed I did. I don't see the relevance.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I did misunderstand, then. And I would expect that a woman who made a different choice would feel that she made the right decision and live with it happily. I don't think I implied otherwise. I can even understand that - as I mentioned, my husband and my mother struggled greatly with my choice.
I still think it's wrong and that no one should ever make any other choice that the one I made.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mrs.M, I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that you would use your vote and wish to ensure that, for example, a husband who, unlike you, decided to save his wife rather than the baby in a situation where the baby was not likely to survive more than a few hours or days should go to jail for murder? Or a mother who was unlikely to survive the pregnancy choosing her own life? Or that the doctor should?
I am asking for clarification, because I won't want to put words in your mouth.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
My girlfriend's neice has cre du chats. The child being born has not only wrecked the marriage because the parents are not really capable of emotionally dealing with a child who is physically and mentally 18 months old and unlikely to progress much further in the next five years (she's 44 months now), it has also wrecked their financial situation, and the grandparents financial situation. The child will likely need massive family assistance her entire life, economic and simply attention.
My girlfriend tells me that if she found out she would have a child like clara, she would abort... she knows she couldn't deal with it. And yet, this is the same girl who was terrified that I don't think there should be legal restrictions on access to abortion because what makes a person a person is the acknowledgement of other people that it is indeed a person, and the only relevant person prior to birth is the mother.
The personal can make an abstraction into a much more complicated gray-scale. Knowing the horror that has been wreaked on her own family by the birth of a child who is simply incapable of significant independence has made her realize that there are situations in which she would abort.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
That's not an entirely fair comparison. Would Clara's parents feel the same way? Not that I'm asking you to interview them or anything, but your girlfriend, as close as she is to the situation, is still not experiencing all of it (seemingly only the financial end, from what you've posted).
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think the problem here is that drawing a line at either end of the mother's life/baby's life spectrum results in disturbing consequences. Draw it at one end, and we allow any abortion that carries a lower risk of death than childbirth. Draw it at the other, and we forbid treatment of ectopic pregnancies.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No, she's experienced a lot more than the financial. She's been heavily involved with clara on a day to day basis since she was born, and has watched the deterioration of the marriage from fairly close up due to the necessarily close contact between clara's parents and the rest of the family.
No one wants Clara to die... but given the choice between raising another clara, and having an abortion, my virulently anti-abortion girlfriend would rather have the abortion.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Or you can not draw lines at all and just let moms decide, which, I think, is the point of the pro-choice argument.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I saw CT's links on the other thread and they do assert that the intact dilation and extraction or D&E (what is commonly referred to as partial-birth abortion) is safer than c-section in that it carries a smaller risk of complications.
However, those links do not prove that the mother's life is significantly endangered by c-section vs. the D&E. A slightly higher risk of complications does not seem enough, to me, to sacrifice the life of a viable fetus. I looked at a USA Today article, and if I'm reading it correctly in 2004-2005 .81% of c-section deliveries had some sort of complication. A less than 1% complication rate seems to me an acceptable risk and well worth trying if an infant's life is on the line.
As to Tom's question, I would fall back on the exact same thing I mentioned on the other page. First, I would have to be convinced that such a disorder could definitively be diagnosed in the womb and that no possibility exists for new treatments to be developed that would improve the quality of life after birth. Since that is unknowable...then my answer has to be no. I cannot sanction the destruction of that fetus when there is no way to be certain, in utero, what that child's actual quality of life will be when it is born.
All of us take risks when we decide to have children. We don't know that our pregnancies will be normal, if our children will be healthy, if they will be happy or if they will even live past birth. I don't believe, with children, you should take the attitude of "Oh, well it's not going to go exactly as a I expected so I will just destroy it and start over." Again, as I have said repeatedly - we should err on the side of life. We err on the side of giving a child a chance at life, even if it's not the life we would have chosen...we give them a chance at life.
I've heard many people say they would rather die than be left a quadriplegic after an accident. Yet I have met a quadriplegic who graduated college and led a productive, happy life. We shouldn't decide who gets to experience life or not based on our own judgments of how their life will be.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I don't know any of those women, which is why I had to cite an article, but I found their stories compelling.
None that you know of.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I looked at a USA Today article, and if I'm reading it correctly in 2004-2005 .81% of c-section deliveries had some sort of complication. A less than 1% complication rate seems to me an acceptable risk and well worth trying if an infant's life is on the line.
I find that statistic improbable. I am not aware of any other abdominal surgery with such a low rate of complications -- not even close. Regardless, you are comparing apples and oranges. Most c-sections are on low- or medium-risk pregnancies. The ones under discussion are anything but.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It's very very hard for me to say that any of the stories in that article were the right choice (other than 11 year old rape victims. That, there is no way around. It's dangerous to the child to carry a child, the pregnancy must be ended as soon as it's found out. Period.)
I'm glad I don't have to judge them. I will leave it there, because it's possible some of them did make the right decision-- but I can't know and it's hard for me to sympathise.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Mrs.M, I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that you would use your vote and wish to ensure that, for example, a husband who, unlike you, decided to save his wife rather than the baby in a situation where the baby was not likely to survive more than a few hours or days should go to jail for murder? Or a mother who was unlikely to survive the pregnancy choosing her own life? Or that the doctor should?
I am asking for clarification, because I won't want to put words in your mouth.
I appreciate that. Would I want them to go to jail? No, probably not. Almost definitely not, I guess. Like I keep saying, it's hard for me to think clearly about this subject. I took the choice into my own hands, which spared my husband and doctor having to make it. I think advanced directives are great, in many cases.
In response to some of the later posts - having Aerin has made my marriage even stronger. I have never loved Andrew more than when I saw him kangaroo Aerin in the NICU or pray over her in the PICU. Now, when I see how patient and loving he is with her and how he adores her completely unconditionally, I fall in love with him all over again.
I was actually somewhat pro-choice until I became pregnant with Aerin and her triplet siblings. The second I saw those tiny sacs on the screen, I knew they were babies, precious gifts from G-d with souls, and I had been wrong. We still grieve for the babies we have lost, even as we take joy in our living children.
There are not guarantees with children. Bipolar disorder, for example, usually doesn't manifest until late teens or early 20s and it can be as hard, if not harder, on a family than diseases that manifest before or shortly after birth.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: I was actually somewhat pro-choice until I became pregnant with Aerin and her triplet siblings. The second I saw those tiny sacs on the screen, I knew they were babies, precious gifts from G-d with souls, and I had been wrong. We still grieve for the babies we have lost, even as we take joy in our living children.
I had the opposite experience. I leaned pro-life before I got pregnant for the first time. The u/s didn't affect me that much. Of course, I'm legally blind, so I didn't get to see much but a gray blur.
What really affected me, though, was the miscarriage I had between healthy pregnancies. I knew that 1/3 of pregnancies ended in miscarriage, but it didn't hit home until it happened to me. And when it happened, I felt sad, but I didn't feel as if anyone had died. I remember thinking at the time that I should feel that way, that it was terrible that I wasn't mourning the loss of a child, but all I felt was disappointment. It wasn't even as dramatic as the loss of a dream because I knew I could get pregnant again. In fact, Celeste was born 3 months after my original due date.
A few weeks before my miscarriage, and right after I found out I was pregnant, a woman who had gone through 3 successive miscarriages spoke to my MOPS group. She said a lot of inspirational things but one thing she said that bothered me was that she knew her 3 babies were waiting for her in heaven. When I had my own miscarriage, I remembered what she'd said but I couldn't accept it and didn't even want to. The idea that one out of every three souls in heaven is a baby that never had a chance to live...I just don't think God works that way.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Note: the following isn't addressed to anyone in particular. Mrs. M inspired it but I don't think she's made an actual statement that I'd consider hypocritical. In fact she's made it clear that it's a hard subject to think clearly about.
I saw a clip wherein someone went with a camera and a microphone to a group of protestors at an abortion clinic. He asked each of them why abortion was wrong. They replied that abortion was murder. He then asked what the proper penalty for a woman who chose to get an abortion is, if they have committed (or at least instigated) murder. And every one of the protestors shuffled uncomfortably and said "I don't know." Most of them followed that up with something like "I guess not... we should keep the mothers in our prayers."
I know not all protestors are like that (the video was a small sample and could easily have been cherry picked to make a point). However, I'm sure those results are at least fairly common. And I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who makes the claim that abortion is equivalent to murder without backing that up with actual murder charges.
There are other countries that consider feticide to be a different crime than murder, that has its own penalties that are less strict. While I disagree I think that's an internally consistent position. But if you're going to call abortion full on murder, and then hesitate before sending an 18 year old to jail for 10, you should consider what your position actually is. Making something a crime without punishment is meaningless.
A lot of what I've heard is "the doctor should go to jail." It's a safe decision that lets people feel like they've changed things without having to think about ruining the life of a young woman who made a mistake. But I can't see how dropping off a victim at a serial killer's house is much better than the actual killing itself, and that doesn't even address back-alley abortions performed either by the girl herself or by one of her friends.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I find that statistic improbable. I am not aware of any other abdominal surgery with such a low rate of complications -- not even close. Regardless, you are comparing apples and oranges. Most c-sections are on low- or medium-risk pregnancies. The ones under discussion are anything but.
I'm only citing what I saw. Please read the article and let me know if I've misunderstood it.
quote:The actual number of deliveries with at least one complication was 0.64% in 1998-99 and 0.81% in 2004-05. "Even though the absolute numbers are low, the rates are increasing. … We could do a better job at tracking these complications," says Meikle, an obstetrician. "There may be short-term trade-offs and long-term trade-offs (depending on mode of delivery). We don't know that yet."
I would need to see the actual study to evaluate it. I do note that it appears they are only talking about immediate and life-threatening complications. There are many c-section complication that only become evident days, weeks, or months later; there are also many which affect the health and/or fertility of the mother but may not directly threaten her life.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
One thing about very disabled children is that they often become adults. Not only do they take a mental and financial toll on the parents, they take a toll on any other children, and I don't mean only financial. The time taken up in dealing with the one child and then adult who is very disabled detracts from the other children while they are still children. It is one thing to not have a choice; it is another to have a choice and choose to inflict this on your other children who do not have a choice. People do say, "I would never to that to them," meaning their healthy children. They should have the right to make that choice.
Miscarriage is one way to deal with an unviable fetus. If it worked perfectly, every unviable fetus would miscarry, perfectly naturally, in the early days of pregnancy. This doesn't always happen. We have surgery for all kinds of medical issues that our body's natural healing abilities fail to handle alone. For a non-viable or barely viable fetus, isn't this the same thing? Shouldn't parents have the choice to say, "enough, already"?
Isn't this the same argument that comes at the end of ones life as well? When an adult becomes an unviable human being, supported by the scientific equivalent of a womb, this discussion is raised. Do the next of kin have the right to "pull the plug?" Do human beings have the right to say, "yes, pull the plug on me if..."? I believe they do. Babies do not have the intellectual capacity to make this decision for themselves and so the onus falls on their next of kin-- their mother.
The introduction of God to the equation skews everything. The idea of spectral babies exists far stronger in the minds of those who believe in the spiritual world than those who don't. As Christine noted, the idea that God keeps a vast number of spectral unborn children (hopefully in baby or adult form!) around in Heaven doesn't really ring true for her. Parents should have the right to believe what they want, and not have other people's spectral babies projected upon theirs.
Yes, unborn babies-- fetuses-- are human beings in waiting. Plain old human beings, if you like, But they have not had lives. There was no kindergarten, high school graduation, university, career, grandkids. For most of the babies in question, none of this would ever occur.
Almost nobody undertakes late term abortion lightly, and nor should they. However, I believe that yes, it's worth a few frivolous idiots aborting a child for no reason in order to give the choice, the possibility, the option, to those mothers who genuinely face this decision because the alternative is dangerous, grievously painful or rationally unsound.
Very personally, I think we torture ourselves with imagination. We are all biased: we are all babies who were born, who have lived, breathed, even had children of our own. The babies in question have not, and may never. Does that mean we shouldn't feel loss? Certainly not. Does it mean we should offer choice to expectant parents? I believe it does.
I do not think that legalizing and tolerating reasonable late term abortion for extreme cases such as those situations described above will cause people to stop feeling a connection to their unborn children, or stop them grieving when things go wrong.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Mind you, they are a very nice set of encyclopedias.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:One thing about very disabled children is that they often become adults. Not only do they take a mental and financial toll on the parents, they take a toll on any other children, and I don't mean only financial. The time taken up in dealing with the one child and then adult who is very disabled detracts from the other children while they are still children. It is one thing to not have a choice; it is another to have a choice and choose to inflict this on your other children who do not have a choice. People do say, "I would never to that to them," meaning their healthy children. They should have the right to make that choice.
Why?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Generally when children ask "why" they really mean "tell me more". Since you are not a child, I'm not sure what you're asking.
If you're asking why should they have the right to make that choice, then you need to re-read the paragraph you just quoted.
If that is not enough for you, then you likely simply disagree that parents should have a choice about whether they want to sacrifice one child in lieu of another. This is, in terms of spectral babies, a very unpopular viewpoint, since the spectral baby is likely equal in every sense to the spectra of the other children. However, in terms of reality, I don't think it's all that uncommon among parents with other children to abort (if not late-term abort) unviable or children whom they think will detract severely from the quality of life of their other children. Most of the time, this abortion occurs within the first term trimester. In some rare cases (described above) it cannot, possibly even due to a sequence of events like a final test coming back late or something.
I don't believe by any means that parents should abort in this case, that is very important to note. I believe that parents should have the right--within reasonable boundaries-- to make that choice, instead of having the government determining such a dramatic change in the family.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Teshi,
Do you believe parents should still be able to obliterate the child when the child develops, say, severe autism at two years old?
[ June 04, 2009, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
No.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"He ain't heavy. He's my brother."
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Wasn't there some article in a previous debate, where it pointed out that severe birth defects are only really spotted after the point of viability (or at least, after the legal definition of such)? I think that's the real sticking point. Because whether or not a fetus is a person before then, it's very hard to make the case that it's not when it's able to survive outside the mother. Even Roe v. Wade seems to imply that abortions should not take place before this point.
Like I said, the technology to determine these defects has made abortion in these cases possible. If not for that, women would have always carried these babies to term and then presumably cared for them for their whole lives. It's the burden of knowledge that seems to open the door to these sorts of things. That sort of God-play makes me very uncomfortable, but it seems to be the cost of better healthcare and better treatments for pregnant mothers and their babies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Teshi, could you point out the difference between a child that is able to survive outside a mother and one that already is? All those justifications for killing the first apply to the second.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
According to what has previously been said in this thread, there are a good eight weeks between the cutoff where "abortions" becomes "late-term abortions" and extremely premature but surviving babies who have health issues regardless of any other health issues they may have.
Scott R: That's very sweet, but it's a song.
quote:If not for that, women would have always carried these babies to term and then presumably cared for them for their whole lives.
That is, until the babies died or the mothers died, leaving them--hopefully--in the hands of someone who cared. Don't idyllicize the past. Modern science has not only made prevention possible, it has made post-birth care possible as well. In the past, many of these babies would die within days or weeks of birth. Modern science plays God all the time. If God-play makes you uncomfortable, then all life-saving medicine does.
And finally, God comes up again. For many people, God doesn't exist. For those people, there are no spectral futures, no spectral babies, there is only what there is.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:For many people, God doesn't exist. For those people, there are no spectral futures, no spectral babies, there is only what there is.
I'm not sure what you mean by spectral babies or spectral futures.
Do you mean that atheists have no capacity for imagination or fear?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote: that is not enough for you, then you likely simply disagree that parents should have a choice about whether they want to sacrifice one child in lieu of another.
I couldn't disagree more and I am living your spectral situation with actual children. I am very cognizant that Aerin needs special attention, but that doesn't mean that I don't have time for the twins. It does mean juggling things and making compromises, but I do it and so do the other parents I know in my situation. Yes, we have a disability trust for Aerin, but we also have college funds for the twins. And we work with a therapist to incorporate ABA into our daily lives, rather than do formal, intensive 1-on-1 with Aerin. We balance our time and our resources, just like any other family, and all of our children are thriving.
It makes me so sad to hear disabled children spoken of as if they are a terrible, unlovable, ruinous burden to a family. They are as much a blessing as any other child. Siblings of disabled children are often compassionate, patient, strong, and loving in profound ways that those without disabled siblings are not. Disabled children are a gift to a family, even if it's one we didn't choose.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We balance our time and our resources, just like any other family, and all of our children are thriving.
If you had less time and fewer resources, would all of your children be thriving?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Yes, they would. I know many families with disabled children who have fewer resources and less time than mine (both parents work out of the home full-time, etc.) and are doing fantastic jobs. We'd adjust to less if we had to.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Mrs M, I am in awe of the job you are doing with your kids. I think that all of your children are incredibly lucky to have you as their Mom. I saw, through Hatrack, the struggles you had through your pregnancy with Aerin, and the fight she had to live. And I am so happy that she is now a beautiful toddler.
All that said, I do have a question from this thread.
If you now had another high risk pregnancy like you did with Aerin, would you put the baby's life ahead of your own again?
(The difference being now, your children you have already, and their need for you.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Teshi, that didn't actually answer or address my question.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by spectral babies or spectral futures.
Do you mean that atheists have no capacity for imagination or fear?
The babies are not waiting, watching or having a life, however you might imagine them to be.
Aerin is not disabled in meaning of the word that I am describing, Mrs.M. She is an intelligent girl who will go on to look after herself, be employed (likely very well), possibly have children of her own, even if she's a little bit more work now.
From what I know of ABA, it works best when incorporated into life than when done in a specialized, unreal situation.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Yes, they would. I know many families with disabled children who have fewer resources and less time than mine (both parents work out of the home full-time, etc.) and are doing fantastic jobs. We'd adjust to less if we had to"
And how about if you had even less? Where is the lower bound for time and resources for raising the number of children you have such that they are all thriving?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Is there a difference between a 20 week old fetus and a two year old child? Yes.
I assume you are against all abortion, not only late term abortion but the 16-week mark is arbitrary. Is a later mark also arbitrary? Yes.
I most certainly do not believe in aborting children randomly for no reason in the third trimester and I do not think that ever occurs in any statistically significant portion of late term abortions. I've tried to articulate when I feel like there is a plausible situation where so-called late-term abortion might be preferable to an alternative death or an irrationally difficult or painful life.
Would I personally abort a child in any of these situations? I don't know. But I would thank you for giving me, and others, the chance and the tolerance to make my own choice.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Thanks, imogen!
That's a fair question and it's one I really struggled with myself. Technically, every pregnancy I will ever have is high-risk because of my history. So why did we choose to have more children? Well, prenatal medical technology is amazing and moves unbelievably fast. There were treatments available to me with the twins that were still in trials when I was pregnant with Aerin. And since we were able to work with our medical team proactively, rather than reacting to one disaster after another, we prevented 100% of what went wrong with Aerin.
That being said, I will answer your question directly. Yes, I would put the baby's life ahead of my own again. It would break my heart to leave my children and husband, but I think any other choice is wrong. I wouldn't be able to live with myself. Andrew and I have talked about this and we have a support system in place that would get my family through without me. Andrew has also promised to remarry within a reasonable amount of time and I have people who would help with that (with introductions, etc.).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Teshi,
Why do you assume that? Because you want to answer the question you wish I had asked instead of the one that I did?
I'll repeat the question:
quote:could you point out the difference between a child that is able to survive outside a mother and one that already is?
The difference in this case being the one that makes killing the first okay and killing the second not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not sure that I'd agree that disabled children are a gift.
So everyone knows, my youngest has severe heart problems that will restrict her life. She won't be able to have children, will likely be developmentally (physically and mentally) delayed, and will probably need heart surgeries frequently. (At least 3 open heart bypass surgeries before she turns four.) She's already had one bypass surgery and two angioplasties.
I don't know that I want to start equating Tiptoe with "heart disease." It's important to me to compartmentalize the child away from the disability. SHE herself is a gift, like my other four kids; her health problems are a trial.
I know that facing those problems has made me a better man; but it hasn't been anything close to easy. Everyone in the family has struggled with the shifts necessary to accommodate Tiptoe's needs, and some days it seems like we're the most fragile people in the world. I'd love to push a button and make her problems vanish.
Her problems; not her. I'm not fond of the trials, but I'll take them over her absence any day. If I'm looking at this, calculating risks, benefits, and costs, her presence provides significantly more value to me than what her disease deducts.
Like Mrs. M, I'm appalled at the tendency I've seen in others who seem to assert that the sick, the disabled, the handicapped are somehow better off dead than living, and use the trials that their birth will cause as a reason to support abortion.
They are people, not handicaps.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I know many families with disabled children who have fewer resources and less time than mine (both parents work out of the home full-time, etc.) and are doing fantastic jobs.
For what it's worth, I know many families with disabled children who are not doing well.
I suspect there's a great deal of self-selection happening here, for many complicated reasons.
----------
quote:I'm appalled at the tendency I've seen in others who seem to assert that the sick, the disabled, the handicapped are somehow better off dead than living...
There is a common philosophical fallacy applied here, one that's so common that it actually goes by a number of names. If you assert that it is always better for any given individual to exist than to not exist, you wind up with all kinds of problems down the chain. At some point, surely we all agree that there is conceptually some line beyond which it is better for society for a given person, whatever their other merits, not to exist; surely, too, we all agree that there might be a point of misery in someone's life at which someone (either that individual or a hypothetically fair and unbiased observer) would agree that the individual in question would be better off not living.
I know this sounds ruthless. Bear in mind, too, that I continue to play Devil's Advocate here. But I believe it's indisputable that the argument "it is better that any random individual exist" is ultimately a non-starter.
[ June 04, 2009, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Aerin is not disabled in meaning of the word that I am describing, Mrs.M. She is an intelligent girl who will go on to look after herself, be employed (likely very well), possibly have children of her own, even if she's a little bit more work now.
From your mouth to G-d's ears. However, while Aerin is intelligent, she is very, very challenged and unlikely to live an independent life. And she's vastly more than a little more work.
quote:From what I know of ABA, it works best when incorporated into life than when done in a specialized, unreal situation.
There are 2 schools of thought on that. It's probably best not to explore that further here.
quote:Where is the lower bound for time and resources for raising the number of children you have such that they are all thriving?
I don't know. I come from nothing, so I know that a lot can be done with very little. And I personally work with organizations that help families less fortunate than mine, so I know that there are resources out there for people who are struggling.
Scott, that is exactly what I meant but couldn't articulate. Very well put.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I know many families with disabled children who are not doing well.
So do we. And "not doing well" is not an excuse to kill a child.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What excuses would you accept for killing a child?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, it's me, so...how tasty does he look?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why does your question suppose that any exist.
What reasons do you think are acceptable for killing a child, Tom?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why does your question suppose that any exist.
What reasons do you think are acceptable for killing a child, Tom?
I think Tom already hinted at one possibility, where the quality of life for child and his parents is so dire it may not be worth it to try and grit through it.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:But I believe it's indisputable that the argument "it is better that any random individual exist" is ultimately a non-starter.
No one has made that argument.
I said that trials resulting from the birth of a handicapped baby are not necessarily cause for an abortion.
Would you like to discuss that topic? I mean, we can tangent if you really want, Tom, but I think it's a little untoward of you to claim that something was argued for when it wasn't...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I said that trials resulting from the birth of a handicapped baby are not necessarily cause for an abortion.
Do you concede that they might be? That at some point the burden caused by a child of sufficient handicap (upon a family of sufficiently limited resources) might exceed the value of that child?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I said that trials resulting from the birth of a handicapped baby are not necessarily cause for an abortion.
Do you concede that they might be? That at some point the burden caused by a child of sufficient handicap (upon a family of sufficiently limited resources) might exceed the value of that child?
I imagine so-- but the level of handicap and burden you're talking about, that would produce a parent who (EDIT: can justifiably) point his finger at his child and say, "I wish you were never born. This misery is all your fault." is staggering, and bordering on the fantastical.
EDIT II:
I think it's a better to find ways to support parents in these situations than it is to point to abortion clinics as the answer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can imagine a case where a child would be so handicapped - unable to live for more than a couple of hours - and be a severe risk to the mother - doing enough damage that she couldn't bear other children or even risking death. In such a case, I could see abortion being a rational choice. What if she were a widow? Should her other children go into foster care?
Mrs.M, I think that you made noble choices, but I don't think that we can legally require quite that level of nobility. As was pointed out, if we make something illegal, we are putting people in jail for doing it. (Fines, I think would be useless. Wealthy people would just pay them and the poor who couldn't would just go to jail.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm reminded of the Worthing saga. In a world where there is no pain, there are no stories. OSC believes the stories are worth the pain. Conversely, in a world of no abortions, there are no noble choices to be made about sacrificing for handicapped children. Are the abortions worth the stories? If not, what's the difference?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
KoM:
Do you believe if there was no war there'd also be no patriotism or civic pride?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the level of handicap and burden you're talking about, that would produce a parent who (EDIT: can justifiably) point his finger at his child and say, "I wish you were never born. This misery is all your fault." is staggering
Is it staggering that a couple can look at their available resources and conclude not to have children at all? It appears to happen all the time. Potential children are discarded pre-conception every hour of every day, and we do not regard this as a great loss.
Would prospective parents evaluate their resources differently if the resources consumed by the child were to be dramatically increased for some reason? I think it's very likely.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: "If not for that, women would have always carried these babies to term and then presumably cared for them for their whole lives." That is, until the babies died or the mothers died, leaving them--hopefully--in the hands of someone who cared.
"for their whole lives" could be a very short time, and is what I was referring to (admittedly the life of a sick infant, but I am in fact aware of situations where mothers are at risk).
Don't idyllicize the past. Modern science has not only made prevention possible, it has made post-birth care possible as well. In the past, many of these babies would die within days or weeks of birth.
That's exactly what I said. I said that the ability to discuss this issue of the ethics of fetus-terminating is a RESULT of our advanced medical technology and ability to detect these problems in utero.
Modern science plays God all the time.
Particularly heinous doctors would agree with you, to the point that they'll convince a woman to abort because that shadow in the Ultrasound means their offspring will be less socially acceptable.
If God-play makes you uncomfortable, then all life-saving medicine does.
Give me a break. I'm GLAD it exists. I think it regularly saves lives. My discomfort is not in the fact that the technology regularly saves peoples lives, but that it directly results in these "sophie's choice" level situations where people are being led (either by well-meaning or devious doctors) to make a decision to abort healthy fetuses. Call it playing god or call it eugenics, but in my mind, it is Not Right. Hence the discomfort. I have to think it is not what the original creators of the technology intended when they developed the life-saving diagnostic and observation equipment, but that is what it's currently being used for.
And finally, God comes up again. For many people, God doesn't exist. For those people, there are no spectral futures, no spectral babies, there is only what there is.
Check the bitterness just a little bit. I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you, I'm just trying to articulate the wrongness of it from my perspective. Any flaws in expression are mine, but chill out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is it staggering that a couple can look at their available resources and conclude not to have children at all? It appears to happen all the time. Potential children are discarded pre-conception every hour of every day, and we do not regard this as a great loss. Would prospective parents evaluate their resources differently if the resources consumed by the child were to be dramatically increased for some reason? I think it's very likely.
Apples and Oranges, Tom. We're talking about children already conceived-- this is a discussion about abortion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Its not apples and oranges from every vantage point. You've drawn a line and said "These are seperate fruit," while other people have looked at the line you've drawn and said "Its all apples. Some are macintosh and others are golden delicious."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: KoM:
Do you believe if there was no war there'd also be no patriotism or civic pride?
I do not see the relevance. The normals of the Worthing saga presumably had patriotism and civic pride.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
NOTE: Someone else used a term similar to "potential people," to refer to the unborn. That wasn't me, I don't think.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
KoM:
Parental sacrifice is going to continue whether there's abortion or not.
quote:Its not apples and oranges from every vantage point. You've drawn a line and said "These are seperate fruit," while other people have looked at the line you've drawn and said "Its all apples. Some are macintosh and others are golden delicious."
Okay. I'm going to put it all in a nice fruit salad and throw spoonfuls for Tom to catch in his mouth. It'll be fun!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Parental sacrifice is going to continue whether there's abortion or not.
Right. But I was discussing choosing to sacrifice. The sort of choice Mrs M made, of risking her life to have a child; if abortion weren't available, if there were no choice, then there's no nobility in that. Returning to the Worthing saga, the normals made choices too: Marrying one person rather than another, taking up this trade instead of that. OSC, apparently - or at least his mouthpieces within the book - felt that these choices were not interesting enough to make stories, and that a real risk of physical pain and death was needed. Perhaps you disagree on the point?
Posted by ken_in_sc (Member # 12072) on :
I think if women have abortion rights prior to birth, then fathers should have abortion rights after birth--really late-term--like the Romans did. It’s only fair gender-wise. If after birth, the fetus makes the father uncomfortable, does not do its homework, gives him headaches, or causes sleeplessness, he should have the right to take it down to a clinic and have it humanely put to sleep. This is the only fair way to put a stop to these endless gender wars. on this subject.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I disagree with Mrs. M about the life of the child being more important than the life of the mother.
But I'm very glad that her choice worked out for her and her family.
In this case, if we accept your premise as true (which I don't), then I do not feel that losing that nobility is a great loss.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
ken_in_sc, if you are interested in a discussion where the issue of father's rights was addressed somewhat more rationally, I linked to it earlier in this thread.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I can imagine a case where a child would be so handicapped - unable to live for more than a couple of hours - and be a severe risk to the mother - doing enough damage that she couldn't bear other children or even risking death. In such a case, I could see abortion being a rational choice. What if she were a widow? Should her other children go into foster care?
Heck, I would take it a step further. Even outside the womb, what kind of perverse notion of "mercy" is it to allow an infant, incapable of rational thought or expression, who is only going to live hours or days and spend them in agonizing pain that they cannot understand, to live out a life of nothing but suffering when a cessation of that suffering is available?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Even outside the womb, what kind of perverse notion of "mercy" is it to allow an infant, incapable of rational thought or expression, who is only going to live hours or days and spend them in agonizing pain that they cannot understand, to live out a life of nothing but suffering when a cessation of that suffering is available?
That "cessation of suffering?" Also known as "morphine."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And what is the purpose of that? What makes it so worthwhile to have a body draw breath with its own lungs, doped up on morphine in addition to all the other things wrong in this scenario? This is just breathing for its own sake. Or, apparently, a drug high for its own sake! What is the point of bringing into the world a brain which will spend its brief life experiencing either suffering or a morphine high?
quote:I disagree with Mrs. M about the life of the child being more important than the life of the mother.
So do I; that's not the point. The point is that Mrs M made that choice, and it has clearly become a large part of her identity; she now thinks of herself as a woman who once risked her life to have a child. It's a story, "this is who I am." We don't have to agree in detail with the choices the Worthing normals make either; the point is that without such choices - according to OSC - they are less than human, because they have no stories. Do you disagree that Mrs M's choice is a story in this sense? That such stories are needed to make full humans? Or that the stories need to include death and suffering as well as choice? I don't think there are any other alternatives.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Man, this is such a loaded discussion.
Sarcasticmuppet, I did not mean to come off as bitter. I too am trying to articulate my views.
1. I do not believe that disabled children, having been born, are "better off dead". My view goes more along the lines of unborn children, especially those who are very tiny, are not intrinsically special from the next unborn child. Often, there is another child who is a delight and a joy without the difficulty.
It is almost impossible to imagine this from "the other side". Once you have learned to love your child as him or herself, of course you should prefer him or her alive rather than dead. The path has already been taken.
But before that path even exists, and there's maybe another healthy baby down the line, and this baby's not going to live well at all (if at all), and you're not so well off, and you're already looking after grandma... then the path hasn't been taken yet.
If you are able to take on the child, then you have the choice to keep it and do what you can for it. If you can't, then I believe the choice should be available to take a different path. It is up to the parents to decide what is manageable and what is not. I do not think it qualifies as eugenics, although I think deliberately passing on genetic disabilities is incredibly selfish.
I don't want to kill disabled people. I recognize the valid contributions they make, like every human being, to life. However, I do not believe that before that contribution is made that each fetus was "meant" to be alive. I don't think some parents want to ride that invisible "meant to be" train to a possibly tragic end when they'd rather try again.
2. If it helps, perhaps you can think of some of these cases as "scientifically miscarried". The human body didn't solve the problem as it was supposed to, so a doctor steps in. Hopefully, this occurs earlier rather than later. Sometimes, it cannot or doesn't.
3. To deliberately subject yourself to pain and suffering because you believe there are no stories without difficulty doesn't really affect the argument, since most of these abortions do include very much pain and suffering.
4.
quote:...to make a decision to abort healthy fetuses...
There are very, very, very few situations where I would regard it acceptable to abort a viable healthy fetus late in pregnancy. I regard that as generally heinous.There are slightly more reasons to earlier and earlier as it goes. I do not mind first or second month pregnancies aborted.
I'm not a monster. As I have said, what I choose to do when and if I have children of my own may not involve abortion. My viewpoint, like all pro-choice people, is one of choice.
I don't want to set a date so hard a fast, that ignores the particulars on the situation. I don't want to force families to ride a tragic train when they could get off it now. Your families are different from other families. Some parents aren't in families at all. Some disabilities are survivable and livable and fixable, even, others are not. I don't want to colour everything a uniform red.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:That "cessation of suffering?" Also known as "morphine."
Who is getting the short end of the stick here? The parents who get to see their baby die slowly under the influence of heavy drugs or the baby, who gets a bewildering, drawn out moment of horror in a drug-addled, incomplete mind?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oops! Don't know how I managed that. I think because both summon up images of fuzzy creatures.
Anyway, I think I've spent enough of my life in this thread now. I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other and I've got a piano to practice .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No answer to my question, then?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other
I don't know about that. I've learned a lot from both sides. The goal isn't necessarily convincing, but opening people's minds and learning something.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: What is the point of bringing into the world a brain which will spend its brief life experiencing either suffering or a morphine high?
Hope. That's all.
It's worth it.
I don't agree that such stories as Mrs. M's are needed to make full humans.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
quote:I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other
I don't know about that. I've learned a lot from both sides. The goal isn't necessarily convincing, but opening people's minds and learning something.
The purpose of having an open mind is to eventually close it on the truth. It is not an end in itself.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Do you think that's actually possible, KOM?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, I'm not touching the creepy 'hope' thing with a stick.
quote:I don't agree that such stories as Mrs. M's are needed to make full humans.
Let us clarify: Do you object to this particular form of hard choice, or to the general idea that there must be the possibility of suffering?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Teshi, I'm also very much a fan of choice. Like I said way early on in the thread, because I can think of good reasons to have an abortion (rape, abuse, immediate danger to mother), I think the government needs to butt out.
However, I feel myself getting a little more conservative with the idea of a late-term abortions. I don't even know if it's enough to really make me campaign for legal changes, but like I said, the whole thing just makes me very uncomfortable. The choice is, I think, something manufactured, because no one can really be sure that 25-week old fetus will have the horrible side effects doctors determine them to have. Someday technology may give that surety, but in the meantime I cannot condone Dr. Tiller's actions as noble. It makes me wish that every single late-term abortion were accounted for, along with a full autopsy, and that a doctor's license should be on the table every single time he performs such a procedure to ensure that it really was necessary.
This isn't to say that I don't think OB-Gs should be very knowledgeable about late term abortions (which I'm pretty sure they already are) -- sometimes a mother is so sick that you really, really, don't have time to do a C-section, and if the mother wants to be saved and both are going to die if you do nothing, you should save the mother. In those life-and-death situations, the doctor needs to have the tools necessary to deal with it. Like I said, this is why I think the government needs to butt out -- they have nothing to help that situation, and would only harm it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
quote:I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other
I don't know about that. I've learned a lot from both sides. The goal isn't necessarily convincing, but opening people's minds and learning something.
The purpose of having an open mind is to eventually close it on the truth. It is not an end in itself.
Hrm, that's a pretty odd thing to say. If you ever close it, having concluded that you know the truth, you won't know if a better truth comes along. You need to keep it open toward the end of not holding on to false beliefs; you're not ever done.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
quote:I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other
I don't know about that. I've learned a lot from both sides. The goal isn't necessarily convincing, but opening people's minds and learning something.
The purpose of having an open mind is to eventually close it on the truth. It is not an end in itself.
The point of having an open mind is to try to arrive at the best conclusion. The moment you close it on anything, you lose perspective and credibility. Because if the conclusion you have reached really is the best, then considering other points of view will never change it anyway.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm not touching the creepy 'hope' thing with a stick.
Okay-- you could alleviate a lot of suffering in the world if you gassed all the poor and starving in third world countries.
If the alleviation of suffering by termination is your bag, what's wrong with carrying this out? Likely, things aren't going to change for them, right? They're just going to keep on suffering, miserable, until they die, and their death won't bring anything noble or beautiful or exalting to the world. It won't change anything.
quote:Do you object to this particular form of hard choice, or to the general idea that there must be the possibility of suffering?
"Object" isn't the right word. I don't think that making the specific sacrifice Mrs M made, in her specific situation, is necessary to make full humans.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It makes me wish that every single late-term abortion were accounted for, along with a full autopsy, and that a doctor's license should be on the table every single time he performs such a procedure to ensure that it really was necessary.
This might sound like it's coming out of left field, but: would you be okay with requiring this much documentation from torturers, saying "okay, torture can be legal, but you have to be willing to stake your license and perhaps your freedom on your ability to flawlessly document the necessity of this procedure before you can torment this human being?"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd like to take torture off the table completely, and throw the practitioners in jail.
I recognize the need for some late term abortions (with all the caveats I've expressed in this thread).
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:This isn't to say that I don't think OB-Gs should be very knowledgeable about late term abortions (which I'm pretty sure they already are) -- sometimes a mother is so sick that you really, really, don't have time to do a C-section, and if the mother wants to be saved and both are going to die if you do nothing, you should save the mother.
C-sections are, if I'm not mistaken, much faster than a partial-birth abortion or D&E. A D&E requires the cervix to be dilated, the baby maneuvered into a breech position, then the body delivered while the head is still intact. The head is then collapsed so it is smaller, and the delivery is completed.
I would be very surprised to learn that an emergency c-section takes more time than that procedure. I also would be very surprised to learn that a c-section would ever be deemed to be so much more dangerous than a D&E that the c-section would endanger the mother's life whereas the D&E would not.
I do agree that the mother's life should be saved if both are dying. I also think Mrs. M should have the choice to put her baby's life above her own, and people who wish to do things like delay chemo for a pregnancy should be allowed to do so. But if a mother is truly endangered by her pregnancy, then there should be an ability to save that mother. I will not argue that point...if the mother dies presumably the baby will too so it's best to save one life than sacrifice two.
However, if the baby is viable then I believe the baby should be delivered rather than aborted. That then leads into where we draw the line at viability. Tough question, because it changes all the time. Three years ago that would have been drawn at around 25 weeks, but now babies at 24 have survived. The record for the youngest gestation age to survive to discharge from the hospital is 21 weeks.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It makes me wish that every single late-term abortion were accounted for, along with a full autopsy, and that a doctor's license should be on the table every single time he performs such a procedure to ensure that it really was necessary.
This might sound like it's coming out of left field, but: would you be okay with requiring this much documentation from torturers, saying "okay, torture can be legal, but you have to be willing to stake your license and perhaps your freedom on your ability to flawlessly document the necessity of this procedure before you can torment this human being?"
While some people may equate abortion doctors with torturers, I have to admit I do not. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Belle, I'm not really sure myself why a late-term abortion can be preferable to a c-section in the event of a very high-risk event during pregnancy. I've read a few anecdotes mostly, but nothing concrete. But should the option be necessary, I'm mostly saying that doctors should be skilled and safe.
Edit: Tom, thinking about this some more, I really, really can't equate the two. I can think of situations where an abortion, maybe even a late-term abortion, is necessary for the health and well-being of the mother. As devastating as it can be, I don't think it's wrong in 100% of cases.
I can't be convinced at all that torture is *ever* necessary. If someone deeply thinks that torturing someone will give them x information that will save y amount of lives, even if they they get it and save them, they should still go to jail/whatever punishment the powers that be give him. Because it's still unequivocally wrong. If they want to make that sacrifice it's their choice, but I think pretending that it's okay ever is a worse problem.
My statement about abortion doctors was a feeble proposal, in my mind, to keep doctors in check, and keep them from having too much power in the situation. Accountability and transparency. If a doctor feels very strongly about his decision to perform a late-term abortion, I think he should be held accountable. Just like if a patient dies under his care.
[ June 04, 2009, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If the alleviation of suffering by termination is your bag, what's wrong with carrying this out? Likely, things aren't going to change for them, right? They're just going to keep on suffering, miserable, until they die, and their death won't bring anything noble or beautiful or exalting to the world. It won't change anything.
Humans with functioning brains are not ever pure suffering-machines with nothing to do but process pain. Even the most miserable African peasant will occasionally have a full stomach, sex with someone he loves, children he can be proud of. None of this is true of a newborn with just enough brainstem to feel pain.
quote:"Object" isn't the right word. I don't think that making the specific sacrifice Mrs M made, in her specific situation, is necessary to make full humans.
Ah so. And what makes this specific choice different from the other painful choices that are necessary for full humanity?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not only do I oppose killing children who can live outside the womb, I oppose killing people with terminal illnesses (even if they beg), I oppose capital punishment, and I definitely oppose killing disabled people "for their own good."
It isn't a Sophie's choice. When it comes how to handle a loved one with a difficult condition, killing them shouldn't even be on the table.
I see no difference between killing a child two weeks before his due date and two weeks after his due date. Abortions after the baby is viable is exactly the same as Spartan fathers leaving unwanted children on a hillside to die.
I haven't heard anyone give a good justification for it yet that wouldn't also apply to newborn. For those that think killing children that can survive outside the mother is perfectly okay, do you also think killing children who already are outside is also okay?
If not, why not?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Abortions after the baby is viable is exactly the same as Spartan fathers leaving unwanted children on a hillside to die.
Maybe the motivations are similar in rare cases.
quote:For those that think killing children that can survive outside the mother is perfectly okay,
I do not think anyone has taken this position. That you think anyone in this thread is perfectly OK with killing full term fetuses is confusing to me, and it bothers me that you don't put more effort into understanding people with whom you argue, yet complain about the reverse all the time (I'll be OK, though, it's not a HUGE bother).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay enough, then. "Regrettable" but okay enough to support it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" For those that think killing children that can survive outside the mother is perfectly okay, do you also think killing children who already are outside is also okay?
If not, why not? "
No. First, I don't think late term abortion or even any abortion is "perfectly ok," nor do I think ""Regrettable" but okay enough to support it," is an accurate description of my opinion. Not many people, and certainly no one here, is "ok with," abortion, nor do we "support it". But I do think there are valid reasons to have late term abortion legal, but not post-natal killings. Several reasons:
First, its not necessarily a child until its outside the mother. It COULD be a child, but personhood is a socially constructed idea. The only society that a fetus exists in is the society made up of the mother, and the fetus. And the fetus is destructive of the mother's body, and 100% reliant on the body of the mother for its continued existence. This means, from my perspective, that the only person who has a say in whether or not the fetus is a child is the mother.
Second, Its the mother's body and resources being used to keep the fetus alive, and any decisions about how her body can be used are ultimately her's alone (assuming mental competency and capacity, etc). A child outside the womb is not reliant upon the mother to nearly the same degree that a 36 week fetus is. The reliance, in fact, is no longer of the same kind. The line of birth is not an imaginary line in this conversation.
Third, Because a non-imaginary line has been crossed, there is now a much broader group of people making up the society within which the infant exists, and it is reasonable for that community to make decisions about personhood and the right to life and how that right balances against other rights.
Fourth, The government ability to force someone to not undergo a medical procedure is the same as the government ability to force someone to undergo a medical procedure. The flip side of banning abortion, even late term abortions, is the ability of the government to require abortions. Government shouldn't be involved in these decisions, because of the reasons above and the general principle that government shouldn't be involved in forcing a person to make a particular medical decision.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Okay enough to support it" if the mother is at risk. That condition rarely occurs with babies two weeks after they are born.
ETA: And even then there is a huge difference between "support" and "allow".
Or what Paul wrote.
[ June 04, 2009, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
First, I would like to see what you think the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before the due date and two weeks after the due date that is great enough to killing one okay and the other not. "We just don't know." isn't a good answer - it is not something that is unknowable, and pretending that we don't or can't know simply avoids the issue.
Second, the point is that the child is viable outside the womb. He or she doesn't have to be dependent on the mother for existence. Since the child certainly can exist outside the mother, keeping it inside the mother in order to make killing it okay is an unethical option.
If the mother doesn't want her body to feed or take care of it anymore, deliver it.
Third, a newborn two minutes after birth is known about by the same people who were aware of its existence two minutes before birth. How big does the circle of aquaintance need to get before killing them is bad? Is the killing of a child who lives in the back woods less abhorrent than one who lives in a city? What about a home-schooled child versus one at a public school?
Technology has expanded viability and society beyond birth.
Fourth, the government steps in all the time concerning what medical procedures can and can't be done. We don't have to pretend that government intervention into the legality of medical procedures is all or nothing and that we are incapable of making decisions in the gray area.
There is even a line that can be decided according to science - at what stage of a development can a human being exist outside of the mother?
That's the line where abortion changes from a morally-repugnant thing to flat-out murder. The mother and child can be separated. Choosing death instead for the one who can't speak for himself is wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think it's impossible to discuss abortion if pro-lifers don't recognize that nobody is actually "pro-abortion." It's like saying somebody is "pro-amputation" or "pro-mutilation" when it comes to surgery. People who think abortions may be justified don't love the idea of an abortion happening. No feminist group is going to look at abortions as the quintessential form of women's rights.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
That was very well said, Paul.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:First, I would like to see what you think the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before the due date and two weeks after the due date that is great enough to killing one okay and the other not.
What is the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before its due date and another living being ten weeks before its due date? Twelve weeks?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, at least, it isn't so much a question of whether or not a late term fetus has rights. It is the fact that those rights don't exist in a vacuum. While in utero, those rights are in balance with and sometimes in conflict with someone else's rights.
I do think that, barring serious risk to the mother, viable fetuses should be delivered if possible.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I would like to see what you think the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before the due date and two weeks after the due date that is great enough to killing one okay and the other not."
The complete dependence upon another person's body, with or without the consent of that person.
"Second, the point is that the child is viable outside the womb. He or she doesn't have to be dependent on the mother for existence. "
Sure. But how do you get the fetus out of the womb? That's a medical decision, and until there is a way to get the fetus out of the womb with no medical complications, the choice of which procedure to undergo doesn't belong in the governments hands.
"Third, a newborn two minutes after birth is known about by the same people who were aware of its existence two minutes before birth. How big does the circle of aquaintance need to get before killing them is bad? "
I didn't say acqaintances.
"Fourth, the government steps in all the time concerning what medical procedures can and can't be done."
There's an interesting tangent here that I don't really want to get into. Suffice it to say, I don't think the government should ever make a medical decision for me. "There is even a line that can be decided according to science - at what stage of a development can a human being exist outside of the mother?
That's the line where abortion changes from a morally-repugnant thing to flat-out murder. The mother and child can be separated. Choosing death instead for the one who can't speak for himself is wrong. "
You have to completely violate another person's body in order to enforce your conceptions of what a person is. That makes your conception of what a child is wrong, and enforcing your conception is no less morally repugnant or wrong (Actually, I think its more repugnant and wrong) than aborting a fetus late term without medical reason is. (This section written in the manner it was due to the way katharina's post was written).
"I do think that, barring serious risk to the mother, viable fetuses should be delivered if possible"
Sure. If the mother is made aware of the risks of both procedures, and chooses to deliver, this is the morally preferably outcome. But she shouldn't be forced to choose an emergency c-section over dilation and extraction, because all the risks are taken of either surgery are taken by her.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What BlackBlade said....pretty much. I DO think that some people think that the right to CHOOSE to have one is one of the most fundamental rights.....not because they are pro-abortion, but because they feel a woman has a right to decide what happens to her own body, and such right is fundamental to all humans.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's impossible to discuss abortion if pro-lifers don't recognize that nobody is actually "pro-abortion." It's like saying somebody is "pro-amputation" or "pro-mutilation" when it comes to surgery. People who think abortions may be justified don't love the idea of an abortion happening. No feminist group is going to look at abortions as the quintessential form of women's rights.
Thank you, BlackBlade. Sometimes in the midst of these discussions, this fact gets lost.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Not only do I oppose killing children who can live outside the womb, I oppose killing people with terminal illnesses (even if they beg), I oppose capital punishment, and I definitely oppose killing disabled people "for their own good."
I don't see why it's so bad to help someone die if they are begging for it, especially if they are mentally competent to make that decision for themself. Not to do so seems cruel. Of course, that gets into an entire new topic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I do think that, barring serious risk to the mother, viable fetuses should be delivered if possible"
Sure. If the mother is made aware of the risks of both procedures, and chooses to deliver, this is the morally preferably outcome. But she shouldn't be forced to choose an emergency c-section over dilation and extraction, because all the risks are taken of either surgery are taken by her.
That one was me. I agree. "Should" in that case did not mean "should be legally required to".
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I think I'ma bow out now. When people tell me I've said something well, its best to quit while still at least even Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What is the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before its due date and another living being ten weeks before its due date? Twelve weeks?
Um, no. Eight weeks. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:None of this is true of a newborn with just enough brainstem to feel pain.
Even a child on sleeping on morphine so that it doesn't suffer can be held, loved, and cherished in the small amount of time that it may have to live.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:None of this is true of a newborn with just enough brainstem to feel pain.
Even a child on sleeping on morphine so that it doesn't suffer can be held, loved, and cherished in the small amount of time that it may have to live.
This is true, but is pretty orthogonal to the rights of the child.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:None of this is true of a newborn with just enough brainstem to feel pain.
Even a child on sleeping on morphine so that it doesn't suffer can be held, loved, and cherished in the small amount of time that it may have to live.
And for this you would accept how much risk to the mother? Say, a ten percent chance of dying? One percent? Half a percent?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And more importantly...why should how much YOU are willing to risk matter to the mother and father who has to make this type of horrible decision?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Um, no. Eight weeks.
Ba-da-dum-KISH. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What is the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before its due date and another living being ten weeks before its due date? Twelve weeks?
Um, no. Eight weeks.
Given that the question was "two weeks before the due date and two weeks after the due date," the fundamental difference is that one is inside its mother's body, and the other is not.
[ June 04, 2009, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:None of this is true of a newborn with just enough brainstem to feel pain.
Even a child on sleeping on morphine so that it doesn't suffer can be held, loved, and cherished in the small amount of time that it may have to live.
And for this you would accept how much risk to the mother? Say, a ten percent chance of dying? One percent? Half a percent?
I've already talked about how I feel about danger to the mother. I'm not going to put a percentage on it.
quote:This is true, but is pretty orthogonal to the rights of the child.
I had to look up the word orthogonal-- it's a mathematical term, according to dictionary.com, meaning (largely) 'perpendicular.' Thank you for expanding my vocabulary.
The alternative is to kill the child. That abrogates more of the child's rights than letting it live and be loved, for however long it may be able to.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think scifibum's position was that when a child is only going to be alive for a few hours and is going to spend that time with heavily drugged, it's capacity for experiencing love is essentially nonexistent. (Even assuming I'm understanding scifibum's position, I realize this is going to come down to fundamentally different views on what love is and why/when it is worthwhile, which no amount of arguing can address)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
ANY newborn-- healthy or not-- cannot "experience love" the way that a more developed human being can.
SO...can you define what you mean by "experience love?"
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Disclaimer: this is a hodge podge of secondhand information I haven't carefully studied or thought out.
I don't think Love is an inherently valuable metaphysical thing, I think it's a form of expression that has value because it has tangible positive effects on human development.
In the case of newborns, I remember reading a while back that newborns that are frequently hugged develop better than those that are not. I'm not sure the newborn necessarily cares WHY it's getting hugged, but it at least can experience some form of positive emotion from being cuddled and cared for. This is meaningful partly because in the short term the baby is happier, but mostly, in my mind, because the long term benefits it (and it's parents and eventually peers) will reap from the experience.
A doped up child that will die within days won't be experiencing that pleasure and more importantly will not grow up to impact the human race in any way. The only people who are gaining anything are the parents. If those parents feel that those few hours are precious, that's wonderful. But not everyone may feel that way.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: If they parents feel that those few hours are precious, that's wonderful. But not everyone may feel that way.
Not all parents are good parents. We don't kill a child because its parents suck.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ANY newborn-- healthy or not-- cannot "experience love" the way that a more developed human being can.
SO...can you define what you mean by "experience love?"
I think the parents may be able to experience love in this case, but I don't think the newborn would. They can shower love and affection, and essentially mourn the loss of all their hopes and dreams on the tiny being that will never be a fully formed human being, but I doubt seriously that the baby gets anything out of that.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Not all parents are good parents. We don't kill a child because its parents suck.
Again, this is obviously a fundamental disagreement on reality, but I do not think ANYTHING has value simply because it does. Not life. Not love. Not humanity. I consider sentient life valuable because it can experience pleasure and suffering (and nonsentient life is valuable because it plays an important role in that pleasure and suffering). Humans are valuable because they have cognitive abilities beyond that of most animals - I believe we can experience a wider range of happiness and suffering than many (but not all) animals, and our creative abilities mean we have potential to do things that might be valuable for reasons I can't even predict. Love is valuable because it is one of the most powerful forms of happiness we can achieve.
In general, it is valuable to take things that are usually true and live our lives by them, because we'd go crazy trying to look at every single example all the time. But it is also valuable NOT to get locked into a particular way of thinking, that just because something is usually true it must always be.
Infants are usually valuable because the grow up and have a wide range of personal happiness and add to the sum human experience. Parents who are willing to sacrifice everything for their children are usually valuable because without that kind of love, children would get abandoned and the human race would suffer.
When an infant is going to die within days, when the only pleasure it will receive is from heavy drugging, then I do not believe it makes you a fundamentally bad parent to be unwilling to sacrifice for them.
That does not mean I think Mrs. M's mindset was wrong. For her (and I assume her family), her willingness to sacrifice gave her a powerful sense of purpose and closeness with her child. It's fine to have that mindset, but I do not think it is fine to try and force that mindset upon others.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Put another way: I do not think a parent's job is to love their child unconditionally. I think a parent's job is to help their child grow up to be the best person they can be. Unconditional love is a incredibly important part of that. But not for a child that you know for a fact is not going to last long enough to achieve even the basics of the cognition that separates humans from chipmunks.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I do not think ANYTHING has value simply because it does. Not life. Not love. Not humanity.
Aha. You're right. Our views on what is valuable differ.
quote:Unconditional love is a incredibly important part of that. But not for a child that you know for a fact is not going to last long enough to achieve even the basics of the cognition that separates humans from chipmunks.
Yep. We disagree. Mightily.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yupper. (While I am participating in this debate for fun, I have long since stopped looking at abortion arguments as something "winnable," for precisely this reason)
Edit: (Or more accurately, when I do get into an abortion argument, I define "winning" as getting the people on the opposition to realize what fundamental, insurmountable differences there are, and why. Depending on whether you already understood that, I might have just "won," but I think most people in this thread are already pretty aware of how pointless an abortion debate is)
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
How do the pro-lifers here respond to women who say things like this?
quote:Who else doesn't own my uterus? A fetus. Any fetus, ever. Even embryos do not own my uterus. I understand this is difficult for you to grasp; a fetus is after all a potential life, and there are American voters--some of them who might even vote for you--who think that as a potential life a fetus has a right to move into my body and not be evicted. I however am not a potential life. I am an actual life, a real living human being, a woman. No one and nothing is allowed to take up residence in my body without my consent. This is kind of like how you can't show up at an apartment, summarily move in, and demand the property owner let you stay there as long as you would like. It is also kind of like how you can't demand someone lend you their kidney for nine months. I, as a sovereign human being, have the right to deny access to any part of my body at any time. I also have, as a sovereign human being, the right to make that decision on my own, regardless of what my family, doctor, and pastor think.
(I've heard this view from many people; I just picked this woman as a representative example.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think abortion discussions in general are pointless.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: How do the pro-lifers here respond to women who say things like this?
quote:Who else doesn't own my uterus? A fetus. Any fetus, ever. Even embryos do not own my uterus. I understand this is difficult for you to grasp; a fetus is after all a potential life, and there are American voters--some of them who might even vote for you--who think that as a potential life a fetus has a right to move into my body and not be evicted. I however am not a potential life. I am an actual life, a real living human being, a woman. No one and nothing is allowed to take up residence in my body without my consent. This is kind of like how you can't show up at an apartment, summarily move in, and demand the property owner let you stay there as long as you would like. It is also kind of like how you can't demand someone lend you their kidney for nine months. I, as a sovereign human being, have the right to deny access to any part of my body at any time. I also have, as a sovereign human being, the right to make that decision on my own, regardless of what my family, doctor, and pastor think.
(I've heard this view from many people; I just picked this woman as a representative example.)
I agree that "No one and nothing is allowed to take up residence in my body without my consent." I agree that in cases of pregnancies by rape, abortion should be allowed.
The fetus isn't potential life; it is actually living. Our laws allow for the mother's rights to her body to be tantamount until the fetus reaches a certain age; then it has rights.
It is an arbitrary and hypocritical distinction, in my opinion.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think it's arbitrary. As was pointed out earlier:
quote:Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. About 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks.
This doesn't include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before you get a positive pregnancy test. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman finds out she's pregnant, because they're lost so early that she goes on to get her period about on time -- in other words the woman doesn't realize she was pregnant at all.
Given how likely it is for a fetus to die from natural causes early on, on top of the fact that brain activity doesn't start till 8-10 weeks in (which is approximately the same time the miscarriage rate drops off), I don't see any hypocrisy in making a legal distinction at somewhere near the 10-week mark. (Afterwards, the only cases where I think exceptions are warranted are the extreme situations we've been discussing).
quote:I don't think abortion discussions in general are pointless.
They're only not-pointless if both parties are willing to consider fundamentally altering their way of thinking. (The only times I've seen anyone change their mind as a result of debate was in case of people who were already unsure, weren't thinking critically about the issue and were being persuaded by bad arguments that just sounded good).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:They're only not-pointless if both parties are willing to consider fundamentally altering their way of thinking.
That's not true.
There are many good reasons to state your position on a controversial issue, among them that a view needs to be stated and defended in order to still exist and be part of the dialogue.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
True. But abortion is a particularly controversial issue that I see people get into way more often that is necessary or helpful. I've had English teachers who banned us from writing essays about abortion because they were so sick of the same arguments over and over and over and over.
I think it's valuable for the people in DC to continuously state their positions, because those people have a chance to impact policy. I think it's valuable for everyone to get in a few random discussions about it to help them formulate their views and at least understand what the opposition is. But multiple arguments with the same group of people aren't much more than a (fun?) mental exercise.
I know I've been in at least 3 abortion debates on this forum alone. I can possibly justify the second one because no one really knew or cared who I was the first time around and maybe now they know me well enough to remember what my stance is, but even that's pushing it.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't think any debate is pointless, especially controversial ones. Now, at some point any given debate becomes a meaningless circle, but I have to say that in new debates, I often see new perspectives from both sides of the table. Frankly, this is one of those debates that makes people put their hands over their ears and sing "La La La" at the tops of their voices. There are relatively few people who are willing to get into it this far in the first place. Controversial issues rarely get discussed. When they do get discussed, they often get bogged down in strawmen and other meaningless distractions.
As a case in point, I switched my opinion from strongly pro-life to strongly pro-choice very gradually over the course of about 10 years. If you would have asked me my freshmen year of college about whether a rape victim should be able to get an abortion, I would have told you it wasn't the baby's fault his mother was raped. If you'd have asked me about the life of the mother, then i would have answered that she should die for her baby -- the only initial caveat i would have given was that if they were BOTH going to die, you may as well save one of them.
At this point, I am still torn on the idea of aborting a fetus after the point of viability, which is why I started this thread. That's quite a switch, and it took a long time, but it happened.
I'm not sure if it would have happened faster if anyone would have actually been willing to talk openly and honestly about it, but in those 10 years I probably only got into 3 or 4 actual debates or discussions.
There was no one debate that changed my mind. But the seeds of possibility were sewn in me and gradually, I began to see things from both sides.
When I think of controversial debates, I think of a line in one of my favorite musicals, 1776: "I've never seen, heard, nor smelled a topic that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about! Hell yeah, I'm for debating anything."
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I think scifibum's position was that when a child is only going to be alive for a few hours and is going to spend that time with heavily drugged, it's capacity for experiencing love is essentially nonexistent. (Even assuming I'm understanding scifibum's position, I realize this is going to come down to fundamentally different views on what love is and why/when it is worthwhile, which no amount of arguing can address)
I don't have a lot to add to the subsequent discussion, but that's exactly what I meant. The child can't decide for itself, and gets nothing out of living a few hours on morphine. So if the parents choose to let the child live a few hours on morphine to avoid agony, for the purpose of having a few hours to hold and love a living child, we're not talking about the kid's rights anymore. We're talking about the parents' right to make a decision in line with what they think is best. (Which I support.)
(Of course, it seems clear that this isn't necessarily about rights for some people, but rather seems to be an application of a directive: do not kill. As in not euthanizing someone who wants to die now instead of in a few days. If that's the case, then it might help to be clear about it.)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, I'm not sure what right exactly is being respected when a terminally ill, fully cognizant adult human going through extreme pain is denied the choice to die.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Edit: I've been very careful not to equate the struggles of Not Dead Yet (which is something I support) with the late-term abortion debate, because although I can see similarities, they are not the same, and I'm pretty sure NDY does not treat them as such. I recommend people do the same.
[ June 05, 2009, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
I agree that "No one and nothing is allowed to take up residence in my body without my consent." I agree that in cases of pregnancies by rape, abortion should be allowed.
You could say that if a woman freely chooses to have sex, she's implictly invited a fetus into her body for nine months. But then we must ask whether the government should be allowed to force anyone to give their body to someone else to the degree that pregnancy requires.
I agree that calling a fetus a "potential life" makes no sense. It's clearly alive and clearly a separate organism. But the woman I quoted doesn't seem to concern herself too much with precise definitions; in the comments she declares that "Partial-birth abortion is an invented right-wing term for what a doctor has to do when a fetus has died inside a woman's uterus and will cause a fatal infection if not removed." (As we've discussed already, fetuses aborted by partial-birth abortion are usually not healthy; but I didn't think they were already dead. If they were dead, what would be the problem in removing them?)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: really?
Edit: I've been very careful not to equate the struggles of Not Dead Yet (which is something I support) with the late-term abortion debate, because although I can see similarities, they are not the same, and I'm pretty sure NDY does not treat them as such. I recommend people do the same.
The issue is definitely different, but it'd been brought up before in this thread by people who stated emphatically that euthanasia was absolutely morally wrong on the same level that murder is.
That said, the article about the ramifications of allowing euthanasia (specifically about other people encouraging disabled people to kill themselves) was definitely interesting and I'm less sure of my position now. I think there are ramifications on either side - on one hand I can see how this is one place where "Slippery slope" is a real concern with disabled people being treated like second class citizens, on the other I think a suffering, terminal person absolutely should have the right to end their own life. The issue may be complicated but not for the reasons that were presented earlier.
[ June 05, 2009, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Arguing that a very disabled child is better off dead and should be killed, even medical help is possible so it isn't in pain, is very, very close to arguing that a very disabled adult is better off dead, even if medical help is possible.
The difference, of course, that the child doesn't even get the chance to choose whether or not to ask for death. It is decided by someone who has a definite interest in its death.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"It is decided by someone who has a definite interest in its death. "
Also its life. People with a definite interest in the life or death of the person whose life or death is being decided is who makes decisions about end of life care thousands of times per day in hospitals around the country.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:The difference, of course, that the child doesn't even get the chance to choose whether or not to ask for death. It is decided by someone who has a definite interest in its death.
The other difference is that the adult has a lifetime of experiences and relationships, whereas the child in (hypothetical) question only has a few hours, period. I find a fundamental difference in the fact that an adult CAN choose whether to live or not. The infant is not voiceless here because she/he is mute, the infant is voiceless because it literally does not have the cognition necessary to choose, and in this case never will.
Again, fundamentally different value systems at work here. I know the above paragraph won't matter to you, but it matters to me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: really?
Edit: I've been very careful not to equate the struggles of Not Dead Yet (which is something I support) with the late-term abortion debate, because although I can see similarities, they are not the same, and I'm pretty sure NDY does not treat them as such. I recommend people do the same.
I do actually see some overlaps, depending upon how you spin the issues. Although, and this may sound strange, but I would be more inclined to discuss euthanasia in an abortion debate than abortion in a euthanasia debate.
But the overlaps is this: Is life itself so valuable that it matters more than any other concern?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Arguing that a very disabled child is better off dead and should be killed, even medical help is possible so it isn't in pain, is very, very close to arguing that a very disabled adult is better off dead, even if medical help is possible.
The difference, of course, that the child doesn't even get the chance to choose whether or not to ask for death. It is decided by someone who has a definite interest in its death.
Or life, as the case may be.
But this may not be a difference at all. A severely disabled adult may not be able to speak for himself either. This is why people often create living wills for themselves while they are capable of making those decisions, but even then there is a lot of iffyness and gray area.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that we should not overestimate our ability to alleviate pain. Often in adults the amount of pain medication needed to make the pain level tolerable is fatal itself.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
My only input into this discussion is to say that until this event, I had been more and more swayed by the pro-life arguments against late-term abortion, and I was pretty accepting of the idea of a ban on late-term abortions, provided there was an exception for the health of the mother.
The articles quoting, and written by, women who have had late term abortions have given me new insight into how heart rending this decision is, and how unexpected conditions can result in many more situations than I had thought possible where a late term abortion is the best solution available.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: clearly a separate organism.
Really?
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.:
clearly a separate organism.
Really?
Its genetic structure is vastly different from that of the woman it's inside, and it's made up of many cells that work together to take in nutrients and grow. These facts seem to be enough to make it count as a separate organism. Of course, it's a parasitic organism (not to be offensive) since it gets its nutrients from food partially processed by the woman. But I'm not an expert in this area; what about a fetus makes it not count as a separate organism? If it isn't, is it part of the woman's body?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: How do the pro-lifers here respond to women who say things like this?
With not much difficulty, really. Her argument is founded on stating as absolute truths a variety of things which are either quite subjective or simply not true at all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Given that it cannot live independently, I believe you have answered your own question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Of course, it's a parasitic organism...
The fundamental problem with the woman's position is that she is coming from a place where whether or not it's a parasitic organism, or part of the woman's body, or whatever, is the only consideration, period.
Like, y'know, pretty much everything to do with human beings, it's just not that simple.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: Of course, it's a parasitic organism...
The fundamental problem with the woman's position is that she is coming from a place where whether or not it's a parasitic organism, or part of the woman's body, or whatever, is the only consideration, period.
Like, y'know, pretty much everything to do with human beings, it's just not that simple.
I don't believe that's true -- that this is the only consideration. It's just the one she was focusing on and it may even be her bottom line. I don't think anyone thinks this is simple, although I do often see that in the end, the abortion debate boils down to "When does life begin?" The more sophisticated version of that (for middle-of-the-roaders) is something along these liens: "When does life begin and what rights does it have when in conflict with another's?"
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:...I do often see that in the end, the abortion debate boils down to "When does life begin?"
Actually I think a lot of pro-choice advocates will agree that life has already begun at any point in the timeline. Conception and gestation are part of life. A blastocyst is alive. It's all "life."
The real question is when personhood begins; and the more fundamental disagreement is indeed about how the rights of one person or proto-person weigh against the rights of the mother.
This is a nitpick, but I think it is a helpful distinction. I can imagine someone being frustrated by a belief that someone else doesn't believe that life has begun once the fetus has fingernails and a heartbeat, for instance. This is not really the pro-choice position. (While it might be true that some pro-choice individuals will agree that there is disagreement about when life begins, I don't think this is the predominant thinking. I think "pro-choice" is a very carefully chosen and mostly accurate label.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't believe that's true -- that this is the only consideration. It's just the one she was focusing on and it may even be her bottom line. I don't think anyone thinks this is simple, although I do often see that in the end, the abortion debate boils down to "When does life begin?" The more sophisticated version of that (for middle-of-the-roaders) is something along these liens: "When does life begin and what rights does it have when in conflict with another's?"
I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that she was considering anything else based on what she wrote, Christine. First, there was no hint of any other consideration in what she wrote. Second, in just one paragraph she stacked up repeated justifications for abortion based on the same consideration. Finally, that consideration is to her the only reason necessary to her conclusion. Nothing else can trump it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It isn't a an independent organism until birth. It is, almost by definition, the opposite of an "independent organism".
I'd like to second (or third, or whatever) the statement made about supporting abortions. I don't support them, I think they are horrific, traumatic,a nd are usually the last option. I wouldn't want my wife to have one unless she had to, and if she ever HAD to have one it would have long reaching effects on BOTH of us.
I DO support the right of people to choose to have them though, because I don't think I should be allowed to make that type of decision FOR someone, AGAINST their will.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: That said, the article about the ramifications of allowing euthanasia (specifically about other people encouraging disabled people to kill themselves) was definitely interesting and I'm less sure of my position now. I think there are ramifications on either side - on one hand I can see how this is one place where "Slippery slope" is a real concern with disabled people being treated like second class citizens, on the other I think a suffering, terminal person absolutely should have the right to end their own life. The issue may be complicated but not for the reasons that were presented earlier.
A doc can pull a feeding tube from a patient and artificially bypass the moral issue by letting the body starve to death in a protracted fashion and they can do this in any no-hope situation (and many 'no hope only because the patient has no money for expensive treatment' situations, no less, but that's a different moral issue somewhat) where it is obvious that the intent is to end the life of the patient. They can end this patient's life this way. They could not, in contrast, give the patient a life-ending dose of morphine. They have to let the body die of starvation.
Sometimes the artificial distinctions employed get so ridiculous that a doctor purposefully ending the life of a patient by removing a breathing tube is legally and morally 'acceptable' where if they were purposefully ending the life of the patient by pinching the feeding tube shut, they could be charged with murder and incite a furor.
I think that at the very least that it's silly to have a system which absolutely unquestionably commonly relies on the purposeful termination of human life, yet it structures itself towards only ending the lives of those patients using methods that are designed to weasel around moral objections, and then these weasel methods become a-o-k while other methods artificially remain criminal and terrible. The way we do things now actually makes a serious argument for ending the pretense.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Good point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It isn't a an independent organism until birth. It is, almost by definition, the opposite of an "independent organism".
Nor is it an independent organism AFTER birth.
quote:Sometimes the artificial distinctions employed get so ridiculous that a doctor purposefully ending the life of a patient by removing a breathing tube is legally and morally 'acceptable' where if they were purposefully ending the life of the patient by pinching the feeding tube shut, they could be charged with murder and incite a furor.
This is actually called "civilization." Rules that may appear arbitrary but actually are indications of morality that lies under much of what we do. Here-- the act of removing life support according to a patient's wishes, allowing for the slim expression of hope that his body may continue to breathe, but most likely terminating the patient.
Vs.
The active termination of the patient by effectively strangling him.
It takes some subtlety to understand the differences, and why the distinction isn't "weaseling."
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: How do the pro-lifers here respond to women who say things like this?
quote:Who else doesn't own my uterus? A fetus. Any fetus, ever. Even embryos do not own my uterus. I understand this is difficult for you to grasp; a fetus is after all a potential life, and there are American voters--some of them who might even vote for you--who think that as a potential life a fetus has a right to move into my body and not be evicted. I however am not a potential life. I am an actual life, a real living human being, a woman. No one and nothing is allowed to take up residence in my body without my consent. This is kind of like how you can't show up at an apartment, summarily move in, and demand the property owner let you stay there as long as you would like. It is also kind of like how you can't demand someone lend you their kidney for nine months. I, as a sovereign human being, have the right to deny access to any part of my body at any time. I also have, as a sovereign human being, the right to make that decision on my own, regardless of what my family, doctor, and pastor think.
(I've heard this view from many people; I just picked this woman as a representative example.)
By suggesting celibacy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:By suggesting celibacy.
Or by pointing out that just because someone or something is using your body doesn't necessarily give you absolute, unchecked moral authority to see that it lives or dies for a whim.* And that if the moral authority doesn't necessarily exist, perhaps nor should the legal authority.
*I say 'whim' here because, according to that reasoning, a whim really would be sufficient justification for terminating a pregnancy.
Someone might further point out that her analogies of people moving into the body and apartment squatters fails, because in almost every case they're invited. That perhaps the consent she speaks of so readily was given when she consented to have unprotected sexual intercourse with a man.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That perhaps the consent she speaks of so readily was given when she consented to have unprotected sexual intercourse with a man.
No. Having sex does not mean a woman gives up the right to her own body.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It isn't a an independent organism until birth. It is, almost by definition, the opposite of an "independent organism".
Nor is it an independent organism AFTER birth.
Um....yes, it is. How long it can last without help is debatable, but from a biological (rather than a sociological) standpoint it becomes one at birth. I ceases to be supported by it's mother's heartbeat, lungs, and endocrine system.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That perhaps the consent she speaks of so readily was given when she consented to have unprotected sexual intercourse with a man.
No. Having sex does not mean a woman gives up the right to her own body.
Although I'm sure I will regret it, I will also point out that the women may not be having unprotected sex and that in fact, there is a failure rate in every form of birth control that, across a populations of millions of people, will fail many thousands of times.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know the answer to that, right? Birth control is never and never claims to be anything more than a probable prevention, not a guaranteed.
A man or woman who has sex is doing something that leads to a baby. That may not be the WANTED consequence, but that doesn't change that it IS one. "That's not the consequence I wanted." isn't a good defense. It's like getting your car repossesed and saying "But I didn't want that to happen when I stopped making payments." Or, more like, it is like driving your car with the lug nuts off and saying that you didn't want the wheels to fall off.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There doesn't have to be a defense. At least not a legal one. Even people who have done stupid things, even people who have done some evil things do not give up the right to refuse to let someone else use their body.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
quote:You know the answer to that, right? Birth control is never and never claims to be anything more than a probable prevention, not a guaranteed.
A man or woman who has sex is doing something that leads to a baby. That may not be the WANTED consequence, but that doesn't change that it IS one.
Sure. But humanity is pretty much all about minimizing the unintended consequences of things we do.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You know the answer to that, right? Birth control is never and never claims to be anything more than a probable prevention, not a guaranteed.
I knew I didn't want to get into this.
Let me refer you back to the comment to which I was responding....
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That perhaps the consent she speaks of so readily was given when she consented to have unprotected sexual intercourse with a man.
So I suggested that many women who get abortions may not have had unprotected sex at all.
Although regardless, I don't believe anyone gives up control of her body because she had sex, protected or otherwise, even if there are consequences.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:No. Having sex does not mean a woman gives up the right to her own body.
While it's a given to me, you'll note that for the sake of argument I carefully said 'perhaps'
quote:There doesn't have to be a defense. At least not a legal one. Even people who have done stupid things, even people who have done some evil things do not give up the right to refuse to let someone else use their body.
People who have done stupid or evil things don't necessarily have the right to kill something to deal with their evil or stupidity, either.
----
Christine,
quote:Although regardless, I don't believe anyone gives up control of her body because she had sex, protected or otherwise, even if there are consequences.
That's a viewpoint I can understand, though I don't necessarily share it. However, I certainly don't think this belief is strong and right enough to state it as an absolute certainty, as the only thing that matters, like the woman in the blog did.
Anyway, the people we're speaking of here - those who properly use effective birth control, yet still end up with a pregnancy - are a very, very small minority. I'm not convinced that the violated rights of that tiny minority are sufficient to justify continuing the potential* killing of human babies for the overwhelming majority.
Looked at from another direction, minorities that small are sufficient to make it very, very difficult to for example put someone to death, or let the guilty go free.
*Potential as in, we don't know if they're human beings or not, or when.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
We don't know if they are human beings or not, or when, so therefore we should force women to give up control of their body? Essentially force them into slavery for nine months? A slavery that carries with it permanent physical and chemical changes to their body, along with a variety of serious health risks, up to and including death?
Sorry, but that's not a medical decision you can make for someone because "Well, it might be a human being inside you."
I think, if you are going to take the position that a woman gives up control of her body for nine months by having sex, you HAVE to take the position that, from conception, the zygote is a human being fully protected by the rights of a person. There's no other way that a balancing of rights such that abortion is illegal makes any sort of sense.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Essentially force them into slavery for nine months?
If pregnancy were slavery, I doubt thousands of women would be trying to achieve that state as we speak. I know you meant it as an analogy, but I'm not sure you realize the kind of emotional button you're pushing, Paul.
I've had the baby ache off and on since I was 18. Every couple years, the hormones just get together and scream "Baby!" in my head for a couple months. Though this last time, they got sneaky. They said things like, "Everyone always makes a huge deal out of everything. I bet babies aren't that much work. You could handle it."
The vast majority of women have at some time desperately wanted to achieve this state. Even with my rational mind screaming, "Of course they're that much work!" and me continuing to take my pills, for a couple months I wanted to experience what seems to me to be a highly spiritual condition. How intimate must it be to hold your child that close to you and care for them as you care for yourself?
Maybe the luster comes off after you've done it. I don't know. But a huge part of the female experience is tied up in the knowledge that other people expect you to not only be pregnant but to want to be pregnant at some point. So when you call it slavery, I don't hear, "I respect your body," like I know you meant it. I hear, "There's no point for you to be a woman."
Just so you're aware. That's my gut reaction, anyway.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Slavery is an involuntary state. If you don't want the pregnancy, but are forced to go through it, I'm actually fairly sure that slavery is an appropriate word.
Just to be very explicit about it: I am only calling pregnancy slavery in the case of a woman who is forced, against her will, to carry the fetus.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Although regardless, I don't believe anyone gives up control of her body because she had sex, protected or otherwise, even if there are consequences.
That's a viewpoint I can understand, though I don't necessarily share it. However, I certainly don't think this belief is strong and right enough to state it as an absolute certainty, as the only thing that matters, like the woman in the blog did.
Anyway, the people we're speaking of here - those who properly use effective birth control, yet still end up with a pregnancy - are a very, very small minority.
How do you know who gets abortions? Are there statistics somewhere? If so, I'd love to see them.
It seems to me that whoever usually gets abortions is largely based on who's making the argument. Pro-lifers talk about it as if it's a form of birth control. Pro-choicers talk about times when the mother's life is in danger or else she was raped.
I honestly do not know who gets abortions. I'm sure it happens in a lot of different ways and I don't know who gets them the most.
As far as certainty goes -- I say very little with absolute certainty. When it comes to whether or not a woman gives up control of her body I think the bottom line is that I'm not going to get into a situation where specialized subsections of the law allow for abortion in the case of blah. You can either do it (legally) or you can't. The rest is on the mother's conscience and is between her and her god, should she believe in one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Paul,
What about mothers whose children are already born who don't want them anymore? If they just abandon them or kill them, they are charged with a crime. Do you consider parenthood in general slavery?
Christine: In the case of uncertainty, if there has to be a margin for error, it should be on the side where we don't kill people.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
(disclaimer: I know nothing about that site -- I just found it on a google search. So I don't know if it is pro-choice, pro-life or neutral. Just thought I'd offer it up because you were seeking information)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Thanks, Farmgirl, although those stats don't touch on what (if any) form of birth control was being attempted. I did find separate statistics that indicated in the year 2000 there were 4,058,814 live births. If there were 1.31 million abortions that same year, it seems likely that a great many women are not properly using birth control, though I could not find a direct statistic indicating whether or not this is the case.
What those numbers indicate to me is that we need to stop making sex and birth control taboo. Looks like, if you take the position that the fetus is human, that we could stop about 1,000,000 deaths per year by making birth control less taboo and more available. Frankly, I think the pill out to be available over the counter.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Frankly, I think the pill out to be available over the counter.
Could you, technically and medically, do that? I mean, my understanding is that dosage has to be adjusted to each individual woman. It isn't like Advil.
Myself, I could never take the pill -- I tried it and have very bad side effects. So back when I had to practice birth control, I had to look at other options. And I don't know how someone could properly do that without a general health overview by a doctor. It is so individual.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Christine,
quote:How do you know who gets abortions? Are there statistics somewhere? If so, I'd love to see them.
Well I could refer that question right back at you - how do you know how many thousands of millions of people get abortions through faulty birth control - but here's my answer: I know how effective properly used birth control is, and therefore I can make a solid approximation of how many people end up pregnant in spite of birth control.
quote:
As far as certainty goes -- I say very little with absolute certainty. When it comes to whether or not a woman gives up control of her body I think the bottom line is that I'm not going to get into a situation where specialized subsections of the law allow for abortion in the case of blah. You can either do it (legally) or you can't. The rest is on the mother's conscience and is between her and her god, should she believe in one.
I didn't say you were advocating that much certainty, I said the woman from the blog is. As for the rest, that's all well and good if it turns out to be proven somehow that a fetus isn't a human being.
What if it turns out the other way? "Whether or not the mother (or the father, through strong persuasion) kills the baby is on their conscience and is between them and their god, should they believe in one." That could well be the reality of the situation. I don't know, but you certainly don't either. If it is, though, it's definitely not a matter just to leave up to the mother's conscience.
-----------
Paul,
quote:Slavery is an involuntary state. If you don't want the pregnancy, but are forced to go through it, I'm actually fairly sure that slavery is an appropriate word.
Oh, OK. So now all involuntary states are slavery? I've got a cold right now. Involuntarily sick. Slavery, right?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Try out your venn diagrams, Rakeesh.
Katharina, you responded to my earlier posts. Surely you haven't forgotten them already?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, is the law forcing you to stay sick?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Frankly, I think the pill out to be available over the counter.
Could you, technically and medically, do that? I mean, my understanding is that dosage has to be adjusted to each individual woman. It isn't like Advil.
Myself, I could never take the pill -- I tried it and have very bad side effects. So back when I had to practice birth control, I had to look at other options. And I don't know how someone could properly do that without a general health overview by a doctor. It is so individual.
I have never heard of dosage adjustment. If you have seen packages of pills, there is no way to do dosage adjustments. Some people do have better responses to one type or another (for example, I can not handle tri versions), but I would think that that is pretty similar to how some people respond to tylenol better then ibuprofen.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Frankly, I think the pill out to be available over the counter.
Could you, technically and medically, do that? I mean, my understanding is that dosage has to be adjusted to each individual woman. It isn't like Advil.
Myself, I could never take the pill -- I tried it and have very bad side effects. So back when I had to practice birth control, I had to look at other options. And I don't know how someone could properly do that without a general health overview by a doctor. It is so individual.
Not in my experience. There is very, very little individualism in this. Yes, there is a range of hormone levels in the packs but it's all hit and miss. Was ortho-tricyclen (sp?) giving you problems? Well, try this lower dose pill. It's not like they run blood work to determine which pill is right for you. It's not like they check up on you to see how they are working. it's all patient report. And it's not like you can individualize the dosage level in the pill packs. (As a side note, I too had problems on the pill and decided not to use them, but my OB's continued to push them on me for years.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, is the law forcing you to stay sick?
Now we're getting into specifics. Anyway, lemme answer your question with a question: did the law force you to get sick?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Try out your venn diagrams, Rakeesh.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If you have seen packages of pills, there is no way to do dosage adjustments. Some people do have better responses to one type or another (for example, I can not handle tri versions), but I would think that that is pretty similar to how some people respond to tylenol better then ibuprofen.
True. But very few people react to acetaminophen or ibuprofen with blood clots that could kill them. A significant number of women do react that way to birth control pills -- especially if they have not been screened by a doctor for various risk factors.
I'm in favor of making it easier to get birth control, but simple OTC is not the way to go.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How does that apply? I am not saying the law forced anyone to get pregnant.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What if it turns out the other way? "Whether or not the mother (or the father, through strong persuasion) kills the baby is on their conscience and is between them and their god, should they believe in one." That could well be the reality of the situation. I don't know, but you certainly don't either. If it is, though, it's definitely not a matter just to leave up to the mother's conscience.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? What if it turns out what? That there is a certain answer to this question? The question itself isn't even certain.
What, exactly, is this worst case scenario that would cause us to err on the side that would prevent it?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If you have seen packages of pills, there is no way to do dosage adjustments. Some people do have better responses to one type or another (for example, I can not handle tri versions), but I would think that that is pretty similar to how some people respond to tylenol better then ibuprofen.
True. But very few people react to acetaminophen or ibuprofen with blood clots that could kill them. A significant number of women do react that way to birth control pills -- especially if they have not been screened by a doctor for various risk factors.
I'm in favor of making it easier to get birth control, but simple OTC is not the way to go.
Possibly having them available behind the counter, requiring a consultation with the pharmacist to go over the risk factors? I believe this is what they do with the morning after pill.
I don't know, aside from asking me if I smoked, the only reason I knew the risk factors of the pill is that I read the entire pamphlet word for word -- which given the tiny print and my visual impairment was no simple task. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Try out your venn diagrams, Rakeesh.
Thank you for that pithy answer, Paul. While I'm trying out those diagrams, why don't you try making a specific statement that more accurately reflects your meaning?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Possibly having them available behind the counter, requiring a consultation with the pharmacist to go over the risk factors? I believe this is what they do with the morning after pill.
While that would be better than OTC, I still don't like that. With emergency contraception, there is a critical time element. That's not true for the pill, which is also taken for far longer (and therefore with far higher risk of side effects).
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I don't know, aside from asking me if I smoked, the only reason I knew the risk factors of the pill is that I read the entire pamphlet word for word -- which given the tiny print and my visual impairment was no simple task.
Was this your regular physician, who had your full medical history in front of them? Had they recently taken your blood pressure and done the other fairly standard checks?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny, I think Paul has been completely clear this time around.
If you get sick, you can either let the illness ride it's course out, or you can usually take something to fix it/ hasten it's course, making you no longer sick.
Sounds like what we have now.
For the record...OTC is a HORRIBLE idea for BC pills. There are SIGNIFICANT risks, and I am in favor of keeping it controlled, as are most MD's and other health workers.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Right now I don't think you sincerely want to understand my position, so I don't feel like doing more work for you, when all the work you need is on this thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And the last thread on abortion where we went over most of this as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Paul's original basis for likening unwanted pregnancy to slavery was that it is 'involuntary'. I questioned that. Instead of just revising his original statement to add some qualifiers, you replied with sarcasm about Venn Diagrams.
I never actually thought you believed all involuntary conditions = slavery, Paul. I did, however, think that in this conversation, involuntary was the only gauge you were using to determine whether or not something is slavery.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I don't know, aside from asking me if I smoked, the only reason I knew the risk factors of the pill is that I read the entire pamphlet word for word -- which given the tiny print and my visual impairment was no simple task.
Was this your regular physician, who had your full medical history in front of them? Had they recently taken your blood pressure and done the other fairly standard checks?
Actually, I've been prescribed the pill by more than one doctor -- at least 3 that I can remember. Two were OB's and one was the quack at the student health services at college. I did fill out a standard health questionnaire with each one, but I just don't think any of them did anything special except frown disapprovingly at me for asking for birth control pills when I wasn't married. One of them -- an even bigger quack than the doof at student health services -- told me that the reason I was having some pain with intercourse was that I was feeling guilty about pre-marital sex and I really ought to tell my mom about it. (Eight years and at least 6 OB's later, I found one who was willing to listen and who fixed the problem with a single in-office treatment.) So basically, I don't think doctors are particularly useful, especially OB's, who seem to think they need to judge me for my choices.
No, I'm not bitter. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Bitter? You should be furious! I am glad you finally found someone acceptable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Whoa!
That's the sort of thing that would make me so angry, no kidding, that I'd probably secretly attempt to record my next visit with that doctor and try and get'm in some serious sh@#.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So in other words, rakeesh, you didn't read the post of mine prior to the post you responded to?
(Or, for that matter, my earlier posts?)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
christine, if it makes you feel any better, I had some pain during intercourse and talked to atleast 3 (maybe 4 drs about it). I was married when I started having sex and they still blew me off. They said it was all psychological, that many religious women have trouble getting over the sex is bad indoctrination and I should learn to relax. I felt so vindicated when I was giving birth and my dr said, you had pain during intercourse and probably also a difficult time getting tampons in didn't you? He then fixed the problem. I had never discussed my problems with him because I had been told so many times I was just crazy.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Stopping snark. I'll answer later today. OUt of time at the moment.
Posted by Fractal Fraggle (Member # 9803) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I don't know, aside from asking me if I smoked, the only reason I knew the risk factors of the pill is that I read the entire pamphlet word for word -- which given the tiny print and my visual impairment was no simple task.
Was this your regular physician, who had your full medical history in front of them? Had they recently taken your blood pressure and done the other fairly standard checks?
Actually, I've been prescribed the pill by more than one doctor -- at least 3 that I can remember. Two were OB's and one was the quack at the student health services at college. I did fill out a standard health questionnaire with each one, but I just don't think any of them did anything special except frown disapprovingly at me for asking for birth control pills when I wasn't married. One of them -- an even bigger quack than the doof at student health services -- told me that the reason I was having some pain with intercourse was that I was feeling guilty about pre-marital sex and I really ought to tell my mom about it. (Eight years and at least 6 OB's later, I found one who was willing to listen and who fixed the problem with a single in-office treatment.) So basically, I don't think doctors are particularly useful, especially OB's, who seem to think they need to judge me for my choices.
No, I'm not bitter.
This has been similar to my experience getting the Pill. In almost all cases, I went to a doctor who had never seen me before, spent no more than the time of the examination talking to me, gave me a few sample packages and sent me on my way. They rarely mentioned that there are different formulations of the Pill if one gives you problems, or that there can be serious side effects.
I've also had the experience where the doctor makes it clear that he disapproves of premarital sex or blames a medical problem on "you must be feeling guilty". It can make you very bitter and distrusting. (To be fair, I've also had a very few fantastic OB/GYNs--even and especially at the various student health centers I've gone to).
I don't know what the solution is. I think a pharmacist would be just as likely as some of the doctors I've had to tell patients about the potential side effects and proper use of the Pill. In fact, a pharmacist was the first one to tell me about the proper use of the Pill, you know taking it at the same time every day and stuff like that.
But I don't like the idea of giving the Pill over the counter only because I think the examination at the doctor's office is important too. And because a couple of the doctors I've had actually have taken the time with me to answer questions, even questions I didn't know I had.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: christine, if it makes you feel any better, I had some pain during intercourse and talked to atleast 3 (maybe 4 drs about it). I was married when I started having sex and they still blew me off. They said it was all psychological, that many religious women have trouble getting over the sex is bad indoctrination and I should learn to relax. I felt so vindicated when I was giving birth and my dr said, you had pain during intercourse and probably also a difficult time getting tampons in didn't you? He then fixed the problem. I had never discussed my problems with him because I had been told so many times I was just crazy.
I don't think it makes me feel better...no. I was pretty certain the problem was widespread and I'm sorry to hear you had similar problems.
To be fair to the many OB's I saw, I only actually mentioned that problem to 4 of them. The first 2 had me so convinced that it was all in my mind that I didn't mention it again until I was married and the problem was affecting my marriage. Then I talked to 2 new OB's. They weren't judgmental but then again, I was married (pregnant with my first baby when I talked to the first...she wouldn't believe that the problem wasn't related to pregnancy). When I finally found the one who fixed the problem she just couldn't believe I'd been living with it for so long.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am suddenly remembering WHY even after my OB moved 3x as far away I kept going to her . . .
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I had problems with high blood pressure for several years, to the point where I was on medication for it. It wasn't until *after* I lost about 60 pounds & got in terrific shape, & my blood pressure still didn't get any better, that someone said, "Hey, you know, sometimes estrogen causes that problem." I switched to the mini-pill and bing! Problem resolved.
No one even considered that the combination pill might be causing my high blood pressure--they just figured it was because I was heavy. (And not even that heavy, really!)
I don't think this argues for making the pill more readily available--more that doctors should remember that it's *not* Tylenol.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fractal Fraggle:
I've also had the experience where the doctor makes it clear that he disapproves of premarital sex or blames a medical problem on "you must be feeling guilty". It can make you very bitter and distrusting.
This is almost funny to me -- because I've had the opposite experience -- where when I tell them I'm abstinent, they will not believe me; and keep trying to recommend I get on birth control "just in case". Even if I assure them I have not had sex in XX years...
Don't know if that has to do with age difference, or what.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I've actually gotten, "But you say you've only had sex with one person this year, so why do you want an STD screening?"
. . .what, because STDs only transfer in an orgy?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
When I started working for the Department of Health, I asked the doctor during a pap/physical about getting a HepB shot, since I have occupational exposure to body fluids from time to time. She insisted on giving me an STD screen before she'd order the shot. She couldn't believe I might be concerned about non-sexual exposure risks. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl:
quote:Originally posted by Fractal Fraggle:
I've also had the experience where the doctor makes it clear that he disapproves of premarital sex or blames a medical problem on "you must be feeling guilty". It can make you very bitter and distrusting.
This is almost funny to me -- because I've had the opposite experience -- where when I tell them I'm abstinent, they will not believe me; and keep trying to recommend I get on birth control "just in case". Even if I assure them I have not had sex in XX years...
Don't know if that has to do with age difference, or what.
Actually, I've managed to have both experiences...doctors dubious of my virginity when I was one and scathing of my sexuality when I became active. Can't win, can you? Hey, here's a novel thought: Maybe it's a personal decision and you, my doctor, should just treat who I am instead of who you think I should be. Sigh...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I've also had the experience where the doctor makes it clear that he disapproves of premarital sex or blames a medical problem on "you must be feeling guilty". It can make you very bitter and distrusting.
What the heck is that supposed to mean. "you must be feeling guilty?" how does he blame a medical problem on guilt? Does he assume you're hallucinating problems now because of the guilt of your SHAMEFUL FORNICATION
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I've also had the experience where the doctor makes it clear that he disapproves of premarital sex or blames a medical problem on "you must be feeling guilty". It can make you very bitter and distrusting.
What the heck is that supposed to mean. "you must be feeling guilty?" how does he blame a medical problem on guilt? Does he assume you're hallucinating problems now because of the guilt of your SHAMEFUL FORNICATION
To be fair to the doctor, there are a world of sexual problems that do arise because of the unreasonable amount of guilt some place on sex, both pre and post-marital. I've done some reading on the subject and it seems that in the US, most women have some kind of sexual dysfunction at some point in their lives.
This does not excuse a doctor for being dismissive of problems because it is (or should be in medical communities) well known that no psychological problem can be diagnosed before ruling out all possible physical problems.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I am suddenly remembering WHY even after my OB moved 3x as far away I kept going to her . . .
My husband asked if I'd be willing to move back to Dallas, and at what pay rate. I said, "You'd have to be making enough for me to fly back to see my OB here every pregnancy."
Yeah. I've had enough bad ones, I get a good one and I don't ever want to change!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My wife seems pretty attached to her OB but I can't figure out why. He encourages inductions convenient to his schedule and has nurses encourage women not to push because the doctor is having dinner...my wife claims to believe in natural child birth but keeps getting talked out of pretty much every principle of the Bradley method by her OB (three times now). Oh well, maybe it's because he's handsome and has small hands.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Small hands (preferably with long fingers) on an OB cannot be overrated.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Small hands (preferably with long fingers) on an OB cannot be overrated.
QFT
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I got this image of a carnie ob just now
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Paul's original basis for likening unwanted pregnancy to slavery was that it is 'involuntary'. I questioned that. Instead of just revising his original statement to add some qualifiers, you replied with sarcasm about Venn Diagrams.
I never actually thought you believed all involuntary conditions = slavery, Paul. I did, however, think that in this conversation, involuntary was the only gauge you were using to determine whether or not something is slavery.
I didn't see it as him claiming it WAS slavery, but he was drawing a parallel to it. IMO, anyways.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I got this image of a carnie ob just now
Actually, the best OB I had wouldn't have been out of place in a carnie. He had a genetic/metabolic disorder that caused him to be very tall - he was about 6ft 10 inches, but very very slender. And he had proportionately long, but slender arms, hands and fingers. The exams I received from him were gentler and seemed less invasive than from any other doctor.
Unfortunately, the disorder that caused his abnormal height also weakened his heart and he died suddenly in his late 30s while I was pregnant with my last child. His funeral was attended by hundreds of weeping pregnant women. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I honestly haven't noticed the size of my OB's hands making a difference. I had a pretty bad one who was tiny (under 5 foot with small hands). The one I have now is a rather tall man with decent size hands.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mb, Marfan's?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: mb, Marfan's?
I think so. It's been a long time though. My "baby" just graduated high school.
Now I'm trying to remember that MD's name. I can picture his face and remember his first name was the same as my son's, but can't remember his last name. How sad...
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
POST BUMPED 4/1/10
I debated between creating a new thread or bumping this one. Ultimately, I feel that this news wraps up a little bit of this thread, so this is where I decided to post it. I'm not trying to resurrect a year-old argument...I'm just contributing an update on some news.
quote:(CNN) -- The man convicted of killing Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller last year was sentenced Thursday to life in prison without parole eligibility for 50 years.
Edit: uri issues...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Darth_Mauve: There is something else to consider here. Because while katharina seems to think that killing a human being at any time is wrong, most people do not believe this. Most people will kill in their own defense, or in the defense of someone else, particularly their family. I don't believe that most pro-lifers, even, think that killing is wrong in all cases, but rather that they think termination of a helpless, innocent life is wrong. So it may not be hypocrisy at all to kill in the defense of helpless babies. (I don't agree with this; I'm simply trying to climb into his point of view.)
I believe that killing people is wrong, yet I killed an attacker in self defense while in the Army. After trying to run away, even, but still.
You'd be surprised what you are capable of. I know I was.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
As for the sentence - good. I'm glad he got the maximum allowed by law.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think we can all agree that aborting a thread rather than letting it simply die of natural causes bothers everybody.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*blink* Too soon.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Is there a point where abortion jokes suddenly become okay?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I imagine we'll know it when we see it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was surprised at the joke, but not offended. Maybe just because it was BlackBlade saying it? I dunno.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I approve of the joke Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A curious thought occurs. It may be the case that while abortion jokes are more controversial than dead baby jokes, abortion is actually less controversial than actually killing babies. The two are reversed.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)