quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Withholding Plan B from teenagers seems on par with removing airbags from a teen's car. Maybe if they don't want to get into an accident, they shouldn't drive. And if they drive and get into an accident, well too bad they didn't have airbags. They knew when they got in the car that they might get hurt.
Come to think of it, aren't frontal air bags dangerous for kids? Aren't kids supposed to ride in back, and if they MUST ride in front, the air bags are supposed to be turned off? Perhaps that analogy works a bit after all. Air bags are not safe for kids. Plan B might not be safe for kids.
Teens driving cars have to have passed tests, have licenses, prove they are mature enough to drive. They can't do that, they can't drive. To bad we can't do that before teens start experimenting with sex...
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you consider "medicaid and special programs and social workers everywhere" to always provide at least adequate services for all children, young mothers, families on welfare, etc.? I have close friends who are social workers or in AmeriCorp or any number of other programs, and they are vastly underfunded and overworked. I would love for it to be true that as a nation (or on a grander scale, as a species) we take care of everyone who needs help, but that's blatantly false. New Orleans, anyone?
I think the concern that MightyCow and Paul are expressing is that when a woman does know that she has a risk of becoming pregnant and is prevented from taking steps to prevent that pregnancy, it's not as if society descends on her and pays for daycare so she can pursue a high school diploma and/or professional school, makes a registry of necessities for the baby, sends gift baskets full of diapers and formula at the delivery date, explains the importance of folic acid, comes by her house to take her to her pre-natal checkups, etc.
I wish we did do this as a society, but we don't. Some people try, and work very hard for it, but it's really not the norm. Having and caring for children is expensive and difficult - I think the self-selecting members of Hatrack are, as a whole, remarkably intelligent and committed to caring for children, but there are still posts all he time asking about how to deal with tough scenarios.
I would not say that the social services in this country are perfect, or even adequate. Is the answer more money and more social workers? Maybe, but only in part.
And my question back is...knowing that the safety net has huge holes in it, what does a responsible person choose to do if having a baby means reliance on that safety net?
You know what...when you go on public assistance you tacitly give a portion of control over your life to "the public." They (in a sort of weird group way) decide how much help you get. You don't get what you ask for, you get what the rest of the country has (over the course of decades) decided you'll get.
I would spend more on social programs and education if it were up to me. But it's not. I give a lot to charities. Some people who are being argued with (Belle and Dagonee in particular, but others too, I'm sure) donate their time and efforts professionally and personally to make up for some of the lack of services.
Yes, we can do more...and should.
Katrina is not a really telling counter example, by the way. This is not a once-in-100-years crises that descends on people with no warning. It's as predictable as the sunrise. And the ways to avoid the catastrophy are simple and within the grasp of practically every person on whom it falls.
So, how about this...let's pick a level of service that we can all agree on. You all start -- tell me what you'd like to see as a basic "service package" to teen moms and their children. I'll probably agree to almost all of it, frankly. But lets then be really honest and compare the life of a teen living in those circumstances to the relatively carefree existence of the average 17-20-something year old and choose which one we'll try to promote as the American ideal for teens to strive for.
I'm betting the one we agree to promote doesn't involve having children that early. And so, we also want something in return for the improved safetynet, don't we? Don't we want to have to invoke it less?
And, if someone is going to take public assistance, I think we also have a right to ask something in return with respect to parenting behavior. If you aren't equipped to be a mommy or daddy yet, then you'll take classes -- we'll pay. Just do what they tell you.
I know some wonderful families that started when the parents were in high-school. Some of these folks are actually personal models for me of what it means to be a great parent. Do you think they tell their children to do as they did -- start a family at 16. No, I'm betting not. They probably hope their children will take an easier path and avoid the hardships of taking on too much responsibility too soon.
They'd also help if their children did decide to go that route, or just made a mistake and ended up as parents.
It's all good as long as people act responsibly.
And I don't want ANYONE to raise a child if they don't want to raise a child. That's cruel to the child and the "parent."
If adoption weren't an option, I'd be much MUCH more in favor of abortion than I am. And I'm actually in favor of abortion as an option just because the girl/woman wants one. But yeah... I want teens to go through a few hoops before deciding to have an abortion. Why?
Well, for one, they've already displayed at least the possibility of poor judgement. Having an abortion shouldn't be an impulse decision. Or a panicked one either. And it shouldn't be a way to avoid responsibility, or embarrassment. Let's start with some frank discussions. "Okay...you're pregnant, it's not the end of the world." Then let's go from there. I want to work with the person to get to the incipient adult who should then make decisions that the person IS going to have to live with -- whether to abort, have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption. I want to engage the reasoning being who, realistically, is making decisions not just for themself. I want that understanding to be there.
Secondly, teens, unless emancipated are minors. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have a say, and even make the final decision (in most cases). But if we as a society say that parents are legally responsible for their children, then they are. That's our law. We shouldn't throw the law out lightly. I would if it comes down to a case of the teen's parents being cruel or persistently irrational -- or even just refusing to hear their teen's side of the decision. Then, I'd want to have the court appoint a person to act as a parent. But there still should be someone there with more life experience advising the teen.
Third, if society really is going to foot the bills for all of this, then we're going to have to have some agreements in place and have them stick. This has to be taken seriously. A quicky abortion so no-one has to know is not an option if society is footing the bill. Taht's just the way it works. Likewise, if a teen has a child and decides to keep it, and use public assistance, then we have a say in how things are going to be done for that child. It has to be understood. The teen has to understand the options.
I have to say, I'm not in favor of a lot of extra laws on this. I'm not about to advocate outlawing abortion for teens either. But let's not kid ourselves, teens aren't ever going to get the quiet "nobody has to know" deal that they may want. And that's just the way it's going to have to work. It's part of being below the legal age.
I want to see more education. LOTS more. I want there to be so much education that everyone is sick of it. Then add more. And it should be frank and honest. Show the kids what life might be like if they DO get pregnant. Talk through what steps they'd have to go through legally to get an abortion if their parents don't want them to. I'm not advocating "get tough" by the way. I'm advocating tell them like it is. Be realistic. You say social services for new moms are inadequate. I agree. TELL THE KIDS THIS FACT! Spell it out in agonizing detail. Have a kid now, and this is what your life will be like.
If/when we improve the social services, then get that message out too. I don't want to JUST scare kids. I want them informed. And then I want them to make responsible decisions about sex. EVERY TIME. Not just most of the time. EVERY TIME.
quote:How is it morally superior to encourage the birth of a baby who will not be cared for?
If the alternative is killing the baby, then the moral superiority stems from encouraging life. I'm afraid I can't call a "system" of morality valid if it fails to advocate in favor of life as a central tenet.
My stance in favor of abortion is decidedly NOT a moral one. It is a sad recognition of a tragic situation, with a bit of stone-cold pragmatism thrown in. If anything, it is the opposite of moral. It is saying that I am willing to go along with an act that I consider immoral because I am unwilling to make that moral choice for another person, and because I see this as a special case, distinct from what I normally would view as murder.
Now...you chose the word "encourage." I want to make it clear that my answer would be different if you had used the word "force."
Final note: I really would like to see a list of what people think should be included in the basic "teen pregnancy support package" that American society should make available.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob- I honestly cannot put together your posts in such a way that I understand why you aren't in favor of plan B over the counter, which is what your position seems to be. .
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, many teens are uneducated about safe sex.
I suspect the proportion of American teens who are uneducated about safe sex is a LOT smaller than seem to think it is.
quote:f a teen isn't considered mature enough to make her own birth control choices, why is she still held responsible for her choices concerning sex? If a teenager should stand up and take responsibility for her actions, how is it right to limit their ability to take the responsible choice of trying to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?
Teens are not adults. That does mean that they cannot be held legally responsible for many actions in a court of law. Does that equate to not being responsible for their actions in the real world? In a family? In school? In what happens to their own bodies?
Please tell me you don't think that a switch is flipped on at your 18th birthday?
If we (as a society) can't expect gradually increasing self-control of their actions out of children as they "mature," then all is lost.
Ready or not, when your body is ready for sex, it's time to be in control of your body. The consequences fall to the person whether society says so or not. We could try to protect the person from the consquences, but there still are some. Ignoring it doesn't make it easier, it makes things worse.
...
I'd like to make it very clear, I'm not in favor of withholding Plan B from teens. If a doctor ordres it, give it to them. If there parent isn't present when they get the prescription from the doctor, or when they go to the pharmacy, then I want to know why. If it's just because they're scared of what mom or dad will say, I can understand that. And I'd have to say I'd want the disclosure to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not some blanket law, one-size-fits-all.
What I'm worried about here is not the ones who want their parents to remain ignorant because it'd make their lives less complicated. Yeah...that's a bad family dynamic. I'm worried about the ones who have an abusive home life. I'm worried about the ones who come in and may have been raped by dad or their uncle.
This is a momentus event in the life of a teen. Or it should be. It SHOULD be serious. It shouldn't be "Plan B, a pack of gum and a SLUSHY, please."
Think on this. If the same girl is getting Plan B six or seven times a year, shouldn't we worry about a potentially abusive situation?
Abuse and panic do weird things to people. I'm against free/anonymous access to Plan B for teens because they are the most vulnerable to the kinds of situations I worry about. And they aren't necessarily equipped to handle them. And Plan B opens up a whole new set of ways they can hurt themselves without really understanding the downsides.
So, yeah, it should be available, but no, it shouldn't be anonymous or as easy as just asking for it at the counter.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Bob- I honestly cannot put together your posts in such a way that I understand why you aren't in favor of plan B over the counter, which is what your position seems to be. .
Well...if the immediately preceding post doesn't help, I'll maybe try again. I have to go in a few minutes. I'll check back sometime later (or late tomorrow) to see if this thread is still dealing with the same issues.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you had to provide a drivers license to get plan B, and the name would be taken down and put into a registry, that would trigger if the same person under 21 years of age picked up plan be more then 3 times in the preceeding 5 years, how many of your concerns would that alleviate?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite a few, really, except that the information would probably not be available to anyone under HIPAA regs, so probably I'd want at least physician review. I think a prescription is the way to ensure that a neutral advocate for the person's health is part of the loop. I'm not sure a pharmacist or some central Plan B registry is the right spot for that.
Of course, I'm not sure of the HIPAA regs as they apply to people under age 18. Maybe they have no privacy protections under HIPAA...I'm not sure.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
" think a prescription is the way to ensure that a neutral advocate for the person's health is part of the loop."
I'm just not certain a prescription makes any sense for something that has a 72 hour window, and really only a 24 hour time window where its more then moderately effective.
If the trigger sent the information to the person's primary care physician, would that work? It seems like most states have this information on file.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone believed it was morally wrong to cut someone open, that person probably shouldn't go into surgery. If someone believes that killing and eating animal meat is morally wrong, that person probably shouldn't become a butcher. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone who decides to put themself in a situation where their personal and professional ethics are mutually incompatible, if they had the forethought to consider what their personal ethics would mean in the context of their job and could have reasonably anticipated and avoided the conflict.
But it's only a conflict because some people consider it incompatible with professional ethics. I haven't seen anyone make the case that professional ethics demands that every pharmacist dispense every drug.
quote:I'm really not sure about what the law should say in these sorts of situations.
OK, then, do you think it's irresponsible for a doctor to locate to a small town as the only doctor and refuse to perform abortions.
quote:What if someone believes that using drugs of any kind for medicinal purposes is morally wrong? Isn't it generally irresponsible of them to become a pharmacist--and specifically, the only pharmacist in a small town?
There's a difference between thinking the entire point of one's job is morally wrong and thinking that one particular aspect of it is wrong. I think it's immoral to defend or pursue certain kinds of civil suits. If I can find a practice that allows me not to do so, it's not unethical to do so, even if that means the market I serve lacks that service.
Again, you've simply jumped to a conclusion that assumes that there is an ethical problem here, without explaining why there is one.
Further, why do you presume there would be a pharmacist at all in a small town if the one who wishes to refuse to dispense certain pills were to relocate to a big city?
quote:You know, this argument really bothers me on a lot of levels. When people screw up, there are ALWAYS ways to correct the mistake. And we don't deny them access to correcting the mistakes they make, simply because they screwed up.
Further, its basically saying "In order to punish you for making a mistake, you have to have a baby."
I can't think of a better way to punish a CHILD then to use it as punishment against its mother.
What bothers me is this ongoing insistence of equating consequences with punishment. Yes, people are allowed to correct mistakes, but not generally at the expense of another person. The person making a mistake is not required to bear the consequences if those consequences can be avoided. But they are forced to bear them when the only alternative is to foist them another.
quote:Dag, is it that there's no clear dividing line during development between human and not-yet-human, that's why you feel the line must be backed up to fertilization? Because fertilization somehow makes a good break point?
Because there is a clear line at fertilization.
quote:But there are many many important things in life that don't have clear dividing lines. The age of majority, for instance. We pick an arbritary age there, because there's no saying exactly when a child becomes an adult. Being old enough to drive, or drink, or vote. A sapling becomes a tree. Night becomes day at dawn. Whatever instant we choose as "the moment of sunrise" who can think this isn't fairly arbitrary? The moment the sun's disk touches an artificial horizon line, regardless of the actual topography of the area you live in?
Wait. I thought you were asking someone to explain something to you because you couldn't at all comprehend how they could believe that a fertilized egg is a person without misunderstanding biology. Do you wish to debate the issue, or simply understand the other side. I can do either, but I'd like to know what to expect.
Your sapling/tree example and child/adult examples are inapplicable. A sapling is still a tree. A child and an adult are both human beings. Each is a stage of development recognized as the same organism. These examples actually make my case stronger - no one denies that a fertilized egg isn't the same organism as the baby born 9 months later, barring twinning. The stage of development can be seen as zygote, blastocyte, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult.
Or it could be divided up some other way. Yet, post-birth, no one denies that each of these stages is a person. This is evidence that such lines are not "real."
quote:Trivial examples, and important ones abound. There are no clear dividing lines between states that matter very much which state we choose, that have huge life-changing consequences.
Exactly. And when the consequence is one week's vacation or getting one's license a year later, such arbitrary lines can be used because the cost is low. When, as you say, there is no dividing line of personhood, the cost of being incorrect is hight.
quote:Is that idea harder to conceptualize than looking at a cell through a microscope and calling it a human person?
Once again, do you wish to debate or understand. Here are the facts:
1.) Lots of people who know far more about biology than either of us believe that personhood begins at fertilization.
2.) You've said that the only way you can comprehend this view is by assuming that the people who hold it are ignorant of biology.
3.) I've tried to demonstrate a rationale for that view that is consistent with what is known about biology.
That's all that's necessary to meet your request. Do you now wish to debate this issue? If so, I'd ask you to present your biological facts and how the concept of a one-celled human being is inconsistent with those facts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob: before I respond to your posts so far, can you tell me what your position is on physicians choosing not to dispense certain medications because of their beliefs on the morality of the medication? Because I've got some arguments lined up for someone who believes both that teenagers shouldn't put themselves in situations where they have to rely on Plan B, and that doctors and pharmacists are acting completely responsibly if they put themselves in a situation where they have to dispense Plan B. But if that doesn't apply to you, then I'll engage someone else who thinks that we can't reasonably expect people to make sure that their personal and professional ethics don't collide in regards to the dispensation of the morning-after pill.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, here's the thing. If you think a certain kind of law practice is bad, you can specialize in another kind of practice. Pharmacists at drugstores don't just become the "allergy pharmacist" or the "antibiotic pharmacist." In becoming drugstore pharmacists, they know that they may be called upon to dispense a wide variety of prescriptions. It's not the same as law.
quote:Dag, here's the thing. If you think a certain kind of law practice is bad, you can specialize in another kind of practice. Pharmacists at drugstores don't just become the "allergy pharmacist" or the "antibiotic pharmacist." In becoming drugstore pharmacists, they know that they may be called upon to dispense a wide variety of prescriptions. It's not the same as law.
Sure, but we do know that most drug stores don't carry every drug, and that ordering such drugs is not always feasible. And no one has given a rationale for forcing the pharmacist to provide a particular service other than "If we don't, someone might not get the drug." Well, this is true for a wide variety of drugs now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:that doctors and pharmacists are acting completely responsibly if they put themselves in a situation where they have to dispense Plan B.
Not the same thing at all. Doctors and pharmacists are only putting themselves in a position where they "have to" dispense Plan B if someone makes them have to dispense Plan B.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And no one has given a rationale for forcing the pharmacist to provide a particular service other than "If we don't, someone might not get the drug." Well, this is true for a wide variety of drugs now.
If someone doesn't get the morning-after pill in the short window when it is effective, it's much more possible that she will get pregnant. Which means that she has to choose either to carry to term or terminate the pregnancy; either decision has physical and psychological effects that last far longer than the effects of the morning-after pill. And any woman of child-bearing age potentially will need the morning-after pill. And the other types of pills aren't stocked for very different reasons from the reasons why morning-after pills aren't stocked: cost, availability, the actual demand for it in the area, and so on, as opposed to moral considerations.
quote:Doctors and pharmacists are only putting themselves in a position where they "have to" dispense Plan B if someone makes them have to dispense Plan B.
And the teenagers I'm discussing are only putting themselves in a position where they have to get an abortion if someone refuses them Plan B and they become pregnant.
All I'm saying is, doctors and pharmacists who cannot morally dispense certain medications should make sure they don't end up being someone's only chance to get those medications. Then they can make sure someone else who can dispense them, does, and any duty to dispense the medication is gone. The doctor has neither actively aided someone in murdering a baby (if that is the moral problem with dispensing Plan B, that it prevents implantation and that that is morally wrong) nor actively forced someone to get pregnant who wanted to use Plan B. I really didn't think it would be so controversial; all I was trying to do was think of how the aforementioned Catholic doctors could balance their moral beliefs and still preserve their patient's ability to make a moral decision in the opposite direction.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: And the other types of pills aren't stocked for very different reasons from the reasons why morning-after pills aren't stocked: cost, availability, the actual demand for it in the area, and so on, as opposed to moral considerations.
When did moral considerations become less acceptable as reasons for a person doing or not doing something than money? Has this country really sunk this low?
quote:And the teenagers I'm discussing are only putting themselves in a position where they have to get an abortion if someone refuses them Plan B and they become pregnant.
No, the teenagers are in this position because they had sex. The fact that an option that might alleviate the consequences of having sex isn't available to them is something faced by a lot of people facing a lot of different consequences for a lot of different acts.
quote:All I'm saying is, doctors and pharmacists who cannot morally dispense certain medications should make sure they don't end up being someone's only chance to get those medications.
What if no one else will be a doctor or pharmacist in that town? I know that many small towns have to go to great lengths to attract doctors. Are you saying if a doctor decides to make the sacrifices necessary to fill an otherwise unmet need that he should only do so if he's willing to dispense Plan B?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, here's the thing. If you think a certain kind of law practice is bad, you can specialize in another kind of practice. Pharmacists at drugstores don't just become the "allergy pharmacist" or the "antibiotic pharmacist." In becoming drugstore pharmacists, they know that they may be called upon to dispense a wide variety of prescriptions. It's not the same as law.
Sure, but we do know that most drug stores don't carry every drug, and that ordering such drugs is not always feasible. And no one has given a rationale for forcing the pharmacist to provide a particular service other than "If we don't, someone might not get the drug." Well, this is true for a wide variety of drugs now.
Is it? I was always under the impression that if a pharmacy didn't have a drug, they would order the drug or tell you where to get the drug. Because if the prescription is for an antibiotic, someone might end up dead without treatment.
quote:Is it? I was always under the impression that if a pharmacy didn't have a drug, they would order the drug or tell you where to get the drug.
According to Theca, that's not necessarily the case.
The American Pharmacists Association has reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for medications in stock at their pharmacies but that they ensure those customers can get their medications filled in some other way. (see, e.g., pages 2-4 of this pdf on APhA statement to the House Small Business Committee)
quote:The ability of health professionals to opt out of providing services they find personally objectionable is an important component of our health care system. ... APhA’s policy states:
quote:APhA recognizes the individual pharmacist’s right to exercise conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure [the] patient’s access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising the pharmacist’s right of conscientious refusal.
... In sum, our policy supports a pharmacist ‘stepping away’ from participating but not ‘stepping in the way’ of the patient accessing the therapy.
Pharmacists, like physicians and nurses, should not be forced to participate in procedures to which they have moral objections. However, recognizing pharmacists’ unique role in the health care system, there should also be systems in place to make sure that the patient’s health care needs are served. ... [FYI]The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals operates a national hotline (1-888-not-2-late) that allows patients to find a listing of providers who provide emergency contraception services. The same group, in collaboration with Princeton University’s Office of Population Research, also operates a website (http://not-2-late.com) that can help patients identify a provider of emergency contraceptives in their area. ... An important underlying concept of our proposed systems is that they are established proactively — before a pharmacist is presented with a prescription to which they object. The system should be seamless, with a pharmacist – patient interaction that is very similar to the interaction that occurs with any other prescription. Similar to the situation where a medication is simply out of stock on any given day, if the pharmacist is unable to dispense the prescription, then the patient must be made aware of the options available to them to fulfill his or her medication needs. [italics added by me, since this part was kind of buried --CT] ... When alternative systems are established proactively, the patient is unaware of the pharmacist’s actions and both the patient’s right to care and the pharmacist’s need to step away from certain activity are accommodated.
I was not aware of the emphasis that the APhA places on having such conscience refusals by pharmacists be invisible to patients. That is, it should be done behind the scenes, according to this professional organization,* even though the APhA fully supports individual decisions of pharmacists whether to fill given medical prescriptions.
Additionally, there is wide variation in state law and state licensing board policy regarding refusal to fill in-stock medications -- some states and/or boards prohibit it, some specifically allow it, and some do not specify (yet), although I think this issue is coming to a head all around.
----------
*[Edited to add: Of course, just because the APhA endorses something doesn't mean it's right, or that all (or even most) pharmacists agree, or anything like that. The AMA and the CMA both endorse policies I may disagree with, for sure. I just thought this was a pertinant and interesting tidbit.]
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think I remember reading in the news last year that there was some research suggesting that nursing doesn't keep eggs from being fertilized, it just keeps them from being implanted. Has anyone heard of this as well? If it's true, then I think it casts this debate in a different light.
I haven't heard the research, but I can attest from personal experience that nursing doesn't keep anything from happening.
Actually, nursing usually delays the start of the menstrual cycle. My cycle started at 4 months with my first (hence the early pregnancy) and at 8-12 months with my next three. I guess it's possible that rather than delaying eggs being released from ovaries, it could just be delaying the buildup of blood in preparation for a baby - therefore, as you said, it could allow eggs to be fertilized but not implanted.
Hmm. Interesting.
This is absolutely fascinating. For those of use who are against use of Plan B particularly because of belief that it may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg -- if the same effect were found to be true of nursing (a big "if," I know), would you counsel against women having unprotected sex while breastfeeding? Or is it the intent that matters (or, at least, factors in)?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 1.) From a religious perspective, personhood might start from the moment of ensoulment. There's no particular reason why this wouldn't occur at fertilization, while there are reasons for thinking it wouldn't occur prior to that point.
Dagonee, I know this is a side point, but it's one I've always found interesting philosophically. If we consider ensoulment to happen at fertilization, then the question of what happens in post-fertilization zygote/embryo cleavage (i.e., "twinning" or other multiplicative gestation) becomes problematic. Is there another new soul formed (even though the genetic material doesn't change), or is the soul split, or what else?
Of course, an omnipotent deity could do as that deity wished, but it's just an interesting puzzle. More complicated than it looks on the surface, I suppose. I've always found simple, elegant theories to be the most appealling, but they so rarely stay that simple when you puzzle through them. *wry look
quote:2.) Work backwards from a time when you definitely consider the child to be a person. Say birth, so there's almost no controversy on that point. Go back a second. Still a child? Why or why not. If one allows personhood to precede birth at all, there is a continuity. Fertilization is the single biggest moment of change, where two entities existed now one exists. The organism will grow, unless she dies, until she becomes what everyone recognizes to be a human being.
And again, "twinning" becomes an interesting puzzle for this line of argument.
quote: The caveat to this is that some people define "person" by status - brain or nervous functioning, or heartbeat, or response to stimuli. The "moment" idea does not refute this concept. I reject the status concept, though, because such a definition almost certainly excludes many people with severe medical conditions.
Dagonee, I'm sympathetic to the concern. I wonder, though, what your position is on personhood and death (in re: status case, for example). Just curious -- I'm still working through where my own beliefs fall out, but I've found myself compelled to accept some sort of status definition here, and this has informed my view about the initiation of personhood, too, even though it isn't a perfect fit.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as what to do about common activities of daily life causing an egg to not implant: I'd follow motive. If a person's sole reason for taking an antiinflammatory for days on end, or for breastfeeding, or for jumping up and down for six hours straight on the eight day after ovulation, were to to be to stop a pregnancy, then I'd probably see that as a bad thing.
But if that is a side effect for breast feeding for other reasons or an unknown effect of some routine drug or a food choice, then no. I don't see that as a bad thing. It's a normal part of life for implantation errors to be made.
Plan B or other one time use, high dose contraceptives are taken for only one goal. That isn't 100% true for any other drugs, not even routine birth control except in some cases. Well, except abortion drugs, of course.
I don't see twinning as complicating the issue at all. I'm curious about it, but that's as far as I go with that. I always assumed there was a new soul formed at that point.
posted
What I find problematic about twinning is that if* one sees the simplicity and straightforwardness of soul-enforment at the time of conception to be a big part of its appeal and rigor as a theory, then the existence of twinning throws a bit of a wrench into the works.
That is, if soul is formed if & only if at time of new formation of genetic material, then where does the second soul come from?** Given the assumption that twins have separate souls, then the second soul must have formed not on the basis of formation of new genetic material. And if a zygote or embryo can be ensouled at a time after the formation of new genetic material (e.g., at the time of twinning cleavage), then what is the impetus for finding the formation of new genetic material to be compelling as the time of ensoulment? (Why not later for all embryos, rather than making an exception for twins?)
-------
Upon rereading this, I'm pretty sure I am not explaining the complications this raises too clearly. I hope someone else more up to the task will take a shot.
-------
Footnotes:
*Granted, this is a big "if." I'm sure there are many people who accept the time of fertilization to be the time of ensoulment but who don't base their reasoning on something like "it's the most obvious time for it." For these people -- and I have no idea who on this thread this may or may not represent, as I take Dagonee to be just offering up hypotheticals at this point -- the vexedness of twinning for the elegance of the theory wouldn't be a problem.
**Again, if one does not base a theory of personhood-ensoulment on the obvious attractiveness of fertilization as a timepoint, then this isn't necessarily a problem. (Presumably God can figure it out for himself. ) It's only when one pins the soul to fertilization that this becomes dicey.
And, more succinctly, if one were to argue that the obviousness of fertilization as the marker for ensoulment strengthens the argument for personhood to be established at the same time, then further considerations which make ensoulment at fertilization a less tenable theory would also make personhood at fertilization a less tenable theory (assuming ensoulment is what grants personhood, that is).
Wait. Succinct was the wrong word. *grin
(Does this make sense? Am I the only one which finds this fascinating? Problematic? Complicated yet worthwhile to puzzle through?)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theca: As far as what to do about common activities of daily life causing an egg to not implant: I'd follow motive. If a person's sole reason for taking an antiinflammatory for days on end, or for breastfeeding, or for jumping up and down for six hours straight on the eight day after ovulation, were to to be to stop a pregnancy, then I'd probably see that as a bad thing.
But if that is a side effect for breast feeding for other reasons or an unknown effect of some routine drug or a food choice, then no. I don't see that as a bad thing. It's a normal part of life for implantation errors to be made.
*nods
I know the Doctrine of Double Intent is pretty firmly established for Catholicism.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The twinning thing just doesn't seem that complicated to me. I like the bonus soul idea.
A new soul would be needed as soon as you have a fertilized egg/early embryo not already possessing a soul. That would occur as soon as the twinning occurs, at least that's what I might imagine.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it matter? It probably goes to the on top 50% of the time and the one on the bottom 50% of the time.
Ok, it probably does matter. But I'm perfectly ok with not knowing how God can tell which twin came first and which came second.
Or maybe God plans or knows about the twinning from the get go and has the extra souls planned from the start.
Oh, or maybe God knows they aren't finished yet and withholds the soul until all the twinning has occurred.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know! I get that -- the perfectly okay with God part. [ ] It's why I was trying to be so careful (and wordy, unfortunately) above.
It's isn't a problem per se for those concerned with ensoulment, but I think it is a problem for the "obviously the important timepoint is fertilization" argument. That's different, you see?
And interesting, I think. I also am curious to see how the debates go if cloning technology progresses past the unwieldiness of Nuclear Somatic Transfer techniques.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just doesn't seem different to me. If people have souls and are real human beings from the moment of conception then obviously there is a lot of mysterious and miraculous stuff going on and we'll never be able to understand it with science.
I'm not sure I can understand people who don't believe in souls right at this moment. Too tired.
Bed or shower? I think I'll try bed first.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If* one finds the simplicity of "fertilization = ensoulment" to make it the most compelling theory, then additional nonsimplicity (e.g., God moves in mysterious ways) should make it proportionally less compelling a theory.
Mind you, I can understand the appeal of complexity in a theory, too, and I can see why some might prefer it. Sometimes I do, too.
Night, Theca. Sweet dreams.
---
*If, if, if! Many people do not fulfil the antecedent (as I suspect you do not, Theca, from what you have just said), and so the consequent of course would not apply.
posted
Maybe twinning happens BECAUSE there's more than one soul in there! I mean, we really don't know the mechanism that causes the split that creates identical twins. Although I'm betting on a purely biological mechanism, it is at least possible that an active deity does something to force the event. Also, since we don't know how souls get "into" humans, the situation where two or more TRY to get in at the same time is at least worth putting on the list of scenarios. The possibilities abound. Souls could be in each cell, and divide and multiply with the cells (I'm betting its in those weird little mitochondria). Or...souls could show up any time...maybe some people don't get a soul until age 47.
If we accept a biological definition of what it takes to make someone human, then the deal is sealed before fertilization. The egg & sperm are human cells and combine to make a human cell.
If we decide this soul stuff is too nebulous, but we still need to discuss "personhood" then we're free to set the starting point at whatever gestational age is most convenient or legally defensible.
It's a very important and objectively unanswerable question.
I think we should fight to the death over it.
Gwen: Sorry I couldn't answer yesterday, I was busy. I don't really have an answer to your earlier question, but I'd be interested in hearing your take on things.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Or...souls could show up any time...maybe some people don't get a soul until age 47.
Oh boy, does THAT explain a lot...
About the ensoulment thing... seems like as long as you use the word "soul" then this can't be a simple process. If you leave "soul" out of the discussion then aren't we having a different discussion? I still feel confused. Oh well.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Did the FDA ever say what happens if you take Plan B and you're already a couple weeks pregnant? I could never find an answer when the subject came up before.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, I know this is a side point, but it's one I've always found interesting philosophically. If we consider ensoulment to happen at fertilization, then the question of what happens in post-fertilization zygote/embryo cleavage (i.e., "twinning" or other multiplicative gestation) becomes problematic. Is there another new soul formed (even though the genetic material doesn't change), or is the soul split, or what else?
I've read the rest of the discussion on this, too.
There are two principle mainstream Christian doctrines on creation of the soul. One is creation ex nihilio, which postulates that the soul is created from nothing (by God) and infused into the human being at the moment of creation. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church and many Protestant theologians, although I'm not sure how "official" it is. That is, there are many writings on it, with a core of consistency, but I'm not sure the Church itself has ever taught "this is how it is." This teaching in and of itself doesn't require ensoulment at fertilization.
Let's add the fertilization requirement for now, which exists in Catholic teaching independent of the specifics of creation ex nihilo, and look at twinning. The philosophical underpinning for ensoulment at the fertilization point is that humans are spirit and animal both, at all times. The ensoulment happens at the immediate point where the distinct animal body exists. Under this view, "ensoulment happens at fertilization" is a shorthand way of saying "ensoulment happens at the moment a distinct human organism exists." Note that this general rule is not dependent on "the basis of formation of new genetic material" but on the existence of something which is definitively the same organism as will, if all goes well, come out of the womb in about 9 months.
Typically, this point is fertilization. During twinning, a second animal body is generated. At that point, the one without a soul is ensouled as soon as the twinning is complete. This isn't an exception to the general rule, but an exception to the common case used to express the general rule. And it's still simple: the soul is created and infused at the earliest existence of the physical vessel.
The reason genetics is mentioned with fertilization is not the uniqueness of the genetic material, but because there is a clear dividing point working backwards in which neither the egg nor the sperm is the same organism.
The remaining quandary is which one keeps the original soul. I don't see that as problematic, though. If you raise some objections, I'll try to respond.
The other major view of ensoulment, one I believe is more commonly held by lay Protestants. The parents' souls somehow combine a portion of themselves to create a new soul. (Corporeal Traducianism, which adds that this process is part of the physical generation of the body, is considered heretical to Catholicism. Generationism, the view that a totally spiritual process of combination and reproduction takes place, is considered not to be strictly heretical but opposed to the general teachings of the Church.) Under this view, there is a spiritual reproduction that occurs that parallels physical reproduction.
Again, ensoulment at fertilization is not an essential element of this, but we will examine it as if that is what occurs. Here, twinning is even more easily handled. The generalized concept is that the creation of a body also creates the soul. There are two ways a body is created: fertilization and twinning. Working backward, there is still a point where the body definitively exists - let's say when the twins are totally separate for now. At that point, the body has a soul.
I'm not covering Mormon views, which differ significantly, because I simply don't know enough to do so.
Edit: I almost lost this post. I clicked "Add Reply and went on to the forum main page when I noticed that the post hadn't made it. Thank goodness for FireFox's ability to preserve form entries with the back button.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The ensoulment happens at the immediate point where the distinct animal body exists. Under this view, "ensoulment happens at fertilization" is a shorthand way of saying "ensoulment happens at the moment a distinct human organism exists." ... Typically, this point is fertilization. During twinning, a second animal body is generated. At that point, the one without a soul is ensouled as soon as the twinning is complete.
How does this work for conjoined twins (aka "Siamese twins")?
Honest, I'm not trying to be a butthead. <insert obligatory "trying" joke here *grin> And I don't really have a point to make, other than that one can make a tenable argument that the status definition of personhood is more intuitive and straightforward, all things considered.
Which, again, wouldn't necessarily be arguing against anyone's views as posted in this thread -- from my point of view, as originally posted, it is an interesting and illuminative puzzle, but rather a side point to the total discussion.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, I'm sympathetic to the concern. I wonder, though, what your position is on personhood and death (in re: status case, for example). Just curious -- I'm still working through where my own beliefs fall out, but I've found myself compelled to accept some sort of status definition here, and this has informed my view about the initiation of personhood, too, even though it isn't a perfect fit.
This is a different kind of issue to me. I don't know the particulars of brain death or ability to breathe. However, these types of status checks are check of whether a person has stopped living - that is, whether they are still a living person, not whether they are or were a person.
There's almost no doubt that a fertilized egg is living, is there? It's fragile, sure. The environment in which it can survive is severely limited. But, we don't consider someone not to be living solely because they are on a ventilator and can't survive without it. There's some status element other than need for external support for nutrition and oxygen that applies.
The dispute is over whether this living organism is a person.
There's much more to be written here, but the essence comes down to capability defining life, not personhood. Here, the fertilized egg metabolizes energy, grows (far more rapidly than at any other time of life), takes in nutrition, eliminates waste, and so on. The fertilized egg does not respond to stimuli, probably has no consciousness or thought, and can't move.
We might use these to determine if life has stopped after a person has become capable of these things. But we wouldn't use them to determine if they were a person.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does this work for conjoined twins (aka "Siamese twins")?
Honest, I'm not trying to be a butthead. <insert obligatory "trying" joke here *grin> And I don't really have a point to make, other than that one can make a tenable argument that the status definition of personhood is more intuitive and straightforward, all things considered.
I don't see how the status definition becomes more straightforward, though. Depending on which organs are shared, the status definition has to be footnoted and caveated to the same extent, doesn't it? Consider the case where one twin could survive separation and the other couldn't. Under the status definition, one can't carry on the functions of life without external support. The other can.
The statement "the one without a soul is ensouled as soon as the twinning is complete" is not made less intuitive because we can't easily determine the point where "twinning is complete." The determination "is twinning complete" is difficult for us to make whether or not we are trying to answer questions about the soul.
quote:Which, again, wouldn't necessarily be arguing against anyone's views as posted in this thread -- from my point of view, as originally posted, it is an interesting and illuminative puzzle, but rather a side point to the total discussion.
Remember, the genesis of this conversation was to respond to someone who said that she couldn't imagine anyone not ignorant of biology thinking that personhood begins at fertilization. So there was no attempt to propound a complete theory, but merely enough to respond to this charge.
So you're now getting it piecemeal. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. (I am thinking -- that is not just a rhetorical device. And thank you for responding with such thoughtful interest. It is much appreciated.)
Insofar as any organism can generally be said to be living, persons who are kept on life support in order to harvest organs are still living. (Yeah, I know, there are definitely concerns that this brings up, but it is there and must be dealt with -- by somebody at least, even if not by us. But maybe you, at some time and in some cases (!), and maybe me, too.)
I think that the words we choose for these sorts of discussions are themselves instructive and illuminative, and so I do not want to dismiss any distinction as "just semantics." (Actually, I have a loathing for the term.) Yet I do think that there is an awkwardness to the language which may not well grasp some differences here; i.e., distinctions which are real and useful.
It is, all of it, dicey stuff. It's dicey because it is hard to piece through, but it is also dicey because it is so important. And, finally and perhaps most critically, because it is a discussion about matters which have been used in the past to deliberately justify some pretty horrific things.
Are you okay with going further on this, or is it getting to be an unuseful conversation to you? I ask because these are the sorts of conversations which can feel like traps, you know? And I don't want to participate in that. I do not want to make you uncomfortable or feel pressured to explain or defend a position.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Remember, the genesis of this conversation was to respond to someone who said that she couldn't imagine anyone not ignorant of biology thinking that personhood begins at fertilization. So there was no attempt to propound a complete theory, but merely enough to respond to this charge.
So you're now getting it piecemeal.
I know! *laughing
Which was why I tried to be clear that I was not getting down on dissin' Dagonee. I do very much appreciate that this is a conversation filled with ifs and hypotheticals and responsive commentary.
If we continue this, I suspect moving to a new thread would be in order. It would probably also be best (I think) to continue in conversational form, as much as my academic side likes a fully laid-out system. The older I get, the more suspicious I am about rigorous formal frameworks for debate -- they smack of an emphasis on point-getting.
However, I'm amenable to being convinced otherwise. *smile
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you okay with going further on this, or is it getting to be an unuseful conversation to you? I ask because these are the sorts of conversations which can feel like traps, you know? And I don't want to participate in that. I do not want to make you uncomfortable or feel pressured to explain or defend a position.
Absolutely. I'm enjoying this immensely. My response rate will slow down, though.
Would you mind outlining (in a very general way such as I did a few posts above) a theory of human life as determined by status? We're both using the terms now without any kind of outline on what we're talking about.
One particular question I have is whether status is the determinative factor - that is, a living person exists because this status exists - or merely indicative - we know a living person exists because this status exists.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you okay with going further on this, or is it getting to be an unuseful conversation to you? I ask because these are the sorts of conversations which can feel like traps, you know? And I don't want to participate in that. I do not want to make you uncomfortable or feel pressured to explain or defend a position.
Absolutely. I'm enjoying this immensely. My response rate will slow down, though.
And mine as well. It is 7:30am here, and I am set to wake my sweetheart to prepare for a kayaking lesson. (Stay tuned for the saga of How I Became a Mariner Salty Dog. Good story.) Perhaps we can return to this in a new thread later today?
quote:Would you mind outlining (in a very general way) a theory of human life as determined by status? We're both using the terms now without any kind of outline on what we're talking about.
One particular question I have is whether status is the determinative factor - that is, a living person exists because this status exists - or merely indicative - we know a living person exists because this status exists.
I would be delighted to, so long as we work with the understanding that we are each still piecing together frameworks,a nd that as such there will be additions and revisions as we go.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And mine as well. It is 7:30am here, and I am set to wake my sweetheart to prepare for a kayaking lesson. (Stay tuned for the saga of How I Became a Mariner Salty Dog. Good story.) Perhaps we can return to this in a new thread later today?
Sounds good. I'll wait for you to open it.
Oh, and "aaarrr!"
quote:I would be delighted to, so long as we work with the understanding that we are each still piecing together frameworks,a nd that as such there will be additions and revisions as we go.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Huh. Somehow I missed this bit of news.
Did the FDA ever say what happens if you take Plan B and you're already a couple weeks pregnant? I could never find an answer when the subject came up before.
posted
I keep seeing in this discussion, "If teenagers don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex." or variations, "The teenager isn't having the baby because she can't get Plan B, she's having the baby because she had sex."
It seems to me like we don't want teenagers to have sex, and some people want to hold pregnancy over their head as a possible punishment. It's almost as if some people want to make Plan B unavailable because they hope teens will get pregnant, so they "get what they deserve" for having sex.
Honestly, that seems really messed up to me. Using pregnancy as a punishment to coerce teens into what one might consider a correct moral position of not having sex.
This discussion is bringing up a lot of talk about punishing the child because the mother didn't intend to conceive it in the first place, or punishing the mother by forcing her to get pregnant when withholding Plan B.
Why is the act of a teenager having sex so morally reprehensible to us, that we feel that it justifies using children (both the mother and the unborn/not-yet-conceived baby) as our means of keeping teens from having sex?
I know, nobody wants to cop to that. We want to think that it's really about life and justice and whatever. Yes, some of it is.
But ask yourself, how much of this wouldn't be an issue for an adult.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It seems to me like we don't want teenagers to have sex, and some people want to hold pregnancy over their head as a possible punishment. It's almost as if some people want to make Plan B unavailable because they hope teens will get pregnant, so they "get what they deserve" for having sex.
Honestly, that seems really messed up to me. Using pregnancy as a punishment to coerce teens into what one might consider a correct moral position of not having sex.
I don't want teenagers to have sex. I don't want adults having sex unless they are mature enough to deal with all the possible consequences. The rest? Nah. Nobody here believes that, not even a little tiny bit.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
