Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
And I posted that before I saw Russell's comment. Thank you!
-
Just to make my position perfectly clear (and in response to Matty Poole) I am stubborn on what I believe to be indisputable fact. I'd love it if people would find it in themselves to agree with the truth of the matter. The facts are that at conception a baby is alive and human.
I am trying to give up my trolling ways :)
-
Oh.
Russel. I have been nothing but perfectly reasonable and nothing I have said might possibly be construed as any form of attack on another person. I'm sorry you don't like what I have to say. I think it's really sad that you would delete posts and be vulgar in response to me. But, as you rightly suggest, it is 'your house'. I'll not deny your right to delete as you see fit.
-
Grant There's a simple way to solve this. How do you feel about Democracy? If there was a referendum held tomorrow in which Kiwis were asked if they preferred to maintain the status quo on the availability of abortions or if they should be much harder to obtain which way do you think the outcome would go? Would you have a problem with that?
What a bizarre sense of solution you have! Democracy has already decided that babies can be terminated and I have a problem with that. Shouldn't it be obvious what my response will be?
Do you agree or remain silent about every decision that gets made?
-
Anon, thank you. And thank you Kerry Weston for a most poingant insight too-
Grant Dexter. you stack up against these most strong & vital women
like inorganic toxic sludge. -
But, as you rightly suggest, it is 'your house'. I'll not deny your right to delete as you see fit.
That sounds suspiciously pro-choice to me...
-
nothing I have said might possibly be construed as any form of attack on another person
I cannot fully express the contempt I have for this disingenuous bullshit.
-
Finally got a chance to get back to this after feeding the livestock (a.k.a. my children).
As a sometime, and not always happy participant in PAS, someone who quibbles and gets upset from time to time, it's heartening to see that when it really matters, this is a space that supports women.
Julie has put up a round-up of posts on this issue over at The Hand Mirror. I think that all of us posting there regularly have made contributions, as have some of the other usual suspects; take a bow, Queen of Thorns.
I haven't taken a look at the conservative blogs today; it's not worth the blood pressure spike. The spike got going reading some of the comments here today, but fortunately, the replies from other rather more regular commenters were very calming.
-
The spike got going reading some of the comments here today, but fortunately, the replies from other rather more regular commenters were very calming.
I've deleted some of the more attention-seeking trolling, hovered over the button a few more times, and eventually wondered whether to get out the banning stick, but I've been inclined to let it play out precisely because of the quality of replies.
-
Grant
Do you agree or remain silent about every decision that gets made?
Of course not, but if the overwhelming mass of opinion is against my position, then that at least makes me pause to consider whether my conclusions are the right ones.
I wonder, has that ever happened to you?
-
Why are so many men (on this post) so hung up on the physiological/philosophical minutiae of abortion? I feel inclined to give you a good slap and advise you to get over yourselves. The children we do have, all the children here in the world already, are the ones that matter, not the might have beens/products of conception/'unborn babies' that some of you seem so wracked with existential guilt over. Sure abortion should be a thoughtful decision, and in some circumstances a terribly difficult one, but I refuse to have someone else's religious/sexual world views imposed on me.
-
"Loss of microsatellite diversity in overexploited New Zealand snapper"
I'm intrigued. Care to explain a bit more about this?
-
Susan Snowdon we all have our own viewpoints/specialities. I would not presume to speak for you as a woman on the choice issue, I merely wish you to be free to make it for yourself. I pick apart positions based on fact because that is what I can do and contribute. It should indeed be your choice and yours only*, but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world and the fight goes on, we all fight it in our own way.
*I would hope you would have a supportive partner too, but unfortunately that is not always possible. Which highlights much of the problem with the 'pro-life' brigade, they want the world to be perfect and refuse to have to deal with the compromises and least worst decisions the real world has to make.
-
Could I ask those infavour of our privious abortion policy & practise, if you may be in favour of euthanasia?
It might be handy in removing the gender bias of abortion for a moment.
-
Islander. I've been called a lot of things, but I've never been called "__inorganic toxic sludge__" before. Congratulations on being the first :)
-
B Jones from Wellington! Why would you expect me to be against choice? The very reason that I share is based on the chance that people might be persuaded to choose right over wrong.
-
Davida. Yes, I have considered, many times in fact, that the majority might be right and I wrong. What's your point?
-
Reconsider
-
A pleasure Grant Dexter!
And, to Shep's question,
yes, I am very much in favour of euthanasia
were mature sane consent is given
(I have seen what happened when such was given
and an arsehole of a medic, because of it's fatuous
religious beliefs, refused to up the morphine-) -
Linger - do you believe a baby at conception is not alive?
Do you believe a baby at conception is not human?Would you like to state your opinion if it differs from mine and support it using science?
No.
Actually, I would like to suggest that your use of the terms "human", "alive", "baby", and (in other posts) "person" and the personal pronoun "he" is unhelpful for any debate because such a framing already assumes your particular opinion is true. (Use of "he" makes other unwarranted assumptions as well, but let's ignore that.)Your questions above seem irrelevant to the argument because
(i) "a baby" does not exist in any actual sense, but only in potentiality, at conception (for many reasons that have already been pointed out by others here).
(ii) in any case, "human" or "alive" do not mean the same as "a person" or "an individual" -- which is surely what should count more when we have to start comparing competing rights of individuals.There are very different emphases involved here.
"Human" could be merely genetic or biological. If you want to take that definition, then, OK, the cell resulting from conception is genetically human. But then, so is a corpse; so that doesn't win the argument. (Which puts the focus back on defining "alive" -- for which, see others' previous posts on viruses.)The conceptus is only potentially a human (note the article, it makes a huge difference) in any other meaningful sense. As others have mentioned, it is still only *potentially* a single individual (as it can split into twins). (You responded by claiming these were "humans that could clone themselves"; but it would be just as easy to conclude that "humans cannot clone themselves, therefore this entity is not human".)
"Person" or "individual" implies some capacity for conscious thought or decision-making; "personhood" also implies some self-awareness. These qualities are difficult to quantify, and their development is (as many others here have pointed out) a long and gradual process. It seems certain, though, that these qualities are not present, at all, at conception. This is why it is possible to claim that "human life" -- in the sense that we experience it -- does not begin at this point.
Unfortunately, the concept of "rights of all individual people" is in practice often labelled as "human rights"; this is regrettably misleading, and a large part of the reason that even open, rational people tend to talk past each other is the difference in emphasis between those terms.
-
Here's another perspective on abortion, and it manages not to be from a medical or religious perspective.
-
(I have seen what happened when such was given and an arsehole of a medic, because of it's fatuous religious beliefs, refused to up the morphine-)
Oh, fuck off Islander. First, don't degrade human beings as "it". Second, if you want to shit on people's religious beliefs consider that there many non-religiously based ethical grounds on which doctors and nurses would rather administer drug overdoses to people.
I had a cancer scare a few years ago, and had a pretty unpleasant conversation about the precise circumstances under which I'd decline to accept medical interventions. But under no circumstances would I ask another person to violate their own ethical boundaries, or knowingly administer a massive drug overdose to me.
And speaking as someone who has a history of severe depression, what exactly do you mean by 'consent'? Not quite as clear a line as you'd like to think, chum.
-
And speaking as someone who has a history of severe depression, what exactly do you mean by 'consent'? Not quite as clear a line as you'd like to think, chum.
which by no means precludes other people in other circumstances being so competent. IOW your moral objection and 'yuck' factor should not be used to stop other people from deciding that enough is enough.
You are welcome to your p.o.v. and good for you for still being here. But please let others be free to make different choices huh?
-
Why are so many men (on this post) so hung up on the physiological/philosophical minutiae of abortion? I feel inclined to give you a good slap and advise you to get over yourselves.
Thanks, Susan. Unless immaculate conception has come back in a massive way, perhaps there's some room for the notion that one way to reduce the incidence of abortion is for men to start making some "choices" of their own about their sexual behaviour and the consequences?
You are welcome to your p.o.v. and good for you for still being here. But please let others be free to make different choices huh?
Well, Peter, it would be rather nice if Islander paid that courtesy to "arseholes" who find delivering drug overdoses well outside their professional and ethical boundaries. And, as I said, they're not all motivated by "fatuous religious beliefs" either.
-
Linger, do you have to let it? :chuckle:
No.
Which question was that an answer to? :)
Actually, I would like to suggest that your use of the terms "human", "alive", "baby", and (in other posts) "person" and the personal pronoun "he" is unhelpful for any debate because such a framing already assumes your particular opinion is true. (Use of "he" makes other unwarranted assumptions as well, but let's ignore that.)
I know. I believe what I say to be true. If you had good reasons why what I say is not true then I might consider rephrasing. Let's see what you've got .. :)
Your questions above seem irrelevant to the argument because (i) "a baby" does not exist in any actual sense, but only in potentiality, at conception (for many reasons that have already been pointed out by others here).
"Many reasons"? The reasons I've had given boil down to issues of size, appearance and location. Do not believe that I did not understand the responses I have gotten.
Did you have any relevant reasons?
The fact is that at conception there is a baby present. The fact is that baby is too small to be see and too well protected to be easily studied. The fact is that baby is alive. The fact is that baby is human. If your answer above, "No", was in response to those questions of life and humanity then you are seriously misguided!
(ii) in any case, "human" or "alive" do not mean the same as "a person" or "an individual" -- which is surely what should count more when we have to start comparing competing rights of individuals.
That's an interesting position to hold! I believe that the terms human being, person, human and individual can all refer to the same entities (namely, you and me). I also understand that sometimes those terms can be used to refer to things that aren't human.
But for the record I haven't claimed that because a baby is alive and human that he is a person. I do believe that to be so, but I haven't yet discussed the notion given how very stickly and prickly people are being in response to the very simple and obviously true statement that at conception a baby is alive and human.
And in response to your view on what are human rights - I do not believe that any human has rights that compete with another's. I understand that at times people are asked to surrender their rights and that sometimes people oppress others, but at no stage do rights have to "compete".
Human beings have the right to life. No human being has the right to unjustifiably end another human life.
There are very different emphases involved here.
"Human" could be merely genetic or biological. If you want to take that definition, then, OK, the cell resulting from conception is genetically human.WHAAAAAAIIIIT a minute! AGREEMENT!
I'd hug you if I had hands! :)
I'll settle for a glass of something. Thanks. You've made my day :)
But then, so is a corpse; so that doesn't win the argument. (Which puts the focus back on defining "alive" -- for which, see others' previous posts on viruses.)
Sure. I'm not arguing the argument that says corpses are alive and human or viruses are alive and human though. So I'm on fairly safe ground, right?
The conceptus is only potentially a human (note the article, it makes a huge difference) in any other meaningful sense.
Aw :( That didn't last long.
Potentially human? What does that mean? What is a baby before he is human?
As others have mentioned, it is still only *potentially* a single individual (as it can split into twins). (You responded by claiming these were "humans that could clone themselves"; but it would be just as easy to conclude that "humans cannot clone themselves, therefore this entity is not human".)
Well, sure. You could conclude that. But you'd be ignoring the fact that at conception a baby is alive and human...
"Person" or "individual" implies some capacity for conscious thought or decision-making; "personhood" also implies some self-awareness.
Sure. We all have that, don't we?
These qualities are difficult to quantify, and their development is (as many others here have pointed out) a long and gradual process. It seems certain, though, that these qualities are not present, at all, at conception. This is why it is possible to claim that "human life" -- in the sense that we experience it -- does not begin at this point.
OK. I think I understand your position. You have an understanding that not all things are quantifiable and measurable. I agree. It is impossible to determine by the use of science what is self aware and where the consciousness is seated. But I think you have jumped onto the wrong side of the balance when you insist this means babies at conception do not have the capacity for self awareness or consciousness.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe, as I have guessed, that awareness and consciousness are the products of the immaterial (a "soul" to speak in the vernacular) or do you believe all those things to be the product of solely material things?
And let me mark this question (point, whatever)...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...as the place where this discussion has advanced from questions over the life and humanity of a baby at conception to questions over the nature of that life and humanity.
I'm just going to hold onto that moment back there when we were in agreement and extend the sense of comradeship to any who will accept it :)
Unfortunately, the concept of "rights of all individual people" is in practice often labelled as "human rights"; this is regrettably misleading, and a large part of the reason that even open, rational people tend to talk past each other is the difference in emphasis between those terms.
And, unfortunately, I don't know what you're talking about here :)
I believe all humans have the right to life.
What other rights do you recognise as being for all individuals?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.