Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
What Danielle said, Shep, but also, I'm preparing an answer which I will put on my own blog, maybe today, maybe tomorrow. I don't particularly wish to engage with the medieval drum banger here.
-
If I can help, might I say, that it is precicely your reasoning that the justification for abortion could be extended to infants that is wrong.
I'm not trying to wind you up, but if a better position is to be found it's not through opening the doors to Tiergartenstraße 4.
-
How about the idea that I don't have to donate a kidney to anyone, even if my lack of donation may mean that person dies?
By the same logic, I don't have to allow a potential human to occupy my uterus.
Even if that means terminating a pregnancy.
You are allowed to not like that.
If you don't like that, I suggest you don't have an abortion.Oh dear, I've just entered the fray.
I reserve the right to not respond to posters who don't accept my personhood as trumping that of a potential person.Shorter me: what Danielle said. And word, Deborah.
Also, Kyle, girls don't usually like it when you compare them to inanimate bodies of water. Just a heads up ;)
-
Also, Kyle, girls don't usually like it when you compare them to inanimate bodies of water. Just a heads up ;)
What? First they don't like being seen as incubators, then they're anti being brood mares, and now we're down on the whole bodies of water thing?
Does that mean I'll have to take this whole 'women as people too' thing seriously? Man.
-
My favourite aspect of this whole argument - and, in fact, these arguments in general - is the way the woman hosting the all-important foetus is apparently a total afterthought. I can imagine her, this Everywomb: 'Hi! I'm over here! A person, any way you slice it! Remember me? I'll just be sitting quietly in this corner. Cool. Let me know what you decide, 'kay?'
damn straight. I'm pissed off that where I live somehow makes me accountable to Mr Language.
Now Grant,
"Perhaps if you do not wish people to accuse you of things you do not like then you should use words that do not contradict your standards.
you are accusing me of supporting murder. I don't believe all killing is murder. and you backed me up on that.
I don't believe euthananasia is murder, i don't believe abortion is murder, i don't believe killing time on a wednesday afternoon is murder. You may believe all the above are murder, but it's still a long distance from me supporting murder.It's like I support smoking, you could from that take, by the various logic you subscribe to, that i support suicide, but again i don't.
Your leap from me supporting killing to your assessment of that i am supporting murder, renders your dismissals of me/mine, inexact.
so i'll be clear, again, for you Grant. I don't really think in terms of personhood, as I said previously, over here it could be anywhere between conception and death, It's irrelevant to my perception, I support euthanasia, I support abortion. I see neither as murder, but i support them for what they are.
I do not accept your justification for your actions just as every other person on Earth has standards by which they will not accept every action by other people. I do not accept your idea that justification is relative. That's the most easily dismissed assertion in the history of bad assertions. Let me clue you in - when your worldview can be dismantled in three words it is a good clue that perhaps you need to rethink what you believe...
you do not accept my justification, just as you don't accept the reality that while your typing here you could be out trying to convince actual females to follow your own worldview of how to manage their bodies.
but my justification exists all the same.
you do not accept my idea that justification is relative, just as you don't accept the relativity of justification.when my worldview can be dismantled in three words, it's a good clue that I have a very portable worldview. But for my money, I don't see my world view being dismantled or begging for a rethink by you: the confuser of murder and killing. As I said before, I am justified in supporting a woman's right to abort a pregnancy, regardless of whether you see me as supporting murder or not.
For my money I don't believe the law on abortion in NZ is bad, I suggested a tweek but on the whole I feel it allows freedom where due, I wasn't aware that almost everyone here agrees that it's bad.
I guess I'm in the minority, that feels ok, in that I still think it's better than calling abortion practitioners murderers. I support that law, and I support the people who are bequeathed the freedom to choose. Despite your assertions that they are murderers. You don't have to accept my justification, It's my justification, but regardless of whether you accept it or not, it's still a justification.Basically Grant, much as you'd like to think so, there are no universals on this issue.
justification - dictionary.com
1. a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends: His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.
2. an act of justifying: The painter's justification of his failure to finish on time didn't impress me.justify
1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.there is no mention of mandatory consensus in these definitions.
I do not accept your idea that justification is relative. That's the most easily dismissed assertion in the history of bad assertions.
my sympathies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justification
You can't keep backtracking like a blind orienteerer, to me it still seems like you're out of your depth with this word. Any murderer can provide justification for their actions, any murderer can justify their actions, no acceptance or agreement is required.Whether there justification is accepted, The state is still justified in sending them to jail. you don't have to accept my justification that justification is relative. denying my justification doesn't relegate it to being a 'nonjustification',
Murder is not defined as unjustified killing, it's justified as illegal killing.Not all laws are justified, not all justifications are legal
"Justification is entirely not relative"
to you
So careful now Grant, I'm not whinging about anything, I've been attempting to defend various charges you've laid on me including: I support murder, I have taken lives, i believe i have supported someone committing murder, etc.
these are serious charges, and I simply refute them Grant. I never made any of those statements. You are wrong in contending so.
"Mark! How much more satisfying if you actually had the ability to say I was wrong rather than only being able to whinge that I do not agree with you."
I'm not whinging that you don't agree with me. I'm defending myself.
As you are the type that equates telling someone they're wrong with satisfaction, I can only imagine that me telling you that you are wrong would be as satisfying as the satisfaction you would get from physically restraining and incarcerating a woman to prevent her from getting an abortion.
-
Grant, try validate, it may work better for you, use a little vindicate where necessary.
-
Mark. Debating an issue with someone unwilling to accept that there are concepts such as judgment, right & wrong and proper definitions is like trying to wrestle a large amount of jelly. You're impossible to pin down on anything. You are wrong and according to you Ia m justified in believing that. You however cannot rationally claim that I am wrong because that would contradict your assertion that there is no right and wrong.
-
Two things in reply to all the other mail:
1: Personhood has not been categorised as belonging to a single characteristic or stage and never will be. This supports my assertion that personhood is a thing recognised with good judgment. It takes good judgment to recognise that memories and perception are important functionings of people. It takes good judgment to recognise that independence is a good thing in people. It takes good judgment to define what is acceptable when it comes to medical procedures and what is not based on the lives of people. There will never be a scientific test for what is a person. There will never be a set of data that can deny the right to life. There will never be a lab experiment that can detect self awareness or weigh the value of a human life. We have moved beyond what science can tell us explicitly into an arena where we have to decide based on good judgment.
2: Because we cannot rely on data to determine the value of a human life we are rationally and morally bound to err on the side of caution. We are rationally bound because all the data sets we might apply can be applied to a baby at conception. If we say that an adult has a beating heart then we can say a baby has a stem cell that can build himself a body. The ability to test for things must be applied in all cases if it is going to be used rationally. We are morally bound because if we are to say that murder is wrong at a certain stage in a person's life then we must say that it is wrong at every stage of a person's life. If we do not know if a person is present then we are morally bound to act in caution with a baby just as we are with an adult.
This standard seems to be unpopular because women demand the right to do with their bodies as they see fit. But this right is limited by the presence of another person. The right to choose a kidney is a right that definitely does not involve another person. The right to abort always involves another person.
I see no flaws in these simple truths. I realise they are difficult for people to accept and impossible to accept for those who have had an abortion, but I will not compromise what I believe to be true. If I am correct then from here the discussion will move onto a woman's role as a mother. For it is she that will be most inconvenienced by any law that functioned according to the truth of the matter.
In the meantime I am prepared to defend my assertion that personhood begins at conception based on the fact that his humanity and life is undisputed.
Choose well.
:) -
I've never had a pregnancy termination but I did get my bitch spayed when she was very, very pregnant. It was a long time ago, and I still feel awful. However, I believe it was the right thing to do because 1) she would have been a dreadful mother 2) we were not ready for puppies and they wouldn't have had a great life. We had no-one who would have wanted bull terrier/whatever crosses. In my oh so humble opinion, the very problem with debate around abortion is exemplified by this thread. Dominated by opinionated men who are at one remove from the very emotional issue that it is, and arguing about things like when a baby becomes a baby, or the scientific definition of when cellular life becomes human. Chaps, I have news for you. It is not, in the end, for you to say. It is, in the end, for the women of this world. They may be in situations where consultation with their partners' is a suitable option. They may be single women who have to make the decision alone. Either way, it is their body. So it is up to them, ultimately. If you wish to make people feel guilty about choosing abortion, call it murder. Call it infanticide. Call it whatever you like. But remember, that ultimately, it is not your body. It is not your womb. It is not your call.
-
Jackie - I think I remeber correctly that you have no kids & you have stated here you have not had an abortion.
Following your arguement, why does your opinion count more than mine?
-
It is the opinions of the women who may have need of this procedure that counts. That's all women of child bearing age. That includes me.
-
What of the infertile - do they count?
-
I'll take that one, Shep. You see, I am infertile, and we have our lovely children through ART (assisted reproductive technology).
Let me endorse what Jackie said, hugely.
And back in the days when I was weeping because my arms were empty, it never, ever occurred to me that I should be forcing other women to go through pregnancy just so that I could have a baby to cuddle. Forced pregnancy is no happier a situation than infertility.
-
I'ld like to apologise for that last question it was pretty ugly & I didn't want to go there (but I did).
-
Thank you, Shep.
-
I don't accept a women has a greater role in democracy than a man.
I was trying to drive to the essential human concerns we all share and therefore are as valid as each other, which is why I went to draw the comparrison between an infertile woman & a man.
-
That was by way of explanation - not wanting to continue - one foot at diner time is enough.
-
Women have been ending unwanted pregnancies for millennia. I don't mean to sound flippant, I'm just stating a fact.
Sometimes their methods worked well; the women didn't die or become infertile.Other times they didn't end well.
If you want to take away the legal rights of women to choose whether or not they can end a pregnancy safely, you will force your daughters, sisters, friends, coworkers and lovers to risk infection, infertility or death.
How about trusting women to know what is right and best for them and their bodies?
You may not approve of abortion. You may even think abortionists and their clients are murderers. That is your right.
But don't try to say this is an "essential human concern that we all share", because it won't be you hemorrhaging on a motel floor.
-
I don't accept a women has a greater role in democracy than a man [...but...] one foot at din[n]er time is enough
Good decision to stop there -- 'cos of course a woman's body is necessarily a "democracy" of one woman, one vote... even in a democracy, we don't all have equal stakehold in all aspects of each others' lives.
-
Anorak - There is no right to an abortion at the moment, but there is a practice (that isn't 'legal' by one judges ruling) that needs to be addressed. I think infantacide was more commonly practiced than abortion - that's certainly my understanding of classical Japanese culture.
Linger - OK so it's my body I can kill myself if I want too - right? -
Thank you Jackie for pointing out the obvious. I'm a woman. Having (or not) a baby was always, ultimately, going to be my choice. Reading these convoluted 'personhood' arguments makes me feel like the last thirty years never happened. Are you guys that young? Do you have no idea of recent social history? I think a High Court review is exactly what we need; quite clearly the majority of New Zealanders are comfortable with the current system of abortion on demand, for all intents and purposes. Maybe it's time to end the fiction (and paternalism) of a woman needing two experts to certify she will be in dire mental straits if she has a baby. It's not fair to women in out of the way places (such as Westland), it's not fair to women who are poor, and it's demeaning to pretend to an exaggerated level of distress in order to 'qualify' for the procedure. If we in New Zealand, (the majority anyway), can live with homosexual law reform, legalised prostitution, civil unions, the legal and social condemnation of family violence, and so on, surely we can live with abortion as a legal form of contraception? It won't be compulsory. It won't even be necessary for most women. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. End of story.
-
Thanks Susan, for adding another voice of reason.
Also, you might be interested to know that having an abortion in New Zealand costs nothing.
I guess there might be costs related to taking time off work, etc, but as soon as it is established that you are pregnant, all consultations and the termination itself are free government-funded healthcare. (Now that'll REALLY piss these buggers off). Only if you have a termination after 12 weeks is there a fee attached.
I'm an under-30 (just!) feminist, but I know my history.
I know about S.O.S, I know what's at stake.
Don't think us young biddies aren't grateful! -
Very grateful.
-
Linger - OK so it's my body I can kill myself if I want to - right?
In principle, yes. There may be other stakeholders, people who know you well, who may be entitled to argue against it; but as a very general principle, you are the majority stakeholder in your own life, and it is ultimately your decision to make.
(Of course, given that one choice means the decision is irreversible, I would hope the decision is a carefully considered one. Nevertheless, I believe all people capable of making that choice should have the freedom to be able to make that choice for themselves.) -
Susan - abortion isn't contraception - please don't say that it is.
I do think that some clearer thoughts need to be put forward about what abortion is, as it shouldn't justify infantacide.
I do think a massive part of this question has to do with fatherhood and the responsibility men take for their actions, this isn't a solely female issue.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.