Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 24 Newer→ Last
-
I might say I'm a little lost on arguements about abortion, but know that it mustn't lead to the justification of infantacide, whether or not that is leagalised.
So I am not offering a solution to the issue but rather asking questions, and pointing out what I see as a major flaw in your argument.
I reject the arguement of 'potential life' as clumsy, it is life of a sort, but again I have no solution to that phrase.
I also see the replaced Patriachy, of the Nanny State to be seriously wanting in supporting women & babies.
Not to mention the neglegent inaction of fathers.
-
Sorry Deborah - I've missed that - will be back to you again in a bit (gotta run)
-
I also see the replaced Patriachy, of the Nanny State to be seriously wanting in supporting women & babies.
nice quote shep.
this overuse of 'patriarchy' as opposed 'misogyny' confuses me quite alot.
-
Read more carefully. I deny nothing, other than that those terms are loaded, and that there are other possible ways of seeing the issue. As far as I see it, I do not have any right to any final opinion on that question. I don't get to judge. Who are you to judge?
Of course the term personhood is loaded. It is especially loaded if you are on the side of denying it to a certain group. That you are uncomfortable with what might be true is no reason to ignore the truth.
I agree there are many possible views on every issue. There is generally only a lot of wrong views and just the one that is right.
And as to judgment I, again, do not think you understand how the world works. It does not matter what you do not like. The ability to judge has been given to all people. I know some judgments are bad, but that does not mean we should stop trying to get things right.
We do not bow to the will of those that have no problem acting against what is right. We are to judge rightly and put bad people in their place! Who am I to judge? A person who is capable of doing so and without a reason not to.
Where did you get the ridiculous notion that you should not judge from?
-
Who was it that said "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? It's on the tip of my tongue, that big guy's son, begins with G. Gino? Jeepers?
Maybe someone here could help me out with that one.
-
Jesus?
Oh. So you think Linger is a Christian? Whatever gave you that idea?
Do you know who Jesus was talking to when he said, "Do not judge"?
Do you know who He was talking to when He said, "Judge rightly"?
-
Do you know who Jesus was talking to when he said, "Do not judge"?
Do you know who He was talking to when He said, "Judge rightly"?
No. What's the point?
-
Deborah - "I’m going to do the latter, and embrace the conclusion that my argument for the moral permissibility of abortion does also admit the moral permissibility of infanticide."
Sorry, I don't accept this line of thought & didn't you said you've rejected infantacide.
I also think babies in the womb dream, and reject the need to comprehend others. I know a few people who still can't do that ;-)
"Even then, I will want to place the mother’s health before the fetus’s health. Why? Because I know for sure that the mother is a full human being, and her needs come before the needs of a being that may or may not be a full human being."
I agree with your decision, but for different reasons. The mother is likely to be the more viable life, being stronger etc. There may be situations where this is reversed, but is a triarge situation.
I'm glad you refer to the first stages of life as human. I don't accept the 'full human' line though, we're on a continum of existence and never static in any single human stage, as a continum I see all human life regardless of stage to have the same rights.
The only question where I have agreement with the abortion lobby, is in triage situations.
-
There is never a reason to kill a baby. Any medical procedure required to save the life of the mother can be done by delivering the baby. At no point is the doctor required to stop and kill the baby.
-
Grant, I hate to break it to you. As evidenced by your comments in another thread, it's just really obvious that you have some sort of belief that everything in life is black and white. You even said that there are all sorts of views, most of which are generally wrong, one of which is right. Let me guess which one that would be? Yours, right? I don't know that you have any idea just how sanctimonious you are making yourself look with your comments. I find it breathtaking that you really believe that there is, generally, only ever one view that is right. Are you playing devil's advocate? Or are you really, really, that arrogant? Women request terminations for many, many reasons. Doctors carry out terminations for many, many reasons - and yes, some for medical reasons. It should be clear to you that this somewhat academic argument you have been having has been read by people who are personally invested in this issue. Who have had terminations. Who have tried to have children and cannot. Some of them have contributed to this discussion, and shared their experiences. This is not academic to these people. It is personal. You have the right to your opinions, but please remember, they are just that. Opinions.
-
this overuse of 'patriarchy' as opposed 'misogyny' confuses me quite alot.
I think I am the only one who has used that word so far (?) but anyway........I am reasonably happy to replace it with misogyny. My choice of the word was partly because it is so old school and shocking ;-) but also partly because it gives that sense of something structural, I am thinking here of women being their husband's chattels in the eyes of the law etc.
Shep
With regard to this:
Deborah - "I’m going to do the latter, and embrace the conclusion that my argument for the moral permissibility of abortion does also admit the moral permissibility of infanticide."
Sorry, I don't accept this line of thought & didn't you said you've rejected infantacide.
I think that Deborah is just arguing honestly and not ignoring possible logical consequences of her argument. It is a philosophy thing. The objection raised in the comment section of Deborah's blog does have some merit and I am sure like all classic philosophical questions (i.e. the ones that are not going anywhere anytime soon) it should and will be debated by future generations long after we are gone.
I don't think that inserting 'baby' and 'murder' into as many sentences as possible really moves the discussion along. I think that taking a long hard look at infanticide and implications for people with disabilities is important though. I know that I was left with plenty to think about after reading Peter Singer on the subject. Seriously, read a smart trained person on some ethical subject and they help you clarify you thinking (even if it is just to know exactly the areas that you don't have a decided point of view).
-
"Any medical procedure required to save the life of the mother can be done by delivering the baby."
Do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is? That's one situation I can think of that sometimes results in exactly that scenario, and is still a significant cause of maternal death. Another counter-example is a person known to me, who, after hormone treatment associate with IVF, suffered a severe hormonal reaction that could only be stopped by abortion or miscarriage of the embryo (she miscarried, which was very sad, but saved her life). (Note I use your definition of "baby" here, which I also don't agree with, but no matter).
You seem to be very confident over things you clearly don't know a lot about. You don't seem to be able to deal with any other definitions than the ones you propose. You don't seem to be able to actually argue, only to repeat assertion after assertion. And your hectoring is actively off-putting. My feeling that your views are stupid and inhumane is only strengthened by the way you make your case for them.
-
That "judge not lest ye be judged" quote from the book of Matthew doesn't mean "nobody can ever judge other people". It does stress, however, that your first duty, before you can judge other people, is to judge yourself, to check your motives, and to examine what you yourself would do or feel if placed in exactly the same situation. Hence my question "Who are you?". It's a serious question.
On a related note: G. K. Chesterton's allegorical novel "The Man Who Was Thursday" ought to be required reading for anybody who thinks they have access to the One Truth. You can download an electronic version from the Gutenberg Project archives.
-
Do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is? That's one situation I can think of that sometimes results in exactly that scenario, and is still a significant cause of maternal death.
What scenario? That the baby has to be delivered in order to save the mother? If you wanted to show an example of what I was saying you could have just said so. Did you also know that attempts have been made to relocate the baby to the right place in order to try and save him? Such procedures have not been successful yet, but perhaps in the future they will be.
At no point in an ectopic pregnancy is the doctor required to stop and kill the baby. It is tragic, but sometimes difficult things need to be done.
Another counter-example is a person known to me, who, after hormone treatment associate with IVF, suffered a severe hormonal reaction that could only be stopped by abortion or miscarriage of the embryo (she miscarried, which was very sad, but saved her life). (Note I use your definition of "baby" here, which I also don't agree with, but no matter).
I don't mind what terminology you use. I understand what you are talking about when you say foetus or blastocyst.
I notice again that throughout this tragedy there was no point at which someone was required to end the life of the baby. The whole point I am making revolves around intent. In a devastating situation such as either of these the baby is a victim of our broken world, illness and deformation. In both of these situations such tragedy is bad enough without associating the intent of the medical teams and the parents with the staff and parents who want to terminate a life because the mother wants to keep her job.
One is deliberately ending a life without justification. One is a tragic necessity. I hope you have the wisdom to agree with my analysis and perhaps even express it better than I can.
You seem to be very confident over things you clearly don't know a lot about. You don't seem to be able to deal with any other definitions than the ones you propose. You don't seem to be able to actually argue, only to repeat assertion after assertion. And your hectoring is actively off-putting. My feeling that your views are stupid and inhumane is only strengthened by the way you make your case for them.
And you'd be wrong. :shrug:
I wouldn't worry about it. I've been wrong before as well.
-
That "judge not lest ye be judged" quote from the book of Matthew doesn't mean "nobody can ever judge other people". It does stress, however, that your first duty, before you can judge other people, is to judge yourself, to check your motives, and to examine what you yourself would do or feel if placed in exactly the same situation. Hence my question "Who are you?". It's a serious question.
Linger. I am happy that you do not ascribe to the "judge not" blanket. Given that you understand Matthew then perhaps you might apply some other passages to understand why I stand in opposition to abortion.
-
In a different shade of poker dot, some thing I'v noticed about your comments Grant, is that there's almost no mention of emotional affect. Have you considered, that you might just be feeling squeamish about abortion, but lack the resources in which to express that appropriately. I suggest, you go and hug a tree.
Roffle! I believe it is usually pro-life people who are derided for using emotion as an argument. Now I'm being encouraged to share?
Tree .. tree hugging... uh...
OH! You mean cut trees down and carry them in for firewood? :gotcha:
-
Grant, I hate to break it to you. As evidenced by your comments in another thread, it's just really obvious that you have some sort of belief that everything in life is black and white. You even said that there are all sorts of views, most of which are generally wrong, one of which is right. Let me guess which one that would be? Yours, right? I don't know that you have any idea just how sanctimonious you are making yourself look with your comments. I find it breathtaking that you really believe that there is, generally, only ever one view that is right. Are you playing devil's advocate? Or are you really, really, that arrogant? Women request terminations for many, many reasons. Doctors carry out terminations for many, many reasons - and yes, some for medical reasons. It should be clear to you that this somewhat academic argument you have been having has been read by people who are personally invested in this issue. Who have had terminations. Who have tried to have children and cannot. Some of them have contributed to this discussion, and shared their experiences. This is not academic to these people. It is personal. You have the right to your opinions, but please remember, they are just that. Opinions.
Your opinion is noted.
-
Grant, you still haven't answered that all-important question.
Your comments about ectopic pregnancies seem to suggest that you may not yet be adequately prepared to judge the decisions of others in that situation. (I know I'm not: I don't have enough relevant enough experience to fully place myself in that situation. The knowledge and experience that I do have suggests to me that there is nothing necessarily morally wrong in early-stage abortion, but I might still feel differently if it was actually happening to me.) Until you reach that stage of enlightenment, you have insufficient grounds for a conclusion that any decision is not in fact the right one for that individual concerned. -
Grant, you still haven't answered that all-important question.
Your comments about ectopic pregnancies seem to suggest that you may not yet be adequately prepared to judge the decisions of others in that situation. (I know I'm not: I don't have enough relevant enough experience to fully place myself in that situation. The knowledge and experience that I do have suggests to me that there is nothing necessarily morally wrong in early-stage abortion, but I might still feel differently if it was actually happening to me.) Until you reach that stage of enlightenment, you have insufficient grounds for a conclusion that any decision is not in fact the right one for that individual concerned.And you still have not come to terms with the fact that all people judge. I just happen to judge in a manner that you do not like.
However if you were to understand what I say then you would realise that my judgment (if applied) would not mean that a woman must die in order to avoid a murder rap when she has an ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is a clear case where intervention needs to happen and needs to happen quickly.
It is a very poor judge who asserts that because we must face these tragic situation then it is necessary to have abortion. The intent is the key. In an ectopic pregnancy the intent is to save the mother. There have also been attempts to save the baby by moving him to the right place. These attempts have not been successful, but perhaps one day they will be.
With an abortion the intent is to kill the baby.
The only connection an ectopic pregnancy has with abortion is that the baby nearly always dies. Associating the two, using one to justify the other, is insane. It's sort of like saying we should regulate (read: legalise) stealing because sometimes people lose their wallets.
I really hope I'm making sense to you here!
-
Your personhood Grant, weighted heavily in favour of the right to life, steers well clear of the right to choice within life. Barely nine years into personhood, you're advocating the state exacts control over the person's anatomy, if not not the state, then yourself, personally, based on a well collated series of arbitrary protocols.
the babies' lives you enforce
the post pubescent females, submissive
9-12 years of strictly autonomous freedom of self.
how much control does one Emporer need over his subjects? -
Of course people do judge others. But if there's any consistent thread in Christian teachings, it is that any judgements people make should be made compassionately, as persons, with the full awareness of their own limitations as individuals. Most of the time, you seem to be judging instead as some abstract embodiment of perfect law. I merely seek reassurance that there is a person in there somewhere.
-
I think also we may be getting misled by the word "judge".
I understand that you are actually (rightly, in my ...judgement) making an important distinction between "judging" and "sentencing". But then is a "judgement" merely an "opinion"? Or is it something more -- such as an "informed opinion"? -
...in which case, can you see how an opinion informed by scientific evidence or by the reported real-life experiences of others may be more convincing than an opinion informed by one person's own interpretation of some abstract principles?
-
...and both may be less convincing that an account from personal experience. For an example of what I mean, one need only turn to David Slack's most recent post; or indeed to the comment 20-odd pages upthread by "anonymous for obvious reasons". I have nothing as valuable to offer; and so I shall end here.
-
Linger:
Of course people do judge others. But if there's any consistent thread in Christian teachings, it is that any judgements people make should be made compassionately, as persons, with the full awareness of their own limitations as individuals. Most of the time, you seem to be judging instead as some abstract embodiment of perfect law. I merely seek reassurance that there is a person in there somewhere.
There is a person in here. He cares more about the innocent victim than the person acting incorrectly. I guess that's a really difficult thing for people with the capacity to respond to accept. So, while I may be unpopular, I'm still right.
I think also we may be getting misled by the word "judge".
I understand that you are actually (rightly, in my ...judgement) making an important distinction between "judging" and "sentencing". But then is a "judgement" merely an "opinion"? Or is it something more -- such as an "informed opinion"?A judgment is a thing made to inform action. Our choices and actions are limited by the law. So while I judge that abortion is wrong I am in no place to rightly pass sentence.
On the other side we have people making choices and passing sentence without justice. They then act to defend their choice. Unfortunately the act is so polarising that the capacity to see good judgment after the act is far too condemning. You see where a lack of good judgment leads?
...in which case, can you see how an opinion informed by scientific evidence or by the reported real-life experiences of others may be more convincing than an opinion informed by one person's own interpretation of some abstract principles?
My judgment is based on scientific fact. Judgment is an abstract concept, like love or faith, that informs my choices and opinions. Are you able to accept the facts? The facts are that at conception a baby is alive and human. I judge that enough evidence to recognise a human being and to recognise that ending that life, without justification, is wrong.
...and both may be less convincing that an account from personal experience. For an example of what I mean, one need only turn to David Slack's most recent post; or indeed to the comment 20-odd pages upthread by "anonymous for obvious reasons". I have nothing as valuable to offer; and so I shall end here.
I do not understand why I am being asked these questions! Of course it is tragic that babies die! Of course a mother devastated by an ectopic pregnancy has just as much right to grieve as a mother of a nine year old! What I have been saying supports all that. Can you please explain to me how babies dying tragically has any impact on my wish that mothers not kill their babies!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.