• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 200.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > South Dakota outlaws abortion

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...5678
jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:BBC news story.
If you're in South Dakota abortians are now all but outlawed.

It's very sad that in this day and age the religious right has made this much head way. The anti-choice groups are trying to provoke a supreme court chalenge, aimed at over turning the Roe vs. Wade ruling which made abortians legal in the first place for Americans. If they succeed then abortions will once again be illegal across all of the united states (correct me if I've got my US legal code wrong).

Quite frankly this is a moral disaster. The rights of women to control their own bodies took a long time to win. It had to be fought for at every stage and now it looks like it's going to be eroded away again. I'm thankful that nothing like this could ever happen in Britain but it's still disheartening to see America heading back to the dark ages. frown


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete Topic

pounce
pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Member Since: 10th Jan 2003
Total posts: 9831
Posted:some information was recently passed my way i thought was rather interesting....

one of the indian reservations in south dakota is opening up an abortion clinic, and because the state does not have jurisdiction on native american land, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it biggrin


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:yay doyle does something right for once
well, besides the prescription drugs from cananda thing



Wis. Governor Signs Abstinence Bill By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press Writer
Tue May 23, 8:47 PM ET



MADISON, Wis. - Sex education teachers must present abstinence as the preferred behavior for unmarried people under a bill signed Tuesday by Gov. Jim Doyle.


The legislation means teachers must emphasize that refraining from sex before marriage is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. A spokesman for the governor, a Democrat, said most Wisconsin school districts already take that approach.

"The governor thinks that abstinence should be an important part of the message that kids hear from adults as part of their classes," spokesman Dan Leistikow said.

Republican Sen. Mary Lazich, a bill's sponsor, said sex education teachers can still teach about birth control, but must emphasize that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective method to avoid health risks.

Kelda Helen Roys, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin, called the bill, which takes effect July 1, shortsighted.

"They ignored the overwhelming public testimony, support and expert information about the importance of comprehensive sex education that talks about abstinence as well as contraceptive use," she said. "Abstinence is an important part but it is not the only part."

The birth rate among Wisconsin teens ages 15-19 decreased by 27 percent between 1993 and 2004, from 41 to 30 births per 1,000 females, according to the most recent government survey.

But the overall infection rate of the four top sexually transmitted diseases increased by 3 percent among teens during that time.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:As Doc Lightning said earlier, Abstinance breaks more easily than a condom. Because of that teenage pregnancy rates are actually higher amongst teen that have taken vows of chastity. This bill is moronic.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:well that seems to be your opinion on everything, so I am not surprised

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:I'm with Jeff and The Doc here, everything I've ever seen on the subjects shows that while abstinance is the *only* guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy and STDs the percentage of people that fall off the wagon is high, and when abstinance is promoted above and beyond all else contraceptive tends to be low.

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Maybe better education is the proper response to people "falling off the wagon?"

Abstinence only fails if you don't use it. A condom can fail even if you do. If we are serious about getting rid of things like AIDS, the best way to do that is convince people to alter their behavior.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:I favour an integrated approach. Abstinance has it's place but it is irresponsible to expect people to forgoe something humans have been doing since the begining.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:It is also irresponsible to say "the best lifestyle choice is abstinence until marriage, but we don't respect you enough to think that you can do it, so here's a condom."

Nobody is asked to forgo sex. It is just channeled in a way that is most likely to ensure health and happiness. Having sex with your spouse is not the same thing as celibacy.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:It's disrespectful yes, but not irresponsible. They are only human.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


It is also irresponsible to say "the best lifestyle choice is abstinence until marriage, but we don't respect you enough to think that you can do it, so here's a condom."




I wouldn't say irresponsible, in fact surely making sure that there's contraceptives around (and making sure people know to to use them and how to use them) is the responisble thing to do. Looking at what people tend to do and planning a back up. Pessimistic maybe. I'm not sure I agree with "respect" in there either.

"the best lifestyle choice is abstinence until marriage, but knowing what actually happens in the world leads us to believe that you won't, so here's a condom. It's your choice but understand the choices you make."

Hell. To be honest I'm not sure I agree with any of the above, but that's a different topic.


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted: Written by: Patriarch


If we are serious about getting rid of things like AIDS, the best way to do that is convince people to alter their behavior.




You think you've got a problem with AIDS? Go check out sub-saharan Africa sometime. Last year AIDS there was said to be reaching "Genocidal proportions".

Part of the reason for this is outdated conceptions that condoms are somehow "bad" or "untrustworthy".

What happened to seeing sex as something that's fun, enjoyable and natural? (Most) Everyone does it, so why not just teach people how to have good sex safely? Sex is pleasurable and a great experience when it's with the right person, so what's all the fuss about abstinence?

Besides, what happens if you marry someone then find out they're rubbish in bed? Or that you're rubbish in bed because you've never practiced? Will that be a happy relationship? Will that get it off to a good start?


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:I'm tempted.... but I really shouldn't since this is off topic.

Delete

BansheeCat
veteran
Location: lost
Member Since: 29th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1247
Posted:Faith in fire: If you do not beleive in co-incidence, and state that perhaps the soul came into the fetus for some reason not yet seen, it would seem you believe that there is a purpose or a grand plan to events in life. Yes? God, fate, something along those lines. If this is the case, then would not death of the fetus/soul, whether due to abortion or otherwise, also be a part of the whole scheme? Maybe we dont see the whole picture, and the experience of aborting a fetus is somehow relevant to our development as human beings. Could it teach us something? Or maybe the soul in question was simply not meant to be here very long.


I can agree that we need to educate /promote safe sexual habits and effective contraception methods to prevent people from having to make this awful, traumatic decision to abort. Other options should be supported also, to make it possible if the woman wants to carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption.

But abortion needs to remain the legal and moral choice of the woman, who has the fetus inhabiting her body-- regardless of if one considers it a separate life form at that stage or not. It is not independantly living, not yet. Could it? Maybe, or not. But while it is still one hundred percent physically reliant on the mother, it is ultimately subject to her will.

Guidelines for the procedure are reasonable, like doing an abortion in the earliest possible stage, and with the least pain and harm .If in fact the fetus does register pain, to adapt the procedure to alleviate that suffering as much as possible. But when abortion has not been available, we have seen the disasterous consequences; women dying from back room versions, unwanted neglected children, smothered babies... etc etc, wont even outline them all, I am sure you know the history. It is also macarbe.

If you don't want an abortion, dont have one.If you are a guy, and want to ensure that your genetic offspring are never aborted, don't get anyone pregnant. If you want to support people, so they have better options available to them, preventative and otherwise, then do so. You can exercise your right to chose in a number of ways.

But dont let the government try to stop people from making decisions about their own bodies!!! I doubt very much I would ever have an abortion, but I would fight with every last bit of my power to protect the right for a person to decide for themselves, and have safe access if they chose to.

I am glad that the native population on the reserve intends to make a private abortion clinic available. I hope they do so in a way that makes it possible for women to actually "afford" to chose it as an option if they need to. In all sense of the term afford- mental , physical, spiritual, emotional- it can be a costly decision either way.


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: andrealee


Faith in fire: If you do not beleive in co-incidence, and state that perhaps the soul came into the fetus for some reason not yet seen, it would seem you believe that there is a purpose or a grand plan to events in life. Yes? God, fate, something along those lines. If this is the case, then would not death of the fetus/soul, whether due to abortion or otherwise, also be a part of the whole scheme? Maybe we dont see the whole picture, and the experience of aborting a fetus is somehow relevant to our development as human beings. Could it teach us something? Or maybe the soul in question was simply not meant to be here very long.




Or maybe it wasnt an intended part of human behavior, but is a moral wrong to be avoided. This is the conclusion we have come to with most other killings of innocent humans.

 Written by: andrealee


...when abortion has not been available, we have seen the disasterous consequences; women dying from back room versions, unwanted neglected children, smothered babies... etc etc, wont even outline them all, I am sure you know the history. It is also macarbe.




Why is it a disastrous consequence to smother or neglect the baby outside the womb, yet morally right to dismember it with suction, burn it to death with salts, or otherwise while in the womb? Im sure you know the other methods, so I wont outline them all. They are too macabre.

When abortion is available, we have seen the disastrous consequences: more people have been killed in American wombs than have died fighting in Americas wars.

 Written by: andrealee


...dont let the government try to stop people from making decisions about their own bodies!!!




No one is trying to stop people from making decisions about their own bodies in this matter. They are trying to stop people from making decisions about the bodies of their children. If I were to abuse or kill my daughters, the government has every right to interfere with my freedom of choice in order to protect them from me.

Libertarianism has its limits, and one of those limits is encroaching on another persons life.


Delete

BansheeCat
veteran
Location: lost
Member Since: 29th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1247
Posted:If there is a creator that did not intend us to do such things,he sure messed up in the human design stage somehow!! All this over an apple? Jeez.

Patriach, I completely agree that abortion is macarbre. That is why I used the word "also" in my sentence. So you kind of wasted your finely honed sarcasm.

Yet, it would seem whoever/whatever was the designer of our birth/procreation process did include a variety of methods stimulating the abortion of a fetus when the conditions for its life are not appropriate. It happens all the time, without our conscious awareness. Why is it morally unacceptable to participate in this process with the application of conscious awareness?

A one dimensional Christian version of morality is a weak arguement to me.

Yet, if one sees such behaviour as a moral wrong, by all means avoid it.Be proactive in the ways I outlined in my first post. However, those that do not see it that way should not be subject to the limitations of your opinion.


You are welcome to avoid all things you consider moral wrongs that have to do with anything inside your body. All I ask is that you do not do so with anything inside of mine.

That is the basic point and distinction: a fetus is inside and completely dependant on the womans body. It does not have a life seperate of this, not yet. That is why so many of us do not feel that it is an unacceptable "encroachment on another person's life" at that stage. The fetus has no life separate of the body it is attached to/ living off/inside. For good or ill, it remains subject to all the experiences and choices of that woman, until able to live outside her womb.

Once it can do so, it becomes an individual person, and then our society becomes,at least to a degree, commonly responsible for caring for and protecting the person. Not suggesting we do this very well, but that is one of the major purposes our laws and social systems are intended to serve.

I did not say it was morally correct. I do not judge that. Your version of God can do so if he wishes.

But I generally do not support the government or any external body making laws based on their, or even the so called "majorities", definitions of correct morality. There are too much differing opinions on nuances of morality.And before you bring up the fact that we have laws around murder , abuse of your daughters etc etc... I see that mostly as functional laws, not moral ones. They are laws that enable our society to function more smoothly. Restricting abortion does not facilitate that goal.


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Dr_Molly
Dr_Molly

Pooh-Bah
Location: Away from home
Member Since: 4th May 2004
Total posts: 2354
Posted: Written by: andrealee



...a fetus is inside and completely dependant on the womans body. (...) For good or ill, it remains subject to all the experiences and choices of that woman, until able to live outside her womb.







Which presumably is why there are new federal guidelines in the USA that:



"ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves and to be treated by the health care system as pre-pregnant , regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon," reports The Washington Post. "This means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control. . . . It's important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives, because about half of pregnancies are unplanned and so much damage can be done to a fetus between conception and the time the pregnancy is confirmed." (Emphasis my own).



I can't help but feel that this is a forerunner to a requirement that all women are considered pre-pregnant and their rights are accordingly curtailed. I do not think I am being paranoid.



In response to Faithinfire's apparent joy that abstinence is being preached at schools even more widely now, I do not think that teaching children not to have sex should form an integral part of sex education. As to it being taught alongside contraception, this is a quote taken from an article written for the New York Times recently:



Robert Rector, the intellectual force behind the abstinence movement, says that abstinence programs can't properly be combined with other elements in a comprehensive sex education program because the message is lost when a teacher says: "One option you might want to consider is abstaining. Now let's talk about diaphragms."





There is a growing campaign, by the Christian Right in particular, against all forms of birth control in an attempt to "alter the behaviour" (to use Patriarch's words) of Americans. Whilst altering behaviour from irresponsible, unprotected sex is a desirable goal for the health and welfare of the individuals concerned, imposing a religious set of values on a secular country, predominantly to improve the 'moral welfare' of the populus is inexcusable.

EDITED_BY: Molly (1148561138)


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:perhaps the high rate of abstinence failure is the attitude that people have of if you want to do it, it's ok. Abortions sometimes seem to be a procedure of convenience.
when you have sex, accept the consequences of it. If you aren't ready for this, don't have sex.
this does not include incest or rape, etc


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Dr_Molly
Dr_Molly

Pooh-Bah
Location: Away from home
Member Since: 4th May 2004
Total posts: 2354
Posted:I'd say quite the opposite. Abstinence is often taught to the detriment of educating people about ways to prevent pregnancy and disease when they do have sex (and realistically most people in the world are going to have sex one day).
It is then precisely the 'education' (or lack of) that these people have received that leads to their unpreparedness for protecting themselves when they do have sex.

As a stark example of this, America - which focuses largely on abstinence in sex education - has an abortion rate of 21 per 1000 women of reproductive age. The Netherlands - which has a comprehensive sex education program, starting at 13 years old and encouraging the use of both condoms and the pill together - has one of the lowest rates of abortion at 9 per 1000, alongside one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy in the world.

The first major evaluation of abstinence education is due later this year. I am very interested to read its findings and I can only hope that they will not be subject to so much spin that they become meaningless.


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:we aren't talking about teaching only abstinence, but actually including it now as more than a bulletpoint that Christian freaks alone support
in wisconsin, there is not a whole lot of talk about abstinence in public schools...my ex said they never talked about it and the reasoning behind it beyond the obvious...they just started in on how not to get the girl pregnant and how not to get crabs
walk into a few clinics here and all it is about contraception and abortions, not adoption or abstinence


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:Here's an "abstinence report", but it's written by the Democrats so some of why they think the Bush-supported way doesn't work may not be free of bias...



www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:I'll ignore the offtopic subject of abstinence.

 Written by: andrealee


Yet, it would seem whoever/whatever was the designer of our birth/procreation process did include a variety of methods stimulating the abortion of a fetus when the conditions for its life are not appropriate. It happens all the time, without our conscious awareness. Why is it morally unacceptable to participate in this process with the application of conscious awareness?




The legal distinction is an easy one. Human life at all ages is filled with things that will naturally stimulate the death of people. You will die, I will die, lots of people died today from natural causes.

However, we draw a difference between natural death, and murder. I am not guilty for your murder if you stumble down the stairs and break your neck. However, I am guilty if I intentionally pushed you.

I do not think laws of South Dakota should say that because people die naturally without our intervention, we should be allowed to kill them intentionally.

 Written by: andrealee


You are welcome to avoid all things you consider moral wrongs that have to do with anything inside your body. All I ask is that you do not do so with anything inside of mine.

That is the basic point and distinction: a fetus is inside and completely dependant on the womans body. It does not have a life seperate of this, not yet. That is why so many of us do not feel that it is an unacceptable "encroachment on another person's life" at that stage. The fetus has no life separate of the body it is attached to/ living off/inside. For good or ill, it remains subject to all the experiences and choices of that woman, until able to live outside her womb.




We have addressed such a distinction before, but I will do it again. You have identified two reasons why it should be legal to kill the child:

1. It is inside a persons body
2. It is completely dependent on another person

Clearly, the child is not "part" of the woman's body it is a distinct individual. As you pointed out, when people say that they want control over "their body" what they seem to mean in this instance are "people inside my body, that are dependent on me."

To evaluate these legal principles to see if they are useful, one technique is to create hypotheticals to test the outer boundaries of this principle. First, let us examine the idea that being inside the body should change the legal status.

Clearly, this doesn't works for most objects. If I walk into a jewelry store and put a diamond ring into my mouth, it does not become "my body." The government will happily interfere with "my body" to retrieve the stolen object. Your body is not a "government free zone" within which you are allowed to commit crimes. One cannot take the property of another person merely because it is inside your body. Does it make sense to say that you can take the life of another person because it is inside your body?

Such "privacy" arguments have been made by people wishing to extend "my body" to "my home." To a great extent, this is true. In your own house, you can paint your walls pink, move furniture around, and generally carry on how you see fit. One exception of course, is that you may not murder people simply because they are in your home. This applies both to people you have invited into your home, and to those who simply trespassed.

What about the distinction that the child is "completely dependent" on another person? Clearly, this applies very well to newborns, who are also completely dependent on other people in order to live. Similarly, people who are paralyzed or require the use of an "iron lung" are completely dependent on others for their survival.

We do not usually give the caretakers the right, in these situations, to intentionally kill (or even merely abandon) those dependent on them. If you don't want to keep your newborn, we do not allow you simply to cut it up, even though it is "dependent" on you.

"But Patriarch!" some might say, "the difference is that the child in the womb is dependent on a particular person, whereas a newborn could be easily taken care of by another person."

True, and a patient in an iron lung is dependent on that particular hospital's equipment. We would not allow them simply to kill him, however. Similarly, we would not allow them simply to pull him out and put him on the sidewalk. They have the right to send him to another hospital, but they must give him reasonable care, for a reasonable amount of time, to allow him to survive until he can be dependent on another person without serious injury or death to himself. Even if it takes months and months to find another place for him, they still owe him a duty of reasonable care until he can be moved.

The same works with the newborn. If you don't want it, you have the legal right to turn it over to be adopted by someone who will take it. You can't just kill it though, even if it may take months to locate a suitable foster parent.

"Stupid Patriarch!" some might say "the important part is the combination of the two factors. Sure, alone they don't make a difference, but when combined they present a clear situation in which you should have the legal right to take the life of another!"

Some may doubt that a suitable hypothetical could be constructed that combines both of these. Oh ye of little faith. embrace the bizarre. smile

Recall this baby:

Non-Https Image Link

This baby is completely dependent on others to survive, even more so than newborns or dudes in iron lungs.

Let us presume that a premature baby this size is born to this mother:


Non-Https Image Link


I'm sure you can see where I am going with this. A baby of that age is clearly dependent on others to survive. If we assume that the mother is also her own baby's only physician tonight, the baby is completely dependent on her.

If this physician mother with a large mouth puts her baby in her mouth, she has fulfilled all of the elements which we have identified. The baby is in her body, it is completely dependent on her, and is the same age as other children in the womb which our laws allow mothers to kill. Has doing these things in some way flipped some moral switch somewhere from "wrong" to "right." Should we allow the mother to kill her child in this situation?

You can see that trying to invent new moral principles such as this can lead to absurdity when applied in other situations. Other hypotheticals exist (such as reverse C-sections), but I need not go into them.

Currently, American law has said that children who are "born" are persons deserving protection from violence, while those inside the womb are not. This has led to the so-called "partial birth" abortions, done with most of the baby outside of the mother, but part of the head still inside the birth canal. If the head accidentally slips out, they have to try to help the baby live. As long as they keep it in, they can do horrible things which I won't describe.

I cannot point to why "location" or "dependency" should make the taking of another human's life acceptable to us. If anything, the opposite is generally true. We generally think that weak people who are entirely within your care deserve even more care and attention from you.


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:well said and thought out

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Dr_Molly
Dr_Molly

Pooh-Bah
Location: Away from home
Member Since: 4th May 2004
Total posts: 2354
Posted:Patriarch, may I ask you two questions?

I apologise if they have already been covered in this thread, but it is very long one to search through.

Firstly at what point do you consider pregnancy to begin: at fertilisation or implantation?

Secondly, what action would you consider appropriate in the case of ectopic pregnancy - where the foetus implants outside of the uterus?


Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: Molly


Patriarch, may I ask you two questions?

I apologise if they have already been covered in this thread, but it is very long one to search through.

Firstly at what point do you consider pregnancy to begin: at fertilisation or implantation?




According to medicalnet.org, pregnancy is The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body. This sounds like a good definition to me. I understand what you mean by the question, of course. I have heard that the definition of pregnancy has been changed to implantation so that abortifacients can be advertised as preventing pregnancy. However, most people really measure pregnancy from the last period.

 Written by: Molly


Secondly, what action would you consider appropriate in the case of ectopic pregnancy - where the foetus implants outside of the uterus?



From my research, the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy can vary from simply observation without treatment (where the baby simply dies and is absorbed), to surgical intervention (ectopic pregnancies can be life threatening).

Ectopic pregnancies have been carried to full term, but this is rare. More often, the baby has to be removed before it grows large enough to harm the mother (since it is growing in the wrong place). To quote again:

It would be ideal if an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube could be saved by surgery to relocate it into the uterus. This concept has yet to become a successful procedure.

We hope, of course, that eventually these children could be saved by implanting them in the wombs of their mothers, or a surrogate. However, right now not much can be done for them. We do not yet have the technology to support first trimester infants outside of the womb.


Delete

BansheeCat
veteran
Location: lost
Member Since: 29th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1247
Posted:Patriach, your ring inside the body example is a particularily weak argument, I expect better of you! The ring did not grow from the womans body, is not attached to it, can completely survive without her body, and several other disctinctions that I can't be bothered to write out.



But basically, I repeat, a fetus is not yet a distinct individual. It exists only as part of the woman until born. Putting a baby or a billiard ball inside some persons mouth does not work as an example because the baby would have already been born, and thus has previously obtained the rights our society offers. The ball has no human rights. Aside from that, it is not joined to the woman in an integral way, and can exist/survive without her. The example is absurdly poor as a means to defend your overall arguement against abortion.



It seems that you do not fully respect or understand the integrity of a pregnancy. The mother and the fetus are joined. It is not just something randomly stuffed inside a woman. It grows from her and within her, taking calcium from her very bones if thats what it needs. Hormones flood her body, changing everything. The fetus impacts her, and she, it. But it cannot exist without her.





As for why we should not apply our consciousness to the determination of whether or not to abort a fetus when the mother carrying it decides she is unable or unwilling to do so... The body does this naturally, when it knows something is wrong. The mind or the spirit may also be able to recognize when something is severely wrong. Our minds/spirits require us to take action to carry out the consequences of this realization. And so some people do, and abort.



I do not think it equates to murder, because of the reasons we have been debating- basically because the fetus is inside, grown from ,attached and dependant to the woman. It is not yet an individual person.



To extend all rights to something that may or may not be born -may or may not eventually become a person- gets us into the " every sperm is sacred" territory, and aside from enjoying the song, I doubt we want to take the debate there!





The dependancy arguement you lay out is also weak. The comparison to a person reliant on medical machinery, and why we dont remove them from that dependancy-- well, a few points about that. The first is that we do. The people responsible for enacting the life/death medical intervention wishes for that individual can and do determine that the life support shall be removed if the conditions are such that this seems best. We offer life support, but we are not always obliged legally or morally to have it in place, or keep it in place.





The second distinction is that the intervention that creates or removes such medical dependency typically happens after birth, when our laws and our society have agreed to call the being an individual person, and thus they become subject to our civil protection, have rights etc.





As for the mention of some bizarre horrific scenarios where the head is still inside etc etc. They are not the norm, and people that manipulate the legalities to such an extent are liable to find some way to take the action of their choice regardless of the availability of safe abortion services to women. It is sad that people will do such things, but I dont think that means we need to make the entire option of abortion unavailable. That example is an exception, not a rule. Women are not out there demanding the right to slaughter the infant as they give birth, head exposed or no.



For most women seeking it is an option that they exercise very early on it their pregnacy, when they have considered and rejected all the other options available to them.





I am going to drop from the discussion now, since I am procrastinating from work. My own thoughts are quite clear on the matter , having had many debates on such things in the past. I regret that anyone finds themselves in a situation where they feel they should have to do such a thing.I would like to prevent that as much as is possible. I feel compasion for all involved, but can understand completely why a woman may chose to abort, and will defend her right to that choice.



If it ever becomes an issue legally in my region, I will act to help ensure women retain their safe access. Up to then, everything here is just words, and most people debating on this formum already have formed clear opinions, whether I agree with them or not!



hug

EDITED_BY: andrealee (1148602475)


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:I do not think you have added any new points besides the ones already discussed (location and dependency), so I suppose I will simply stand by my previous reply to those ideas.

 Written by: andrealee


As for the mention of some bizarre horrific scenarios where the head is still inside etc etc... Women are not out there demanding the right to slaughter the infant as they give birth, head exposed or no.




I'm afraid you are mistaken regarding the U.S. The federal government recently enacted a ban on that procedure exactly, and it is currently being challenged by pro-abortion groups in the courts.


Delete

BansheeCat
veteran
Location: lost
Member Since: 29th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1247
Posted:I think if you reread my post you will find that I object to the oversimplification of the terms location and dependancy as they relate to pregnancy... and list some pretty solid reasons why. I did not introduce new information, rather focussed on rebutting your examples.No response to my rebuttal? Surprising.

I am sad if I am mistaken about women requesting that procedure in the USA. If this is the case, it is most strange behaviour. I still have a strong suspician that it is not a common procedure at all. People may just want to ensure they retain their right to have it, rather than the intention to actually use it. At any rate it is not a procedure performed at the abortion clinic here, I asked someone who works there. I dont think we do as much legal hair splitting in Canada, but thats just my impression...


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Ill respond then, if you really want it.



 Written by: andrealee





It seems that you do not fully respect or understand the integrity of a pregnancy. The mother and the fetus are joined. It is not just something randomly stuffed inside a woman. It grows from her and within her, taking calcium from her very bones if thats what it needs. Hormones flood her body, changing everything. The fetus impacts her, and she, it. But it cannot exist without her.







I do not think you fully respect or understand the integrity of the child. It is not merely an extra part of the woman, such as an arm or a leg. It is a genetically distinct individual that happens to be growing inside her. That individual can exist without her. It could have been implanted in a different womb by doctors as an embryo, and at about 25 weeks can be saved by current medical technology.



The other things you mentioned, such as drawing out calcium, making hormones flood her body, and being joined to the mother all happen during breastfeeding as well as pregnancy, yet we do not say the child may be killed during that.



 Written by: andrealee



I do not think it equates to murder, because of the reasons we have been debating- basically because the fetus is inside, grown from ,attached and dependant to the woman. It is not yet an individual person.







Those things dont in any way make it less of an individual person. It just happens to be an individual person who is drawing nourishment from inside his or her mother, rather than from outside (as he or she will likely do later).



 Written by: andrealee

To extend all rights to something that may or may not be born -may or may not eventually become a person- gets us into the " every sperm is sacred" territory, and aside from enjoying the song, I doubt we want to take the debate there!





A sperm has merely the potential to become a person: if it can find an egg. Once the sperm and egg join, a new human has been formed. From that point, only time, nutrition, and shelter need be provided to it, just as with us.



 Written by: andrealee



The dependancy arguement you lay out is also weak. The comparison to a person reliant on medical machinery, and why we dont remove them from that dependancy-- well, a few points about that. The first is that we do. The people responsible for enacting the life/death medical intervention wishes for that individual can and do determine that the life support shall be removed if the conditions are such that this seems best. We offer life support, but we are not always obliged legally or morally to have it in place, or keep it in place.







I think you are picturing a person who is incapacitated and cant speak for themselves, whereas I had in mind someone simply dependent on dialysis or an iron lung. For clarification, lets consider children in orphanages instead. Consider whether their caretakers should be given the right to abort the children.



 Written by: andrealee

The second distinction is that the intervention that creates or removes such medical dependency typically happens after birth, when our laws and our society have agreed to call the being an individual person, and thus they become subject to our civil protection, have rights etc.



This whole topic was started by a state deciding to extend civil rights to another class of persons. The laws and society of South Dakota have finally agreed to call the being an individual person.



Not that this changes anything. Black people were still persons, even when the laws of the U.S. said they were only property. This was a scientific fact. Likewise, no matter what we call unborn children legally, scientifically we know that they are distinct human individuals.



Whether or not it is morally wrong to kill a human depends on where you get your morality from, as was discussed extensively in previous posts. However, lets not screw around over labels. Saying that Black people were not persons was just a way to feel less guilty about abusing and killing them, it wasnt a description of reality.


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:ditto
what he said


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Ridiculous strawmanning. A foetus does not possess the same level of consciousness as a fully grown human being, if it has any at all. To compare a foetus to black people is an insult to them.

 Written by:

A sperm has merely the potential to become a person: if it can find an egg. Once the sperm and egg join, a new human has been formed. From that point, only time, nutrition, and shelter need be provided to it, just as with us.


The biological naiviety here is quite breath-taking. If all a zygote needed to become a newborn was nutritian and shelter then the swathes of human reproductive problems would mostly not exist. A sperm and egg together is just one tiny step further along the road than a sperm and egg seperate.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Page: 1...5678

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [south dakota outlaw* abortion] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > South Dakota outlaws abortion [215 replies]
2. Forums > South Dakota Area?
3. Forums > South Manchester mini meet('s?) [325 replies]
4. Learn > Retreats/Classes > Nick Woolsey > Poi retreat in Turkey! Fall 2016! *help/resource guests at tadah artist habitat in south turkey  for a week of poi  yoga ...
5. Forums > South PERTH Fire Dancing Night WED 22nd December [2 replies]

     Show more..