|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 09/15/2003 : 12:54:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Dr Mabuse, what if the situation is this.
You and your wife want your first baby. Do everything right. All the prenatals and everything. But in the 8th month some medical professional actually looks at the ultrasound and discovers your child has no legs, no hands, no eyes and likely severe brain damage. Otherwise your child is healthy?!?
You have a couple of choices.
1- You go ahead with the pregancy. At birth, the medical-industrial complex takes control of your child and spends all your lifetime medical benefits plus your lifetime savings. Your child may live to be 5 or 6 at the most or it may died within days or it may live as a vegtable for 25-30 or more years. You are now broke and cannot afford additional children. You have lost your family.
2- You choose to terminate the pregancy to protect your future family, financially and medically. However, this is a now third trimester termination and no one will touch you with a ten foot pole. You have options to travel to Europe or across the country to an understanding doctor (who was shot in the chest just 4 months prior). The procedure is not simple, and in order to preserve the mothers ability to conceive again the only option was a technique some zealots call "partial birth abortion" It takes 6 days to complete the procedure and protect the mother.
What is your ethical choice? Who has the right to challenge your choice? And on what grounds do they have to assert that challenge? Which choice is the most family friendly?
A couple of things.
Partial birth abortions are only used in third trimester fetus in the case of hydrocephalics. Otherwise, it uses the basic interuteran chopping up of the fetus and removal. This is so rarely done as to be near non-existance. It is also only done for pregnancies which endanger the health of the mother.
Secondly, your hypothetical is extremely unlikely to the point of absurdity. Children with such severe developmental problems of which you describe will spontaneously abort or are still born as they cannot take the stress of birth. It is a completely specious example which has the only purpose of eliciting a response of "yes" or "no" which attempts to demonize your opponent no matter what is chosen. "Yes" would indicate reversal of his original premise of no choice past the second trimester. "No" would indicate lack of compassion for his fellow man. This is a false dilemma. The conditions you describe do not exist in the real world.
I believe that Dr. Mabuse is saying that he supports choice for women to the end of the second trimester. Pregnancies which endanger the mother's life and hydrocephalic fetuses are still considered eligible for removal during the third trimester but are not the choice of the mother. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2003 : 16:41:52 [Permalink]
|
What you call a hypothetical to the extreme absurdity was my reality in 1994.
It was called amniotic band syndrome where the amniotic sac spontaneously breaks at 10-14 days and then repairs itself by taking cells from the fetus. The fetus continues to grow. In our case cells were taken from the developing legs, hands and frontal lobe. This is a mechanical problem and does not necessarily result with a stillborn or spontaneous abortion. That our child made it to 35 wks is testimate to that fact.
This is no "false" dilemma. It happens everyday. We met several parents in similar situations. Most parents we met had children with late diagnosed spina bifida but the prognosis is very similar. There are many many other conditions, accidents, and syndromes playing havoc with the reproductive process.
Now will you truthfully answer the question knowing it is a reality that could happen to you?
What is your ethical choice?
Who has the right to challenge your choice?
And on what grounds do they have to assert that challenge?
Which choice is the most family friendly?
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2003 : 17:07:07 [Permalink]
|
One more error in you piece. Most states will not allow any third trimester terminations, hydrocephalic or not. So what are the poor folks with what you define as "legitimate" third trimester conditions going to do? They carry it for months, knowing full well the prognosis, that's what they do. How cruel.
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2003 : 18:37:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
One more error in you piece. Most states will not allow any third trimester terminations, hydrocephalic or not. So what are the poor folks with what you define as "legitimate" third trimester conditions going to do? They carry it for months, knowing full well the prognosis, that's what they do. How cruel.
Who are you addressing? Me or Valiant Dancer?
If it's me, then you are jumping to conclusions. Take a coffee, lean back in the chair and wait for me to respond. My answer might surprise you... Right now I got my boss looking over my shoulder, so I'll get back later on this issue.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2003 : 20:32:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the original Hebrew the word that is usually translated into English as Lord is Elohim, which is a plural form -- gods, not god.
That is not a translation error. Look at verse 26 in Genesis chapter 1. It says let US make man in OUR own image. That is a carfully chosen word, speaking about the holy trinity. And please give me any evidence that it is myth. I have much more saying it's not. With the bible clearly saying it.
quote:
A 1 week old baby cannot comprehend Jesus and so cannot possibly accept him. Therefore if this child dies it will go to hell and be tortured for eternity. It never had a choice.
As I clearly stated before, I do not claim to know what happens to baby's when they die. Or people who never heard the bible at all.
quote:
This is not fair. This is immoral
.
You keep saying "immoral". If there is no god, who is it immoral to?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh? And what do you do if the doorbell rings, and when you answer it you find a man with a shotgun who says, "I'm gonna blow creation88 away. Are you creation88?"
I sincerely hope you would lie. How can this lie be a sin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would lie in this situation. God makes it clear that if someone breaks into your house or threatens to kill you or anyone you love, then not only do you have the right to lie, but the right to kill them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. Where does it permit this in the Bible?
Deuteronomy 22:2: If a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his death.
I have to go, but i'll look at the contidictions soon. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 06:05:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
One more error in you piece. Most states will not allow any third trimester terminations, hydrocephalic or not. So what are the poor folks with what you define as "legitimate" third trimester conditions going to do? They carry it for months, knowing full well the prognosis, that's what they do. How cruel.
All states have a "medical necessity" clause which will allow a third trimester abortion. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 06:33:48 [Permalink]
|
Okay, now try to find a provider in any state who will read the fine print of their state's limitations for that "clause" and be willing to take their chances with it. Maybe things have changed for the better since 1994, but I don't think so. I would bet that it has gotten worse.
You're dreamin' brother. |
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 06:42:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
What you call a hypothetical to the extreme absurdity was my reality in 1994.
It was called amniotic band syndrome where the amniotic sac spontaneously breaks at 10-14 days and then repairs itself by taking cells from the fetus. The fetus continues to grow. In our case cells were taken from the developing legs, hands and frontal lobe. This is a mechanical problem and does not necessarily result with a stillborn or spontaneous abortion. That our child made it to 35 wks is testimate to that fact.
This is no "false" dilemma. It happens everyday. We met several parents in similar situations. Most parents we met had children with late diagnosed spina bifida but the prognosis is very similar. There are many many other conditions, accidents, and syndromes playing havoc with the reproductive process.
Now will you truthfully answer the question knowing it is a reality that could happen to you?
What is your ethical choice?
Who has the right to challenge your choice?
And on what grounds do they have to assert that challenge?
Which choice is the most family friendly?
Amniotic Band syndrome usually does result a spontaneous miscarriage. (ABS accounts for 178 out of 10,000 miscarriages.) In the cases that are brought to term, 2 out of every 10,000 live births have some form of ABS. ABS is a tricky term because no two fetuses are affected the same. There are some that just loose a limb or digit, some that have digit webbing, and some that have other gastric problems. It is an extremely rare case where such a defect that affected your child will ever occur. Given these odds, the reality of it happening to me or anyone else, including you is on the order of being struck by lightning. Also your description of ABS is inaccurate. After the amniotic sac breaks, a portion of the fetus lodges in the rupture and the amniotic sac reforms with the lodged portion outside the sac. This restricts the growth of that body part.
You still present a false dilemma. It does not happen every day to the degree that it has your child.
Now to answer your absurd questions.
What is the ethical choice? Since I believe in situational ethics, I cannot rightfully answer this question. Ethically, the child is a live human being who has a low expectation of a quality of life. According to my religious beliefs, the soul has already attached to the child. Since the life of the mother is not in danger, I would have to say that I would opt to have the child. Caring for it as long as I am able and get the child declared permanently disabled by Social Security. This way, the government pays for the care of the child, which reduces my obligation. This does not reduce my ability to have another child.
Who has the right to challenge my choice? Since I have chosen a choice which does not violate existing law, not applicable.
What grounds to they have for challenge? Not applicable.
Which choice is most family friendly? Convenience to family is not the point of law. Whether we abide by existing law and work to better it for whomever comes next or violate law for our own purposes, we make choices that we must live with.
I note that you say that the child made it to 35 weeks. Was the child a live birth? Stillborn? If a live birth, how long did it live or is the child still alive?
I still do not see how a third trimester abortion is acceptable without medical necessity. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 07:11:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Okay, now try to find a provider in any state who will read the fine print of their state's limitations for that "clause" and be willing to take their chances with it. Maybe things have changed for the better since 1994, but I don't think so. I would bet that it has gotten worse.
You're dreamin' brother.
Classic Argumentum ad ignorantum.
Providers will do whatever is necessary to preserve the life of their patient. If a provider deems the termination of a pregnancy in the third trimester due to medical necessity, he need only have it performed at any one of the areas hospitals. (Third trimester abortions account for 1.5% of all abortions nationwide and are for medical necessity. (9,420 per year))
I'm in healthcare, brother.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 09/16/2003 07:13:00 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 08:29:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Dr Mabuse, what if the situation is this.
You and your wife want your first baby. Do everything right. All the prenatals and everything. But in the 8th month some medical professional actually looks at the ultrasound and discovers your child has no legs, no hands, no eyes and likely severe brain damage. Otherwise your child is healthy?!?
You have a couple of choices.
1- You go ahead with the pregancy. At birth, the medical-industrial complex takes control of your child and spends all your lifetime medical benefits plus your lifetime savings. Your child may live to be 5 or 6 at the most or it may died within days or it may live as a vegtable for 25-30 or more years. You are now broke and cannot afford additional children. You have lost your family.
2- You choose to terminate the pregancy to protect your future family, financially and medically. However, this is a now third trimester termination and no one will touch you with a ten foot pole. You have options to travel to Europe or across the country to an understanding doctor (who was shot in the chest just 4 months prior). The procedure is not simple, and in order to preserve the mothers ability to conceive again the only option was a technique some zealots call "partial birth abortion" It takes 6 days to complete the procedure and protect the mother.
These are very extreme examples...
Regarding choice number 1: I'm lucky to live in a country where health-care is state funded, so while it will be costly, it will probably not ruin me. Social security will provide for us.
I can not honestly say I can truly comprehend the hardship of making the choice.
quote:
What is your ethical choice?
I honestly don't believe one choice is more ethical than the other, you're pretty much damned what ever choice you make. If you believe in God, then I will not blame you for cursing him and tell him to go to hell for placing you in this situation in the first place.
Since we don't believe in God, there's nowhere to place the blame.
quote:
Who has the right to challenge your choice?
In the scenario you describe, I think no one.
quote:
And on what grounds do they have to assert that challenge?
If it was a child with no defects at all, the child could be delivered and put up for abortion.
quote:
Which choice is the most family friendly?
What do you want me to answer? The way you present the fact, the answer is obvious. A child with the defects you describe would hardly be call healthy, at least not by me, and the prospect of decent life is none what-so-ever.
It's obvious I haven't made my position clear enough.
* Whenever there's a medical reason for an abortion I have no problem with it. The closer you come to the expected day of birth, the more compelling the reason should be. A fetus showing physical defects counts as medical reason.
* Until the end of the second trimester, I have no problem with letting the woman decide to have an abortion for whatever reason she chooses.
* During the last trimester, there should be a way to have the baby prematurely delivered, and adopted in the first place. However, I find it hard to believe that someone would consider an abortion of a perfectly healthy fetus at this stage. If it comes to the decision of terminating the fetus, I think there should be compelling psychological reasons for it (since social, or economic reasons could be covered by adoption).
Abortion laws should not be just black-and-white as Christians, or "pro-lifers" wants to see it.
Since when has life been as simple as to fit into a rule-book?
It can not be set in stone, because that will rule out compassion.
And if that ever happens, we're lost as a human race.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 08:51:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
quote:
This is not fair. This is immoral
.
You keep saying "immoral". If there is no god, who is it immoral to?
It is you who keep claiming there is a god. You keep claiming that the bible is gods word. The fact that the bible says infant children goes to hell is immoral. Since when did the word "immoral" become transitive?
Since we have deduced that the bible is not the word of God, children won't go to hell. Dilemma solved.
quote:
quote:
Oh? And what do you do if the doorbell rings, and when you answer it you find a man with a shotgun who says, "I'm gonna blow creation88 away. Are you creation88?"
I sincerely hope you would lie. How can this lie be a sin?
Yes I would lie in this situation. God makes it clear that if someone breaks into your house or threatens to kill you or anyone you love, then not only do you have the right to lie, but the right to kill them.
(Emphasis added for clarity. //Mabuse)
quote:
OK. Where does it permit this in the Bible?
Deuteronomy 22:2: If a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his death.
You're dodging the question, Creation88.
We were talking about lying, not killing. Lying is a sin. Killing is not, as demonstrated by your quote.
What an ethical dilemma! The bible says you may kill the thief, but not lie to him. So what do you do?
What an absurd situation... however not unlikely to happen.  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 11:07:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
quote:
[quote]This is not fair. This is immoral
.
You keep saying "immoral". If there is no god, who is it immoral to?
Morality is a societal construct, not a religious one. Morality is a set of behaviors which are encouraged or proscribed within society. These morals are oftentimes contianed within religions but are not exclusive to a religion or religion in general. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 17:18:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
quote:
TW:
In the original Hebrew the word that is usually translated into English as Lord is Elohim, which is a plural form -- gods, not god.
That is not a translation error. Look at verse 26 in Genesis chapter 1. It says let US make man in OUR own image. That is a carfully chosen word, speaking about the holy trinity. And please give me any evidence that it is myth. I have much more saying it's not. With the bible clearly saying it.
The trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. (Jesus hadn't even been born yet. )
Nearly all creation myths have the same basic plot. One or more gods make one or more people and that's where people come from. This is a myth for the same reason that all other religions' creation stories are myths. (Except Scientology's, which is a crock.) Why should the Biblical creation myth be singled out from all the others? Many of these myths claim to be true stories, yet there is no external evidence for any of them.
quote:
quote:
tw:
A 1 week old baby cannot comprehend Jesus and so cannot possibly accept him. Therefore if this child dies it will go to hell and be tortured for eternity. It never had a choice.
c88:
As I clearly stated before, I do not claim to know what happens to baby's when they die. Or people who never heard the bible at all.
I asked this question of my pastor when I was 11. He told me that unbaptized babies who died would suffer in hell just like adults who didn't accept Jesus. That's why I wanted you to ask this of your pastor.
This is what I consider to be the fundamental contradiction in the philosophy of most anti-abortionists. Many believe that it is just for their god to torture innocent children for not believing even though they are incapable of believing, but they oppose abortion.
quote:
quote:
tw:
This is not fair. This is immoral.
You keep saying "immoral". If there is no god, who is it immoral to?
To whom is it immoral? Why, to any decent human being.
- TW |
- TW
|
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 19:56:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tw:
This is not fair. This is immoral.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep saying "immoral". If there is no god, who is it immoral to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To whom is it immoral? Why, to any decent human being
I hate that "if you don't believe in God, it is not possible to be a person of moral standing" crap.
Why do you have to believe in God to be a good person. There are many Atheists or Agnostics of upstanding morals....
They don't need God to tell them what is right or to forgive them.
It's human nature to stuff up once in a while. Anyway, it doesn't matter once you become worm food. It's your legacy that counts. No one remembers Adolf Hitler as a fine upstanding guy, just as no one remembers Princess Diana as a callous bitch. What you do in life is remembered long after you turn to dust.
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2003 : 19:56:52 [Permalink]
|
To Valiant Dancer,
I don't mean to offend but you've gotten yourself quite up on a righteous high horse about this.
Okay, so you work in healthcare. Well, so do I .. my wife is a psychologist and I am a healthcare operations consultant. So what. Do I detect a grasp at an argument from authority? Authority doesn't count when you're taking about real lives here. There are many PhDs who don't know how to operate a water fountain.
I agree, being hit by lightning is extremely remote, but it does happen to several hundred folks every year. So try telling them that they must suffer because public policy can't deal with small numbers.
And try telling the doctor that just walked into your exam room who says his hands are legally tied that he is a “Classic Argumentum Ad Ignorantum.” And the nearest person of compassion you can find next to Georgia is in Kansas.
You republicans just love to see people suffer for your principles.
Exactly how prevalent or frequent must my experience become before you will no longer consider it a “false dilemma”? Please draw the line for me and justify why one less is irrelevant.
EVERY third trimester termination is a personal tragedy, a family tragedy and a societal tragedy that deserves compassion and not your righteous claim that the suffering is appropriately within the law. How cruel.
You and your narrow-minded law have no right, morally or ethically, to force my family to suffer a financial or emotional injustice. This was not god punishing my family or me for something for which we should pay a lifetime of penitence. It was an accident of nature that nature didn't take care of. I have a family to support and nurture, and I will protect it as I see fit.
I sincerely hope you are never faced with the same "false delemma" but lightning strikes somewhere everyday.
BTW, one thing we do agree on, your human compassion is “not applicable”.
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
