|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2005 : 07:37:15 [Permalink]
|
I'm not saying that rape victims should be unable to perform abortions, but would it be unreasonable to expect them to make use of the morning after pill in such instances? This by the same reasoning that victims of trauma inflicted by another are eligible to less compensation if they fail to seek psychological help after the event...
My original query about 'morning after pills' was intended to clarify what The_ignored's understanding of the difference between contraception and abortion is. BAs by the time the pills take effect fertilization will have taken place, the oozoa would by this time be an embryo, meaning that it would technically constitute abortion.
The ethical problem of abortion is that there is never any observable qualitative change which identifies the moving from object to subject. Frankly, most philosophers would say that a child is not a person until long after it is born. Of course, most insist that the foetus must be respected in that it has the potential to be a person...
Involving potentiality is always tricky in pragmatic issues such as this. Aristotle has written most on the subject in his theory of causes, he states in book theta of the Metaphysics - I forget which chapter - that a thing is potential only if it will be actualized. As such, only the children that survive past birth actually had the potential to become children...
As such, any line drawn whatsoever will be entirely arbitrary. Of course, this still does not change the fact that no one is going to deny a four-year old child the right to life nor is any going to argue - reasonably - for the rights of the individual spermatogonia.
As for the question of sexual education, we were reminded, time and time again, that the school nurse had a limitless supply of free condoms and strict rules as to what information they may divulge to whom about the students at the school. We were also visited often by sexologists and the like, generally they issued condoms to the guys with instructions to go off and have a 'luxury wank' while the women were treated with discussions about child-bearing, the social function of sex, the prejudice against women in these areas (apparently the swedish word for the female equivalent of an erection is not in most dictionaries) and we were informed that it is a myth that men masturbate more than women. That in fact women often stimulate themselves sexually without being aware of it, which was the most interesting thing I ever learned from these sessions.
And it seems to work well, at least here. Although they could harp on about it less; I half suspected at one point that the idea was to get teenagers so bored with talking about sex that they got bored with the act itself... |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 08:11:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
So, why do christians involve themselves in the secular world beyond just proselytising? Again, it is along the same lines as why do christians wear seatbelts and do other things to prolong their life. If I thought I would be going to heaven, I sure wouldn't want to stay around here any longer than possible.
I wear a seatbelt because it is the law in the state where I live. I know thats not what you meant. The answer you are looking for is that even though God has a purpose for my life I can make bad choices or just choices and die before Gods plan is fulfilled in my life. What would happen to my family if I made a stupid descision and died today because of a purily selfish descision? I don't beleive God wants me to die now and leave my wife and children to deal with it. It certainly could happen but I don't beleive it is Gods will.
Also, it is scary to die. What will it be like, the actual dieing part? Most Christians are not 100% sure of their faith. You cannot have faith without doubt, they are not opposites.
quote:
Is it just me or are fundie-christians the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet?
I agree, Christians are no better than anybody else. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 14:14:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
I'm not saying that rape victims should be unable to perform abortions, but would it be unreasonable to expect them to make use of the morning after pill in such instances? ...
This assumes all rape victims are simply attacked and that's it. There are abused children where it is ongoing. Kids and many women for that matter who are raped are not all going to go to the police the next day. Some don't tell anyone right away. Society makes them sometimes feel shame and responsibility. Partners sometimes leave raped partners, and so on. The emotional aspects do not make this solution of morning after pill always possible. Denial or not wanting to deal with it can occur until a pregnancy forces one to face such an issue. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 13:24:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
I'm not saying that rape victims should be unable to perform abortions, but would it be unreasonable to expect them to make use of the morning after pill in such instances? ...
This assumes all rape victims are simply attacked and that's it. There are abused children where it is ongoing. Kids and many women for that matter who are raped are not all going to go to the police the next day. Some don't tell anyone right away. Society makes them sometimes feel shame and responsibility. Partners sometimes leave raped partners, and so on. The emotional aspects do not make this solution of morning after pill always possible. Denial or not wanting to deal with it can occur until a pregnancy forces one to face such an issue.
Exactly. Sometimes the trauma of the rape is too great for them to seek help in time, or even at all. It takes time for them to become rational enough again, to figure out what to. And then there are the considerations beskeptigal mentioned. |
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. |
|
|
|
wajo
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 06:56:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not saying that rape victims should be unable to perform abortions, but would it be unreasonable to expect them to make use of the morning after pill in such instances?
I used the morning after pill once. It didn't work... their legislation won't stop mistakes happening, or humans being human or abortions happening, only where and how safely they happen.
The article didn't mention whether or not after the death sentence had been carried out the doctor's patients should be taken out and publicly stoned, flogged or what. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 09:21:23 [Permalink]
|
With the assumption that the pregnant daughter is to young to make an informed decision in the matter of whether to have an abortion, and so it becomes the parent's decision, here is what I propose.
The parent who denies an abortion to their daughter must therefore be responsible for the upbringing of the child. And that means they must be legally bound to do the parenting, pay the bills and all that bringing up a child entails, or the law makes no sense. Since the daughter was too young to make the call, it follows that the daughter should not be held responsible for taking care of the child. The parents made the call because of the assumption that they are responsible adults. At 18, the now adult child should be allowed to not be held responsible for the parents decision when she was a minor. A life decision forced upon her by her parents. As an adult she now has the same rights as her parents, and one of those rights should be to tell the parents “you made the call, the baby is yours.”
Anything less would be hypocritical. And, since this plan is unworkable, the parental notification and permission law should be thrown out…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 10:14:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
I'm not saying that rape victims should be unable to perform abortions, but would it be unreasonable to expect them to make use of the morning after pill in such instances? ...
.......
.....
Yes, you are right of course.
As to the issue of children prevented from performing abortions, the obvious solution would be to sterilize all newborns until such a time as they consider themselves ready to have children themselves.
Of course there is no convenient method of performing permanent, reversable sterilizations - that I am aware of at least - and it might make people believe that sex is safe when there is no chance of childbirth... |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 21:55:09 [Permalink]
|
As to the issue of children prevented from performing abortions, the obvious solution would be to sterilize all newborns until such a time as they consider themselves ready to have children themselves.
Of course there is no convenient method of performing permanent, reversable sterilizations - that I am aware of at least - and it might make people believe that sex is safe when there is no chance of childbirth...
No convenient method of performing reversalbe sterilizations? Sheesh, man, convenience is the last thing I'm thinking. There's also no safe or affordable way of doing it and IMHO it horribly violates human rights. Then again, maybe you are just trying to illustrate the difficulty of this social problem in a creative way? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 19:53:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Once again, I don't understand why christians care. All of these aborted fetus are going straight to heaven, right?
One of the SFN's resident fundies, long ago, decried abortion and bemoaned "the millions of lost souls." I asked, "whaddaya mean lost? Doesn't God collect them all?" I never got an answer.quote:
Is it just me or are fundie-christians the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet?
Yes. I think people like Robb simply refuse to admit that they evangelize a standard of conduct which even they cannot acheive.
They've also got the ultimate Get-Out-of-a-Conundrum-Free card, but refuse to apply it consistently. For example, it's "God's Will" that thousands of people die in floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters every year, yet it is somehow not "God's Will" that people get abortions. Or, they screamed for God to be the arbiter of Terry Schiavo's fate, yet they also screamed that a man-made contrivance continue to sustain her life.
Of course, as soon as they truly admit that "the Lord works in mysterious ways," they abdicate their right to say anything at all about how anyone else should live or die. So, they don't. They slap all sorts of rules onto their God to make Him much less mysterious, but for some reason, they don't keel over from all the hubris they're carrying around.
Robb may be right on one thing, though. Faith and doubt may be intimately entwined in that those who seem the "most faithful" (in that they're shouting their faith from the rooftops) also appear to be the least desirous of having their faith tested in any way. Those who are "Rapture Ready" should be applauding every sign of the upcoming apocalypse, yet they're often first to decry any such alleged events as "Satanic" or "against God's Will."
People who are confident in what they believe don't threaten others who don't believe as they do. People who are insecure and full of doubt will try to force others to think as they do, just for the mental support of having a peer group (even a terrified and subjugated peer group will do, just look at the dictators throughout history).
Which brings us to the image of the "truly faithful" as those who do, indeed, pray in secret as Jesus taught (and when someone chooses to abort their unborn child, they say, "it's all a part of God's indecipherable Plan" and go on with their own lives), with the fanatical and loud fundamentalists betraying the shallowness of their own "faith" by saying, "look at how faithful I am, everybody!" and stripping God's powers from Him through mind-bending apologetics (and even worse: through legislation).
It's enough to make someone like me, who professes no faith at all, somewhat envious of the "truly faithful," just because I want to avoid being associated with the fundamentalists through a common lack of faith.
Ugh. I think I need a shower after just thinking that thought. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2005 : 00:56:29 [Permalink]
|
It's probably worth noting that the only way a doctor could be procecuted for performing an abortion would be if the legal logic follows:
Texas currently defines "human being" as any living human from conception onward.
Any intentional killing of a human being is "homicide" - but there is a loophole in the law for doctor performing legal abortions.
Homicide is punishable by murder, and abortion for minor without parental consent are illegal, so doctors who perform abortions on minors withotu parental consent could be tried for homicide, and if that happened, they might get the death penalty.
Now let's see if any doctors in the next few years actually get tried for homicide, and then if they actually get hit with the death penalty.
I'm...skeptical. Then again, it is Texas.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2005 : 23:45:00 [Permalink]
|
| Well I'm sure the intent is to scare doctors into ceasing abortions. I do believe the rest of the nation would be so outraged should Texas actually try to carry out such a sentence that someone in the Federal government would find a way to step in. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 04:09:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Texas currently defines "human being" as any living human from conception onward.
Any intentional killing of a human being is "homicide" - but there is a loophole in the law for doctor performing legal abortions.
So, a miscarriage is potentially prosecutable as involuntary manslaughter?
"I didn't mean to have a miscarriage, it just happened!" |
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. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 07:14:55 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse, you bring up a scary idea... could prosecuting for double homicide for killing a pregnant woman eventually lead to women being prosecuted for abusing their bodies in a way that leads to miscarriage?
Indeed, the slope is slippery on both sides.
Look what recently happened in Virginia:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+ful+HB1677
Summary as introduced:
Report of fetal death by mother; penalty. Provides that when a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman's responsibility to report the death to the proper law-enforcement agency within 12 hours of the delivery. Violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Happily, this bill was highly controversial and was thrown out earlier this year.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/19/2005 07:33:36 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 01:58:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
I'm not saying that rape victims should be unable to perform abortions, but would it be unreasonable to expect them to make use of the morning after pill in such instances? This by the same reasoning that victims of trauma inflicted by another are eligible to less compensation if they fail to seek psychological help after the event...
I don't think they should be able to perform the abortion, but seeking the abortion. (Sorry, just had to.) Emergency contraceptives are not 100% effective.
quote:
My original query about 'morning after pills' was intended to clarify what The_ignored's understanding of the difference between contraception and abortion is. BAs by the time the pills take effect fertilization will have taken place, the oozoa would by this time be an embryo, meaning that it would technically constitute abortion.
Huh? Fertilization of the egg and implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall are very different. A fertilized egg that does not implant, is passed out of the womans body and pregnancy never occurs. Implantation is necessary for development of the fetus.
quote:
The ethical problem of abortion is that there is never any observable qualitative change which identifies the moving from object to subject. Frankly, most philosophers would say that a child is not a person until long after it is born. Of course, most insist that the foetus must be respected in that it has the potential to be a person...
The ethical problem of abortion is the forcing of another's morality on an individual for something that will never actually affect the other. And many ancient societies practiced infanticide where the child when born would not benefit the society.
quote:
Involving potentiality is always tricky in pragmatic issues such as this. Aristotle has written most on the subject in his theory of causes, he states in book theta of the Metaphysics - I forget which chapter - that a thing is potential only if it will be actualized. As such, only the children that survive past birth actually had the potential to become children...
As such, any line drawn whatsoever will be entirely arbitrary. Of course, this still does not change the fact that no one is going to deny a four-year old child the right to life nor is any going to argue - reasonably - for the rights of the individual spermatogonia.
Of course the line drawn will be arbitrary. The line as originally set by the catholic church in 1312 (?) Council of Vienne was as long as the fetus did not appear human. Then the US accepted as long as quickening had not occured. It was in 1869 when a Jesuit priest looked at spermatazoa through the microscope and declared a fully formed human being present that abortion when against canonical law. It was actually the establishment of the AMA that prevent women from seeking abortions in the US during the late 1800s early 1900s. In that, the AMA determined it would require a doctor to determine if quickening had occurred. Both the prior position of the catholic church and prior to the AMA usurptation of determining quickening match the arbitrary line as set by Roe v Wade, approximately 6 months.
quote:
As for the question of sexual education, we were reminded, time and time again, that the school nurse had a limitless supply of free condoms and strict rules as to what information they may divulge to whom about the students at the school. We were also visited often by sexologists and the like, generally they issued condoms to the guys with instructions to go off and have a 'luxury wank' while the women were treated with discussions about child-bearing, the social function of sex, the prejudice against women in these areas (apparently the swedish word for the female equivalent of an erection is not in most dictionaries) and we were informed that it is a myth that men masturbate more than women. That in fact women often stimulate themselves sexually without being aware of it, which was the most interesting thing I ever learned from these sessions.
And it seems to work well, at least here. Although they could harp on about it less; I half suspected at one point that the idea was to get teenagers so bored with talking about sex that they got bored with the act itself...
Is the education effective in preventing an abundance of unwanted pregnancies in your country? If it is, then it speaks volumes over the lack of education and availability of contraceptives to young people in the US. The only thing that is allowed to be taught about contraceptives is that the pill is 99% effective at preventing pregnancy, the condom is only 99% effective, and spermicide and sponges and diaphrams are only about 65-70% effective. The only 100% effective contraceptive is abstinence.
There is nothing taught that getting pregnant does not require penetration, pulling out is ineffective in preventing pregnancy considering pre-ejaculate. There's no information on the fact that antibiotics reduces the efficacy of the pill, that you must be on the pill for about 3 months before it becomes fully effective. None of this is taught. Yet these are common myths that are passed on through lack of education. If there is nothing illicit in the act, then it's not an acceptable action of rebellion that sex seems to be here in the US. Sex shouldn't be about rebellion, but about a person making an informed decision about their body.
From Mab
quote:
So, a miscarriage is potentially prosecutable as involuntary manslaughter?
"I didn't mean to have a miscarriage, it just happened!"
This is another of my problems with some of the 'pro-life' positions. Does this require that women take a monthly pregnancy test to determine if they are pregnant and can be prosecuted for a miscarriage. What about my case where an infection has left the uterine wall scared enough that I'm more likely to miscarry than carry to term? Not to mention that a woman may miscarry before she ever realizes that she's pregnant because of a defect in the fetus and through no fault of her own. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 05:49:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
With the assumption that the pregnant daughter is to young to make an informed decision in the matter of whether to have an abortion, and so it becomes the parent's decision, here is what I propose.
The parent who denies an abortion to their daughter must therefore be responsible for the upbringing of the child. And that means they must be legally bound to do the parenting, pay the bills and all that bringing up a child entails, or the law makes no sense. Since the daughter was too young to make the call, it follows that the daughter should not be held responsible for taking care of the child. The parents made the call because of the assumption that they are responsible adults. At 18, the now adult child should be allowed to not be held responsible for the parents decision when she was a minor. A life decision forced upon her by her parents. As an adult she now has the same rights as her parents, and one of those rights should be to tell the parents “you made the call, the baby is yours.”
You have some good points here. Parents should help raise their grandchildren no matter if they are born to a minor or not. The problem I see is that even though there are parent notification laws, abortions can still be performed without the parents concent, they just must be informed of the medical procedure. Also, the parent must deal with any medical or emotional issues their child may have due to the abortion also. I think the right action is that if a parent does not want their kid to have an abortion, they should be involved in teaching their kid how to raise a baby and pay for the needs of the baby until the parant can support their child. In no way should a parent say to their child, have the baby and by the way you are on your own.
I get the feeling here that most would think that a 16 year old having a baby would screw up their lives. I have heard it before, why would you want to have a baby when your whole life is in front of you. It will only hold you back. This puts babies(people) after life goals and diminishes the value of life. All life is valuable, even babies born of 16 year olds and rape victims. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
