 sj |
||
|
||
A Different Kind Of Death Chamber
|
|
|
Subject: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 28 Jun 00 - 08:05 PM I am incredulously horrified. I don't know how else to say it. Tonight, on national news (I should no better), I am informed that in some states the procedure known as partial birth abortions is legal. For those of you with weak stomaches, may I suggest you exit NOW..... I am referring to the state of Nebraska, in particular, were a previous ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court, subsequently allowing this procedure to be upheld. For those of you who are not familiar with this "medical procedure", I will tell you (with the least amount of detail possible) that the feet, legs and buttocks are delivered, then the skull is crushed while still inside the mother. I CONSIDER THIS TO BE MURDER. Aside from all the personal reasons why a woman may choose to terminate her pregnancy, I am the first to acknowledge that there are medical circumstances which require an abortion within the first trimester, such as the health/life of the mother is at risk, and perhaps rape. Additionally, aside from my personal spiritual beliefs, I have always felt that the decision should rest between mother and her own Higher Power. "Revenge is mine said the Lord". A portion of that quote is being borrowed from the thread, The Next To Die In Texas. I use it here because I am particularly interested in what the participants of that thread, feel about the above mentioned. Pushing the limit, or what? I want to know what you people think, regardless of whether or not you are Pro Choice or Pro Life. I consider myself to be a little of both. Many thanks. m |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Jun 00 - 08:53 PM The thing that I find astonishing is that people who would claim to be pro-life can be in favour of killing when it's done by the state.
And how so many people who see that it is wrong for the state to kill adults can see it so differently when babies are involved.
But please, if this thread takes off, could we all try to keep it on a level keel? No throwing bottles at each other. Or insults.
|
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:32 PM Yeah. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:51 PM Thank you, McGrath. I wanted to request myself that this thread not be reduced to nasty remarks as others have. I would also like to invite anyone to post anonymously if they have strong feelings but don't feel comfortable identifying themselves. It really only matters what you feel in your heart, not who you are. Thanks again. m |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Escamillo Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:59 PM I wonder who calls "partial birth" to an abortive process involving the physical destruction of the fetus. I've seen a documentary film some years ago in cable TV. Not for weak hearts. Not for normal hearts. Not for the worst of the nazi killers in history. This is the curious species we are. Un abrazo - Andrés |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:22 PM Escamillo, Yeah, except in a PBA it's not a fetus. It's a baby. Toes, fingers, everything. This procedure has been done up to seven months. For anyone who would like all the facts, go to tidalweb.com. WARNGING, the site does contain graphic photos and diagrams. Most recently, we can thank the Clinton Adminstration. He vetoed a bill that would have made this procedure illegal in the US. I feel ashamed. I feel stupid. I feel very very very sorry and I can better relate to what Praise was trying so hard to communicate. I had no idea that this was going on in the United States Of America. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Gary T Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:00 AM Some general observations: Typically, those who oppose most or all abortions see it as murder, not different from infanticide. Talk of choice or rights for the pregnant woman is nonsensical in this context. Most of the arguments espousing this point of view focus on getting others to accept what seems to be the glaringly obvious fact that it is indeed murder. These arguments largely fall on deaf ears. Typically, those who oppose most legal restrictions on abortion see it as a medical procedure, similar perhaps to having surgery. Talk of murder is irrelevant (the embryo/fetus/child is not legally a human being). Most of the arguments espousing this point of view focus on getting others to refrain from interfering in what seems clearly to be personal medical decisions, said arguments likewise largely falling on deaf ears. To a large degree it hinges on one's personal perception of what constitutes a human being. For most purposes, one is legally a human being starting at birth, though the law muddies this somewhat with consideration for loss of an unborn child in some circumstances. Many essentially accept this view. Conversely, many others (including the Roman Catholic church, I believe) consider that a human being exists from the moment of conception. This is not very workable, however, as a legal concept, in that we don't have a feasible method for determining when/if conception occurred. If I kill your wife two days after you've had intercourse, have I killed one person or two? What about insurance for the loss of the child? Many people would say that the critical point comes somewhere between conception and birth. Just when this line is crossed will vary from one person's perception to another, and sometimes will vary within one individual's thinking. The "partial birth abortion", coming rather close to the time of normal birth, and somewhat resembling birth, is naturally going to push a lot more buttons than a first trimester evacuation of tissue that does not much (or at all) look like a baby. If you kill a person walking down the street for no reason other than you just feel like doing it, 99.9% of the people in this country (U.S.) will agree that it is murder, as does the law. No real debate or argument here. Perform an abortion, and it's not nearly so clear cut--roughly half will call it murder, roughly half will not, many are of (at least partially) mixed feelings. The laws tend to reflect this lack of national certaintly, varying from state to state and time to time. Given the lack of a strong national consensus that abortion is always/usually murder, and the difficulties in establishing that a legal human being exists before birth, I would rather there be mimimal legal restrictions on abortion. I'm not even sure where I would personally draw the line if my wife were pregnant (it seems like an academic exercise to ponder that), and I wouldn't feel comfortable telling anyone else where they should draw the line. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Sorcha Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:05 AM Well, oh damn. I had a nice long non confrontation post going, and hit the wrong buttons. I'll try. I am not a Pro Lifer against ALL abortion, I do think there are mitigating circumstances, but it should not be used as a birth control method, nor should abortions after the beginning of the 2nd trimester be allowed.
I heard the NPR announcement, and it means a lot to me, as I only live 8 miles from Nebraska.As I understood it, the Dr. involved is the interpretation of the ruling. He was afraid it could be construed to mean NO abortions. He is however, the only Dr. in NE that does partial birth abortions. If you really NEED an abortion, why wait that long?
I do understand the position of those who say, If it is a REAL person at (X) weeks, then it is a real person at (1) week. My own personal criteria is whether (it) can live outside the womb. If it s/he can, it is a real person and deserves a chance. The kicker comes:
in WHOSE FAULT IS IT? Even in rape cases, not the baby's. But is the mother emotionally stable enough to raise a "rape baby", or stable enough to put it up for adoption? Adoption is a LOT harder than most people realize. By the time a woman carries a child for 9 months it is a part of her, and holding/not holding the baby after birth has little to do with it. Then also, the child will usually start looking for Birth Mother eventually and asking WHY? Most adoptive children have a lot of "issues" that are never resolved; most regarding being "loved enough".
A long time ago I saw a highway billboard that said
Ambivilent Sorcha, who has had an (early)abortion, and whose close friend was raped, and had/kept the child thereof (with BIG problems) |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: JenEllen Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:13 AM mjm; I'll respond, but I do so expecting the respect that I've shown to others at this forum. Like McGrath said, no bottles.
While in school, I worked for quite a few years in a women's clinic that offered abortion services. My personal beliefs really didn't enter much into it. I consider myself pro-life, and couldn't imagine a situation where I would allow conception to happen unplanned or unwanted, but it happens. My main objectives were that So, I can speak from first-hand that the partial birth abortion is one of the vilest things on this planet. Physically, a woman KNOWS well before this stage that she is pregnant. Most of the procedures our clinic did were 6-8 week fetuses that were balls of cells roughly the size of a pencil eraser. During pathology to determine if the entire fetus was removed, there were no fingers, toes, etc. Just a small amniotic sack. Our procedure was for one staff member to accompany the woman throughout the entire procedure. From filling out the paperwork, to conducting the ultrasound and Rh bloodwork, to assisting during the procedure itself. It made the woman more comfortable, and saved having to repeat details. It also allowed for the clinician to advise the woman about birth control, health services, and counseling. Our sister clinic in Seattle did abortions up to 28 weeks. I was horrified and refused to work relief shifts in that clinic. Children are born at that gestation every day and survive. This, to me, was not the correction of a mistake or sticky situation, this was killing your child. Personally, I cannot see how you can have a life inside you for months, talking to it and feeling it move, and then destroying it. Legally, I'm fighting it tooth and nail. I am a staunch defender of women's rights to their own bodies, but this situation has me against the ropes. My only hopes lie in education, and serious psychological help for the women that go through this. No one has taken the time to study the long term effects of this on the psyches of the women that have these procedures, and building those kinds of walls inside your head and your heart can do no good. My heart goes out to the women that feel this is their only option. ~Elle |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: alison Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:23 AM In medical circles the term "abortion" is used to mean any sort of miscarriage..... so when I say abortion in this thread I am using it to mean "termination".... I am not saying that I am pro or against here.. but as a midwife.. there are a lot of people who use it as a form of birth control... THERE ARE BETTER WAYS!!!! I don't know how many times I have read antenatal histories where the woman has had 10 abortions then been unable to have kids when she wanted them and had to go on IVF.... I am totally against anything after the first trimester.. with modern technology kids can survive outside the womb from as early as 24 weeks gestation... I just don't see the logic in aborting them so late.. if they have to be aborted at 7 months or whatever let them be born naturally.... they can survive... and could easily go to one of the many couples who are desparate to adopt.. the process of dismembering them does happen...... thankfully not here (at least not legally).... slainte alison |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:28 AM Boy, this is one that I hoped I would never see at the Mudcat. Not saying we shouldn't, just that it is probably the toughest one and I doubt that anyone will change anyone else's minds, etc. Bottom line for me is, it is a woman's body. No, I don't think it should be a method of birth control. Yes, I would rather the decision be made in the first trimester. Many more things which are much more horrible, in my opinion, are perpetrated throughout the world, including severe abuse of unwanted children, including female mutilation which in some instances means a little girl of 7-10yrs old is held down while her clitoris, inner and outer labia are hacked off with a rusty lid of a tin can and then she is sown shut with only a pencil-sized hole through which to urinate. And, yes, this can and does happen in the USA, just usually under more sterile conditions and sometimes involving only the clitoris. I am sorry, I don't mean to sound bitter, but anything that smacks of control of women, esp. about such a personal decision, really gets to me. kat |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: bbelle Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:33 AM Sorcha ... you are very brave to share your "experience" on this forum. I did the same thing, in the early stages of the Mudcat, and have lived to regret it. I am a woman who wishes abortion was not necessary but would defend, with my life, if necessary, the right of every woman to have that choice available to her. Whether it is used as a method of birth control, or not, if it is available to one woman, it must be available to all. In no way am I naieve and I personally know women who have used abortion as a means of birth control. I consider that type of situation irresponsible, however, knowing the intense loss I continue to feel 15 years later, I would NEVER say anything derogative to a woman who has had an abortion, early or partial birth. It is, without a doubt in my mind, the most intensely personal decision a woman would ever have to make. I told my youngest sister, who was 25 at the time, that I would support her 100%, if she ever had to make that decision, but to please take responsibility for her own birth control methods so she would never be faced with it. So, whether you agree or disagree with abortion (on any level), I would ask that you mentally put yourself into the shoes of the woman making that decision. And show some compassion ... moonchild |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:33 AM for anyone who is not sure of the difference between a fetus and a human being, please go to www.tidalweb.com/life and tell me that picture is not of a baby. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:51 AM In certain esoteric circles, birth has been observed under controlled circumstances during which was seen the "silver cord" of the soul/spirit entering the body/shell at the moment of first breath, with reference made to the bibilical "breath of life." There is also a metaphysical belief that one chooses their parents before birth and that sometimes mistakes are made or karma dictates certain experiences, with reincarnation a foundation of those beliefs. If one believes in such continuity, that death is not an end, but another cycle of existence, where one may learn more of their lives and the whys and wherefores of those incarnations, then termination of a pregnancy is seen in a "bigger picture." I offer these as observations and in no way mean to say that all should believe them or even contemplate them. I would also ask anyone who has not been through the experience, to do ask moonchild has asked...put yourself in that woman's shoes... And, to those who think it is murder, work as hard as you can to change the direction of religious and government leaders concerning the availability, reliability, etc. of safe birth control for women and men around the world. Thank you, kat
|
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: IvanB Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:58 AM Wow, this is a subject on which few of us are likely to change position very much. Like several here, I'm strongly pro-choice, but having had a wife who had an abortion prior to our marriage (not my present wife), I do know something of the emotional scars which can be left for years after. I'd like to believe that PBA is used only in cases where the mother's life or health are endangered and not as a late form of birth control. I'm not so naive as to think there aren't doctors and/or women who stretch the limits on this - I just hope they're in the vast minority. But in the end, I have to agree with Sorcha and moonchild, this is an intensely personal decision for any woman to have to make and it's not our place to second guess anyone's choice. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Sorcha Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:04 AM Thank you, alison, kat, and moonchild. It was not an easy decison, but I knew that I had made a mistake, and that I was too immature to raise this child, and that this was not a man mature enough to support me, even emotinally,let alone financially. I did have counseling before and after, and I am OK now,30 yrs after the decision, but I still know "his" birthday (sic). Actually, I was mostly OK a year after my decision, but it would have been good to have friends like you back then. I had none, as my parents did not, and never did, know about this grandchild. It was the one thing that I never could tell either of them, before they died. I had already hurt them too much, in too many other ways.
(Read, "I was not the perfect daugher......I was a product of the '60's") It is still difficult to tell an OB/GYN professional the truth when they ask, How many pregnancies? How many live births? etc.
Truly, I have no trouble telling you all this, my husband and my living children know, but it still hurts in my heart, and I don't see that any "lurker/stalker" could hurt me with it. In the same situation, I would do it again, and counsel my daughter to do it also.
And, I agree with you, Jenny moon, that if it is available to some, for some reason, it should be available to all, but I also agree with JenEllen, that induced partial birth abortions are one of the biggest abominations on the planet. My sister had a spontanaeous partial birth abortion at 6 mos. It was not induced, and the baby did not live, but not because of medical intervention. She was not even allowed to name the baby or bury it. The "remains" went into the incinerator at Brigham Women's and Children's in Boston, Mass, USA. She was never even allowed the privilige of admitting she had had a child. Was just an "IT", and she still has not recovered. This was 5 years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:06 AM I am truly hearing you all. I am truly appreciating what each of you have to say. Indeed, it must be a terrible burden for a woman to carry, to be placed in the position where she MUST decide. I have never had an abortion and because I can not have children, perhaps I am extra sensitive to all this new knowledge I have acquired tonight. When I viewed the photo at the mentioned web site, I immediately asked myself how can this be? How can this be legal? This is what I NEED to have explained to me. What I saw was a completely formed human being...did I see something that was not there? |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Sorcha Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:31 AM No, mjm, you did not see something that was not there. Human fetuses are fully, perfectly formed at a very early gestation age. The question appears to be, at what gestaional age do they have a "soul" and are "human", as opposed to animal/mammalian? Another question is, are Homo Sapiens the only animal (entity) with a Soul? I am convinced that all things on the planet have a soul of some sort, even rocks. All things are somehow a small part of a greater Whole, maybe Gaia, maybe Universal. You just have to make up your own mind about this, and we all know it is very difficult.
If you want children and can't have them, my heart bleeds for you, and I do understand about not wanting to adopt, if you don't. And, I would never, NEVER do the surrogate mother/womb thing; I just don't think it is an emotional/biological option. (still a very friendly thread, considering subject matter.Are all you others tip-toeing, or are we for once in agreement about a person's body?) |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: GUEST,mary g Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:37 AM if one was necessary to save the mother's life, why wouldn't a cesarian be done with an attempt to safe the baby's life, or at least spare it the agony, as well as the mother and the father (assuming it was consensual..) mg |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Sorcha Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:54 AM It is an option, mary g, just not done too often because the mother is the only one in the picture and she has sole choice, or sections on preeemies have an even lower survival rate than induced abortions or "normal" preemie deliveries. There is still the adoption thing to think about. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:57 AM Sorcha, thank you for the above. I reacted very strongly to the news item tonight and upon further consideration I thought maybe all the rage was a result of my projecting (so to speak) my own feelings about being childless. I actually am believer in karma/predestination, etc. I would not have made a good parent...I'm too much a child. At any rate, I'm having a difficult time with this. I'm having a difficult time making sense of what I saw on that web site. I have and will always believe that the decision must lie with the mother and her "Higher Power". I have made a great effort to keep religion out of this, in spite of the fact that I have very strong feelings there as well. But my only point of reference for PBA is what I saw on that web site. It is insanity to me. Also, I can only speak for myself, but I have been choosing my words carefully in this thread. Tip-toeing. I knew this had the potential to cause a big stink. But as it turns out, using caution and descretion when selecting words is a good thing. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Gary T Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:04 AM mjm, I'll attempt to shed some light on your questions. How can this be legal? The law is always more comfortable with black and white than with shades of gray. Born/not born is essentially black/white. 20 weeks/24 weeks/28 weeks gets into shades of gray. For anyone who accepts abortion at all, it comes down to where you draw the line. The law is not good at drawing a line somewhere in the gray--in fact we've been seeing that line dance around over the last 30 years. I'm no expert on this, but my understanding is that there are some (rare) situations where this type of late-term abortion is called for medically. In other words, it's not just a procrastination issue. So it's legal because it's medically valid and legislatively feasible. What I saw was a completely formed human being...did I see something that was not there? Probably, in one sense. It's obvious that the site you mentioned has a clear agenda, a major part of which is to make people feel that this is murder. They want you to see a completely formed human being. Now, if it is indeed a 7-month fetus, it's not completely formed, but it's close enough to give that appearance. The goal is to make people think "baby", not "fetus". Again, my understanding is that this procedure is quite rare, perhaps in the single digit category per year, nationally. It may not be that low, but it's IS extremely low in proportion to the hoopla and attention it gets. If you compare a 1-week embryo to an 8-month fetus, they're so clearly different it's easy to say "this one's a little speck, that one's virtually a baby". Compare 4-month to 4 1/2 month, and the distinctions are harder to make. Gather all the info you want, make evaluations and decisions you're comfortable with. Please be aware, however, that the site you've visited is not interested in your making a decision that's right for you--they want you (and everyone) to agree with them, and they are not providing an even-handed, balanced look at the issue. If you agree with them, fine, just don't allow them to manipulate you into it. I hope that helps at least some. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Sorcha Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:07 AM My own opinion--PBA is always insanity. There has to be another option. And, I am Pro-Choice. If a child can be given an choice, then let it be given, even if the birth mother thinks she has had an abortion. Is that really terrible of me? In agreement with the "Lifer's" here; it is never the child's fault that s/he was concieved. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Sorcha Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:09 AM Thank you, Gary. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: alison Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:12 AM I don't see why they can't do a normal delivery.... do an ordinary induction like you would on a full term pregnant woman.... if they don't want the baby to live then they don't resuscitate..... and yes I have known of this happening... thankfully I never had to see it.. but I know others who have and it has had a terrible phychological effect on them to know that they could have done something the way this and other abortions is often done.. leads to problems like incompetant cervixes.. so as the mother is physically incapable of carrying another baby to full term in the future (if she choses) without intervention (like suturing the cervix to keep it closed while pregnant)...... to answer a question further up....Human fetuses are perfectly formed by 12 weeks gestation, (ears, eyes, heartbeat arms, legs, fingers, toes etc.. recognisable)... I apologise if I have said anything to offend anyone in this thread....... I have not had to go through this ordeal, and hope to God I never have to make that decision.... because it's all very well to make a stand on an issue.. but you don't know what you would do if you were in those shoes..... slainte alison |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Sorcha Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:17 AM Alison, yes, I do know exactly what you mean. I had hoped never to have to make this decision, but I made a very stupid mistake, and I think a lot of us are "standing in the shade" here, with a lot of grey shades. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:28 AM Yeah, some, Gary T, on an intellectual level. I sincerely thank you. But I think it happens more than on just rare occasions, and from what I read at that web site, that Paula person had a lot of facts, data, leget quotes, reports, ect, to substantiate her "claims" of it never being medically necessary in terms of the mother's health to perform a PBA. I know that site has an agenda. I know that if I browsed a Pro Choice site, it would be just as impressive (so to speak). People believe what they want to believe is the bottom line, I suppose. I don't know. It will take a long time to work through this. Regardless of my spiritual beliefs, I will always keep my big trap shut regarding early abortions because a group of cells is a group of cells. There is no brain, no spinal cord, NO PAIN. I think that is what is most upseting to me. The fact that that baby/fetus suffers tremendously when that is done. You explained to me how this can be, and how this can be legal in manner simple enough for me to comprehend. You did help. I thank you again. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Sorcha Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:43 AM mjm, you do have to find your own "bottom line" here, and I personally, respect you tremendously for being so open minded. You are probably one of the very few whose mind is not made up, and therefore, open. I know that even I am still very mixed up about this, even having "been there". Mine was not a PBA, but was still a Theraputic abortion rather than a spontaneous. The whole thing is such a mess of opinions and contradictions. Every March 14th, I miss the child I do not have, even though I knew then, and know now, I could not have had/raised "him", nor given "him" away after carrying for 9 months. (In my mind, I named him Absalom) |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 03:17 AM Sorcha, thank you for your comforting words and sharing a part of your life which has caused you so much pain. That is a heavy burden to carry and I very much feel your sadness. (And Thank you all). But please don't respect me too much. I am not at all open-minded about what I saw on that web site. Perhaps only open-minded enough to say that I have no right to pass judgement on a woman who decides to have an early abortion. I have no right to pass judgement period. At the risk of starting a war here, I must offer this: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That was an all-encompassing statement. That's how I feel about most issues. But I have to (and have) drawn the line with PBA's. I will admit that web sites, whether they be Pro Choice or Pro Life can be inflamitory. How many PBA's have actually occured? How many is too many. I say one. In my mind/heart that child pictured, optiomizes innocence and purity and all of mankind, to say the least. That child had rights. That child a right to life. I'm lost for words, Sorcha, I'm lost with this and sick and mortified. I saw something with my own eyes, heard something with my own ears and yet I cannot believe this to be true. Funny isn't it. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Escamillo Date: 29 Jun 00 - 05:40 AM This is a subject where any well intentioned opinion could hurt somebody, somewhere. I feel that we should remember that pro-lifers are not inquisitors and pro-decisioners are not baby killers. We are all humans in one of the most deep dylemmas of humankind, for that reason many of us simply rely in religion. However I´ve seen something wrong in the general acceptance of birth as the beginning of life. A new born is different from a fetus only in the fact that he breathes (takes oxygen from air instead of receiveing it from his mother), uses his mouth to suck but is still fed by his mother, and is visible. S/he is as vulnerable, as unconscious, as avid of affection and protection at s/he was when inside the womb. If we were like kangaroos, our babies would be visible, being fed at their mothers's "purses" and still be qualified as fetuses for some months. If we were like birds, we would consider our eggs as legitimate babies for some weeks. The fact that we are mammals and carry our litters inside our bodies does not define any clear line to draw. Assuming that line is necessary for legal purposes, I think that it can't be drawn beyond birth, for many reasons (mainly child robbering), then it should be drawn some time before birth. I suggest to use the knowledge that differentiates us from animals. We do know when a fetus FEELS pain, anguish, fear, pleasure. This would be a good point to trace the line. Many times the law interferes with our decisions. We can't use violence against our children, we can't decide to stop caring them and can't decide many things related to our lives and families AND properties. So if our law penalizes abortion beyond that line, then it is our responsibility to limit our decisions, or change the law. And I mean OUR decisions considering man and woman, because we men do have our rights too, when we are a true companion and we are able fathers. I would accept a discussion with my wife concerning early abortion, but I would be the first to accuse her for murder if she exerts her "own decision" going to a PBA practicer. Or possibly I would not, but my life and the life of my other sons would have been destroyed. I hope this contributes a bit and does not hurt anybody. Un abrazo - Andrés
|
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jun 00 - 06:00 AM Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I feel that the manner in which it has been conducted demonstrates the forum at it's very best. I have always believed that when the writer respects the reader and the reader respects the writer, it should be possible to discuss anything here. I do hope and request that those who have bravely told of their personal experiences, will continue to be shown that respect.
My thanks for bringing this subject from the back, to the front of my mind.
What has been fascinating is balance between the emotive questions and the informed comments and suggestions. I think that Gary T's wish that "I would rather there be minimal legal restrictions on abortion," is one I would share. Because something is legal does not make it right and making something illegal does not prevent it from happening.
This particular process would appear to be pretty extreme but does that that then make other forms of termination OK? Those that would make all terminations illegal, will understandably 'spin' this process to further their cause. Life and denying life is about making personal decisions and living with the consequences. I would rather the legal definitions of when a life starts be reduced to medical guidelines. If the medical conditions are met, the decisions about whether to proceed should be left to those that have to live with that decision. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Jun 00 - 06:07 AM I'm really relieved that so far there hasn't been the explosion of anger and bitterness there might have been.
In one way that might seem trivial - worrying about how we deal with each other, when there are life and death issues being discussed. But I think that keeping the Mudcat as a space where, in between the songs, we can talk about things like this, and explain what we think and why, and understand where other people whose opinions we respect differ from us is important.
I don't think that a concept of "this is mine, I can do what I want with it" makes any moral sense, whether we are talking about our bodies or our children or our pets - or our musical instruments, and a lpot of other things, including the planet. We are custodians rather than owners. I don't think it ever makes moral sense to say "I have the right to do this" when we are talking about something that causes harm to another person. That's not the same as saying to the State or to someone else "You do not have a right to stop me from doing this." There's a distinction here which is often missed.
And there is also a big distinction between saying "This is wrong" and pointing a finger of blame at people who have got involved in it. It's the same distinction that is present when you were passionately opposed to a war, and at the same time feel solidarity with the soldiers who fought in it, and that's come up in the Mudcat from time to time as well.
As I have done before in this context, I direct people's attentions to the songs of Vin Garbutt. Here is a link to an article about him. And here's the announcement he wasn't allowed to put in his local paper when his son Tim was born:
On Sunday he was our foetus,
|
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jun 00 - 06:23 AM "From the back to the front of my mind." We are now routinely shown videos of childbirth…. Maybe we should also be shown videos of terminations? |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Allan C. Date: 29 Jun 00 - 08:02 AM For some odd reason, the pictures on tidalweb.com are no longer available. Or at least this was my experience when I attempted to take a look. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 09:02 AM Allan, in an earlier posting I gave an incomplete address. it's www.tidalweb.com/life |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: alison Date: 29 Jun 00 - 09:04 AM the first link didn't work allan, the 2nd did... the picture is pretty horrible, but then it is meant to shock...... I think it would have had more impact if they had cleaned up the baby more .... but I suppose they showed what they wanted to show slainte alison |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 09:17 AM For a different perspective, there is an interesting "fact" sheet, at www.plannedparenthood.org. I know each site is biased, but they do have some cited figures which include the fact that 1.5 percent of all abortions in the US are D&X, which if I understand it right, is the medical term for PBA. They also list some of the reasons why the decision to terminate may come so late. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 09:23 AM McGrath, thank you for pointing us to that article. Despite the topic of this discussion, I am acquring a soft spot in my heart for each of you. I hope this will continue. (The thread that is). m |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: SDShad Date: 29 Jun 00 - 09:32 AM God bless the Mudcat Cafe! Every time this topic came up at my favorite 'Net watering hole during the 90s, it could turn pretty acrimonious. Of course this was on a message sub-board entitled "Other Debates and Insults," so whaddaya expect? But 'Catters again prove what a high-class operation this is. Good, thoughtful words and feelings, one and all. I agree that none of us are probably going to change each other's minds on this one, so I'm not going to join too much in the rest of the discussion that's been going on, except to note that I'm essentially pro-choice. Not of the "abortion is good, abortion should be seen as mundane birth control" sort, but more of the the "abortion needs to be safe and legal because the alternative is even worse" sort. My wife and I having gone through a miscarriage of an unexpected but very, very wanted baby four months ago, I find a cavalier attitude toward unborn life unsettling (and in reference to other threads, don't assume that it's because of any particular spiritual beliefs--I'd feel this way even when wearing my "atheist cap"). But I understand that there are circumstances where it's the only sane, humane choice. I've known far too many women where that's been the case to believe otherwise. As recent miscarriage survivors (don't know of any other way to put it), I also have absolutely no interest in visiting an anti-abortion website with graphic abortion pictures. That hits far too close to home. Thanks for all the research effort, mjm, but no thanks. What I do want to contribute is this: like it or not, I think the Supreme Court was quite right in striking down this particular law. It's a bad law--a badly-, vaguely- and poorly-written law. And I think that was deliberate. The Court struck it down becuase its language was so incredibly vague and most importantly, nonmedical and nontechnical, that it could easily be interpreted as banning not only D&X ("partial birth") abortions, but also the much more routine and earlier D&E abortions. I'm convinced that the vagueness of the language was deliberate. The framers of this law were not honest: they tried to present it as a partial-birth bill, when in fact their agenda, and the agenda of this law, is to ban all abortions, or as many as possible. This makes the Nebraska law unconstitutionally vague. President Clinton has repeatedly stated that he would support and sign a partial-birth bill that banned only partial-birth procedures and included an out for life and health of the mother (the only circumstances under which I think a D&X should be allowed). And this is one instance where I believe that Mr. Too-Square-To-Inhale Dork Boy is actually telling the truth. But the authors of these laws don't want consensus, or any legal abortions at all, really. It's their way or the highway. And this intransigence (found on both sides of the abortion debate, really), only makes the whole tone of national discussion on abortion more angry and difficult, and leaves far too many people still suffering. Chris |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: GUEST,Peter T. Date: 29 Jun 00 - 09:38 AM As a foreigner, my understanding is somewhat limited about the turns this has taken in the U.S., but all the reading I have done suggests that the debate is not about partial birth abortions per se, but about using this as a tactical wedge to rollback all forms of abortion, since it is obviously gruesome and at the extreme end of the spectrum of what constitutes a "lifeform/baby/fetus", thus causing discomfort to all, even pro-choice supporters. The argument slips from: well, if you are against this, then the principle is established that abortion is a form of murder, and so on. This seems to me to be a familiar strategy for people in situations of various kinds who have found the main arguments to be ineffective -- in this case, either the soul is infused at the moment of conception, or that early fetuses are fully human. I am not judging the case: I am simply noting the argumentative strategy that goes for the toughest case, and then extrapolates backwards to cast doubt on the rest of the issue. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Grab Date: 29 Jun 00 - 10:01 AM As someone said above, it's finding somewhere to draw the line for planned abortions - shades of grey, and all that. The woman must know well before then that she's pregnant (hell, you get notice 1 month afterwards in most cases), and then she can choose whether she wants to keep the baby or not - if not, go for an abortion. But waiting 6 months to decide is just daft. I can see the need for this in the case of emergency operations where the life of the mother is in danger. If there's ever a choice, the mother has to take priority - by all means put every resource possible into saving the baby if you can, but if the pregnancy is threatening the woman's life then she has to have the choice to terminate. Otherwise, I can't see why you'd need that option. I don't think that the "it's not the baby's fault it was conceived" argument holds true for abortion - choosing whether you can support a child has to take precedence. Given the amount of pain in the world anyway, I'd much rather see one happy and well-cared-for child than a dozen unhappy, abused children. Pick any country in Latin America, and see how well the Roman Catholic philosophy of no abortion or contraception works... Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Jun 00 - 11:11 AM Arguing from an extreme case to get a principle is what people always do, on both sides of any argument like this. When people were trying to change the laws against abortion, that's just how it was done. Nothing dishonest about it. If you are in a fight you go for the opponents weak point.
That isn't necessarily to say battling things out is the best way to work out how we should conduct our affairs.
In a less belligerant mode the equivalent thing is to try to find some area where you and the person you are debating/negotiating with are actually in agreement. Then you maybe try to bring them to see that there is an inconsistency between this area, and some other areas. And no doubt the other person does the same to you.
And that is what I had in mind in my opening post in this thread "Pick any country in Latin America" that way of talking is getting close to throwing bottles. It asks for a response in the form "Only in America would so and so happen". (And I won't say what "so and so" is, because it could be a lot of things, bad and good.) |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 11:46 AM How do I say this. I am not an intellectual nor do I consider myself political....perhaps because I am too self-focused, extremely self-centered. I don't have the critical thinking skills to argue here on the same high level as others. Maybe this is a good time for me to back off and allow this to continue on in its own fashion. When I began this thread I was literally in a state of shock; I required information NOW and derived that from the fisrt web site offering info on the subject. My concern was/is about what is humane. In states which allow capital punishment, some use the means of lethal injection to terminate the life. I consider this to be humane as opposed to death by electrocution. If this medical prodcedure is at times medically necessary to ensure the health/life of the mother, then why is it not carried out in a manner which causes minimal amount of trauma to the the baby. To me, this practice is very much akin to death by electric shock. With modern medicine being what it is, I cannot comprehend why we use such bararic means. I do not see this issue as being shaded or grey or by any means complex. I cannot see how a ban on PBA would jeopardise a woman's legal right in the US to have an abortion. m |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: SDShad Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:02 PM I think the point regarding the current Supreme Court decision, mjm, is that the Nebraska law that was struck down wasn't just a PBA ban, and deliberately so. Had the authors of the original bill written one that was actually a legitimate PBA ban (even one without a health/life provision, though I'd disagree with them there), it would very likely not have been overturned. In short, it was overturned because its authors got grabby with deliberately vague wording. In my admittedly biased opinion, it seems that they're more concerned with scoring political rhetoric points than in relieving human suffering. Chris |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Allan C. Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:10 PM For some reason I feel compelled to say what I suspect quite a few others might be wanting to say. That is: I am deeply concerned with the issues discussed here; but have nothing to add to what has already been said so elequently. I love you all. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:41 PM At the website I linked to, there is a very good, paragraph by paragraph analysis of the Nebraska bill which, as others have opined, was worded very ambiguously and was aimed at eventually removing access to any safe and legal abortions. One other thing I wuld like to point out that anyone could do to help lessen the need for abortion and that is gain widespread acceptance and availability of RU486, the "morning-after" pill, which a woman can take after having sex without birth control and prevent conception all together. The fanatics would remove all birth control and all abortion rights. Many of them have been very successful at stopping even this measure. This is what I mean when I get upset about the control of women. When it gets carried to this kind of extreme, it makes me and some of my *sisters* feel equally extreme in our responses and demand for all options being available as our choice. It's really simple....better availability and safety of birth control = less need for any type of abortion. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Jon W. Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:54 PM McGrath, since you brought it back up, I'm going to respond. I believe that it is not a moral contradiction to differentiate between a life that is purely innocent (such as each unborn child certainly must be) and a life that has so debased itself that it has totally lost respect for life, to the degree that such a person willingly and intentionally takes the life of another person solely for selfish personal reasons. Therefore it is not a moral contradiction to be anti-abortion ("pro-life" being a euphemistic expression meant to play on emotion, at least as much so as "pro-choice") and pro-capital punishment. To inject religion into the argument: Suppose a person has a sincere belief that the only way to expiate the sin of murder, and thus escape eternal damnation, is for the murderer to have his own life taken by society. Suppose a person who has such a belief, at the culmination of a long period of weakness, takes the relatively innocent life of another. Suppose that, having realized what he has done, this murderer feels true remorse and rather than live, desires to pay for his sin in the prescribed manner. Would it be just and merciful to deny such a person the opportunity to pay (as he believes) for his sin by being executed? To remove religion from the abortion argument: There are currently (in the US) three legal categories of taking human life: capital punishment, self-defense, and illegal homicide. Capital punishment is legal only when the person being killed has been duly convicted of a capital crime. Killing in self-defense is legal only if the killing person has reasonable cause. These first two categories of taking human life are justified under the law. The third type of killing is, by definition, never legal. Now, to focus on abortion, or termination if you please. The question is, is termination taking human life? Unless you appeal to religion (i.e. arguments about when the soul enters the body), the answer is definitely yes. Why? Because a human fetus is human life. A human embyro is human life. A human blastula is human life. A human zygote is human life. It is human because it carries the human genome. It is life because the cellular processes are functioning. So the next question is, under what law can termination be justified? Clearly it cannot be justified under the law that allows capital punishment, since at no stage has an unborn human been capable of committing a capital offense. Therefore, the self-defense category must be used to justify termination. This leaves open the legality of termination when the life or health of the mother is endangered by continuing pregnancy. Since D&X cannot be justified as the best medical option for protecting the life or health of the mother, according to the AMA, there is no reason for that particular procedure to be legal. Therefore Clinton's statement after vetoing the ban is, while technically the truth, just as disengenous as many of his other famous statements. End of soapbox-standing. Jon W. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Gary T Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:56 PM mjm, compare this (from your opening post): the feet, legs and buttocks are delivered, then the skull is crushed; with this (from my local newspaper): it involves partially extracting a fetus, legs first, through the birth canal, piercing the skull and draining its contents. Still doesn't sound pleasant, I know, but notice how the words "delivered" (implying birth) and "crushed" (ouch!) compare to "extracted" and "pierce and drain". I can't help but see that the former description was designed to have emotional impact and suggest maximum barbarism. Does anyone know for a fact that the fetus feels pain in this procedure? This has been suggested in this thread, but I'll maintain some skepticism until I see credible scientific evidence, relating to the development of the fetal nervous system. A ban on "PBA" or "D&X" (dilation and extraction) would not affect the abortion options for the overwhelming majority of women. As pointed out in other posts, however, the particular law that was struck down recently did not clearly confine itself to this particular procedure. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: JenEllen Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:03 PM Fully agreed kat. My discomfort with the situation is the length of gestation. The PBA is a serious, invasive SURGERY. Not intending to dumb it down, but there are 'in' holes, and there are 'out' holes. You stick to that biological principle, and things generally work out okay. The cervix is most definately an 'out' hole. When is gets stretched and opened, it is to allow a child to pass into the birth canal. When a doctor stretches it with the intent of putting instrumentation into the uterus, you run the risk of pyometra, septicemia, and a host of other illnesses that with careful planning before-hand need never happen. I am supportive of the RU486. The 'morning afters' that supress ovulation, and make the uterus inhospitable are far more humane and responsible than waiting. But once again it comes down to education and support, and living with laws that are made by people who will never feel the consequences. ~Elle |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:17 PM I wish it were possible to register a wanted pregnancy. That way, as early as you know you're pregnant, you could go down to the courthouse and get a paper that registered the embryo/fetus as human. At that point you have to wear, say, a blaze-orange vest at all times. If you are caught smoking, you are Endangering the Welfare of a Minor, and if a courier on a bike hits you and you miscarry, it's accidental murder. If you miscarry all by yourself, it would be investigated as any other sudden death, and you might be found guilty of manslaughter, just as might happen if you had caused anyone else's death through no fault of your own. But if you aren't sure you want this particular pregnancy to continue, you don't register it; at that point abortion is a perfectly viable (oops) option, whereas it would not be for a registered pregnancy. Women who are anti-choice or anti-abortion could register all their pregnancies; women who were pro-choice might wait to see if they think they want this one. If a registered pregnancy is found to be in distress (and things like spina bifida might not show up till third trimester), the options are then very narrow, as you would then be contemplating a mercy killing. But the laws governing mercy killings would come into play, and if (say) your state allows the turning off of life support for the terminally ill, you should be allowed to do something (RU 486?) that will destroy the placenta or something (which effectively turns off the fetus' life support). If you aren't allowed to do it for your grandfather, you wouldn't be allowed to do it for your about-to-be-a-vegetable child. But that makes the definition of when a fetus (or even embryo) becomes a human being a LEGAL one, just like the definition of a human being anyway - it didn't used to include blacks, or women, and so on. But it could be up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide, not the government, and both sides would have part of what they wanted... Personally I am pro-choice and believe that abortion should be available on demand at any point in the pregnancy. I believe a fetus is a body part of the woman until birth, and that she should have total control over her own body. (I wouldn't outlaw suicide, either.) I would use education to minimize the numbers of women who would wait till after Quickening to decide. I have a sister who used abortion as a method of birth control for years, I disapproved of it and had little sympathy later when she developped dysmenorrhea, but would have argued vociferously for her right to continue to do so. I have never had an unwanted pregnancy, and have miscarried one wanted one and one I was very glad to lose. In case anyone wonders where I'm coming from, as it were. I also stress that what I believe are my OPINIONS. I would never try to convince anyone with different OPINIONS that they were wrong, but don't consider any other views on this issue to be anything other than opinion... In fact, I am pro-choice of opinions, too. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:19 PM GaryT, this si from the earlier link I put in: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus "We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain. "To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different." Jen, yes, I understand....better those risks under legal, antispetic circumstances than the deadly alternatives...best that all women and men have total access to all birth control. Thanks, kat
|
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:30 PM YES! And make research into it less scary and political! |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Mbo Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:32 PM Thank you, Jon, you've summed it up perfectly. Personally, I'm not sure why my religion so detests birth control. In the case of birth control, you are preventing conception instead of destroying the conceived life. That for me is ten thousand times better than abortion or termination or whatever you want to call it. So I'm pushing for the pill, RU486, condoms, etc...please use them so you never have to resort to abortion. Because it's not just some easy forgettable thing, as other said, it can have lasting effects. Better to prevent all this at the starting point with birth control, instead of suffering painful consequencies abortion. Sorry if I sounded like a public service announcement. --Mbo |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:37 PM When my oldest sister was pregnant with the first baby in the next generation, she called her Lamaze classes her "birth control" classes, in contrast to Contraception, which isn't about controlling the birth... Made sense to me! But then again she also (as a long-time pet owner but new parent) called the pediatrician the Vet for the longest time... |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Gary T Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:25 PM Okay, definition time. Yay! Birth control: various methods of preventing or attempting to prevent births, including all the following: Abstinence: purposely not having sexual intercourse Sterilization: removal or deactiviation of primary sexual organs Rhythm: calculating, and avoiding intercourse during, a woman's monthly period of fertility Contraception: use of techniques, devices, drugs, etc. to prevent conception (includes condoms, IUD's, "birth control" pills, douching, RU486, etc.) Abortion: removal of embryo or fetus from the womb and, in extreme cases (wars, etc.)-- Killing of some or all reproductive adults, usually within a plan of genocide (Done without consulting a dictionary. Feel free to correct substantive errors.) Since the term "birth control" has been pretty well spoken for, perhaps Lamaze could be called "birth muscle control" or "birth management". |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:26 PM Mbo, three great BIG cheers for you and it sounded like a personal endorsement to me, from a very wise and responsible young adult. Goodonya!! Mrr....thanks for the **BG**! |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: JenEllen Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:46 PM Mbo..BIG hug to you. Public service announcement maybe, but a wonderfully accepting and responsible one! ~Elle |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 03:33 PM Gary T, I do understand that in terms of the media, there is much sensationalism. They want us to react. It sells. Indeed, it is a matter of perception, which often times can become clouded by any number of circumstances. As I've expressed, my primary concern is to the humane aspects of PBA and if a fetus feels pain during this procedure. I went to the AMA. I trust this association is relatively unbiased. My search criteria was "AMA on abortion". The first web site link offered was from AllPolitics-AMA Recommends Alternatives To PBA. Very profound reading, if you ask me. I even spotted quotes offered from tidalweb.com/life, a Pro Life site. Nonetheless, what I wanted to know is about the suffering issue. I found useful, the number 7 website link, "Abortion Advocates Lie About Anesthesia". For anyone who is interested, scroll down to the section from National Federation Of Abortion, Kathyrn Kolbert, (Counsels Strategy Of Evasion) Paragrah number 2. This information is right from the "horse's mouth". (Not by any means is that intended to be a dirogitory remark.) Anyway, I found what I needed know. Thank you again, Gary T, et al, especially for all the time and energy and the incredible sincerity each person offered. You are all dear souls. m |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Kim C Date: 29 Jun 00 - 03:53 PM Wow. What a discussion. My position has always been, we know what causes pregnancy. If YOU don't want to get pregnant, then do something about it. I have known women who complained that "it's not fair that women have to bear most of the responsibility of birth control." No, it ain't fair. Life ain't fair. But the fact is, if pregnancy happens to ME, and if I don't want it to happen to ME, then I'VE got to take that responsibility. And I have, for the last however many years it's been, and I have never been pregnant. (I am one of those people who likes other people's kids.) Now. That being said, what happens when the birth control doesn't work? I used to work in a shop where about three, maybe four of the straight female employees had had at lease one abortion. I will not begrudge anyone one abortion because everyone's circumstances are different. But more than one? I have a hard time with that. But there again, I don't know the situation. I think abortion needs to remain legal but I haven't made up my mind what restrictions, if any, that I think should be placed upon it. I am pro-choice, but I wish more people felt like they could choose life. KFC |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Jun 00 - 03:59 PM Compare this "the feet, legs and buttocks are delivered, then the skull is crushed"; with this (from my local newspaper): "it involves partially extracting a fetus, legs first, through the birth canal, piercing the skull and draining its contents." Can't see that the latter description is any less distasteful than the first. I suppose it might have been written with that in mind, but it doesn't work.
If a fetus is viable, it's a baby. If you kill it, you're killing a baby. Doesn't make a lot of difference if you say you are crushing its skull or piercing the skull and draining the contents.
If you think all abortion is a form of murder, this is just an extreme and dramatic example. But if you think that abortion is not murder, (arguing that a foetus is not capable of living outside the mother and therefore doesn't have an independent life and so forth), this is something different, as several "pro-choice" people on this thread have said. Directly killing a baby who is capable of living independently is infanticide.
Of course there have been lots of societies where infanticide has been legal under certain circumstances, and there still are a few. And legal or not, it happens often enough. And there are people who would wish to make it legal more widely. But it's a different argument.
And please, don't lets drop into being smart-assed and sarcastic, though it's verey easy, and sometimes very tempting. There are real people in this discussion, and real people aren't wooden Aunt Sallies who can't be hurt. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 04:40 PM I now realize that my search engine is not necessarily yours and maybe a couple of ya may wonder where the heck I got the info for which I refernece. Sorry. If anyone wants to know, please ask and I will retrace my steps exactly as I made them (ATT&T Home Page, powered by exacthit I think), and then provide precise addresses which support my above entry. Sorry again for any confusion. m |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Jun 00 - 05:09 PM Kim C, I completely agree that pregnancy is up to the woman to prevent. However, conception doesn't take sides; both men and women who want this sex act to be recreational, and not procreational, have equal responsibility for contraception. Amazing what a little semantics can do, eh? Also, on those great definitions (thanks Gary T), the parens after contraception (which was correctly, to my mind, defined as that which prevents conception) included several post-conception methods of birth control, such as IUDs and RU486, which work more by preventing or undermining implantation after fertilization. This quibble assumes we all agree that conception means the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, rather than the viable implantation of that zygote in the uternine wall. Anybody want to speak to that difference, if any? McGrath of Harlow, I think I don't understand you - you say If a fetus is viable, it's a baby. If you kill it, you're killing a baby...[which] is infanticide...Of course there have been...societies where infanticide has been legal under certain circumstances...And there are people who would wish to make it legal more widely. So far so good, you're describing legal abortion as legalized infanticide to people who believe abortion is murder, I'm with you on that argument (not that I agree with it, but I follow it). But then you say But it's a different argument. How is it different? If abortion is infanticide then it's the exact argument...? PS: Please, I do respect your opinion, I am just trying to follow your argument. This is not Look I Can Poke A Hole In Your Logic Ha Ha. It's intended to be Can You Clarify This Point? I add this because of this being such a sensitive topic and my liking what you post on so many planes that I don't want you all POed at me.
|
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 05:14 PM KFC, many people do choose life and muddle along, positive or not, raising the child or giving them up for adoption, which brings its own set of long-term problems.I think we just do not hear about them as much. I can remember when I was 16 and rashly decided to be sexually active...birth control was NOT available to anyone under age without their parents' permission. Thus, many of us got pregnant. Abortions were legal in only a handful of states, so there were not a lot of options. I am grateful that I had my son at 17 and he has become a wonderful adult, BUT, I will always advocate easily available and affordable contraception and a woman's right to choose. Sometimes it just isn't all that black and white of an issue. I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that people DO need to take that responsibility, BUT until birth control IS readily available AND affordable, we will have need for safe and legal abortions, preferably first trimester. I also agree that abortion should NOT be used as birth control, in multiple cases such as you mention, esp. Although, I have a friend who had an abortion in her teen years, then, went on to have a son, marry later and when she became pregnant in the first year of that marriage, her husband demanded that she get an abortion, which she did. She also went on to have two wonderful children with him. I am happy to report that she finally got rid of the bastard (IMO) and is a much stronger woman now, than she was when he dominated her life. Sometimes, we just don't know the whole story of what has brought a person to the point of abortion. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Jun 00 - 05:54 PM Thanks Mrrzy for trying to undersatnd what I was trying to say, rather than assuming it meant something it maybe didn't and reeacting to that, which is what often happens in this kind of discussion/argument. What's been good about this thread so far is that it has been mostly about trying to understand and explain our different points of view.
What I meant was that for someone who thinks all abortion is killing, the kind of late "termination" that set off this thread is not essentially different. And it's not in principle different from killing a baby once she or he has been born.
But there are a lot of people who argue that to get rid of what is called an embryo at an early stage, and a foetus at a later stage, is not the same as killing a baby - and a main plank in that argument is that a foetus is not really an independent person because it is not capable of having a separate life outside the mother.
However there is a stage in pregnancy at which there is what everyone would accept is a baby, which is perfectly capable of surviving outside the mother - it just happens not to have been born yet.
And I was observing that people who believe that abortion at an earlier stage is justifiable can well feel just as strongly as any "pro-lifer" that to kill a baby who is capable of living independently is infanticide. In fact that has been demonstrated in this thread.
And arguing in support of legalised infanticide is different from arguing in favour of "the right to choose."
I think I've expressed myself a bit more clearly this time. As to my own views, I think that what matters isn't whether something is legal or not, but whether it's right, and that the whole issue of abortion has been muddled by people who think the law (and coercion ouside the law)is the way to stop abortions, and it never has been. And there is no "right to choose". And that's a complicated position that doesn't satisfy anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: alison Date: 30 Jun 00 - 03:26 AM Someone asked.... so IUD's work in a couple of ways... firstly they irritate the cervix into making thicker mucus which is more difficult for sperm to get through... but if sperm does get through and contraception occurs... they are also though to increase motility in the fallopian tubes so that any "products of conception" pass through the uterine cavity before it is ready to implant some of them also contain copper which irritates the lining of the womb (endometrium)making it less likely for implantation to occur... and it may increase prsotaglandin production, making expulsion of any conceptus more likely... (Info taken from "Myles Textbook for Midwives") combined with spermicide (kill them before they get through)or whatever... it's as effective as "the pill"...... but in this day and age... unless you are in a monogamous relationship with a partner you are very sure of - the barrier methods will keep you safer ........ contraceptive choices and information slainte alison |
| Share Thread: |