Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24147
PAGE 24 of 26
CTS- IMHO it depends on whether the baby is suffering or not. Some profoundly disabled (total care) children are extraordinarily happy. Others are in constant agony.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Since we're talking things that have nothing to do with anything:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yay or nay?
Religious Theocracies where Extreme religious fanatics like Fundementalist Muslims or Evangical Christians get to murder non-believers.
Yay or nay?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Euthanasia is always a very difficult question when immense suffering is involved. However, whether euthanasia is justified was not what I was trying to get at.
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- IMHO it depends on whether the baby is suffering or not.
I apologize that in my hurry, I did not clearly explain why I posted those 2 articles in this thread.
The first article has to do with the sanctity, if any, of human embryos. Would prochoice folks favor animal-human hybrid embryo experimentation? For example, I am prochoice, but these Sandeman-wannabes (Dark Angel reference) turn my stomach. Saying women have more legal rights than embryos is very different from saying embryos should have no rights at all (and therefore can be fooled around with willy-nilly).
The second article has the following quotation:
Quote:Here, the question is not whether a fetus is a human being, but whether it is ok to kill a human being (be it a term fetus/newborn) under the umbrella of euthanasia. My problem with this issue is that euthanasia usually implies the consent of the euthanized. In the case of babies, that consent is not available. Whereas I support the right of parents to decide for their children, I wonder if that right should end when they want their children killed. (We're not talking about terminating life support, but actual killing.) Absence of consent changes the ethics of the killing considerably. Would prochoice folks support late-term abortion for euthanasia purposes? Would they support it a few days later after the baby is born?
The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said.
For myself, my support for choice is very reluctant, especially for late-term abortions. The only thing that tips me over to choice is that the fetus is inside a woman's body, which must remain off-limits to government on principle. However, once that fetus is out of the woman's body, her rights can no longer supercede the child's, on principle. Once we allow unilateral euthanasia on newborns, it would just be a matter of time before age is no longer a factor.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!' Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
-- Source unknown
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Would prochoice folks favor animal-human hybrid embryo experimentation?"
I suspect these 'hybrids' wouldn't go anywhere, developmentally b/c of the genetics mis-match. Also, there are roughly 30 products on the market now where human genes have been transferred into bacteria, mold or other cell lines, to make pharmaceuticals (like human erythropoietin). I have the list elsewhere, so if you're interested, bump this up to the top and I'll get back to you.
I worked with a woman who knew (along w/ her husband) that their unborn fetus had a genetic abnormality incompatable with life. Rather than abort they went through with the pregnancy so they could 'say goodbye' to their baby - who died a few hours after birth in severe respiratory distress. I thought their decision was selfish, thoughtless, and cruel.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Somehow a small percentage of human seems less offensive than than mostly human, with a touch of cow. Mostly human approximates a "person" (or potential person), and it seems more wrong to mess with a "person." Ya know?
Originally posted by rue:
Also, there are roughly 30 products on the market now where human genes have been transferred into bacteria...
Quote:Of course, it's your prerogative to hold such opinions. I suspect the underlying assumption is that dying as an embryo is less painful than dying as a fetus, which is still less painful than dying as a baby. I question whether that assumption is true, or is always true. An alternative viewpoint could be that the baby got to live longer in the warmth of the womb, and that its death by respiratory distress was not necessarily more painful than death by abortion (which, if the fetus feels any pain at all, is not pretty).
I thought their decision was selfish, thoughtless, and cruel.
Either way, if one is prochoice, then choice has got to be the ultimate principle--whether the choice is to abort or to carry to term. Right?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
-- Arthur Bloch
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi CTS,
"SCIENTISTS in Britain have applied for a licence to create hybrid embryos using human cells and animal eggs for stem cell research to develop new treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's, stroke and Alzheimer's."
The idea is to put a human nucleus into an animal egg. So the nuclear human DNA never gets recombined with animal DNA (the mitochondrial DNA comes from animals.) This was the topic of another thread; the same thing was done in 2003 in China. At the time there was evidence that the cells couldn't undergo more than a few divisions. I did a really quick check, I haven't found anything yet that says that has changed.
As to death by respiratory distress v early abortion - I've had sad occassion to see a number of people with resp. distr. I suspect if you were to take blood epinephrine and cortisol levles you'd find them to be very high - indicating biological distress. OTOH there is reason to think embryos don't feel pain until 26 weeks.* Given the choice, I would think an early abortion would be the humane thing to do. But you're right, it is about choice. (* I have articles for these but they're on another computer so if you want references you'll have to bump this up to remind me.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I participate on a neurowebforum support group that includes parents of profoundly disabled children and parents whose children have terminally regressive diseases (mitochondrial disorder, brain wasting etc.) where their children started out normal before slipping into dementia and disability. Many of "our" children can't communicate, more than a few have passed away, and some of them have passed away in agony: contractures so severe that joints were pulled out of sockets, unending seizures, multiple organ failure and infection, respiratory failure and the eventually futile struggle for one more breath.
Here, the question is not whether a fetus is a human being, but whether it is ok to kill a human being (be it a term fetus/newborn) under the umbrella of euthanasia. My problem with this issue is that euthanasia usually implies the consent of the euthanized. In the case of babies, that consent is not available. Whereas I support the right of parents to decide for their children, I wonder if that right should end when they want their children killed. (We're not talking about terminating life support, but actual killing.)
One of the most infuriating instances involved a boy, at the time 14, who was mentally noarmal and aware but in severe pain from contractures and struggling with respiratory failure. The medical system's answer to his distress? Insufficient morphine, w/hold respiratory support. The kid suffered, and suffered, and suffered before dying. It was torture. I wanted to hop on a plane and throttle the entire medical staff.
Anyway, we actually discussed the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide (BTW most of the participants are very religious). As a point of reference, adults who chose assisted suicide do so NOT because of pain but because of lack of control. Well, many of "our" children can't communicate or participate in decision-making. Since we HAVE to make the decisions for them we decided that if we can't give them a voice, our responsibility was to help them be happy or at least comfortable. But if "our" children were in unending agony and facing death it was our responsibility to terminate their lives in the most painless way possible.
However, after providing information and advice, we tend to be rather suportive of each other no matter WHAT decision the parent makes. Nobody is in the other person's shoes. We all realize that.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just out of curiosity- what is the purpose of putting a human nucleus into an animal cell? I understand putting human nuclear fragments into molds or bacteria because you can culture the little buggers (so to speak) in vats in huge, harvestable quantities but the only reason I can see for the "hybrid" is to be able to reproduce complete human nuclear material w/o running into the other issue of creating a "human being".
But since the cells only reproduce a few times anyway, there just doesn't seem to be a point.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue and SignyM,
Very good points, both of you. Thank you.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.
-- Source Unknown
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Reading Roe's own deconstruction of roe v wade is informative of the level of inate corruption in the idea.
Rue is still a chick.
Nothing to do with the definition of life, but I think your answer is a dodge. I think you do this fairly often, and it's a rhetorical trick. Sure, we all have them, but when we're called on them we should accept that nobody is fooled.
My statement undermines the idea that 'capital punishment is okay because you only have right to life until you sacrafice it by your own actions' which is a standard argument for this pro-death position. But the innocence issue I feel debunks that. I suspect it is just an inconsistant position.
People have inconsistant positions all the time, but consistant ones are morally stronger, and I have no doubt that my aboslute RTL position stands up against the GOP position in the eyes of the average outside observer, and that more such outsiders would look and say "oh, the GOP position is inconsistant" more than they would say "oh, the DT position is inconsistant."
Outside of that, I don't have much to say about it. I think overall there are a lot of different mixes of "conservative" positions out there, and it's interesting watching them shuffle around like cards, or like sports teams trading players. Most recently, the reform movement lately is taking on the anti-immigration stance, and the GOP is giving it up in favor of the multi-ethnic. I'm not sure who is right, but it all lacks moral clarity. It's more of a game than a vision.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME