View Full Version : here we go again...
I dig abstinence, and I think it should be taught -- to be sure.
I also believe that FAM should be taught to call boys and girls -- not so that they'll use it as a birth control method, but because knowledge (of bodies) often equates to power and the power to make better decisions.
I do wish I would have learned FAM a good decade before I did -- because I used it to solve many health problems, including those that impacted on fertility. We also used it as a method of birth control (i have not used chemical birth control -- i tried for one month, but just. . . didn't find it right for me), and then barrier methods and abstinence as well (particularly when fertile).
For me, I was raised understanding that sex had a lot of power -- and that it was a beautiful, wonderful thing that was both recreational and procreational. But it also has contexts, and requires responsibility.
Zoe, dear, it's become pretty clear to me that no matter what I say you will twist it into an insult to you, the Amish, and your experiences as a young woman growing up.
Saying you are young is not an insult. I meant it quite literally, not derisively. I'm guessing you are in your late 20's early 30's. To me that's young. Chances are I've been married longer than you've been alive. Whether you admit it or not, older people, who are paying attention, have experienced life, and know more about life, than young people, even those who are paying attention. It's simple mathematics. Just as you have experienced more and know more than a 20 year old, I have experienced more and know more than you. That's not an insult. It's the way life is. Unless you live in a cave, you gain knowledge and experience by simply existing longer.
And one thing I do know, from reading your very extensive posts, is that no matter what I say, you will not be satisfied. You will find a devil under every rock only because you expect to find one. And you will find an insult in every word for the same reason. I'm sure you have heard the saying, "to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". I think we can apply that here.
I never disparaged the Amish, and I never disparaged you. I did get a little annoyed at your constant 'untruth' saying i called the Amish backwards, but I have come, slowly, to the truth of you. It doesn't really matter what I say, does it. It's not about me.
I stand by my words. I think American Amish youth are at a disadvantage in a rapidly changing, modern America. The world is spinning by so fast and furious, these bright, capable youth will be left in the dust, or the sect will go the way of the shakers.
I hope you can find peace with your suspicions. Not everyone is your enemy. Something I learned as I grew older. For the most part, people generally do say what they mean, straight up. No need to 'read into' what someone says. It's right there. Take it at face value. It'll save you a whole lot of angst later on.
iris lily
3-15-12, 11:31pm
I've already brought it up twice, perhaps three times. So has Alan, so have a few other people. How is it that we are saying "no one?"
ok, I remember, besides Alan, you have expressed similar sentiment.
Peggy,
Foremost, I've already been satisfied on your opinion on the amish. As I stated, I accept your reframing, and assert that you did not intend to be disparaging -- which is what I both believed all along, for whatever it's worth.
But, secondarily, you continue to assert that you haven't' been condescending to me, while simultaneously doing that which is condescending.
Whether you admit it or not, older people, who are paying attention, have experienced life, and know more about life, than young people, even those who are paying attention. It's simple mathematics. Just as you have experienced more and know more than a 20 year old, I have experienced more and know more than you. That's not an insult. It's the way life is. Unless you live in a cave, you gain knowledge and experience by simply existing longer.
Emphasis, mine. Here are the three statements run together: It is simple mathematics. I have experienced and know more than you. It's the way life is.
This absolutism is absurd.
And it is condescending. Let me suggest, for a moment, that I actually know more than you.
For example: I know several amish families personally, and therefore by dint of that experience, I know what their lifestyles are like, what pressures modernity puts on their lifestyles, and the relative pressures between amish life and modernity that is put on teenagers as they choose whether to join their communities or not.
I state this not because I want to discuss the amish any more. I accept your position as your own, but I think it is based in ignorance, not knowledge or experience. You are welcome to your opinion.
But until you can say that you have experienced life along side amish people, until you have asked them questions about their own lives with openness and curiosity, been invited into their homes -- you cannot absolutely state that your opinion is reality, nor that you have more knowledge and experience that I do.
And yet, you have done this. Several times.
And what I find truly, truly frustrating is not these condescending statements themselves.
What I find truly frustrating is that you still are playing the victim, and are again, attributing things to me that lack any form of evidence what so ever.
I "twist" your words -- poor, victimized peggy!
You hope that I can "find peace with my suspicions" -- what suspicions? There are no evidence of suspicions. There is only evidence of your statements and explanations as to why they are condescending.
"not everyone is your enemy" -- whom did I ever cast as an "enemy?" You? of course not. There's no evidence of this.
"Something I learned as I grew older." Sorry that it took you so long to get there. I took refuge in buddhism at age 20 (after practicing for 6 years). In buddhism, we are taught that there are no enemies, only strangers and friends. I do have enemies -- three of them. I am working -- through tonglen meditation -- on that. I have been for several years (each one is newer than the other, and I think the first is closely reverting to Friend). But, no, you are not my enemy -- and there's no evidence in our posts that I would consider you thus. Perhaps you are just being hyperbolic?
For the most part, people generally do say what they mean, straight up. No need to 'read into' what someone says. It's right there. Take it at face value. It'll save you a whole lot of angst later on.
In irony, this is what I have been doing all along. What you have actually been asking me to do is read into your posts, rather than staying "straight up" what you mean such that it can be taken at face value.
I have quoted you directly. That is face value. It is what you are saying, no 'reading in,' no 'twisting,' and no 'demonizing.'
You can't demonstrate any of these claims that you've made against me, btu I've demonstrated *every* claim that I've asserted against you.
Truly, what gives? YOu simply assume that I "want" to have an enemy? that I "want" to demonize you?
Or rather, could it actually be that you are. . .gasp. . .
wrong?
iris lily --
I figure as much. :)
I think the difficulty arises is that we are often talking about two different people.
For people who want to talk about the baby, the audience that is concerned about the women being left out of the equation want to make sure that they (women) aren't.
For people who want to talk about the woman, the audience that is concerned about the baby being left out of the equation want to make sure that they (babies) aren't!
But in the process of trying to get to this most basic understanding, people get all caught up. But the woman! But the baby!
And it quickly devolves. Those who want to talk about babies get called women-oppressors. Those who want to talk about women get called immoral baby-killers.
The reality is that there is actually a lot of common ground.
And I know this because I've "believed" on both sides of the equation.
Raised catholic, you can bet your buttons I was raised pro-life. I know the arguments and perspectives inside out and sideways both directions. Pretty much, there isn't a single pro-life argument that you can put forth that I haven't heard, or argued myself in debate classes.
But, as I became older, I started to see a much wider perspective -- particularly of how other people viewed things. Like, it was surprising to me to learn that jewish people don't' believe life begins until a baby takes it's first breath. Therefore, any abortion happening before a baby would take it's first breath is not killing (murder).
So this brought forth for me, the conundrum: how does a government of a diverse population with widely different beliefs -- some believing that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is killing (murder), while others believe that life begins at the first breath after birth and therefore abortion is not killing (murder), while even more others believe something in the middle or lots of different things in the middle?
How do we manage, likewise, the fact that we *know* that one person in the equation has all of the requirements of citizenry met -- and therefore all of the rights and responsibilities. We know, for example, that the adult woman in the equation is a fully capable human being, who has the full legal status of her state and federal governments. But we do not know what status the child has -- if any -- and when (PP v Casey has dealt with this issue -- states decide when the baby becomes a citizen and therefore when rights and responsibilities attach).
So when we are in this discussion, there is actually *so much* complexity. . .and then the individual moral arguments as well (such as how each individual understands and defines her context, and therefore would make moral decisions from that understanding based on her own ethical guidelines, spiritual understandings, scientific understandings etc).
At the end of the day, this topic is very deep and very broad.
I think that this board -- unlike many others -- has managed to discuss it in a pretty open way. It took quite a long, long time before it got to the idea of someone being a baby killer. the whole woman-oppressor came earlier (toward alan). It probably came earlier because it was a Man bringing it up against the responses of Women -- and I find this is pretty common. It's a sort of "what would you know? YOu are a man! (sexist)" arguments that come up quite frequently.
But, that is not to say that various social control/shaming methods aren't being used -- but by whom? Men? women? religious organizations? It's important to know how this social policing and sexism in general exists in our culture -- and within ourselves and our thoughts on an on-going basis.
because until we can uncover and release those things, then the sexism will continue.
loosechickens
3-16-12, 12:27am
I think we can argue abortion until the cows come home, but the practicality of it is that abortion has been practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years, even infanticide of already born infants was common in some eras. In our modern days, studies show that in places and countries where abortion is illegal, just as many, sometimes MORE abortions occur, not fewer. The only difference between countries where it is illegal and ones where it is legal is not how many abortions per so many women occur, what is different is the number of women who die......many where it is illegal and a criminal abortion business flourishes, and safe for women where it is legal and done by medical professionals.
I wish every child were a wanted child, and that every child could be born into a home where they will flourish. But the real world is not that place, much child abuse and killing occurs among the population of children who started from unwanted pregnancies, not every woman has options, some don't even have control over whether contraception is used, or even whether or not they have sex. Methods of contraception are not foolproof, and the idea that a victim of rape should somehow look upon a pregnancy as a "gift from God", just boggles my mind. Is the reward for rapists to assist them in passing along their DNA for posterity, at the cost of their victims?
If making abortion illegal would eliminate abortions, I can see where one might wish for that.....but since the number of abortions does NOT go down because of illegality, but the number of WOMEN who die DOES go up, a lot.......then it would seem that putting our efforts toward making sure the fewest possible unwanted pregnancies occur would be far more worthy of our efforts.
One would think THAT would be something that all sides could agree upon, but it does seem sometimes as though some who are most vociferous about being anti-abortion, also seem to be anti-contraceptive, anti-family planning, putting as many obstacles as possible to the point where they manage to cut off their noses to spite their faces, causing ever MORE unwanted pregnancies, and hence, larger numbers of abortions......and the wheel keeps turning........
But so far, we really haven't been talking about getting rid of abortion, btu simply where the restrictions on it start, and what things must be overcome (by the woman seeking one) to get one.
For some, these standards are too loose; for others, too strict.
This particular incarnation (va law we initially started to discuss) has two elements:
1. a vaginal ultrasound (which was clarified that the mother could choose vaginal or abdominal);
2. showing the pregnant woman the baby within her, having her hear the heart beat.
The relevant question, I think, is whether or not this standard is unreasonable.
Now, for the first part, I think that most people have fairly argued that it is not appropriate to subject women to this particularly invasive ultrasound unless medically necessary -- and an abdominal ultrasound will suffice. If it is true that the law asserts the woman has a choice, then I would be happy with this. If she does not have a choice, then I am not happy about it at all. I find the procedure to be needlessly invasive, akin to rape, and essentially demeaning.
For the second part, I think that this particular standard is interesting.
On the one hand, I find it to be troubling. It assumes that the woman in question lacks overall awareness of herself, her body, who/what is in her body, and what she wants to do about it considering all of her options. I suggest that by the time a woman has decided to have an abortion, she has already run through many aspects of her feelings and beliefs and experiences that she is choosing the best possible solution for her - that is, that abortion is a last resort.
Perhaps you can say that I take a optimistic view of people. This may not be realistic, but I certainly hope that it is so.
If this is the case, then the woman actually "seeing" the baby is unnecessary. In fact, if it were me, I think that "seeing" the baby would be particularly hurtful, as I would have already agonized over this decision at great length, and would be working to live with the fact that I find myself in such dire straights as to require an abortion (something I work and seek to avoid for myself, as much as for other women in so much as I can). I would consider it quite extreme, and it likely still wouldn't put me off my decision.
I think that others can (and have) argued that this is simply a necessary step. I think Alan put it most colorfully -- to look the baby in the eye before killing it. I can certainly value this opinion. I just question whether it is actually necessary.
But, I am also assuming a great deal -- assuming, mostly, the best of people.
I do always wonder why discussions about birth control never seem to involve the male half of the equation. It seems that both men AND most women just take it for granted that it's the woman's responsibility to handle the birth control. Uh...nope! To me, it's a two party party :-)!
Don't get me wrong Spartana, the male 1/2 of the equation should absolutely share the responsibility equally, straight up 50/50. I was just trying to be practical, too. Truth is, as you said, for a very long time our culture has viewed contraception as the woman's responsibility. Even though that's wrong, it IS where we are so it is also where we have to start from. The only way I can think of to really change that is to put a twist on what we're teaching the upcoming generations. Both the boys and girls should be taught about the responsibility along with the mechanics. It is possible to get to a new normal where its just assumed that the responsibility is split, but its going to take a while. Fair or not, for the moment you girls are still the ones that have the best opportunity to take control of the situation.
http://emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/dear-gop-you-do-know-how-pregnancy-works-right/
"If the Republican Party is so anxious to control women’s sexuality (and it clearly is), it had better start shaming men, too.
That is, unless its representatives are willing to argue that men are constitutionally incapable of not sticking their junk into the nearest available lady bits, and we gals have all the power.
I, for one, have too much respect for men to buy that."
poetry_writer
3-16-12, 11:33am
I think we can argue abortion until the cows come home, but the practicality of it is that abortion has been practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years, even infanticide of already born infants was common in some eras. In our modern days, studies show that in places and countries where abortion is illegal, just as many, sometimes MORE abortions occur, not fewer. The only difference between countries where it is illegal and ones where it is legal is not how many abortions per so many women occur, what is different is the number of women who die......many where it is illegal and a criminal abortion business flourishes, and safe for women where it is legal and done by medical professionals.
I wish every child were a wanted child, and that every child could be born into a home where they will flourish. But the real world is not that place, much child abuse and killing occurs among the population of children who started from unwanted pregnancies, not every woman has options, some don't even have control over whether contraception is used, or even whether or not they have sex. Methods of contraception are not foolproof, and the idea that a victim of rape should somehow look upon a pregnancy as a "gift from God", just boggles my mind. Is the reward for rapists to assist them in passing along their DNA for posterity, at the cost of their victims?
If making abortion illegal would eliminate abortions, I can see where one might wish for that.....but since the number of abortions does NOT go down because of illegality, but the number of WOMEN who die DOES go up, a lot.......then it would seem that putting our efforts toward making sure the fewest possible unwanted pregnancies occur would be far more worthy of our efforts.
One would think THAT would be something that all sides could agree upon, but it does seem sometimes as though some who are most vociferous about being anti-abortion, also seem to be anti-contraceptive, anti-family planning, putting as many obstacles as possible to the point where they manage to cut off their noses to spite their faces, causing ever MORE unwanted pregnancies, and hence, larger numbers of abortions......and the wheel keeps turning........
The problem with your post is that it contains multiple errors. Most people who are pro life are not anti contraceptive or anti family planning. Many crisis pregnancy clinics are run by people who are in fact...pro life. They accept and love the women who come in even if they state "I want an abortion". The one I worked in believed the best way to prevent abortion was to love and support the mother. The difference between you and me...loosechicken....is that i believe every child is precious and valuable in the world. Even if born into poverty and difficult circumstances, they matter. We wont be agreeing on this issue, but I believe in getting out there and doing something to help those in difficult situations . Maybe you could do the same.
poetry_writer
3-16-12, 11:35am
But so far, we really haven't been talking about getting rid of abortion, btu simply where the restrictions on it start, and what things must be overcome (by the woman seeking one) to get one.
For some, these standards are too loose; for others, too strict.
This particular incarnation (va law we initially started to discuss) has two elements:
1. a vaginal ultrasound (which was clarified that the mother could choose vaginal or abdominal);
2. showing the pregnant woman the baby within her, having her hear the heart beat.
The relevant question, I think, is whether or not this standard is unreasonable.
Now, for the first part, I think that most people have fairly argued that it is not appropriate to subject women to this particularly invasive ultrasound unless medically necessary -- and an abdominal ultrasound will suffice. If it is true that the law asserts the woman has a choice, then I would be happy with this. If she does not have a choice, then I am not happy about it at all. I find the procedure to be needlessly invasive, akin to rape, and essentially demeaning.
For the second part, I think that this particular standard is interesting.
On the one hand, I find it to be troubling. It assumes that the woman in question lacks overall awareness of herself, her body, who/what is in her body, and what she wants to do about it considering all of her options. I suggest that by the time a woman has decided to have an abortion, she has already run through many aspects of her feelings and beliefs and experiences that she is choosing the best possible solution for her - that is, that abortion is a last resort.
Perhaps you can say that I take a optimistic view of people. This may not be realistic, but I certainly hope that it is so.
If this is the case, then the woman actually "seeing" the baby is unnecessary. In fact, if it were me, I think that "seeing" the baby would be particularly hurtful, as I would have already agonized over this decision at great length, and would be working to live with the fact that I find myself in such dire straights as to require an abortion (something I work and seek to avoid for myself, as much as for other women in so much as I can). I would consider it quite extreme, and it likely still wouldn't put me off my decision.
I think that others can (and have) argued that this is simply a necessary step. I think Alan put it most colorfully -- to look the baby in the eye before killing it. I can certainly value this opinion. I just question whether it is actually necessary.
But, I am also assuming a great deal -- assuming, mostly, the best of people.
Why do you think that women who see the baby on ultrasound ususally do not have an abortion?
loosechickens
3-16-12, 11:44am
I agree completely, poetry-writer, that children are precious. Which is why I donate generously every year to Planned Parenthood in their work to prevent the most possible unwanted pregnancies. Because every child deserves to be wanted and valued. I want to see the abortion problem dealt with at the source, BEFORE that egg and sperm manage to become so closely connected.
I am as pro abortion as anyone, and as supportive on the far end continuum scale of life as anyone here, but I agree with you that there is an odd lack of balance on this website. It's IS ludicrous that no one speaks of the other lifeform, for lack of a better term, that looses in the abortion deal. There is a baby/zygote/mass of human cells/a life or whatever term you want to use, that is wiped out.
It just seems dishonest to me, and tone deaf. But you really cannot expect balance here on this site, now you know better.;)
Maybe I'm just particularly obtuse, but I don't get what the typical (early first trimester) abortee "loses." This is a collection of barely-differentiated cells with no apparent consciousness whatsoever, let alone consciousness of loss. If you believe in an eternal soul, it persists regardless. The loss, if any, is experienced by observers.
Don't get me wrong Spartana, the male 1/2 of the equation should absolutely share the responsibility equally, straight up 50/50. I was just trying to be practical, too. Truth is, as you said, for a very long time our culture has viewed contraception as the woman's responsibility. Even though that's wrong, it IS where we are so it is also where we have to start from. The only way I can think of to really change that is to put a twist on what we're teaching the upcoming generations. Both the boys and girls should be taught about the responsibility along with the mechanics. It is possible to get to a new normal where its just assumed that the responsibility is split, but its going to take a while. Fair or not, for the moment you girls are still the ones that have the best opportunity to take control of the situation.
Ha Ha - I know what you meant and I was just joking with you. Same with the "guys get full custody" comment (although that might actually stop alot of guys from having unprotected sex). And I agree that, for the most part, women still assume most /all of the responsibilty for birth control - and I believe it will remain that way even if men can be held at least financially responsible for child rearing (gosh darn paternity test - wrecking the lives of men everywhere :-)!). I'm not really sure how to change that unless all women who don't want to get pregnant are 100% willing to NEVER have sex with someone who isn't wearing a condom - thus forcing men to either suit up or abstain. And even then it's still the woman calling the shots.
Ha Ha - I know what you meant and I was just joking with you.
Yea, this thread just has the ole' mod hairs standing up. Makes me jumpy. Kinda like those warm, muggy, spring days when you can just feel the storm about to bust loose.
Maybe I'm just particularly obtuse, but I don't get what the typical (early first trimester) abortee "loses." This is a collection of barely-differentiated cells with no apparent consciousness whatsoever, let alone consciousness of loss. If you believe in an eternal soul, it persists regardless. The loss, if any, is experienced by observers.
And of course here is the crux of it all - what is "life" and "when" does it begin. Since that definition differs for everyone - and there are reams of scientific data to support that "life begins" at every different state of fetal development - then abortion will always going to be an open debate. If one believes it begins at conception, like many religious people do - including Santorum - as well as others who aren't religious yet base the definition that a seperate life begins at conception from a scientific view, then it's impossible to debate abortion with folks who don't belief that life begins until a later stage in fetal development. Even the issue of "viablity" is highly contestable. Those things will always be debatable, there will always be scientific data to support all sides, and therefore these kinds of debates will go on and on with no end in sight. But people like Santorum, who, as you pointed out, wish to do away with contraceptives use, don't get my vote.
I was just scanning information about early pregnancy loss, and it stated that about 60% of fertilized eggs (zygotes) fail to implant, and that as much as 20% of those who do implant abort spontaneously. That's not an inconsiderable number.
And then there's this:
Genesis 38:9-10
"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also."
So why aren't Santorum et al addressing the widespread scourge of seed-spilling? (Note God's beef wasn't with adultery, apparently...)
And then there's this:
Genesis 38:9-10
"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also."
So why aren't Santorum et al addressing the widespread scourge of seed-spilling? (Note God's beef wasn't with adultery, apparently...)
I don't claim to be a biblical scholar or a Santorum supporter, but given the quote is from Genesis (old testament), it may be that Christians don't view it as binding. Similar to the fact that Christians don't follow may other old testament rules.
I was just scanning information about early pregnancy loss, and it stated that about 60% of fertilized eggs (zygotes) fail to implant, and that as much as 20% of those who do implant abort spontaneously. That's not an inconsiderable number.
And then there's this:
Genesis 38:9-10
"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also."
So why aren't Santorum et al addressing the widespread scourge of seed-spilling? (Note God's beef wasn't with adultery, apparently...)
His church does - as a form of contraception, this is a no-no as well.
poetry_writer
3-16-12, 1:18pm
Maybe I'm just particularly obtuse, but I don't get what the typical (early first trimester) abortee "loses." This is a collection of barely-differentiated cells with no apparent consciousness whatsoever, let alone consciousness of loss. If you believe in an eternal soul, it persists regardless. The loss, if any, is experienced by observers.
Herein lies the problem. What you said in the above post isnt true, which you would know if you looked at an ultrasound. Are you too afraid to look knowing that you might see something that disturbs the comfortable notion that it is a blob of cells? Do you know when the heart starts beating? My daughter in law is just at six weeks pregnant and my son was beaming with joy last week. He heard his babys heartbeat. Does a blob of cells have a heartbeat? Think on it.
You can see consciousness on an ultrasound? Science has come a long way.
The zygote/embryo/fetus under discussion is a developing human; no doubt about it.
His church does - as a form of contraception, this (ed note: onanism) is a no-no as well.
Then I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Senator Santorum brings it up in a stump speech. :D
Then I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Senator Santorum brings it up in a stump speech. :D
It seems that they never get around to telling the men how they should conduct their own sexual behavior, does it? Even when it comes to abstinence it seems the primary expectation is that it's the woman's job to be the one to say no.
Then I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Senator Santorum brings it up in a stump speech. :D
That's one of the things I find fascinating about politics. During this campaign cycle, contraception has never been a part of the Republican party platform nor the platforms of the individual candidates.
It was brought up in a debate by a Democrat and then forced into the public sphere by an over-reaching Democrat administration, then suddenly there is a "republican war on women" which conveniently takes precedence over the real issues of the day.
I find it fascinating. Transparent, but fascinating none-the-less.
And they just keep raising the ante:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/03/15/20120315montini0316-should-birth-control-firing-offense.html
Keep up the good work, GOP!
And it's Democratic, btw. An adjective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29
ETA:
""Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2]"
ApatheticNoMore
3-16-12, 3:22pm
That's one of the things I find fascinating about politics. During this campaign cycle, contraception has never been a part of the Republican party platform nor the platforms of the individual candidates.
I think it came up in the Republican debates really. Rest of the country scratches their heads .... why is birth control being debated? Um errr ... it can't be rationally understood .... don't try ... perhaps analyze it as pathology ....
poetry_writer
3-16-12, 3:24pm
You can see consciousness on an ultrasound? Science has come a long way.
The zygote/embryo/fetus under discussion is a developing human; no doubt about it.
Absolutely no doubt about it.
poetry_writer
3-16-12, 3:27pm
And the convo swings wildly...from abortion to politics to Catholics to Planned Parenthood to........strange things. The desperate attempts to call a baby a "zygote" and then when its obvious that fails, the insane idea that killing is ok, which i'm sure violates the conscience of everyone here despites some totally absurd posts.......
I think it came up in the Republican debates really. Rest of the country scratches their heads .... why is birth control being debated? Um errr ... it can't be rationally understood .... don't try ... perhaps analyze it as pathology ....
Yes it did come up in the debates, as I previously mentioned, brought up by George Stephanopoulos. It's timing was perfect at just a week or so before the administration announced that religous institutions must provide contraception coverage to employees and students.
I think George was priming the pump.
ApatheticNoMore
3-16-12, 3:57pm
And the convo swings wildly...from abortion to politics to Catholics to Planned Parenthood to........strange things.
Maybe because the conversation is boring? Can we swing this topic to maybe an um interesting one? What can one possibly say that is new on the abortion issue. There may be issues I feel I know something about, can offer a new perspective on, can bring facts to light, am interested in. But really what can one possibly say on the abortion topic that hasn't been said a thousand times?
- People SHOULD use birth control, people don't for reasons I can't say I even begin to understand. Maybe we should investigate why more people don't use birth control and try to find some solution to that?
- Birth control is not some wildly ineffective thing, but the higher effectiveness is with birth control with some side effects (hormonal bc or ... IUDs, sterilization), not everyone tolerates the side effects.
- you can force a mother to bear a child (maybe, it's really kind of doubtful you can even do that - maybe she just seeks out an underground abortion), but you can't FORCE A MOTHER TO *LOVE* A CHILD. This seems patently obvious to me. You can at best force an 18 year prison sentence, that house will just be full of loving yep, then perhaps the kid spends another 18 years of therapy in adulthood realizing precisely what you were trying to enforce: the value of life! (what life? why their own of course! after 18 years of being unwanted, years of therapy finally makes them see THEIR LIFE has some value maybe ....).
- However ADOPTION is an alternative for some. There is certainly some market for it as many have to go overseas to adopt now, so more babies could be put up for adoption (with caveats: very few people want to adopt a retarded baby for instance - so if the ultrasound reveals serious retardation ...)
- with a population of 7 billion and rising, um that just in itself is going to lead to a devaluing of life almost inevitably. Abortion as population control? Hmm, I prefer birth control really.
the insane idea that killing is ok, which i'm sure violates the conscience of everyone here despites some totally absurd posts.......
But actually there have been socities that practiced infanticide. Not to defend what societies practiced at some point in time - because well societies have practicied some pretty screwed up things. But the socities with overpopulation were those that practiced it generally, in societies without overpopulation problems life was considered more yea sacred. For the record: I am not advocating infanticide. But early abortion (first trimester) does provide an out to avoid it coming to the point you are aborting a more fully formed child.
You know, I really like the idea of shifting the convo. There was a story about 15 years of two women who had been friends in their small, midwestern high school. They had not seen each other in a decade, until they spied each other across the street on opposite sides of a rally, about abortion. They went to lunch, and discovered parallel lives; married, same number of kids, etc. Their only significant difference was their stance on legal abortion.
They decided to work together on an issue they both cared deeply about, and shelve their differences on abortion, agreeing to disagree, and build upon their mutual love for children. They worked on their shared hopes and dreams. THAT has always lit my fire!
So, my hopes and dreams are that every child is a chosen one, and that all children are born into families with enough of of the basics - food, shelter, medical care, safe neighborhood, solid education, and of course, love. What are your hopes & dreams?
The zygote/embryo/fetus under discussion is a developing human; no doubt about it.
No argument from me. The sun goes down every night, too. Science can tell us the exact moment the sun sets. But when does it get dark? KWIM?
The difference between you and me...loosechicken....is that i believe every child is precious and valuable in the world.
Here is another statement that qualifies as presumptuous and condescending.
When a person -- another individual -- defines a fetus as a 'child' or 'person' is going to be different. If you ask 10 people from 10 diverse backgrounds, they're likely going to give you 10 different answers. One is yours, and one will be on the other side of things -- such as that the fetus isn't a child until they breathe on their own (which can be determined/defined in many different ways).
Not one of these people does *not* believe that "every child is precious and valuable in the world." But when a fetus is a child is what is up to question.
Please note that I am not using "fetus" to state that the baby inside the person is not a child or a baby. But rather, it's the correct term for a late-stage gestation phase. That is all.
Why do you think that women who see the baby on ultrasound ususally do not have an abortion?
Foremost, I cannot say that the aspect is absolute. That is to say "women who see the baby on an ultrasound do not usually have an abortion."
So far, we've only had your anecdotal evidence, and with this the assertion of the type of pregnancy center in which you work. It sounds to me very similar to the catholic centers where I volunteered as a teen. To contrast this, I have also worked in a clinic more akin to a Planned Parenthood as well (in a state where counseling prior to abortion was required).
In both instances, my volunteer work lasted only a single summer (12 weeks), but included training, meetings, and some sessions (sitting in as a matter of training), though I mostly filed and greeted people in both clinics.
I found my experience in these to have two contrasting experiences around counseling:
A. In the catholic clinic, the women who were coming in were often stating that they felt they had no other option than to have an abortion, that they 'wanted' one. But, through the counseling process, it was largely their fears about not being able to care for themselves in pregnancy or their child after -- and the catholic group would gently draw them into the space where they would keep their pregnancies and provide the services that the women needed (from medical to adoption to services for child care/rearing, housing, etc).
I would characterize this counseling as encouraging, gentle, loving, but with a clear sense of what they wanted for the woman and child -- largely because they didn't provide abortion services, nor would they help the woman if that was the decision she made. They encouraged towards their POV.
If a woman was particularly unclear about the nature of her pregnancy and the child, then they might use an ultrasound to help her "connect" emotionally.
I do not think that this process is "wrong" in any way. I'm just explaining what I experienced. I felt that women were often "walked through" the ideology and perspective, until they came to the conclusion that the crisis center wanted them to have. If the woman wanted to continue with abortion even after this, then they would (kindly) inform her that she needed to go elsewhere, but would not tell her where to go.
B. In the other clinic, the women who were coming in had similar trepidations, but also seemed more certain in their decisions. They were provided with counseling, but instead of one idea being lovingly and consistently unfolded before them (the idea that it is possible to maintain the pregnancy, that there are options for child care and/or adoption), i found that it was more informational rather than supportive in any one direction.
This clinic, by law, had to provide information on adoption services, welfare and related services, and also provided maternity care (for free), so it was passing along the exact same information as the catholic center where I'd volunteered before. But, whatever the woman's ultimate choice was, they would simply follow through and "support" her in her decision.
The people who worked in this community, like red fox, were very caring about these women and their families, wanting to provide their best support and care, but without convincing the woman one way or the other -- toward or away from abortion. I don't recall a woman ever being offered an ultrasound to see her baby (as would happen in the catholic clinic and I would be asked to prep the room for that when it happened, or book the appointment for it), but if a woman asked, she would be given one.
This is largely a difference in method, drawn out of a difference in perspective. In the first, the child holds greater importance to those who are helping, and in the second, the mother's choice (or you could say the mother) holds greater importance.
In both instances, I always felt that both parties were compassionate toward the mother and the child, though those on each side of the "sense" would see the other as not valuing the other (i.e., the catholic clinic would say the other one did not value the child enough; the other clinic would say that the catholic clinic did not value the mother enough).
On a personal note, I say that both cared for both "enough" -- but weighed one over the other in each case -- and provided services based on that perspective.
In regards to why women would be convinced, I am asserting two positions in this regard:
1. If you are working in a clinic similar to the catholic one, the intentional process in the counseling is to make certain that the woman sees the gestating infant as a child, a person, a baby. If it takes a ultrasound to get to that, then they'll use it. And, I found that -- in those clinics -- most women were deterred from having an abortion.
Was that due to the ultrasound? the counseling/education? where these women predisposed to it by choosing to come to this center first, as opposed to another center where they could -- more quickly -- walk in, get through the legal requirements, and get an abortion?
2. I believe that the intended process of this ultrasound is two-fold:
A. to provide more information for the woman;
B. to create an attachment for the gestating infant in the woman.
Part of what I am curious about is this.
In your clinic -- and based on how I see you expressing your experience, which mirrors my own experience in the catholic clinic -- you provide these ultrasounds and you get the result that you seek: women keeping their children. It might be what creates that attachment, as opposed to simply providing information. The reason I think this is because so much information was already provided to the woman in abstract ways (i.e., pictures, drawings, and descriptions of the gestational age of the child, plus things like "heart beat!" and "brain waves!" thrown into the mix as well. A lot of people focus on the Juno-aspect (from the film): finger nails! But no one gives a crap about finger nails. In our world, heart beats and brain waves mean life! And, so, the posters read "abortion stops a beating heart" doesn't it? :)
In the other clinic, if it is provided more dispassionate, informative way, the question remains as to whether the majority of women would be convinced or if it would simply provide another point of information.
The problem being, of course, that it may not be just a point of information for some women. It may be that it creates an attachment, and therefore the outcome that people desire. But if it's across the board -- there may be many women for a variety of reasons for whom this emotional attachment would be more risky.
From a legal standpoint, I question whether this is necessary.
Most of the standards already involve getting counseling, getting information about the procedure -- and as red fox pointed out form her experience, most women are already agonizing over this experience.
It would be far more difficult for these women to go through the ultrasound as well -- having already agonized in the extreme (as would be the case for me, were I forced to come to it) -- and I don't think this would be necessary.
So, to answer the question directly. . .
I think women who see the baby on the ultrasound (in your center) usually do not have an abortion because the whole process has been designed to create that outcome, the ultrasound being that last element to create a whole attachment to the child, while also providing support to the mother so that she can maintain pregnancy.
In a situation of red fox's clinic, it seems that the result may not be the same, though it is possible that more women may form an attachment and reconsider, choosing services over abortion.
And the convo swings wildly...from abortion to politics to Catholics to Planned Parenthood to........strange things. The desperate attempts to call a baby a "zygote" and then when its obvious that fails, the insane idea that killing is ok, which i'm sure violates the conscience of everyone here despites some totally absurd posts.......
Of course it does. there are many facets to the equation here, with each person working on different angles as they come into the fray. This isn't a simple issue, no matter how much you think it might be.
A baby is a zygote during a specific gestational phase (and in this phase, a bundle of basically undifferentiated cells). A baby is also an embryo, which is when the cells begin to differentiate. A baby is also a fetus, until it is born. None of these terms is at all problematic or stating that the baby isn't a baby or isn't human.
The question is about "personhood." You see personhood beginning at conception. Other people do not. Jane brought up the idea that personhood depends upon developing consciousness -- and so she assigns personhood in a different way than you.
That doesn't make her obtuse or immoral or whatever else. It just means that what she finds acceptable to do to a baby in a certain gestational phase you will not.
I don't get why people can't seem to get this.
The idea that killing is ok is not insane. There are many incidents in our lives when killing is ok -- which are also outlined in the catholic catechism which has a pretty hard core pro-life stance. The catechism asserts that just war, which involves killing, is ok. The catechism asserts that killing in defense of self/other is ok. The catechism asserts that the killing of animals for food -- with their best welfare taking into consideration in the process -- is ok.
Much of the law follows the catechism, because these ideas are not only housed within the catholic church. Much of our community -- catholic or not -- follows these ethical guidelines.
The catholic church also supported the death penalty for many years (killing the guilty), though JPII helped pass an amendment to the 1994 catechism that said that the death penalty is not a justified killing.
The catholic church asserts that life begins at conception, and unless there is extreme medical need (which includes psychiatric need), abortion is immoral. But, there are those caveats -- which means that killing is appropriate to save the mother.
The very idea that "killing is ok is insane" is simply not at all evidenced. There are many instances where killing is ok.
Also, as a note, I do not assume you are catholic. It's just that I'm familiar with the doctrine -- so it's a good starting point.
And then you say "which I'm sure violates the conscience of everyone here despite absurd posts."
While I consider every killing act -- including killing for food, accidental killing of insects, the purposeful killing of mice and insects, etc -- to be a deep consideration, I do not necessarily find that it ultimately violates my consciousness.
And there's no absurdity here, unless you are honestly and truly talking about not killing anything ever (Jain ideology, btw). And if you are, I would *love* to hear about how you accomplish this. :)
Red fox,
What I would like is this:
1. a law liberal enough to allow for diversity of perspectives, while also honoring the life of both born and unborn;
2. broad-based, in-depth sex education and access to birth control for men and women (by access, I like the idea of these insurance companies providing it. i have no issue with it, nor do I think anyone overstepped any legal bounds);
3. (hope) That women who do become accidentally pregnant choose to continue their pregnancies and offer those children up for adoption (here in NZ, there are so few babies born and put up for adoption. there are unwanted pregnancies, but families usually handle that on their own -- even with grandparents or other families taking on the child. but, if you want to adopt here, it's a literal lottery with very few babies. And, there are parents who want children. I know this because we have been looking into it/talking about it ourselves.)
4. that all babies are wanted, that all parents are supported in some way so that they can adequately provide for their babies, and that things like parenting classes and other support are available to them (this is something that NZ also does very well -- mostly through volunteer organizations, some of which get government grants, too).
5. that people will respect that other people have different understandings about gestation and personhood, and can respect those differences and would be curious about them -- rather than accusatory around them (and I mean this in both directions, btw).
The best conversations often ramble far afield, IMO.
That's one of the things I find fascinating about politics. During this campaign cycle, contraception has never been a part of the Republican party platform nor the platforms of the individual candidates.
It was brought up in a debate by a Democrat and then forced into the public sphere by an over-reaching Democrat administration, then suddenly there is a "republican war on women" which conveniently takes precedence over the real issues of the day.
I find it fascinating. Transparent, but fascinating none-the-less.
The Republican war on contraception: http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/republican-war-birth-control-contraception
poetry_writer
3-16-12, 11:07pm
Of course it does. there are many facets to the equation here, with each person working on different angles as they come into the fray. This isn't a simple issue, no matter how much you think it might be.
A baby is a zygote during a specific gestational phase (and in this phase, a bundle of basically undifferentiated cells). A baby is also an embryo, which is when the cells begin to differentiate. A baby is also a fetus, until it is born. None of these terms is at all problematic or stating that the baby isn't a baby or isn't human.
The question is about "personhood." You see personhood beginning at conception. Other people do not. Jane brought up the idea that personhood depends upon developing consciousness -- and so she assigns personhood in a different way than you.
That doesn't make her obtuse or immoral or whatever else. It just means that what she finds acceptable to do to a baby in a certain gestational phase you will not.
I don't get why people can't seem to get this.
The idea that killing is ok is not insane. There are many incidents in our lives when killing is ok -- which are also outlined in the catholic catechism which has a pretty hard core pro-life stance. The catechism asserts that just war, which involves killing, is ok. The catechism asserts that killing in defense of self/other is ok. The catechism asserts that the killing of animals for food -- with their best welfare taking into consideration in the process -- is ok.
Much of the law follows the catechism, because these ideas are not only housed within the catholic church. Much of our community -- catholic or not -- follows these ethical guidelines.
The catholic church also supported the death penalty for many years (killing the guilty), though JPII helped pass an amendment to the 1994 catechism that said that the death penalty is not a justified killing.
The catholic church asserts that life begins at conception, and unless there is extreme medical need (which includes psychiatric need), abortion is immoral. But, there are those caveats -- which means that killing is appropriate to save the mother.
The very idea that "killing is ok is insane" is simply not at all evidenced. There are many instances where killing is ok.
Also, as a note, I do not assume you are catholic. It's just that I'm familiar with the doctrine -- so it's a good starting point.
And then you say "which I'm sure violates the conscience of everyone here despite absurd posts."
While I consider every killing act -- including killing for food, accidental killing of insects, the purposeful killing of mice and insects, etc -- to be a deep consideration, I do not necessarily find that it ultimately violates my consciousness.
And there's no absurdity here, unless you are honestly and truly talking about not killing anything ever (Jain ideology, btw). And if you are, I would *love* to hear about how you accomplish this. :)
Call me crazy. i find babies to be of more value than mice or insects. In fact, I just stepped on a bug. :)This comparison is, in my opinion, reaching desperately for something or anything to justify your position on the issue..
poetry_writer
3-16-12, 11:09pm
Foremost, I cannot say that the aspect is absolute. That is to say "women who see the baby on an ultrasound do not usually have an abortion."
So far, we've only had your anecdotal evidence, and with this the assertion of the type of pregnancy center in which you work. It sounds to me very similar to the catholic centers where I volunteered as a teen. To contrast this, I have also worked in a clinic more akin to a Planned Parenthood as well (in a state where counseling prior to abortion was required).
In both instances, my volunteer work lasted only a single summer (12 weeks), but included training, meetings, and some sessions (sitting in as a matter of training), though I mostly filed and greeted people in both clinics.
I found my experience in these to have two contrasting experiences around counseling:
A. In the catholic clinic, the women who were coming in were often stating that they felt they had no other option than to have an abortion, that they 'wanted' one. But, through the counseling process, it was largely their fears about not being able to care for themselves in pregnancy or their child after -- and the catholic group would gently draw them into the space where they would keep their pregnancies and provide the services that the women needed (from medical to adoption to services for child care/rearing, housing, etc).
I would characterize this counseling as encouraging, gentle, loving, but with a clear sense of what they wanted for the woman and child -- largely because they didn't provide abortion services, nor would they help the woman if that was the decision she made. They encouraged towards their POV.
If a woman was particularly unclear about the nature of her pregnancy and the child, then they might use an ultrasound to help her "connect" emotionally.
I do not think that this process is "wrong" in any way. I'm just explaining what I experienced. I felt that women were often "walked through" the ideology and perspective, until they came to the conclusion that the crisis center wanted them to have. If the woman wanted to continue with abortion even after this, then they would (kindly) inform her that she needed to go elsewhere, but would not tell her where to go.
B. In the other clinic, the women who were coming in had similar trepidations, but also seemed more certain in their decisions. They were provided with counseling, but instead of one idea being lovingly and consistently unfolded before them (the idea that it is possible to maintain the pregnancy, that there are options for child care and/or adoption), i found that it was more informational rather than supportive in any one direction.
This clinic, by law, had to provide information on adoption services, welfare and related services, and also provided maternity care (for free), so it was passing along the exact same information as the catholic center where I'd volunteered before. But, whatever the woman's ultimate choice was, they would simply follow through and "support" her in her decision.
The people who worked in this community, like red fox, were very caring about these women and their families, wanting to provide their best support and care, but without convincing the woman one way or the other -- toward or away from abortion. I don't recall a woman ever being offered an ultrasound to see her baby (as would happen in the catholic clinic and I would be asked to prep the room for that when it happened, or book the appointment for it), but if a woman asked, she would be given one.
This is largely a difference in method, drawn out of a difference in perspective. In the first, the child holds greater importance to those who are helping, and in the second, the mother's choice (or you could say the mother) holds greater importance.
In both instances, I always felt that both parties were compassionate toward the mother and the child, though those on each side of the "sense" would see the other as not valuing the other (i.e., the catholic clinic would say the other one did not value the child enough; the other clinic would say that the catholic clinic did not value the mother enough).
On a personal note, I say that both cared for both "enough" -- but weighed one over the other in each case -- and provided services based on that perspective.
In regards to why women would be convinced, I am asserting two positions in this regard:
1. If you are working in a clinic similar to the catholic one, the intentional process in the counseling is to make certain that the woman sees the gestating infant as a child, a person, a baby. If it takes a ultrasound to get to that, then they'll use it. And, I found that -- in those clinics -- most women were deterred from having an abortion.
Was that due to the ultrasound? the counseling/education? where these women predisposed to it by choosing to come to this center first, as opposed to another center where they could -- more quickly -- walk in, get through the legal requirements, and get an abortion?
2. I believe that the intended process of this ultrasound is two-fold:
A. to provide more information for the woman;
B. to create an attachment for the gestating infant in the woman.
Part of what I am curious about is this.
In your clinic -- and based on how I see you expressing your experience, which mirrors my own experience in the catholic clinic -- you provide these ultrasounds and you get the result that you seek: women keeping their children. It might be what creates that attachment, as opposed to simply providing information. The reason I think this is because so much information was already provided to the woman in abstract ways (i.e., pictures, drawings, and descriptions of the gestational age of the child, plus things like "heart beat!" and "brain waves!" thrown into the mix as well. A lot of people focus on the Juno-aspect (from the film): finger nails! But no one gives a crap about finger nails. In our world, heart beats and brain waves mean life! And, so, the posters read "abortion stops a beating heart" doesn't it? :)
In the other clinic, if it is provided more dispassionate, informative way, the question remains as to whether the majority of women would be convinced or if it would simply provide another point of information.
The problem being, of course, that it may not be just a point of information for some women. It may be that it creates an attachment, and therefore the outcome that people desire. But if it's across the board -- there may be many women for a variety of reasons for whom this emotional attachment would be more risky.
From a legal standpoint, I question whether this is necessary.
Most of the standards already involve getting counseling, getting information about the procedure -- and as red fox pointed out form her experience, most women are already agonizing over this experience.
It would be far more difficult for these women to go through the ultrasound as well -- having already agonized in the extreme (as would be the case for me, were I forced to come to it) -- and I don't think this would be necessary.
So, to answer the question directly. . .
I think women who see the baby on the ultrasound (in your center) usually do not have an abortion because the whole process has been designed to create that outcome, the ultrasound being that last element to create a whole attachment to the child, while also providing support to the mother so that she can maintain pregnancy.
In a situation of red fox's clinic, it seems that the result may not be the same, though it is possible that more women may form an attachment and reconsider, choosing services over abortion.
No i'm not Catholic. The sickest part of your post was the smiley face after "it stops a beating heart"
iris lily
3-17-12, 12:32am
Maybe I'm just particularly obtuse, but I don't get what the typical (early first trimester) abortee "loses." This is a collection of barely-differentiated cells with no apparent consciousness whatsoever, let alone consciousness of loss. If you believe in an eternal soul, it persists regardless. The loss, if any, is experienced by observers.
Really? It, the cell mass, loses the life it has, and it does have life. Whether it is A Human Life or is only Some Human Life (as in something that is of humans) can be argued. I'm surprised that you don't recognize this as life, low level, and parasitic though it is. But this just goes to zoebird's point that there are many ways to view the developing fetus.
Call me crazy. i find babies to be of more value than mice or insects. In fact, I just stepped on a bug. :)This comparison is, in my opinion, reaching desperately for something or anything to justify your position on the issue..
it's not at all 'desperate.'
Foremost, I brought forth several examples when killing humans is considered valid -- not something that would be considered morally reprehensible. Even among the most conservative stances, this can include abortion.
Yet, you refuse to discuss these issues at all. And, they are related.
In regards to animal rights issues, they take their argument perspective from the same place. Their primary slogan is "meat is murder!" This is not just saying -- as it is -- that it is killing. They are saying that it is killing with a specific moral implication.
Beyond modern animal rights activists, there are those of specific religious communities (ie, Jains) who hold that all animals' -- including an insect's -- life is just as valuable and important as a human, and as a practice of ahimsa (non-harming/non-violence) our obligation to non-harming, to not-klling extends even to them.
The idea being that if we truly value life, and we truly value not killing/not harming, then what we would choose is to live absolutely in accordance with this.
Gandhi -- who was raised with Jain influences -- wrote about The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism which describes the problem of killing for food, industrialization of food, and ahimsa (nonviolence) practices.
In fact, I'm looking at this notion of killing in the broadest possible application and it's moral implications.
As a person who practiced vegetarianism and veganism over a decade (though currently eats meat), a person who practices buddhism and teaches yoga, I am familiar with these philosophical underpinnings as well -- and how they relate to pro-life stances and ideologies.
I am also familiar with how complex that these issues can become -- as a person who has lived a vegan and vegetarian life, and did so as a method of ahimsic/nonviolence practice, and yet had to set that aside for health reasons. I am also a person who does -- in fact -- avoid killing mice and insects in so much as I can. Infestation must be dealt with for human health reasons; but other than that, I have no qualms with tolerance. I even choose to actively live with spiders (as they keep other insect populations in check).
Likewise, one of my dear friends -- a vegan since age 16 (so 20 years now) -- currently works in the pro-life political movement as well as offering her services at the clinic where I once volunteered (I believe she is one of the counselors). I greatly value our talks together, including how she manages to avoid killing in as many forms as humanly possible. . . likely even moving toward a more quaker stance on peace activism, taxes and war.
This is simply to illustrate that these notions and ideas are not 'far afield.' I suppose you can say this: If you have been asking Jane to "think about it" in regards to when she considers how to view a developing infant, I suppose I am asking you to consider how far you're going to take this notion of "killing is absolutely wrong."
Because I have considered it, lived it, and practiced it.
No i'm not Catholic. The sickest part of your post was the smiley face after "it stops a beating heart"
I'm sorry for this accidental inference. I can see how it can be taken this way, and It was not what I intended at all.
Instead, I meant to use it to say that I understand and value this specific position -- that of life being connected to heart beats and brain waves!
This was also intended to be reflective of your assertion that your DIL is pregnant and that the infant has a heartbeat (congratulations btw!), and I wanted to call attention to that element as being important.
I'm sorry for not doing so with more grace and clarity in my communication.
I'm also sorry if you believe -- because of this -- that I am somehow "sick."
I think Jane's perspective, as quoted by Iris Lily, is particularly interesting.
It is defining personhood in terms of consciousness, and that if a infant is not conscious at a certain stage of development (which is why brain waves might be an important aspect of determining consciousness), then the infant experiences no sense of self, and therefore no sense of personal loss of life in the way that one of us would -- we being fully conscious human beings.
Likewise, the position would seem to assert that the mother also doesn't loose anything, likely because she is not at all emotionally attached to the gestating infant (which an ultrasound may create) nor did she have the desire for that, nor may it even be necessary of her.
To talk to my own experience with pregnancy, I have two.
My first pregnancy was accidental. We had a double birth control failure: our barrier method failed, and I was not as adept at FAM at that time (having only just started about two weeks prior!). I thought that I had passed the fertile phase, but apparently not. My menses then, was 2-ish weeks late, which would put us just at 6 weeks since the last menses. This is generally considered "6 weeks pregnant" but is likely closer to 4. So, the baby was in the zygote/blastocyst/embryo stage at the time of the miscarriage.
Honestly, I hadn't even realized I was pregnant. It isn't unusual for one of my cycles to go long, often several of them to go long, and I have a poor concept of time (it is good that I chart, honestly!). But, keeping records at the time, this would make sense. It wasn't until I was menstruating into day 10 or so that I even considered that I was miscarrying (and it was the toughest period I'd ever had!), and then I realized that this was the case on research.
I think that had the pregnancy 'stuck' -- I would have an older child. This is just how things roll out for me -- morally speaking. I wasn't 'ready' -- but we were capable. I was 27 at the time (might have been 26).
My second pregnancy was planned. After the miscarriage, I really worked on my charting. I wanted to know several things: 1. my overall health; 2. the state of my fertility itself; and 3. whether or not I had issues that lead to the miscarriage that I could solve naturally or head off before deciding to become pregnant again. Simultaneously, DH and I started to "take seriously" that we would ahve children not just "someday" but -- that we would. We sat down and talked about we wanted to create in our lives before having children, so that we could welcome them as comfortably as possible. The primary situation was financial -- we wanted to get to living onto one income, so that I could SAHP if we so chose.
It took 5 years to both get the fertility in order (very mildly low thyroid function lead to broken luteal phases that were solved through diet/lifestyle) as well as to get financially in order, and it gave us time to do the other things as well.
We tried and connected on the first go. I felt very blessed that this was the case, but knew that I wasn't "out of the woods" because many pregnancies fail in the first trimester.
I was also cautious not to get "too attached" to the baby in this trimester. I know it might sound cold or mean, but I was protecting myself emotionally for another miscarriage as well as prior to getting pregnant, preparing myself for it "not working" the first few tries. I was -- you might say -- cautiously optimistic.
I chose, for many reasons, to have an unmechanized pregnancy. This meant -- effectively -- no allopathic prenatal care. I chose natural methods instead, and did this myself. The first trimester came and went, and things seemed to go along fine -- normal early pregnancy symptoms, and we made it through those first twelve weeks.
But, I didn't feel the baby until nearly week 20. This is fairly normal. And this is called the quickening.
After the first trimester, I got a bit more comfortable, and started to think more about the baby being viable, being born. I'd spent those five years getting educated and psyched about birth, so I started to work in that direction -- preparing myself spiritually for the process.
But it wasn't until the quickening that I started to have an attachment -- you might call it a relationship -- with the baby. He (before we knew he was a he) would move, and I could move, and we could poke and play and so on. It was really quite miraculous.
And of course, he was born (exactly 40 weeks from conception or 42 weeks as a doctor would measure), exactly on the day that I expected. He was born, unassisted and at home. Because he was posterior, my husband caught him, as I'd labored on hands and knees.
After holding this funny, skinny, beautiful boy baby in my arms for the first time, my consciousness shifted radically. Turns out that humans -- unlike many other animals -- the mothers imprint on the infants, not the other way around. Having an unhindered birth allows this to happen, as the hormones crescendo to create this outcome in the brain of the mother.
After having him, I had a completely different perspective of abortion and miscarriage too.
Certainly, I am less cavalier about it than I was 4 years ago.
But, I'm also still legally quite liberal about it -- why? Because of people like Jane -- and how I can see how my own perspective could fall right in line with that.
Until the quickening, I didn't have as great a consciousness of DS. It wouldn't have been as hard of a loss. A loss because he was wanted from before he was conceived (the loss that infertile couples face), but if I hadn't wanted him, would not be more like my miscarriage, where I felt really, no loss at all?
Honestly,I felt no loss in the loss of the first pregnancy. All it did was set up some modest anxiety about the potential pregnancies that I would want.
So, here is what I see.
As I ramble along. LOL
I think that it is possible for a woman to see things differently than me.
And I think it's appropriate for the law to accommodate her.
But I also think it's appropriate for our culture, each of us as individuals, to provide support and opportunities for women and infants to prevent abortion. Not necessarily by making greater and greater legal hoops for her to jump through, but by really shifting the culture to where abortion would be naturally less common.
Those sorts of communities *do* exist, and I think that we can create it too. Why not?
Really? It, the cell mass, loses the life it has, and it does have life. Whether it is A Human Life or is only Some Human Life (as in something that is of humans) can be argued. I'm surprised that you don't recognize this as life, low level, and parasitic though it is. But this just goes to zoebird's point that there are many ways to view the developing fetus.
In end of life situations, we use consciousness/brain function along with a patient's ability to survive off machines as a determinant to "pull the plug." I don't see life without consciousness. Human tissue, yes, but not life.
iris lily
3-17-12, 12:57pm
In end of life situations, we use consciousness/brain function along with a patient's ability to survive off machines as a determinant to "pull the plug." I don't see life without consciousness. Human tissue, yes, but not life.
In the biological sense, cells have "life," that's established scientific fact. I will not be the one to argue that any life form must be preserved, since that's not my POV and that's a logical leap, anyway.
Consciousness is one good way of viewing life worth preserving, but that's just one way, your way--which is perfectly fine.
In end of life situations, we use consciousness/brain function along with a patient's ability to survive off machines as a determinant to "pull the plug." I don't see life without consciousness. Human tissue, yes, but not life.
A beginning life has a future and will grow into conciousness at some point. At the end of life when you are pulling the plug, there is little or no possibility of conciousness returning. Infinite possibilities in life for the new life and no possibilities for the ending life. I think that's an important distinction.
A begining life has a future and will grow into conciousness at some point. At the end of life when you are pulling the plug, there is little or no possibility of conciousness returning. Infinite possibilities in life for the new life and no possibilities for the ending life. I think that's an important distinction.
+1
Midwest,
Great point.
For me, the question begs -- what is lost?
A cell may have life, but not consciousness. The cell may develop consciousness -- this is really about potential.
What is lost for the cell, if removed from the possibility of gestation, is the potential for consciousness.
What is lost for the carrier for gestation is the cells with a potential for consciousness -- and whatever emotional attachment she may have to that (if any).
Then the next question is what is the level of harm here, as this would define the moral import.
A begining life has a future and will grow into conciousness at some point. At the end of life when you are pulling the plug, there is little or no possibility of conciousness returning. Infinite possibilities in life for the new life and no possibilities for the ending life. I think that's an important distinction.
Little or no possibility = some possibility. Again it comes down to the same issue - when is it appropriate to kill?
Midwest,
Great point.
For me, the question begs -- what is lost?
A cell may have life, but not consciousness. The cell may develop consciousness -- this is really about potential.
What is lost for the cell, if removed from the possibility of gestation, is the potential for consciousness.
What is lost for the carrier for gestation is the cells with a potential for consciousness -- and whatever emotional attachment she may have to that (if any).
Then the next question is what is the level of harm here, as this would define the moral import.
At the conception, I would agree there is no conciousness. To me that doesn't mean there is no value to the life, but I can conceed that a 2 cells probably don' thave conciousness. Somewhere between conception and birth conciousness develops.
I believe conciousness develops prior to birth and prior to viability outside the womb.
Given that framework, it seems to me that the needs of child with conciousness and its future outweigh the needs/wants of the host prior to the child being viable outside the womb. I would make an exception in my framework for that of a mother whose health is endangered by the pregnancy because I don't believe someone should be required to give up their life for another.
As far as level of harm, abortion ends of the life of the child with a future of possibilities.
Little or no possibility = some possibility. Again it comes down to the same issue - when is it appropriate to kill?
I agree with you there is some minute possibility for a future when pulling the plug. Of course in pulling the plug there is also the minute possibility that the person could survive without life support.
In the case of an abortion, there is near certainty the child will have a future (assuming a healthy pregnancy) without an abortion and a certain probablity of no future with an abortion.
In one case (pregnancy), you are unnaturally ending a natural process. In the other case, pulling the plug, you are allowing a natural process to take its course. Another distinction.
And I could be totally wrong and a fetus could be ensouled and possess keen consciousness from the beginning or before. Martha Beck wrote a fascinating book called Expecting Adam that gives credence to that possibility, and reincarnation researchers have written about subjects reporting having been aborted and then returning, often to the same family.
The fetus/infant could be fully aware and intelligent at the moment of conception, and "ensouled", and be certain to be the next great statesman/scientist/musician/philosopher who will save our world, but that still would accord it no moral right to use another person's body against that person's will for even a moment, much less nine months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
I agree that the decision to carry to term belongs to the woman carrying the fetus, regardless.
The fetus/infant could be fully aware and intelligent at the moment of conception, and "ensouled", and be certain to be the next great statesman/scientist/musician/philosopher who will save our world, but that still would accord it no moral right to use another person's body against that person's will for even a moment, much less nine months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
I have to agree with this.
poetry_writer
3-17-12, 8:48pm
I'm sorry for this accidental inference. I can see how it can be taken this way, and It was not what I intended at all.
Instead, I meant to use it to say that I understand and value this specific position -- that of life being connected to heart beats and brain waves!
This was also intended to be reflective of your assertion that your DIL is pregnant and that the infant has a heartbeat (congratulations btw!), and I wanted to call attention to that element as being important.
I'm sorry for not doing so with more grace and clarity in my communication.
I'm also sorry if you believe -- because of this -- that I am somehow "sick."
Thank you. the convo gets rolling sometimes too fast....
poetry_writer
3-17-12, 8:51pm
I guess I can only say, in the end, I realize not every will agree on this. I believe each and every life is precious. I believe in a soul. I believe we should love the unwanted and unloved children in the world in any way we can. I believe humans are more valuable than bugs or animals, although I love animals. I believe life begins at conception and the heart beat you can find so early in pregnancy is the heart beat of a life, full of potential and hope and joy. I believe we are loved and known before we are formed in the womb. to me each little life is profoundly precious and special.
loosechickens
3-17-12, 11:29pm
"I guess I can only say, in the end, I realize not every will agree on this. I believe each and every life is precious. I believe in a soul. I believe we should love the unwanted and unloved children in the world in any way we can. I believe humans are more valuable than bugs or animals, although I love animals. I believe life begins at conception and the heart beat you can find so early in pregnancy is the heart beat of a life, full of potential and hope and joy. I believe we are loved and known before we are formed in the womb. to me each little life is profoundly precious and special. " (poetry_writer)
---------------------------------------------------------------
And there is nothing wrong with believing what you believe, just as there isn't anything wrong with holding a different viewpoint. The trouble arises, I'm afraid, when some try to impose THEIR beliefs on others, as though what they believe is "THE TRUTH" and all other views are wrong.
I would defend a woman's right NOT to have an abortion as ferociously as I would defend her right to choose one. That's what pro-choice, means, after all. Respecting others' beliefs to have control over their own bodies, health and reproduction. Whether that means carrying a child to term, or aborting the pregnancy.
Enforced abortion would be as wrong as forcing women to recind control of their own bodies to another, unwanted presence.
I believe you, and I hope that you are doing everything in your power to help and care for unloved and unwanted children who are already born as strongly as you are caring about the ones not yet conscious. As well as all the little children of the world who go to bed hungry, in countries at war, and who drop through the many cracks in our social welfare system.
I respect what you are saying, poetry_writer. I hope that you are able to respect what some others are saying as well, without such epithets as "sick", etc. It IS a two way street, this respect business.
+1
I just read somewhere that sterilization is particularly popular with Catholics, maybe because you only have to apologize once.
I would argue that tubal ligation is not such a big deal; it has to be a lot less painful than a Brazilian wax job.:0!
I wish that were true. The procedure can damage the blood supply and nerves. I'd do it again, but I really wish the side effects had been explained to me beforehand. I went from zero cramps to go-to-bed-for-three-days-every-month cramps instantly, for the next 25 years.
I think killing is acceptable, even necessary, in some circumstances.
That position does not come from a belief that "life has no value", but rather the opposite.
The Samurai referred to that as the "life-giving sword." His highest duty was to protect, and sometimes only the sword can do that.
You girls are in control, the rest of us are just beggars.
Only when men are decent and good, like you. I wish it were universally true.
If single women, and even married women where appropriate, demand condom use in conjunction with your preferred contraceptive measure unwanted pregnancies AND STD infection rates would drop to almost nothing. It will probably take a generation or more for the guys to catch on and consider that the new normal. Be patient with us and it could work. ;) Question is, since most kids already have a basic education in contraception, how do we get the usage up to that level? (Hint: I bet the answer has something to do with more education and easier access.)
Hmmm... I see one scenario: "Well, love, we have two options here. Do you prefer the aspirin method or a condom?"
;)
davidmcowan
3-18-12, 7:24am
I'm just not sure this is true, though its too bad that is how you feel.
thank you bae, there are very few men standing up for women these days.
Midwest,
I see what you are saying, but I think I'd like to see you 'unpack' what you mean by that harm.
I suppose I might be asking not so much 'what is the harm to the individual child/individual woman' but rather what is the larger social harm. Or really, perhaps I could say "moral import" as "harm."
I understand the individual 'harms' that it causes. We might also, for example, assert how there are risks in abortion procedures that could lead women toward great physical injury and even infertility in the process. That is also harm. But what happens to those individuals -- in this more abstract discussion -- is less relevant (it is relevant, in general, to the discussion, but it is not relevant per se to what I was attempting to ask!).
So, perhaps my question is. . .
If a woman so-chooses to abort a pre-conscious, potential-for-life human, what moral implication does that have for her? What moral implication does it have for all of us, as a society, such that we would choose to create a standard around it?
Then, we might also say if a woman so-chooses to abort a conscious, potential-for-life human, prior to viability, what moral implication does this have for her? What moral implication does it have for us, as a society, such that we would choose to create a standard around it?
And finally, we might also say if a woman so-chooses to abort a conscious, potential-for-life human, at the point of or after viability, what moral implication does this have for her? What moral implication does it have for us, as a society, such that we would choose to create a standard around it?
This really falls well with both where the law currently aligns as well as with Aquinas. Interesting stuff, if you ask me. It's a real curiousity of mine.
The fetus/infant could be fully aware and intelligent at the moment of conception, and "ensouled", and be certain to be the next great statesman/scientist/musician/philosopher who will save our world, but that still would accord it no moral right to use another person's body against that person's will for even a moment, much less nine months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Bae, I like these thought experiments. Brilliant ideas.
I particularly like the criticisms chart. (And also, I never did dig Peter Singer. that guy writes more animal rights treatise than i can swallow, and i rarely follow his logic.)
poetry-writer:
I cannot fault you in or for your opinion at all.
What I, personally, cannot grasp is the construct of forcing that belief on everyone via the law.
Many people do not hold the same belief -- many people who are loving, thoughtful, spiritual, have a love of life and children just as much as you do, but a different perspective as to when life begins, and what it all means in relation to abortion.
Because we live in a community where views on this are diverse, we have to find a law that honors that diversity while also balancing the polarities of that diversity as best as possible.
(and of course, no worries re: our miscommunication. I'm glad to apologize and reframe when such a thing happens.)
Unfortunately, no law will be perfect or suit everyone's desires and sensibilities.
I wish that were true. The procedure can damage the blood supply and nerves. I'd do it again, but I really wish the side effects had been explained to me beforehand. I went from zero cramps to go-to-bed-for-three-days-every-month cramps instantly, for the next 25 years.
I had about 24 hours of discomfort and no side effects whatsoever--unless relief is a side effect. I was surprised that insurance covered it, as I was perfectly well prepared to pay for it myself.
my mother had tubal ligation when my sister was about 5 or so, and she never seemed to have any affects from it -- not that she would tell me.
for my own part, DH and I are against sterilization for ourselves. We can't figure out why, though. It's a weird thing. I truly do not know why. It's logical, it makes sense, it doesn't muck with hormones, etc etc etc. . . but. . .nope. I wouldn't ask him for a vas, and he wouldn't ask me for tg.
That being said, I have no problem with it being covered by insurance or legal and done for anyone who would choose it (same with other forms of birth control). :)
When my husband was having a hernia surgery I suggested a VAS as well since he'd already be under the knife. I already had fertility issues and getting pregnant the first time was something we had to use fertility drugs for (the 2nd baby 11.5 mts later was a 'bonus blessing'). I can't remember if my fertility drugs were covered by insurance or not. Even though it would be very difficult for me to get pregnant a 3rd time we decided to take that extra measure of precaution with a VAS for him. BC pills actually make my health problems worse, we had a friend die of a stroke because of BC pills, I'd just lost another best friend who was pregant as well (they were able to save the baby), allergies make other forms of BC unplesant; and the thought of me being pregnant a 3rd time was too much for me to handle at the time.
I couldn't believe the amount of paperwork we had to fill out at the hospital about the VAS part of the surgeries. Then I realized we were at a Catholic hospital and therefore we had to take the 'sin' of ending potential life upon ourselves and relieve the hospital, surgeon, and staff from that burdon. I had never thought of it that way before.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.