here we go again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

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?"
;)

I'm just not sure this is true, though its too bad that is how you feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPassey

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.