Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, May 11, 2014.
No need to go that far, but court ordered contraception would be appropriated in such cases.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Lilith is a mythical woman in Jewish theology (who also shows up elsewhere unsurprisingly), Adam's first supposed wife, and folklore had her as a killer of babies and children and seducer of men and a whore. There's a passage in the Talmud which makes a connection to her and abortion, that if a woman aborts and her child is born looking like Lilith, then the mother is evil, or something along those lines.
The pro-life crowd's reaction to women who seek abortions or are pro-choice is akin to comparing such women who get abortions as Lilith. Evil, child murderer, uncaring and unfeeling and the whore.
As for where all the sane people? Who knows.
Few of them left here nowdays.
Instead of providing her with medical care, shelter and a safe environment, she was locked up in prison under the pretext that paint fumes were endangering her foetus, until she felt that the only way to get out of jail was to have an abortion and the moment she did, they let her out. Forcing someone into that position where they feel compelled or forced to have an abortion is just as bad as denying women who seek to have an abortion, the ability to have one that is safe.
The removal of choice or the thought that keeping her in prison which ultimately led to her feeling compelled to abort to be able to get out of prison is an appalling situation.
Unless of course you are going to try to argue that imprisoning pregnant women to comply to the whims of the State or until she is compelled to get an abortion because she is poor or homeless is doing the state and society and her children a general favour? I would suppose it's one form of population control, eh Capracus?
It's like the case who was put in prison, taken away from her husband and young son, cost her her job, because she did not want to follow her doctor's advice. There is no choice. We have the right and choice in determining what medical care we have. Ironically, while she was in prison, she received no medical or pre-natal care, she fell very ill, lost weight and her very imprisonment ended up putting her life and that of her foetus at risk.
This is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.
Then again, we're talking about a political and religious ideology that saw fit to keep a dead woman alive on child support for weeks without her consent and against her family's wishes because she was pregnant, whereupon they were forced by the court to finally let her die with some dignity, along with the very sick child who developed deformities from what happened to its mother, to die along with her.
Which further proves the point that the woman is a non-entity. A mere incubator. She has no identity, no rights. She just serves her purpose.
And it will only get worse.
I'm sorry, what?
You want to control when 'certain' women can have babies as well now?
How could it possibly get worse?
They can ban it altogether.
They are already attempting to restrict access to birth control. Banning abortions or making it so hard to access that it will become an impossibility for the greater majority of women.. Women who are miscarrying and going to Catholic run hospitals in the US are already being denied treatment, leading to some nearly dying due to infections. In some cases, they won't even treat ectopic pregnancies if there is a foetal heartbeat. There are even websites dedicated to telling women who they don't need to abort an ectopic pregnancy as they can still deliver the baby naturally. The Catholic Church manages and owns a large portion of hospitals in the US. In some areas, it is the only hospital they have in their county. There was one woman who had to drive 90 miles for treatment after she miscarried and the arm of the foetus was sticking out through her cervix and they refused to treat her as there was still a foetal heartbeat. The doctors and manager's of these hospitals aren't charged with endangering the lives of women. Far from it.
Once they are able to overturn Roe v Wade, then yeah, we'll go back to the days of coat hangers and bleach.
American women have become complacent. All the women who fought for this right got what they wanted and relaxed. Now there are forces who are rolling back on reproductive rights and there is no one to head them off because women have taken this right for granted.
I think it's a mixture of complacent and fear.
Women's wombs are now political fodder.
Employers are seeking to fire or be allowed to not hire women who are pregnant out of wedlock, have had an abortion, use birth control if the employer has religious reasons to be against it.
If you are a woman in America now days, and you have a family to feed, shelter to provide, education and health to cater for for your children, are you going to speak out and risk losing your job?
The fight for women's rights and most importantly, reproductive care rights, was fought when most women were not really in the workforce. They were at home, caring for their children and husband. Less women were employed full time and the political climate, your employer was hardly going to be delving into your reproductive history as he might nowdays.. There is more to lose now if they do fight back against it. There are many who do, but more who remain silent out of fear of losing their jobs, homes, and not being able to provide for their children. They believe that there will be other women to do this in their place. They rely on Planned Parenthood simply being there. 90% of counties in the US is without first trimester abortion services, either by the clinics being closed down or forced out, or laws enacted to make it impossible for doctors to provide the service.
It's an awful prospect.
So when a woman has been legally determined by her behavior to be a threat to her present or future children’s welfare or mortality, she should be allowed to conceive additional victims?
You think the State should involve itself in what woman can have children? Forced contraception injections until the State deems them worthy of being allowed to have a child?
Are you from North Korea or something?
See, most people see that case to be an abomination.
Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her foetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.
The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.
Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.
"That shocked me, it really did," Kimbrough said. "I had lost a child, that was enough."
And you think more States should be like Alabama? What? Arrest them and keep them in jail until they feel pressured to get an abortion?
Makes me so so glad I do not live in the US.
The hyperbole in this thread is just amazing. Does anyone discuss anything any more? Or is that passe?
The same way the black market has made drugs safer by ensuring that they are of standard potency to prevent unintentional overdose, formulated in pristine laboratories to prevent contamination, in a process overseen by highly-paid professional chemists to prevent formulation errors?
It's a cliche that when the shit-for-brains government moves a popular commodity or service to the black market, it will become more expensive and of lower quality. Only criminals will be willing to take the risk involved in providing it, and criminals, by definition, are extremely selfish--often to the level of sociopathy.
So the Border Patrol will now have sonogram technology. "Hey, there was a baby in there when you crossed into Mexico on Tuesday. Where is it now?"
That will put the Republicans in a difficult position. Their campaign against women's rights will conflict with their campaign to make sure that all new jobs are created in China.
Ever since the Religious Redneck Retard Revival began, around 1980, there has been a steady backlash against all of the progress we achieved in the 1950s-70s. We were certain that by the turn of the century there would be no more racial discrimination, no more wars of opportunity, no more second-class citizenship for women, no more persecution of users of drugs that are safer than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, and no more respect for religious notions from the Stone Age.
Instead, we got ALL of those things, and as an extra bonus, 30,000 gun deaths every year. And a Creation "Science" Museum in Kentucky. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because we haven't stopped celebrating the quantum improvement in children's health that began in the late 19th century. Until then, infant mortality (defined as dying before reproductive age so as not to contribute to survival of the species) had been a steady 80% since the Stone Age. Literally, almost everyone was constantly grieving the loss of a child.
Suddenly science (vaccines, antibiotics), engineering (covered sewers, running water in every building) and business (wrapped food, automobiles--before which the streets of every city were shin-deep in fly-infested horse shit) reduced that figure to less than one percent. Today most of us have to stop and scratch our heads to think of someone we know who lost a child.
I understand the argument that our welfare system is easy to game, and a significant percentage of Americans who get social services are cheating. Nonetheless, the vast majority of them are not.
I'm in a high tax bracket. I could easily complain about "welfare cheats" and demand that the safety net be drawn tighter. Yet since I spent most of my life working for a municipal government, I understand that when you draw the net tighter it's always the genuinely needy who are excluded. The cheaters are clever and can always find a way to beat the system.
I simply don't want to live in a country like Korea, where (according to the Koreans I've met) sick and starving people drop dead on the sidewalk and everyone walks around them until the smell becomes unbearable. I'm willing to put up with the cheaters to avoid that.
As for hungry children, that's a great way to make sure that the dumbing-down of America will continue. Children who don't get enough nutrition when they're young simply don't learn as well as those with full bellies.
You don't even have to resort to caricatures. Children who grow up without a male elder--especially little boys--are under a great handicap. Just look at America's predominantly Afro-American inner-city populations. Because of the racially biased enforcement of our drug laws, even though the rates of drug use in the black and white communities are virtually identical, black men are four to eight times as likely to be in prison for drug crimes. As a result, black households often have no male elder, and there's even a shortage in the community as a whole. Those who can be found are obviously likely to have prison records, so the only "jobs" they can get are dealing drugs, making them unattractive as father figures. Furthermore, women on welfare lose their benefits if a convicted felon lives in their home, so they remain single. And just look at the state of civilization in those communities with no male elders.
I love women, but you can't run the world by yourselves any better than we can.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well Geoff, I would have to agree. Even I, a woman that thought I was pretty liberal on the abortion issue am loathe to participate for fear of being called a REDNECK RETARD
One observation I notice about abortion, is abortion is predominantly artificial and not natural. If we did not have science/medicine to provide artificial means for money, abortion would not be possible at the current levels. Abortion, at the current levels, requires unnatural prosthesis and therefore artificial human behavior. Natural human behavior only needs and makes use of nature and does not use fake stuff since this will not be found in nature.
Part of the hypocrisy/smoke screen of liberalism is they preach green and concern for the natural environment, yet the right to chose an abortion is based on using unnatural prosthesis for the natural womb. It is analogous to strip-mining and pesticides to harvest the earth/womb. The liberal unconscious motivation, for anything green, appears to be for over compensation, because liberalism is unnatural in so many ways. This is reflected in prosthesis and at high social costs.
What would happen if we allowed women the right to choose an abortion, but abortion had to be done organically in a green way? We have food at the supermarket that uses hormones, pesticides, etc., and we have organic food that uses only what is in nature. Why not be consistent? Artificial has unforeseen problems.
You think it is exaggerated?
Reproductive health care is being denied to women across the board. From contraception, to IVF, to pre-natal care, to abortion services.
The most disturbing part is that there are some who believe jailing or imprisoning pregnant women or perhaps even putting them in a position that leaves them no choice but to have abortions because they are drug addicts or homeless and poor.
Female bodily integrity is a thing of the past.
From sexual assault to their rights to have or not have children.
And you are complaining that it is exaggerated?
Between 2001 and 2011, the number of American hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church grew 16 percent, even as the number of public hospitals and secular nonprofit hospitals dropped 31 percent and 12 percent, respectively, according to an upcoming report by the American Civil Liberties Union and MergerWatch, a nonprofit that tracks religious health care mergers. In 2012, Catholic hospitals and health care systems were involved in 24 mergers or acquisitions, according to Irving Levin Associates, a market research firm. Ten of the 25 largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country are Catholic, and Catholic hospitals care for 1 in 6 American patients. In at least eight states, 30 percent or more of patient admissions are at Catholic facilities.
Catholic hospitals are required to follow health care directives handed down by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops—a group of celibate older men who have become increasingly conservative over the past few decades. (Recall the bishops' ongoing showdown with the White House over Obamacare's requirement that health insurance plans cover contraception.) The issues go far beyond abortion. The bishops' directives restrict how doctors in Catholic hospitals may treat everything from miscarriages to terminal illness. How this treatment differs from that of secular hospitals is not always disclosed to patients.
Abortion services are always quick to go when a Catholic hospital takes over, but the changes go much further. In many cases, doctors are prohibited from prescribing birth control, and hospital pharmacies won't sell it. Doctors may even be told not to counsel patients about it. Catholic hospitals have been reluctant to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, and when they do, they first require a pregnancy test to ensure the woman was not pregnant before the assault. The bishops' guidelines forbid tubal ligations and vasectomies. They also extend to end-of-life care: Catholic hospitals may ignore patients' requests to be removed from feeding tubes or life support, even if those wishes are expressed in living wills. And many states allow religious hospitals to discriminate against gays and lesbians, both as employees and as patients.
Dr. Bruce Silva, an OB-GYN at Sierra Vista, remembers that during his hospital's trial merger, church officials told doctors they could give chemotherapy to a pregnant woman with breast cancer, "even though you know it will kill the baby—but you can't give her a termination before, because that would kill the baby directly." Sierra Vista ultimately rejected the merger.
Catholic hospitals' treatment of miscarriage often diverges from the generally accepted standards of care followed in secular hospitals, according to Lori Freedman, an assistant professor of obstetrics at the University of California-San Francisco who published a study on the subject in 2012. Doctors told her about being forced to wait to intervene until a woman was at life-threatening risk. "We often tell patients that we can't do anything in the hospital but watch you get infected," one said.
The church also won't allow doctors to terminate ectopic pregnancies until a woman is in mortal danger. In these pregnancies, the embryo implants outside of the uterus, most often in a fallopian tube, where it grows and can rupture the tube, potentially causing fatal bleeding. The bishops consider ending these unviable pregnancies a "direct abortion" unless a woman's life is immediately at risk. A doctor quoted in a recent study commissioned by the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) reported seeing several near-fatal tubal ruptures at her Catholic-affiliated hospital.
What happens if hospitals refuse to follow the bishops' directives? In 2009, doctors at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix performed a life-saving abortion for a seriously ill mother of four. Afterward, the city's bishop excommunicated a nun on the ethics committee who had approved the procedure. He then demanded that the hospital sign an agreement promising to never again provide emergency abortion care, even when a woman's life was at risk. Hospital administrators believed the agreement violated a federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency treatment and refused to sign, so the bishop stripped the facility of its Catholic affiliation. The following year, a bishop revoked the Catholic status of a hospital in Bend, Oregon, that refused to stop performing tubal ligations.
It is more a case that you might wish it is exaggerated. Sadly, it is now reality.
One doctor working at a Catholic hospital reported receiving a woman whose pregnancy "was very early, 14 weeks," with "a hand sticking out of the cervix," indicating that "clearly the membranes had ruptured and she was trying to deliver." Because there was still a fetal heart rate, the ethics committee refused to approve the abortion; they sent the woman to another institution 90 miles away.
Another doctor, at an academic medical center, reported that a Catholic-owned hospital called to ask her to accept a pregnant miscarrying patient who was already septic and hemorrhaging. She urged them to do the uterine aspiration themselves, but they refused. That doctor accepted the patient and did the procedure, but saw this case as a form of "patient dumping." She reported the hospital for an Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act violation.
Pro-lifer's are all about saving the baby.
So who is going to save the mother?
So your solution is to deny personhood to the fetus at any point while in the womb? Hmmmm, pro-lifers hate those arbitrary lines drawn, as well. Bells, are you asking for a million, hoping at least to get three-fourths of the asking price?
"And do they call me 'Bridge-builder'? No. But ____ one goat..."
I think you are struggling to make those who see reasonable moral and biological limits to abortion as equivalent to those who demand complete prohibition. You persist in making this an all-or-nothing issue: if we suggest limits - even extremely liberal ones by modern standards - we find ourselves somehow apparently trying to kill women, or perhaps now viewing them as reproductive objects. One does not really even dare to say the word 'personhood' in your view, lest we provoke a storm of vitriol and false assertion.
So long as you continue with this kind of extremist social paranoia, you will find yourself without support. But to be frank, you will not garner any kind of support now anyway: you have presented deplorable examples of the failings of law to protect women's rights - and similarly we deplore them, and we wish to work to correct them. But these are all taken as tinder for the 'bright fire' of 'dry foot', which you take as the only possible stance, and which most of us consider reprehensible for a number of reasons. We've already seen you demand this new state of being - which, from Tiassa's comments, must apparently go forward hook or crook - and it is too late for you to retract these comments. Well! You know how we nasty right-wing religious types see it: fool me once, shame on... you?... Fool me cain't git fooled agin. And I think we all live by this philosophy.
And so we'll continue to advance a more reasonable perspective instead of trying to springboard from the deplorable into the deplorable. I appreciate that you see no differences between our opinions and 'pro-life', but that, is your failing, and not ours.
I'm thinking not, unless Tiassa has the same buyer strategy.
This bloody bull market on personhood, I swear. Y'know?
What about the mother?
Pro-lifer's are still incapable of answering that question.
What happens to the mother's rights when the foetus is given personhood rights?
Because right now, if a pregnant woman goes to a Catholic hospital, for example, and she is ill or miscarrying and there is still a foetal heartbeat, the personhood of the foetus has more right to life than she does and she is denied treatment.
So I'll ask again, who is going to save the mother?
It is a fairly simple question. Why is the answer to this question not about how to save the mother, but to ask about why is the personhood of the foetus is being denied?
I am not even asking about that. I am asking who is going to save the mother?
What happens to her rights?
Because all evidence shows that she loses them and some even lose their lives in the process because other people who are not her have prioritised "the baby" over her medical needs and her right to life.
Sooo.. who will save the mother?
What happens to the mother's rights once the foetus is assigned personhood?
I'll put it to you this way.
You are pregnant and you fall terribly ill. You are rushed to hospital which is a Catholic affiliated hospital. Your heart is failing and you they discover the pregnancy is literally killing you, as your heart cannot cope with the stress.. You are told you will die if you continue with the pregnancy. You consult with your family and the doctors trying to save your life and you agree to terminate your pregnancy to save your life.
Who do you want making medical decisions about your treatment, welfare and your life? You? Your spouse perhaps? Your doctor? You and your doctor who is treating you?
Or the local Bishop who has no medical degree?
Guess who makes the decision?
I'll give you a hint, it's not you, it's not your spouse, it is not your doctors.
In this case, a nun who was head of the ethics committee at the hospital gave approval for the termination of the pregnancy to save the mother's life without consulting the Bishop or seek his permission. Now, one would say this was the correct course of action, yes?
The local Bishop disagreed.
When Olmsted learned that this procedure had taken place, all hell broke loose. Without a scintilla of empathy or sympathy for the dying woman and her family, Olmsted said: "The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances." Since the abortion was not "indirect" (i.e., the byproduct of another procedure necessary to save the mother's life, such as removing a cancerous uterus), the correct moral action, according to Olmsted and the Phoenix diocese, was this: Let the mother and the fetus die.
So I'll ask again, who will save the mother?
Maybe a faulty paintbrush is to blame?
In a realistic scenario the mother shouldn't need saved. So long as abortion options are made available and education allows for people to make informed decisions, abortion can be accomplished before the problem of fetal identity even arises. The ones primarily trying to outlaw abortion are the hyper religious crowd, who need to butt out and mind their own bodies. If they don't want an abortion, they don't have to get one. However, once the fetus develops beyond a certain point, one should consider the life of the fetus as well.
The problem right now is we have one side, which wishes to grant all rights to the fetus and turn the mother into a glorified baby factory. We then have the other who wishes to equate the fetus to a lump of flesh that has no business being granted rights anymore than a chicken egg.
What is needed is a logical middle ground... Which can never happen until we remove illogical claims and emotional attachment from the issue.
Your example of the bishop is barbaric and asinine. The only logical course of action was to save the mother since saving both was impossible
Separate names with a comma.