Indian Doctor Jailed For Agreeing To Abort Female Fetus
Pages
| Author | Topic: Indian Doctor Jailed For Agreeing To Abort Female Fetus |
|---|---|
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 01:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:For me the crucial point is where the fetus would have a realistic chance to survive outside and breathe. If we subscribe to the notion of human rights (as I strongly advocate), late abortions for other reasons than save the life of the mother is as unacceptable as homicide including the death penalty murder and aggressive("preemptive") warfare. What do we do with unaccaptable behavior? If the moral majority had balls, they would start to bring W to The Hague along with Saddam, Mladic and Kradjic. Then give hands-on sex education to adolescents to empower girls to prevent unwanted pregnancies and subsidize condoms rather than cutting noncatholic aid programs the go beyond preaching abstinence. Catholics may take the exampleof Holy Mary as an inspiration to end the social scorn on single motherhood. Then and only then when abortion has ceased to be a mass phenomenon may we start individual prosecution. Everything else is just hypocritic sexist suppression. -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 02:03
Profile
Homepage
A lot of people are missing an important point. An abortion is a serious decision to be made, and it should not be made lightly. Having an abortion based on the sex of the baby is a frivolous reason for an abortion. The only real reasons I can see for an abortion are 1) the health of the mother is in danger 2) the mother was a victim of rape/incest 3) the parents are far too young to raise a child. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6666
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 05:09
Profile
I wish Thuryl was still with us. We could use some hard cold medical facts. Especially for what David said: quote:You're a religion-imposing fundie. (Ah, much better.) Seriously though, there is the matter of fetal development to be taken into consideration. After all, a week 37 fetus is a whole different matter than a week 4 embryo. (I would not call an embryo human, rather a very strong potential for human life.) But this is why legislation in almost every country limits abortion to early pregnancy, right? quote:I agree with you on the seriousness completely. As for acceptable reasons, how would you feel about 4) the health of the child is in danger? For example, if an incurable birth defect, which will weaken and/or shorten the quality of the child's life considerably, is detected reasonably early. Hmm. I did some research, and it would seem that there's less reason for Finns (or Aussies for that matter) to protest against abortion, seeing as legislation in those countries (as well as many others) limits abortion to reasons specified above by Drakefyre. [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 05:10: Message edited by: Redstart ] Posts: 353 | Registered: Monday, January 9 2006 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 05:14
Profile
Homepage
1) The problem is that when you allow for such contingencies, people will find loopholes. What, for instance constitutes a risk to the mothers health? I would say that it should be allowed only when the mother is at risk of death or serious disability. 2) Rape and incest are both very serious and terrible crimes. Luckily, however, impregnation from rape is extremely rare. Due to physiological and psychological concerns, (the discussion of which might violate the CoC), women who are raped rarely conceive children. Incest is a terrible crime, but one of the main arguments for abortion in the case of incest is largely faulty. Contrary to poular belief, most children born of incest are not hideously deformed monsters. The risk of certain congenital diseases and defects is higher, but not a certainty. This is of course referring to cases of parent-child or brother sister incest. Cases of impregnation by cousins and such, while taboo in many societies, run very little risk of any serious disabilities for the resulting offspring. 3) There is an institution in most of the world called adoption. The real issue is whether the mother can safely deliver the baby. However, with caesarean section delivery this makes it much easier. See this story. Ultimately, in order for me to accept an abortion as morally acceptable. You would need to convince me that the damage caused by the bearing and delivery of the unborn child would be great enough to merit terminating life. Abortion is a very, very serious issue, and should be an absolute last resort. It should never be a form of birth control. If you are having sex and don't want a child, (1) both partners should use appropriate birth control, and (2) you should realize that there is a risk of failure of the said birth control, which, although low, could lead to pregnancy. If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the potential outcomes of sexual acts, don't have sex. -------------------- "As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein -------------------- Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 05:22
Profile
Homepage
quote:Then will you at least allow psychological concerns as "serious disability"? quote:While the reasons might violate the CoC, scientifically credible sources and some statistics would not. -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 05:32
Profile
Homepage
(1) I would have to be convinced that the psychological damage would be debilitating to such an extent that it would render the mother incapable of living a normal life. Minor psychological trauma, post-partum depression and other problems would be hard for me to justify. But if, hypothetically the pregnancy could cause mental instability to the extent that it induces a long-term catatonic state, I could see the argument. I am not aware of any such cases however. (2) OK, I will find the sources and link to them. -------------------- "As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein -------------------- Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 05:40
Profile
Homepage
That sounds easy in theory, but disabilities - especially mental disabilities - are quite hard to define, especially when you add additional criteria such as "serious". I'm not saying it wouldn't work at all, just saying it would work no better than any other system that is judged on a case-by-case basis. You're not going to close loop-holes with it (which is not the worst thing, necessarily). -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 05:44
Profile
Homepage
I don't claim it is easy. I only claim it is the right thing to do. Also, I would like to say that it is truly wonderful to actually be able to have intelligent conversation about a topic such as this. To often debates on abortion turn into name calling rants. This is a breath of fresh air to me. -------------------- "As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein -------------------- Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 06:00
Profile
Homepage
By Redstart: quote:A woman is raped and gets pregnant. She gives birth, then kills the child after a few days. quote:A woman gets pregnant and gives birth. Later on, she decides the child is a financial burden and kills it. Of course, these counter-arguements mean nothing if you think a being magically gains rights at the moment of birth. By Thin Air: quote:Don't get me wrong, I admit that some pregnancies need abortions (such a tube pregnancies). But the creation of a hierarchy of rights is a very, very dangerous path to go one. I also find it funny that everyone agrees having an abortion based on gender is wrong, but having one based on economic situation is legit. EDIT: Wow. This is a hot topic. About eight posts came on as I was writing mine. -------------------- Why not extend the right of choice to eighteen years? We'd have something like this: Dad, I totalled the car. THAT'S IT! (BANG!) - A comedian whose name escapes me. [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 06:02: Message edited by: Dintiradan ] Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 06:05
Profile
Homepage
quote:You ain't seen nothing yet. :D This will dissolve into little mini-rants soon enough. I'll throw my three cents in anyhow... in the event of a population destabilization (I know this was brought up a while back), that will probably do wonders for the planet's overpopulation problem in general. Kind of dark, yes. But it's not all bad. And as for the general issue at hand, I think it's perfectly fine to have an abortion for an unwanted child, and rape victims should be automatically entitled to an abortion (as well as a lot of counseling). However, I think it's a little hypocritical and reactionary for families to abort anything without a Y chromosome. If you can't deal with having a girl, what's to say you'll do any better with a boy? It points to a lack of responsibility, in my opinion. quote:(applause) EDIT: Okay, this topic is moving quickly... quote:Um... I don't see the argument. In fact, I'm just a little confused by these points. What's more, they kind of scare me. [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 06:08: Message edited by: Ephesos ] -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 4506
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 06:19
Profile
Homepage
It's getting "dark" already. But seriously, stuff like this happens all the time somewhere. Most people only pay attention to it however, when it gets this public. But yeah, I'd have to agree with Ephesos. This would work wonders for population control. - Archmagus Micael -------------------- "You dare Trifle with Avernum?" ~ Erika the Archmage -------------------- My Scenarios: Undead Valley : A small Undead problem, what could possibly go wrong? -------------------- Richard Black - PROOF of his existance (the Infernal one's website). -------------------- MY FORUM! Randomosity at it's highest! :) Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 06:23
Profile
Homepage
By Ephesos: quote:Hmmm... you're right. I wasn't that clear. How's this: if you find any of my examples make you uncomfortable, why don't Redstart's? The only difference is when you kill the baby/fetus. Of course, you could say that a baby/fetus had no rights in the womb, which is why I added the line about 'magically gaining rights'. By Yet another procrastinator: quote:Not sure I understand. When the baby/fetus can survive on its own? A full-term newborn can't survive on its own. quote:What's Joseph? Chopped liver? :) EDIT: Just read the part about population control. GAH!!! We still have come to a consensus about whether it's morally right or not! Why not just kill the bums, the unemployed? We know they have nothing to contribute to society! By Archmagus Micael: quote:Please tell me you were being sarcastic when you said that, or that I'm readint your post completely wrong. Because it happens 'all the time' does not make it morally acceptable. -------------------- <INSERT QUASI-TOPIC RELATED QUOTE HERE> [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 06:33: Message edited by: Dintiradan ] Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 07:24
Profile
Homepage
I think that it's enlightening to look at the medical facts, the things about which we cannot argue. In medicine, "death" is defined in multiple ways. One is clinical death, when the heart stops beating. Another is brain death, when the brain ceases to have any activity. Then there are the final signs, including rigor mortis. That is, if the heart of a full-grown, living human being were to stop beating, and his or her brain were to stop functioning, and his or her body were to become completely immobile, that person would be, by every medical standard, dead. Consider pregnancy for a moment. It is true that, from the moment of conception, a zygote has unique code of human DNA. It is also true that cancer cells have unique codes of human DNA. Indeed, most adults have individual cells with different unique codes of human DNA, since genetic mutation takes place fairly regularly even within an individual. Is an adult human being, therefore, actually several, since he or she has several different unique sets of human DNA? Let's return to the topic of pregnancy. For roughly the first two months of pregnancy, give or take, the thing is called an "embryo," in reference to the fact that it's not much more than a few cells. This is the period when most natural abortions ("miscarriages") take place. This is also the period when natural cloning ("identical twins") take place. Until the end of this period, the embryo does not have differentiated organs (a heart, lungs, etc.), and the embryo is somewhat less than six inches long by the end of two months. Several other very significant developments take place over the next month or so in terms of organ development. It is obvious, then, that the second paragraph's definitions of death — the standard medical ones for a human being — do not apply to an embryo. An embryo's heart cannot stop beating, since it does not have a heart. An embryo's brain cannot cease to function, because it does not have a brain. An embryo's body cannot really tense up into rigor mortis, because it doesn't really have the physical equipment for that. I must admit igorance, though: I don't know what standard doctors use to determine if an embryo has "died" — which means, presumably, that it is no longer possible for this embryo to develop into a fetus and then a baby — or even if such a term is used. Usually at about six or seven months, it becomes possible (with current technology) to keep a birthed fetus alive outside the womb and bring it up as a full-fledged child. These facts were the ones used, I believe, in determining what a human being is, in the U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, and at what point in pregnancy the fetus begins to have rights. [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 07:27: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 07:43
Profile
Kel, medical definitions aren't medical facts. Those definitions of death is no more justified than Sir David's. If you want to base your arguments on physiological processes, that's fine, but any definition of where human life begins in the continuum of embryonic development is inherently arbitrary. Much as both sides will hate it, there is no logical reason to be pro-life, and there is no logical reason to be pro-choice. It boils down to an arbitrary definition: "alive." So, Alec, no reason to call Ash's belief insane, because yours is equally so. Thus, I can't call myself seriously pro-life or pro-choice. I'm pro-choice in so far as a substantial proportion of the electorate is, and no one's forcing the pro-life segment to have or conduct abortions. Although, since it's basically an arbitrary question, I'd be for getting rid of Roe and sending it to the states. With respect to the Indian question, it probably won't lead to any kind of population control, it'll just lead a lot of older men to have young wives, once childbearing couples start supplying the demand. Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 07:45
Profile
Homepage
"Please, Tucker, please don't get involved in an online abortion debate. You should know better." I think the fluffy turtles have gotten to me, because I am now ignoring the voice of reason in my head. quote:It is NOT that simple. The main thing there is disagreement over is, in fact, whether or not you can say "46 = human." And while you're right to observe that religion is not inherently involved, this lack of simplicity eventually ends up dragging religion into things. Let's look at what both sides agree on. Nobody at all thinks you can kill babies once they are out of the womb, or full-grown adults for that matter. Despite the use of labels like "pro-life," there isn't anybody who is pro-death. The point of disagreement is really the question of when something first counts as a human. I think you make a good point about seeing the baby's cute little face. You're probably right that many people in favor of early-term only abortion, in particular, just don't want to imagine a cute little baby dying. But can't that point be extended? I think that some pro-lifers are the same way, it's just that they look at a fetus without a cute face, and realize that it will turn into a fetus with a cute face. And I think this is perfectly legitimate. The problem is that wherever you draw the line on what is and is not a human is going to be arbitrary. It will, of course, be based on legitimate knowledge and beliefs and reasoning, which I respect; by arbitrary I mean that there is no simple way to choose one such definition over another. There is no philosophical trump card that makes "one cell existing" or "successful implantation" or "x months of development" or "sentience" or "capacity for independent locomotion" the correct definition. In other words, a fertilized egg is definitely human; of course, so is my liver. Unlike my liver, a fertilized egg has the potential to develop into an independent human person. But is it already an independent human person? That is a question of DEFINITION. There is, however, one way for a definition of human-ness to be less arbitrary and to beat out the others: that is if you are religious. If you believe in an immortal soul that is the core of our beings, that pretty clearly trumps ANY biological, psychological, or philosophical definition of what it is to be human. So that's where religion comes into things. Of course, different religions will tell you different things about what a soul is and when exactly it shows up. quote:I respect the opinion that the cause of preserving life must outweigh the cause of alleviating suffering. I do not, however, agree. I spent several years working (and later volunteering) for a rape crisis center in Chicago. I was on-call at emergency rooms around the city to advocate for rape survivors in a medical and legal system which often ignores the unmatched psychological trauma of rape, and the ability of its effects to pervade all corners and all hours of a survivor's life. So I know a lot about rape, and a lot about rape trauma syndrome. That work forces me to ask myself: is a life worth any amount of suffering, however huge -- is it categorically worth that? More recently, I have spent my time working with severely emotionally disturbed children and teenagers. I have seen the devastation of abuse first-hand. I have seen how trauma echoes from one generation into the next, and how psychologically destructive tendencies spread like a cancer. And though I mean that mostly in terms of parental dynamics, I have also seen children psychologically maimed for the rest of their lives while they were still in the womb. That work forces me to ask myself: is a life worth any amount of suffering, however huge, however widely spread, however many other lives affected by it -- is it categorically worth that? I can't say yes. I would love to. I would love to be a Jainist, to mourn the bacteria that I crush when I walk; hell, I'd go a step further, and mourn the rearrangement of molecules, particles, quarks, that accompanies every aspect of my life. But I can't. It's absurd, and it's impractical. A line has to be drawn somewhere. We have to stop caring at a certain point. I don't know exactly where the right place to draw that line is. But I find it hard to prioritize a person or thing (whichever term you prefer) who is unable to live or act independently ahead of the prevention of suffering and destruction in the future. That one care I cannot refuse. "As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it." -- St-Exupéry quote: quote:Quoted for agreement (with both of them) and emphasis. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 07:51
Profile
A couple of people have commented that the ability to abort would do wonders for population growth. This is false. Population growth is much more complicated than cheap and easy access to birth control measures such as abortion. In fact, looking at a larger picture, present cost ($, time etc) of abortions make this an inefficient means of controlling population growth (although with the advent of "morning after" pills this is changing). But, the bigger picture has more to do with poverty, society and cultural attitudes towards family size and the benefits/costs of having children. With this in mind, it is generally much more effective to deal with controlling population growth from a pre-emptive, proactive approach - family planning and reproductive health services, economic incentives, integration into quality of life measures (part of incentives to change attitudinal behaviour). With respect to abortions, they are currently illegal in the Phillipines (strong Roman Catholic country), yet it is estimated that approximately 400,000 abortions occur annual, with 80,000 women ending up needing medical treatment as a result (2001 data), out of a population of 82 million. In countries where the reality that abortions will remain illegal (and many developing nations are strongly RC) this is not a population growth control measure but a reaction to unwanted pregnancies - which I repeat are better dealt with by proactive measures. Edited comments: Proper family planning initiaves will also begin to deal with the underlying reasons that lead people to have abortions based on the sex of children. But this is likely a generational change that won't see results overnight. And I note that Kel's initial comments were likely addressing this issue, that the abortion as noted by the BBC wasn't a population control measure but dealing with an unwanted pregnancy due to the sex of the baby - which relates to societal attitudes. [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 07:58: Message edited by: Hassium ] -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 07:57
Profile
Homepage
I don't think anyone is claiming that abortion controls population. I think sex-selection abortions would, though. Women are the limiting factor in children, and fewer women would mean fewer children. It isn't quite that simple and linear, but having a 6:10 ratio of women to men would make a big difference. There's a very interesting assertion that I unfortunately can't find online. There's a fair amount of evidence, both from other cultures and from psychological studies of familiar Western culture, that we are programmed to love our babies deeply and irrationally. This makes good evolutionary sense. It's also true that we're programmed not to immediately fall in love. There's a window of time during which mothers weigh the costs and benefits of their newborns and then possibly kill them. Abortion is a difficult process without advanced medicine and technology, but neonaticide is free and it makes sense in the absence of sufficient resources for both the mother's and the baby's survival. I wouldn't want to condone neonaticide, but from an evolutionary standpoint there's a reason for abortion, and I'd say killing an embryo beats killing a newborn. From an ethical standpoint, because the line between aggregation of cells and human is arbitrary, I think that well-defined freedom trumps ill-defined life in this case. With legal abortion everyone can decide where the limits lie for himself or herself, and that's the choice in pro-choice. More importantly, choice may offend pro-lifers, but it cannot impose upon them. Illegalized abortion does impose others' will on those who want abortions. —Alorael, who will dig back into the thread and criticize inbreeding myths some more. There is no difference between the meeting of two genetically closely related gametes and two unrelated gametes. Statistically, however, the former is likely to increase the frequency of homozygosity and decrease the frequency of heterozygosity. That's a problem because many rather unpleasatn phenotypes are the results of recessive traits. Iterative inbreeding over generations can be terrible if the inbreeding group has those deleterious alleles, and nearly every group will, but one iteration isn't going to cause idiocy, deformity, and depravity. [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 08:08: Message edited by: Wang is Sympatriot ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6666
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 08:17
Profile
Gentlemen, I leave the floor to you. Clearly I have been outclassed in both debate and verbal skills. Posts: 353 | Registered: Monday, January 9 2006 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 08:23
Profile
Homepage
Technology is close to reaching the point where the gender of children can be chosen before they are concieved. This would solve the sex-based abortion issues, but wouldn't help sex-ratio issues any. Dikiyoba wonders whether this technology would mess up gender ratios in first-world countries and, if so, in which direction. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 08:39
Profile
Homepage
"Deleterious alleles" is a wonderful phrase. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 09:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:[/QUOTE]I did not write "on it sown" because this may be intepreted in so many different ways. Outside referred to the mothers womb. I should have referred to the dependency on the placenta but that might have been too technical. quote:?? I guess we are on the same page but I may have been too concise and you may not have understood what I meant. Sorry. No, Joseph was not chopped liver. Imho, he just examplifies the support that may convince single pregnant women to carry a fetus to term. As always, the bible does not make much sense unless you translate it to our present context. What our society does is to force single mothers to abort their fetusses themselves rather than have them killed by the powers that be - read "Herodes" if you want. Having kids is a poverty risk, nowadays. Even for two-parent families. More fundamentally: We should not take our values just uncritically from tradition or religion. This would make us helpless vis-à-vis questions that arise from medical progress. The values are not ends in themselves but they serve to make us stronger in that they are part of our human dentity and have served to let us survive through evolution. If that sounds like "IIIrd Reich" Nazism to you, you have not understood what happened then and you ignore the ultimate outcome of 10s of millions dead. That was EVIL compounded by ethical misunderstanding and disorientation. Let us take a real example: If my wife were pregnant from age 35 on at latest, we would have a chorionic villi sampling made around the 11th week to get a prenatal genetic diagnosis. And if there were something wrong, there would be time to abort before the 18h week, i.e. before the first fetal movments that establish the start of the mother-child relation. This possibility would be our basis for planning parenthood in the first place. If we would go for an amniocentesis, which is done at around week 17 it may have to be redone after a week or two and the results do take several weeks afaik, so we may easily end up with the decision to abort no earlier than the edge of viability outside the womb with intensive care of 22 - 25 weeks. This would be a true moral and emotional dilemma for us. A mongoloid child would easily mean that we would be too overtaxed to have more possibly healthy kids. Does this make mongoloid kids more of an outcast/exception in society? Certainly, and I would feel bad about that but who are we to put such a parental task on our plate? Call me a fag or an abortionist or whatever you want. This is how I find it right to decide for us. I believe that no woman takes the decision lightly to abort - or her children may wish never to have been born in the first place. It is just plain immorally ignorant to think that these things could be regulated by penal law. And taking the Bible literally does not help a bit in this context. ----------------------------------------------- Any help with those stupid quotation tags would be most welcome,moderators. [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 09:14: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 09:04
Profile
Homepage
Gah!!! Curse you people for making a topic I can't help but respond to two days before an eight page essay is due! By Alorael: quote:Why? Do our rights increase as we age? Do we suddenly, magically, gain full rights once the cord is cut? quote:I can tell you are from a country where medicare is private. In Canada, my tax dollars pay for abortions. This isn't just some ethical debate; I'm financially supporting abortion. EDIT: Removed fact that I'm uncertain about. Will verify when I have the time. Procrastinator, you missed the smilely on my Joseph statement. I understood what you were talking about. -------------------- Life is a metaphor. [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 09:07: Message edited by: Dintiradan ] Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6912
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 09:49
Profile
quote:Dintiradan Why? Do our rights increase as we age? Do we suddenly, magically, gain full rights once the cord is cut? ________________________________________ Not exactly but we do gain rights as we develop. Right to drive, right to vote, right to drink booze. When a person reaches the age of 18 we give them the right to vote does this imply that their opinion is not important for the country as a whole before hand?...YES I don't care who an 8 year old wants for a president what is he gonna do base his decision on a pretty outfit. Pro-life laws do not oppress any specific group. Everyone knows that abortions are fundamentally wrong and they make a choice do it(or not). Besides just because it’s morally wrong doesn’t necessarily mean it should be illegal. I my self would never let my future wife have an abortion but who the hell am I to tell some one not 2? Even if my dreams come true and I become a rich ass politician this is still so personal and private for some politician to decide for you. I think the article is about people choosing a certain gender over another not about the legality or morality factors of abortions. Oh and we absolutely have the right to complain about India and have our opinions we live in a world where almost any semi modern country can start an ugly domino effect (a global one) by doing something stupid. A shortage of woman in India and possibly China can cause chaotic migration that could produce huge negative effects. Don't get me wrong migration tends to usialy produce positive effects in the long run but both of those countries have over a billion people I don't think the world is prepared for 200 million people migrating. Posts: 89 | Registered: Wednesday, March 15 2006 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 10:07
Profile
quote:Alorael, I'm not sure if this comment was directed to me and if so, which assertion. I am going to assume it is the following: Population growth...has more to do with poverty, society and cultural attitudes towards family size and the benefits/costs of having children. quote:From a book I read, Zero Population Growth - Philippines by Manuel Gallego III. I believe extracts can be found on the net. Statistical data generally reveals that poor, undeveloped nations have large birth rates as well as low survivability (compared to developed nations). As a nation develops the birth rates stay high but the death rates drop (better health care), leading to population expansions. Further development and the birth rate also drops, leading to balanced population (little or zero growth (negative if we are talking about Japan)) This is a very common growth/development model). With respect to societal and cultural effects on family size, I would argue that the move from agrarian, manual labour based societies (which in part are tied to poverty, lack of education) reduces the need for a large, unskilled labour poor, reducing the need for large families. In addition, with increasing wealth comes the ability of a society to provide a greater social net as well as individual ability to generate savings and plan for the less-productive phase of life. In otherwords, one no longer needs to have children to provide old age security. This is the development process that much of the western world (shall we include Russia?) went through. With respect to economic matters, greater health care ensures greater rates of survival, limiting the need for multiple children. Economic pressures (cost of educating, feeding children etc) place a negative drag on family size. Think of the effect having a government plan for free education - but only to your first child would have on family size. -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 4506
|
written Wednesday, April 5 2006 10:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:I never said it was morally acceptable, I just said that it happens. There's a difference. I'm not condoning it in any way. But what I said is true, these things happen, and no-one normally pay any attention to it. As it was mentioned in the start of the topic: quote:And that's just in India alone. When you add in the rest of the world, you get some odd figures. quote: quote:It's not funny, but alarming. If having kids depends on how much it costs, then we don't have to worry about population ratios to destabalise the population, the economical cost will do it all for you. - Archmagus Micael [ Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:21: Message edited by: Archmagus Micael ] -------------------- "You dare Trifle with Avernum?" ~ Erika the Archmage -------------------- My Scenarios: Undead Valley : A small Undead problem, what could possibly go wrong? -------------------- Richard Black - PROOF of his existance (the Infernal one's website). -------------------- MY FORUM! Randomosity at it's highest! :) Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00 |