Abortion

[Kestra15]

The contradictary thing is when you find out that many of the people that are anti-abortion are also pro the death penalty.

Relative morality; self-same people will probably support an abortion that is closer to home (their own, their partner's) because it makes their life easier. There is (anecdotal) evidence to support that, and while it is stories and reports, sadly it's not something you could really get hard, reliable figures to support those anecdotes.

 

Diverting slightly into euthanasia; what is interesting is that you can waiver your right to life, but not have a right to death. What I mean is, you can chose to be DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) - and in Intensive Care you can even have a DNE (Do No Escalate) - which means you cannot be resuscitation or, in the case of DNE, you cannot have your level of treatment escalated if your condition worsens. In the UK we also have a Care Plan for those who have been considered past medical expertise, or have a DNE/DNR in place, and thus you are left to die in as comfortable a manner as possible. So you can voluntarily give up your right for life.

 

What you cannot have is somebody actively end your life, so in other words you cannot use your 'right to die' as it were.

[Princess Artemis]

As far as "waiving a right to life", that's not what is occurring, legally. Someone who signs a DNR or what have you is saying, "I do not consent to X treatment". It's not a matter of right to life; it's a matter of bodily integrity. Someone who chooses not to have life saving treatment done is not giving up any rights at all, least of all the right to live.

 

It's actually a little disconcerting that you, a nurse, would think of it in terms of patients giving up a right to live, rather than thinking of it in terms of patients exercising their rights not to have other humans invade their bodily integrity.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[renton]

@renton, as a Christian who is also disabled, your opinion (not you, let me be clear), strikes me as despicable. Justifying the murder (you do say abortion is murder) of those who need our protection the most is simply foul.

Your opinion on my opinion makes you believe it's despicable. I feel life is precious and everyone should have an equal opportunity; however, that's not how life is and people will be impaired, mother is at risk or mutations can happen due to the ignorance of some people or not knowing they were pregnant. What I find revolting or truly despicable is to not ease the suffering of a future child. It's the humane thing to do. Letting somebody suffer for the rest of their life isn't protection. That's just pure selfishness of the individual or parents who could not let the poor soul go and allow him or her to be trapped in a world where the pain is so great that not you or I could comprehend.

[Kestra15]

As far as "waiving a right to life", that's not what is occurring, legally.  Someone who signs a DNR or what have you is saying, "I do not consent to X treatment".  It's not a matter of right to life; it's a matter of bodily integrity.  Someone who chooses not to have life saving treatment done is not giving up any rights at all, least of all the right to live.

 

It's actually a little disconcerting that you, a nurse, would think of it in terms of patients giving up a right to live, rather than thinking of it in terms of patients exercising their rights not to have other humans invade their bodily integrity.

Because it's not about body integrity in some cases.

 

Every person has a right to life. A DNE/DNR is in some cases a patient turning around and saying "I no longer wish to have any treatment or interventions that maintain that right. I am happy to die now." It's also why you can refuse life-saving treatment but not have life-ending treatment; everyone has a right to life, but you can chose to put aside that right if you believe it will not maintain you. But as far as we're concerned, no-one has a right to die.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Kestra15

[hazeh]

Because it's not about body integrity in some cases.

 

Every person has a right to life. A DNE/DNR is in some cases a patient turning around and saying "I no longer wish to have any treatment or interventions that maintain that right. I am happy to die now." It's also why you can refuse life-saving treatment but not have life-ending treatment; everyone has a right to life, but you can chose to put aside that right if you believe it will not maintain you. But as far as we're concerned, no-one has a right to die.

I wonder if anyone would ever push to have attempted manslaughter charges against someone who attempted (but obviously failed) suicide with this idea in mind?

[KageSora]

Your opinion on my opinion makes you believe it's despicable. I feel life is precious and everyone should have an equal opportunity; however, that's not how life is and people will be impaired, mother is at risk or mutations can happen due to the ignorance of some people or not knowing they were pregnant. What I find revolting or truly despicable is to not ease the suffering of a future child. It's the humane thing to do. Letting somebody suffer for the rest of their life isn't protection. That's just pure selfishness of the individual or parents who could not let the poor soul go and allow him or her to be trapped in a world where the pain is so great that not you or I could comprehend.

While I agree in part, if the child cannot have a good-quality life due to incredibly severely deformed body or brain, I do think you're being rather... I don't know the word I want here... A bit insensitive, I suppose? Maybe something else. Not quite offensive, but... Distasteful? Blah, I can't think of the word I want...

 

My inability to think of the word I want aside...

 

 

I can see quality of life being ONE factor in the decision, like if the child would never be able to live on their own, the quality of life would be terrible, etc., but I also think it can be very, very, very hard to decide that, and that alone should not be the sole factor.

 

 

After all, who are we to say what is "suffering" from a "problem" and what isn't?

 

Many people think people like me "suffer" from Aspergers--I'm not suffering from it at all. Most of my suffering in life wasn't directly caused by my being an aspie--it was caused by people being jerks and unable to understand that the world is not populated by people exactly like them. Which could just as easily have happened if I was born of a racial minority in a very racist place--should, then, those racial minorities be forbidden children because their offspring would suffer terribly?

 

There are people who say gays "suffer" from "same-sex attractions"--Most of the gay people I know aren't suffering from being gay, they're suffering from people being jerks about it--the being gay in and of itself is not suffering.

 

 

I've seen people who think asexuals like myself must be "suffering" from our asexuality--but there's no suffering at all. Well, it's not the asexuality causing it, it's the people refusing to believe we exist, thinking a good screw can "fix" us, or not comprehending that there are people out there who just have no sexual interest in other people. Among other misconceptions and such.

 

 

A lot of the "suffering" in the world isn't directly caused by the "problems" people have--it's caused by other people being jerks and refusing to treat them as fellow human beings. Would it not be better, then, to focus on fixing the world to stop that from happening?

 

 

I figure you mostly mean people with extreme physical and/or mental disabilities, but there are people out there who think that, because I'm "suffering" from being an aspie, it would have been a kindness to abort me. Or that people who are "suffering" from being gay should have been put down because it's cruelty to force them to live as an "abomination".

 

Where do you draw the line as to what counts as poor enough quality of life to justify the abortion? That will be different for everybody. Some people would only consider it if the child could only possibly survive a few years. Others would do it if there was a chance the child could have some sort of mental disability (that in and of itself does not make life terrible)

Edited July 20, 2012 by KageSora

[Kestra15]

I wonder if anyone would ever push to have attempted manslaughter charges against someone who attempted (but obviously failed) suicide with this idea in mind?

I suppose saying "no-one has a right to die" didn't quite put the point across - I'll try again. (Although funny you should say that; there used to be old UK laws where the punishment for suicide was ironically the death penalty.)

 

Everyone has a right to life and therefore the right to any and all viable treatment that will preserve that life - and therefore as part of that right, someone of sound mind can refuse life-saving treatment. But while that same person can ask for no more interventions, they could not ask for any actions that could be construed as euthanasia. Even those on the Care Pathway are made comfortable, but they are still provided with nutritional needs etc. So by "right to die" what I mean is that no person can ask for medical interventions that will end their life; they can only refuse further intervention.

[hazeh]

I suppose saying "no-one has a right to die" didn't quite put the point across - I'll try again. (Although funny you should say that; there used to be old UK laws where the punishment for suicide was ironically the death penalty.)

 

Everyone has a right to life and therefore the right to any and all viable treatment that will preserve that life - and therefore as part of that right, someone of sound mind can refuse life-saving treatment. But while that same person can ask for no more interventions, they could not ask for any actions that could be construed as euthanasia. Even those on the Care Pathway are made comfortable, but they are still provided with nutritional needs etc. So by "right to die" what I mean is that no person can ask for medical interventions that will end their life; they can only refuse further intervention.

Oh no, I know that. (Well, not about the old UK law!) Both of my parents are nurses as well, one of them having spent 10 or so years in the ICU. I've heard a lot about the 'right to life' and life support fiasco that happens.

 

I simply made that comment thinking about the "no-one has the right to die" blurb that you posted, not that I was actually seriously considering if that was a possibility. ^^; I apologize for not being clearer.

[Kestra15]

Oh no, I know that. (Well, not about the old UK law!) Both of my parents are nurses as well, one of them having spent 10 or so years in the ICU. I've heard a lot about the 'right to life' and life support fiasco that happens.

 

I simply made that comment thinking about the "no-one has the right to die" blurb that you posted, not that I was actually seriously considering if that was a possibility. ^^; I apologize for not being clearer.

It's fine - I think it was important to explain the meaning of my previous point anyway, as a 'right to life' and 'right to die' are quite difficult arguments full of moral grey areas. And I did always think that old law was win-win for the person in question!

[Princess Artemis]

Because it's not about body integrity in some cases.

 

Every person has a right to life. A DNE/DNR is in some cases a patient turning around and saying "I no longer wish to have any treatment or interventions that maintain that right. I am happy to die now." It's also why you can refuse life-saving treatment but not have life-ending treatment; everyone has a right to life, but you can chose to put aside that right if you believe it will not maintain you. But as far as we're concerned, no-one has a right to die.

The person is not laying down their right to life. Refusing treatment is not saying, "I'm laying aside my basic human rights." A person who is happy to die now and has a DNR still has a right to live, and they very well may do so for a long, long time.

 

That's separate from a right to die, which all people do but few recognize there is any right to do.

 

Thing about rights, they are inalienable. Real rights are, anyhow. They are not given by other humans and they cannot be laid aside nor surrendered. They can be curtailed, protected, exercised or not, but by being human, you have them. A right to life is one of those human rights. Signing a DNR does not surrender it.

 

If UK law is such that signing a DNR does surrender a right to life and that's why you talk about it that way...eeeugh.

[Kestra15]

The person is not laying down their right to life.  Refusing treatment is not saying, "I'm laying aside my basic human rights."  A person who is happy to die now and has a DNR still has a right to live, and they very well may do so for a long, long time.

But they are waiving that right from a medical standpoint, in that they do not want further life-saving (and in some cases life-prolonging) treatment. It is explicitly not them putting aside human rights issues - we still have to care for them as per any other patient, regardless if they'll die in an hour or a century. But from the perspective of providing medical intervention and treatment, they are saying "no more" (except for palliative means).

 

This is different, in essence, to euthanasia, where someone actively wants to end their life - which we cannot enact or enforce due to how easily such a system can be abused. So while every person has a right to life - that is, a right to treatment that will prolong life - they do not have a right to die - that is, to take a course of action that will actively end their life.

 

You're right, some people live a full life on DNR - some recover well enough to have DNE, DNR and Care Pathway removed and return to being treated 'full-on' as it were. A DNR is not a death sentence - it can be and has been reversed. But a DNR does not mean they are now less important, that they are treated any different as a human being. It just means from a medical standpoint there is only so far we can go in terms of medical treatment.

 

I feel the problem here is you are misunderstanding 'right to life' and taking it to mean, very literally, that we remove all their rights to life. That is so very explicitly not what it means. What it means - and where we have the crux of the moral argument of DNR vs euthanasia - is their right to refuse medical treatment, and yet they do not have the right to take life-ending measures. It never has, and never will, mean devaluing that person as a human being and removing their basic rights and dignities.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Kestra15

[Princess Artemis]

I feel the problem here is you are misunderstanding 'right to life' and taking it to mean, very literally, that we remove all their rights to life.

No, I feel the problem is that we have a different understanding of what rights are. If you're using jargon, and "right to life" means something other than "right to life", here's something to remember: You're not talking to a room full of doctors.

 

I see that is exactly what you have been doing (as you have now defined what "right to life" means to you), and y'know, that's a downright clunky jargonization of English.

[Kestra15]

No, I feel the problem is that we have a different understanding of what rights are. If you're using jargon, and "right to life" means something other than "right to life", here's something to remember: You're not talking to a room full of doctors.

 

I see that is exactly what you have been doing (as you have now defined what "right to life" means to you), and y'know, that's a downright clunky jargonization of English.

Not really, since different phrases mean different things to different people, and the non-medical persons who I have discussed this with in the past have understood without the explanations to this depth.

[NobleOwl]

I am christian, so naturally I am opposed to the whole concept of ending ones life.

 

Let's not draw assumptions here please, there are Jews and Christians on both sides of the abortion issue. Being Christian does not automatically assume one must be pro-life, just as being Jewish does not mean someone is automatically pro-choice.

 

I like their concept of FLO (Future like ours) To determine whether or not abortion is ethical and moral. Under their theories abortion is justifiable when these circumstances are met.

 

The problem I have with this is that it assumes that a fetus must necessarily become a human being, which is not necessarily true. Let me offer up an example:

 

A) Woman is eleven weeks pregnant and has an abortion.

 

Same woman, but she chooses to carry -- the fetus later becomes a parasitic mass, around week 24.

 

Is the abortion in A still murder? It wasn't a parasitic mass yet, but in scenario B, there is no way it can become a human being. So is it murder if it was never going to be human in the first place?

 

I think that is a big issue with the modern idea of soul at conception, which is why organisations like the Vatican tended to flip flop.

[KageSora]

Not really, since different phrases mean different things to different people, and the non-medical persons who I have discussed this with in the past have understood without the explanations to this depth.

I'm a non-medical person and I'm getting what you're saying. It makes perfect sense to me.

[potterwolf]

Not really, since different phrases mean different things to different people, and the non-medical persons who I have discussed this with in the past have understood without the explanations to this depth.

I'm going to have to side with Princess Artemis on this one. I understand what you're trying to say, I think. But...I don't think it's 'right to life' that we're talking about when we discuss DNR patients.

 

As I understand it, having a right to life means that nobody else can take away your life against your will (legally anyway). This isn't the same issue that we're talking about with DNR patients. A person who has chosen to be DNR is simply saying that they don't want extra measures to be taken to resuscitate them in the event of a medical emergency. That has nothing to do with their right to life.

 

When doctors resuscitate people, it's not because they are trying to protect their right to life. Nobody has a 'right to life' in the sense that they have the right to defy all damage and disease to their body. That would be ridiculous. Nobody has the "right" to survive through a medical emergency. As medical professionals, the doctors are obligated to try to preserve their patient's lives as long as they can, but not against their patient's will.

 

Doctors will attempt to resuscitate those without DNR status based on the assumption that most people would choose to be saved if given the choice. Not because they're fulfilling a person's right to life.

[AngelicDemise]

First off, I think abortion is wrong. Unless under severe circumstances such as rape. I think if you think you are old enough to participate in intercourse then you are old enough to take responsibility for your actions.

[NobleOwl]

First off, I think abortion is wrong. Unless under severe circumstances such as rape. I think if you think you are old enough to participate in intercourse then you are old enough to take responsibility for your actions.

So you think a baby should be a punishment? If not, then how is an abortion not "taking responsibility for your actions."?

 

Not trying to attack you, just trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

What I find revolting or truly despicable is to not ease the suffering of a future child. It's the humane thing to do. Letting somebody suffer for the rest of their life isn't protection. That's just pure selfishness of the individual or parents who could not let the poor soul go and allow him or her to be trapped in a world where the pain is so great that not you or I could comprehend.

 

What if a parent can't afford a child or is unable to love it? Shouldn't they be equally allowed to spare that child pain, rather than be forced to bring them into the world to suffer?

 

Parents make medical decisions for children based on what they feel is best for that child -- if a parent feels that they cannot parent properly, or could not care emotionally or otherwise for that child, why should they not be allowed to do what they feel is in the best interest for the child?

Edited July 21, 2012 by NobleOwl

[renton]

Well, this will always be a sensitive topic between others. I still believe under certain circumstances the abortion can be justified. You can tell me otherwise but in my eyes I would not want a child to suffer for the rest of their life. Some children will have impairments but will still be able to get by. That's okay! So, in some cases I will say abortion would not be alright! As I previously mentioned rape, life threatening conditions to the mother and child should be understandable throughout society. Also, I still believe if your partner would make having the child unbearable and you were stuck in that situation, that you could also see an abortion as an option. People can argue either way but both sides have great points. People who are for and people who are against.

[brairtrainer]

Its just too bad that people don't take the time to listen to both sides. I honestly say I'm surprised this thread was still here...I was suspecting to see a bunch of drama and then get it hushed up . But obviously people can still debate and be civil about it .

 

I, personally say I'm pro-choice but I think that abortion should have a couple of rules governing it but I'd rather it stay the way it is instead of outlawing it.

 

First, I think every state should have a way to get third term abortions for cases where the mother is in danger, the fetus isn't viable or has a low chance of viablity that would require surgery that the parents could not afford both the surgery and the aftercare with what insurence covers if the child was to survive.

 

What is a low chance of viability? I'd think 5-10% though doctors here may agree or disagree with me and I'd love to hear from you.

 

Second, I think there should be an amount of time that you are limited with elective abortions. I'm thinking no more than 5 abortions per year where there isn't a medical need or if the woman was raped. I say this because I knew girls who used abortions as a substitute for bc and condums and as much as I understand the procedure I think we need to promote prevention with abortion as a choice when prevention fails.

 

Third, I think that laws that prevent protestors from blocking doors or preventing a buisness from doing buisness need to be applied to clinic protesters. I think that the protesters need to know that they can chant, hand out pamphlets, etc. but they can't grab, scream at, or chase away people going to the clinc.

 

but hey thats my 2 cents

[Princess Artemis]

Not really, since different phrases mean different things to different people, and the non-medical persons who I have discussed this with in the past have understood without the explanations to this depth.

Yes really, because right to life != right to consent to medical treatment (or as you said, "right to treatment that will prolong life"). Any jargon which makes the term "right to life" mean "right to life saving (prolonging) medical treatment" is clunky, because it has extremely limited application and has little to do with the actual word, "life". Any jargon which makes life = treatment that will prolong life is clunky and poor jargon.

 

Just because you have found a few people who understand you when you use piss-poor jargon like that does not mean that the misunderstanding we are having is not a result of piss-poor jargon.

[Kestra15]

Yes really, because right to life != right to consent to medical treatment (or as you said, "right to treatment that will prolong life"). Any jargon which makes the term "right to life" mean "right to life saving (prolonging) medical treatment" is clunky, because it has extremely limited application and has little to do with the actual word, "life". Any jargon which makes life = treatment that will prolong life is clunky and poor jargon.

 

Just because you have found a few people who understand you when you use piss-poor jargon like that does not mean that the misunderstanding we are having is not a result of piss-poor jargon.

*shrug* Okay. I'm off to Italy now until August so we'll leave this here.

[hydrargyrum]

Second, I think there should be an amount of time that you are limited with elective abortions. I'm thinking no more than 5 abortions per year where there isn't a medical need or if the woman was raped. I say this because I knew girls who used abortions as a substitute for bc and condums and as much as I understand the procedure I think we need to promote prevention with abortion as a choice when prevention fails.

I see where you're getting at with this, but I don't think it would help the problem. Just because someone is too ignorant of how to be careful doesn't mean they should be required to give birth. Maybe instead require in-depth education of alternate birth control if a woman has 2-3 elective abortions in a short span of time, as well as helping her immediately get access to them (get prescription for the pill, give her a handful of condoms, etc). It does stink to see women use abortion as a primary birth control, but simply limiting the number of abortions they can get doesn't solve the underlying problem.

[Obscure_Trash]

Second, I think there should be an amount of time that you are limited with elective abortions. I'm thinking no more than 5 abortions per year where there isn't a medical need or if the woman was raped. I say this because I knew girls who used abortions as a substitute for bc and condums and as much as I understand the procedure I think we need to promote prevention with abortion as a choice when prevention fails.

So what happens when they continue to not use any birth control besides abortion? Now they're just going to be stuck with children whom they don't want and don't have the ability to raise and the children are just going to be stuck in a bad place because their parent was forced to give birth to them?

 

While it doesn't make any sense to not at least use condoms, which are cheap and easy to get, I don't want to punish people or the children that would result from it by not allowing them to have an abortion.

 

And how would you differentiate between people who aren't using any birth control because they don't want to or just haven't been educated on it properly and people stuck in abusive relationships, perhaps where they are being raped or their partner is tampering with their method or birth control or has lied about being sterilized or such?

 

3=

[brairtrainer]

I see where you're getting at with this, but I don't think it would help the problem. Just because someone is too ignorant of how to be careful doesn't mean they should be required to give birth. Maybe instead require in-depth education of alternate birth control if a woman has 2-3 elective abortions in a short span of time, as well as helping her immediately get access to them (get prescription for the pill, give her a handful of condoms, etc). It does stink to see women use abortion as a primary birth control, but simply limiting the number of abortions they can get doesn't solve the underlying problem.

I know that I was explaing what I'd eventually want to see. I think first before we can touch number two though is work away from abstinance only education and how and where you can get birth control.

 

Edit to cover what Sock said:

 

I eventually would like number two but I would like to think that five times was a larger enough amount of time to either

a) stop having sex with someone who is tampering with the birth control

add or switch birthcontrol to something that is more effective

c) been talked to enough by counselors to know the other options and know how they can get them

d) if five times is two few maybe up it to seven or nine?

Edited July 22, 2012 by brairtrainer