|
Post by MartinB on Mar 21, 2005 8:01:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by RBA not logged in on Mar 21, 2005 8:50:32 GMT 1
There is certainly a paradox there Martin As someone both anti capital punishemnt and anti abortion I do think that Bush (not my favourite person) I is right to sign this law There is disagreement about the womans condition.Her parents believe she is capable of recognising them and reacting to her environment ,her husband who wants her to die, has long been in a relationship with another woman and acording to a report on Radio 4 has alledgedly spent money meant for her care on a house for himself .She had not made a living will and in any case the state should not in my view go around killing people simply because it makes a judgemnt on their quality of life by starving them to death As I say I am anti capital punishment and anti abortion and anti euthanasia and your right Bush is inconsistent however is it not also inconsistent to be pro abortion pro euthanasia and anti capital punishment ? Just a thought Any way thanks for raising the issue
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Mar 21, 2005 9:04:40 GMT 1
I wasn't looking at this particular case, just it stuck me as odd for George Bush to take the stands he does.
Abortion and euthanasia are both very difficult subjects and trying to write good laws is very very difficult because there are so many different circumstances that could happen.
Only thing I do know is the Death Penalty has to be wrong purely on the grounds of the wrong people do get convicted occassionally and you cannot reverse the punishment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2005 9:11:33 GMT 1
This could turn out to be a very interesting thread.
I'm both pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia to a certain extent. I say to a certain extent as there would need to be limits set on where and when both abortion and euthanasia are made appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Mar 21, 2005 9:17:00 GMT 1
This could turn out to be a very interesting thread. I'm both pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia to a certain extent. I say to a certain extent as there would need to be limits set on where and when both abortion and euthanasia are made appropriate. This is where things get difficult isn't it? What is appropriate?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Mar 21, 2005 9:20:13 GMT 1
I think there are times when abortion and euthanasia are the right course of action and should be available as an option...its the criteria that’s difficult to agree upon...
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Mar 21, 2005 9:32:59 GMT 1
I think there are times when abortion and euthanasia are the right course of action and should be available as an option...its the criteria that’s difficult to agree upon... Martin...you don't think a girl who has been raped and then finds herself pregnant as a result shouldn't have the right to an abortion? Absolutely, that's why I have an open mind about both abortion and euthanasia. In my view there must be times when it is the best thing for the person but how does anyone know what is right? You get the cases like RBA mentioned in his reply, how do you know if someone is acting in the interests of the person who is dying or in their own? I started this thread because of some America's taking the moral high ground over perserving life whilst still having the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Mar 21, 2005 9:44:14 GMT 1
Indeed...its a tricky one isn't it. I find meself thinking about this a fair bit when you see the stories reported on the news...but I never seem to come to an agreement with meself as to the best course of action or where I stand on the subject...
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Mar 21, 2005 9:48:27 GMT 1
I started this thread because of some America's taking the moral high ground over perserving life whilst still having the death penalty. Good point. Bush and his cronies are also against stem cell research. Following former president Ronald Reagan's death due to Alzheimer's in 2004 Nancy Reagan and all of her family, except for Michael Reagan, have mounted a campaign to encourage President Bush to relax restrictions on embryo stem cell research. Fifty-eight senators, almost all Democrats, sent a letter to President Bush, urging the same action. So hows that for double standards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2005 10:40:20 GMT 1
I really find it difficult to have a view on abortion, and wonder how it is that people like Ann Widdercombe can be so vocal and make laws about situations they will never have any understanding about.
Quite simply, in the absence of any understanding on my part, I have to be pro-choice.
|
|
|
Post by RBA not logged in on Mar 21, 2005 10:53:23 GMT 1
I really find it difficult to have a view on abortion, and wonder how it is that people like Ann Widdercombe can be so vocal and make laws about situations they will never have any understanding about. Quite simply, in the absence of any understanding on my part, I have to be pro-choice. I am not saying these are esy choices and I certainly respect your opinion but this is complex for example it seems very strange to me that in a Specila Baby Care Unit Doctors struggle to save the life of a baby born alive at 23 weeks while perhaps 50yds away they take the life of a viable baby at 24 weeks I know mine is a very unfashionable view but life is sacred and being pro choice is all about the woman ( thats understandable as she will have to bear the baby and look after it) but does a viable baby in the womb have no rights? Also I think its a bit harsh on Ann Widdecombe like her or loathe her she has been elected and has a right to speak her mind Blairs never been a single mum but surely he is right to have views about giving them extra help etc? Any way appreciate all the posts on this topic well worth reading
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 21, 2005 10:53:59 GMT 1
The whole debate is both moral and scientific
I think the key to the abortion issue relates to when you think a life is a life
Is it fertilisation, when the egg attaches to the womb, or birth itself? That is the issue
If you think it is birth then do what you want beforehand - if so why even have a limit on how old an unborn child has to be?
If it is once the egg has attached and starts to grow then all abortion for convenience shoud not be allowed
no-one would think of making a law saying you could shoot a five year old if circumstances were not ideal for having that child at that time - so just because they have not been born yet does not move the goalposts
then you move onto "medical reasons" and suddenly everyone's ethics are under threat due to the complexity
If the child will die anyway then abortion merely makes a natural process safer doesn't it?
If the child and the mother are going to die then surely it is better to just lose the child?
Who can decide what "quality of life" for a child is? I see hundreds of people every year with all sorts of disabilities, appearing to be living a full and enjoyable life
But I don't buy the "medical reasons" argument for many many other areas in which it is used
A family friend rung my father asking advice because they had been offered an abortion "on medical grounds" to their child who was going to be born with a clubbed foot.
Now I am maybe a bit sensitive about that because my brother was born with a clubbed foot. It requires an operation just afetr brith and that is it really, no limp, no impairment, can still play football, stands on the riverside....
Something is wrong with the system, there is very little support for mothers who have had an abortion, there is very little counselling or advice for people before or after the event, there is poor medical advice and a huge social stigma attached to the whole issue
The people who care about the children don't seem to care about the mother's, and vice versa
It polarises opinion so strongly that everyone seems to be the accused, whereas in reality everyone is the victim in situations like this, no-one wins, everyone needs help and support
the bottom line is over 180,000 abortions place in the UK last year - something is wrong
65 people received the death penalty in the USA last year, according to Amnesty International
180,000 or 65?
We are on shaky ground pointing fingers at them until we have our own situation under control
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 21, 2005 11:07:55 GMT 1
Rather strangely, i find myself taking a similar stance to Ann Widicombe on the abortion issue That being, in extreme cases of physical or mental disability, or when the mother is in danger, abortion should be allowed, but only in extreme cases. Basically at the moment, abortion is allowed for just about any reason upto 24 weeks, thats only 3 months short of full term pregnancy, and in the case of miscarriage, very save able with modern techniques and equipment. Let me put it this way. If you have two children, both 10 years old. If you kill either child, its murder. Now take another two children, both delivered at 24 weeks. Is it right that one is allowed to be killed whilst the other is allowed to live? As for the American connection. From the nation that funds the IRA and Contra Rebels yet goes to war with countries that sponsor terrorism, from the country that invades another on the claimed grounds of humanitarian need yet stands by as millions of africans are slaughtered or starve to death, from a country that is armed to the teeth with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and yet will deny other countries the right to protect themselves, does this come as any suprise to anyone?
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 21, 2005 11:18:38 GMT 1
As for the American connection. From the nation that funds the IRA and Contra Rebels yet goes to war with countries that sponsor terrorism, from the country that invades another on the claimed grounds of humanitarian need yet stands by as millions of africans are slaughtered or starve to death, from a country that is armed to the teeth with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and yet will deny other countries the right to protect themselves, does this come as any suprise to anyone? I think you will find it is known as "protecting liberty"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2005 11:34:06 GMT 1
But the argument over 24/25 weeks etc, then if it is moved to 22 weeks, wouldn't the argument just run about it being 21/22 weeks.
I guess it boils down to the fact that I don't believe in preserving life at any cost, I don't really see the solution to reducing abortions in making it illegal, and that I do not believe in the rights of unborn babies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2005 11:35:33 GMT 1
As for the American connection. From the nation that funds the IRA and Contra Rebels yet goes to war with countries that sponsor terrorism, from the country that invades another on the claimed grounds of humanitarian need yet stands by as millions of africans are slaughtered or starve to death, from a country that is armed to the teeth with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and yet will deny other countries the right to protect themselves, does this come as any suprise to anyone? You bloody Young Socialists with your Chairman Mao and Fidel Castro t-shirts.........
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 21, 2005 11:35:38 GMT 1
But the argument over 24/25 weeks etc, then if it is moved to 22 weeks, wouldn't the argument just run about it being 21/22 weeks. exactly either it is at the point the egg joins the womb or not at all any other way of deciding the age of the child is just plaucking a number out of thin air
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 21, 2005 11:36:13 GMT 1
being pro choice is all about the woman ( thats understandable as she will have to bear the baby and look after it) Whilst i agree with some of what you say, I think this is an area that needs some new thinking. I dont see any reason why the decision should be the womans. In every other section of life women are seeking an equal footing to men, therefore i see no reason why a man is not allowed an equal input into these decisions. Womens Lib
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Mar 21, 2005 11:40:23 GMT 1
As for the American connection. From the nation that funds the IRA and Contra Rebels yet goes to war with countries that sponsor terrorism, from the country that invades another on the claimed grounds of humanitarian need yet stands by as millions of africans are slaughtered or starve to death, from a country that is armed to the teeth with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and yet will deny other countries the right to protect themselves, does this come as any suprise to anyone? Superb stuff our kid...
|
|
|
Post by MeoleShrew NLI on Mar 21, 2005 12:06:29 GMT 1
Whilst i agree with some of what you say, I think this is an area that needs some new thinking. I dont see any reason why the decision should be the womans. In every other section of life women are seeking an equal footing to men, therefore i see no reason why a man is not allowed an equal input into these decisions. Womens Lib you men start giving birth & the argument would be very!! interesting.
|
|
|
Post by islay malt on Mar 21, 2005 12:27:10 GMT 1
Unfortunately, the rights and wrongs, the moral issues and medical arguments, are in this case, irrelevant.
Bush was elected on the back of a massive campaign to get the support of the 'Religeous Right' (no offence intended there, by the way). It's now pay-back-time, and will continue to be so. He has to be seen to be doing what his backers demand, and this is part of it.
That the same group of people are, within the U.S, the most passionately in favour of the death penalty is, as already been pointed out, quite exraordinary.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 21, 2005 12:30:25 GMT 1
you men start giving birth & the argument would be very!! interesting. Fair point. But on a personal note, it is something that has always mystified me, if child birth is so terrible and painfull ( wich i accept it is from the reaction on my ex wifes face during the birth of my children ), why do they do it again and again? The first time is understandable, you dont know till you yry and all that, but the number of times i have heard women say " Im never doing that again", then 12 months later they are trying again for more babies Why?
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Mar 21, 2005 12:43:12 GMT 1
Fair point. But on a personal note, it is something that has always mystified me, if child birth is so terrible and painfull ( wich i accept it is from the reaction on my ex wifes face during the birth of my children ), why do they do it again and again? The first time is understandable, you dont know till you yry and all that, but the number of times i have heard women say " Im never doing that again", then 12 months later they are trying again for more babies Why? seriously Pab, after 32 hours of labour you would think any woman would keep to their word wouldn't you, really, its a different pain, there is a reason and eventually it ends, plus those damn hormones have a clever way of making you forget. The abortion issue is one clouded with religion which is bad, it still remains the best way to avoid abortion is education, for boys/men, the responsibility for a child is still seen as the womans until this is changed from being just men paying and more hands on, then there will unnessary pregnancys, to take away the choice could be damaging both physically and mentally.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 21, 2005 13:10:19 GMT 1
Bush was elected on the back of a massive campaign to get the support of the 'Religeous Right' (no offence intended there, by the way). It's now pay-back-time, and will continue to be so. He has to be seen to be doing what his backers demand, and this is part of it. That the same group of people are, within the U.S, the most passionately in favour of the death penalty is, as already been pointed out, quite exraordinary. You are right that strangest thing about the "religious right" is that abortion and euthanasia have become huge election moral issues The Bible mentions justice for the poor hundreds, if not thousands of times, and yet the issue of trade and justice is well off the politcal agenda in the USA Perhaps it is because as a nation they are making millions off the back of their economic superiority and their ability to dictate terms to poorer nations compare millions starving in Africa to gay marriage and I know which would most offend Jesus, and when He gets back there is going to be plenty of explaining to do on all sides, including the church
|
|
|
Post by wiganshrew2 on Mar 21, 2005 13:46:03 GMT 1
I'm on very shaky ground on the abortion issue.
I've known two tricky situations in my own family. (As, no doubt, many people have!)
I don't think I could have had an abortion myself. I seemed to "sense" that I was pregnant even before it was confirmed. I felt different. So- Yes- I agree that life begins with conception.
But suppose I'd been in a situation where I might have died and left other children without a mother? I haven't been in that situation- so I can't judge.
There was someone in our family, some time ago, who became pregnant - and was under pressure to have an abortion from other members of the family- for social reasons. She refused- had the child, brought her up till she eventually met a good reliable man who them both on. That child has brought untold happiness and has been a wonderful help to the very people who wanted to end her life.
Now- another young woman in my family had a cancer scare. After that, she became pregnant - but almost died as result of blood loss after a natural miscarriage.
The story was, she was told the baby- about 3 months into the pregnancy, had died anyway- she had the choice to let the threatened miscarriage happen naturally- or have a D&C (Pab- and some women- will know what that is) She went for the natural option- but wished she hadn't.
She almost died, because by the time she'd got to hospital she'd lost so much blood that her blood pressure was too low for them to operate. They gave her fluids, or something- and she made it- but only just.
She couldn't take the pill because of the cancer scare. Got pregnant again- and felt VERY ill. After a lot of soul-searching, she and her husband, together with the G.P. decided on an abortion. She's still suffering from the after-effects- and has been on anti-depressants.
So- what do you do in those circumstances. She had other children, who would have been left without a mother. On the other hand, she may have been all right in the end. How can you judge these things?
(I think they've sorted it out contraceptive-wise now. But you can't tell a happy, loving couple, who love each other, to sleep in separate rooms, can you?!!!)
I am a Christian and make no secret of it. I agree about what is the greater "evil" - gay marriage or starving millions. Some of these people who pride themselves on being "religious" yet say nothing when people in other countries are being exploited to make more powerful nations rich. They might well ask themselves what Jesus would have to say about that- but they don't do they? These things are ALL sanctity of life issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2005 13:50:42 GMT 1
I'm sure a lot of men would willingly give birth if they could as it wuld mean several months off work ;D
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Mar 21, 2005 13:59:41 GMT 1
I'm sure a lot of men would willingly give birth if they could as it wuld mean several months off work ;D Loyalshrew going for the femanist vote there
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 21, 2005 14:00:46 GMT 1
These things are ALL sanctity of life issues. That is the key It all depends on outlook and definition of terms. what annoys me, as Martin started the thread pointing it out, is the hypocrisy of it all John Major's "Back to Basics" campaign about marriage and the family while he was having an affair with Edwina Curry was a case in point we seem to want to "pick and mix" with issues of morality, and it always ends up looking hypocritical unless we find some basis for morality that we can develop a framework from
|
|
|
Post by rob on Mar 21, 2005 14:52:47 GMT 1
Its a tricky one. I'm personally pro choice, yes there have to be safe guards. The same goes for euthanasia. By making abortions very difficult and possibly illegal, women would just be forced underground, where standards, hygene and health are not monitered. I personally believe disagree with the stance of the Roman Catholic church. I personally think it is imoral to expect /pressurise women who are pregnant as a result of a sexual assault/abuse to give birth. As for children who are going to be born seriously disabled, well what if that child is going to born into a low income family. How can that family be expected to be able to afford to pay for constant every day provision and care? You see the line of my argument, I'll stop now. Having said tht I do respect the thought of people who disagree with me
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Mar 21, 2005 14:57:25 GMT 1
Fair point. But on a personal note, it is something that has always mystified me, if child birth is so terrible and painfull ( wich i accept it is from the reaction on my ex wifes face during the birth of my children ), why do they do it again and again? The first time is understandable, you dont know till you yry and all that, but the number of times i have heard women say " Im never doing that again", then 12 months later they are trying again for more babies Why? Not my Mrs - she said no bloody way, never again and has only strengthened her resolve in the near three years since ;D I claim it would be bad for the environment to have another kid, but actually I'm just thinking of myself.
|
|