Right to Life

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Split topic from Embryo Research ~ Griffin

I think this is very interesting.
I also think that in this question is firmly linked to the question about the rights to legal abortions.

My opinion is that humanity has too much to gain from stem cell research to refrain from it, however good ethical guidelines are desperately needed.
The scientific and political world together has to define when a embryo becomes a human life once and for all.

I think stem cell research, would be an excellent use for unwanted sperm and eggs that was meant for In Vitro Fertilisation but are now closing in on their expiring date, given that the donors have signed a release form of cause.

   

Oh, I agree with everything you sad, save one.

You said, "The scientific and political world together has to define when a embryo becomes a human life once and for all."

I think that is a very dangerous path to walk.  Right now, it's pretty much up in the air, as a FORMAL definition.

Once we make it FORMAL, it gets literally written in STONE.  And becomes VERY hard to change-- even if we wanted to later.

Who knows?  Some day we may find other methodologies to make embryonic stem cells, without the need of embryos.  Or, we may find that most of the world's religions are right, and there really IS a soul.

On the other hand, I'm totally with you on reproductive rights:  as long as there is NO OTHER SAFE alternative, then a woman should have the right to end a pregnancy at whim.  It's HER uterus, it's HER decision.  Period.  NO ONE ought to have ANY right to prohibit that decision--bar none.  (Not even parents-- yeah, I'm an extreme personal liberty sort of guy).

Some day, it may become routine and simple, to remove an unwanted fetus for storage, or carry to term in an artificial womb.

THEN, there might be a case for avoiding just "turning it off" as it were.

And no, I did not place a terms limit, either-- anytime just before actual birth.  But, as a practical matter, if the fetus can survive on it's own at the time the mother wants to end it, the fetus ought to be allowed a chance--but still remove it if that's what the mother wants.

As I often say to anti-abortionists:  "Don't want an abortion?  Fine.  Don't HAVE one."

[ivor]

As I often say to anti-abortionists:  "Don't want an abortion?  Fine.  Don't HAVE one."

I say that same thing.  When I say stuff like that some people spit and call me a "Liberal."  Then I say to them, "Being a liberal doesn't mean I support abortion, it means I don't want to decide for you whether abortion should be allowed."  Sadly there no shortage of people willing to decide stuff for me.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

As I often say to anti-abortionists:  "Don't want an abortion?  Fine.  Don't HAVE one."

I say that same thing.  When I say stuff like that some people spit and call me a "Liberal."  Then I say to them, "Being a liberal doesn't mean I support abortion, it means I don't want to decide for you whether abortion should be allowed."  Sadly there no shortage of people willing to decide stuff for me.

Too true.  One of the worst offenders is Ure Gub'ment At Werk.

Every time I hear or read about 'Ure Gub'ment At Werk' I shudder inside.... nothing good, I think

[Darlica]

Oh, I agree with everything you sad, save one.

You said, "The scientific and political world together has to define when a embryo becomes a human life once and for all."

I think that is a very dangerous path to walk.  Right now, it's pretty much up in the air, as a FORMAL definition.

Once we make it FORMAL, it gets literally written in STONE.  And becomes VERY hard to change-- even if we wanted to later.

Who knows?  Some day we may find other methodologies to make embryonic stem cells, without the need of embryos.  Or, we may find that most of the world's religions are right, and there really IS a soul.

On the other hand, I'm totally with you on reproductive rights:  as long as there is NO OTHER SAFE alternative, then a woman should have the right to end a pregnancy at whim.  It's HER uterus, it's HER decision.  Period.  NO ONE ought to have ANY right to prohibit that decision--bar none.  (Not even parents-- yeah, I'm an extreme personal liberty sort of guy).

Some day, it may become routine and simple, to remove an unwanted fetus for storage, or carry to term in an artificial womb.

THEN, there might be a case for avoiding just "turning it off" as it were.

And no, I did not place a terms limit, either-- anytime just before actual birth.  But, as a practical matter, if the fetus can survive on it's own at the time the mother wants to end it, the fetus ought to be allowed a chance--but still remove it if that's what the mother wants.

As I often say to anti-abortionists:  "Don't want an abortion?  Fine.  Don't HAVE one."

You definitely have a point with the risks of a formal definition. Still I think that this is a question that needs to be discussed more openly.
In Sweden one can have a regular abortion until week 12, it is also around that time the featus officially goes from being a fetus and becomes a child.
What I think is needed is education about the difference between a fetus in the zygote state (when the stem cells virtually can become anything and therefore is of most interest for stem cell research) and a child during the last two trimesters.

Our right wing Christians are lobbying for a stricter abortion legislation and have done so for the last 15 years only now they have a several seats in our government. They have tried and pretty much succeeded to stop stem cell research especially after the US ban. There are a lot of women here including me that are preparing for a rather nasty battle in time for the next election.


 

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Consider me part of that. I don't intend to put myself in a situation where I would have to worry about this (and I hope life doesn't throw me in a situation where I have no choice), but I feel that option should be there. Just because I don't intend to have an abortion doesn't mean that there won't be that situation where it's necessary.

This debate is very heavily linked, as has been said before, to abortion. This all comes down to quality of life versus 'sanctity of life.'

A zygote is not a human person. It's not even the level of a starfish yet*. It has not got even a nerve net to feel pain with. It has no brain waves**. Nothing that makes it human, other than its genetics. At this state, it's no more alive than a bone taken from a body--not living in and of itself, per se.

I'm one of those weird people that has a thing about causing any functional being (insects on up) pain (Kill it if you have a legit reason, but make it a clean kill). And I have no issue taking a moldable lump of tissue and making it into a kidney or a liver for someone who is in desperate need of one.

The Quality of life for a human person is more important than the right of a lump of tissue's right to 'live'.


<sub>* This is all based on my memories of zoology and various texts. It's entirely possible that I'm very, very wrong.

**Brain waves mean that it's now a child as fair as I'm concerned.</sub>

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

The way that I see it, is that a fetus is a child/human, when it is able to survive on it's own, without herculean efforts.  By that I do not mean incubators and such[as being herculean]-- these only assist the newborn to complete it's progress.

Because of the ever-more sophisticated medical technology, this artificial boundary gets pushed back a bit, each year.   Not that long ago, a naturally-occurring pre-mature birth would have a 1 out of 7 or less chance to survive.

Now, if a fetus reaches roughly 6 months gestation, it has a very good chance it will survive as a normal person.

So, to be safe, set the barrier at 5 months-- it's an arbitrary distinction, trying to balance the rights of the mother with the assumed rights-to-be of the child.   

But, if a mother truly does not wish the child, she ought to have the right to have it removed from her body-- to me, this should be a sacred right-- the sanctity of her body is her own to decide about.   NO PERSON should EVER be forced into slavery for the HEALTH of another-- even if only temporary.

That just leaves the method of removal-- if the fetus has a good chance of surviving, and the life of the mother is not seriously compromised or risked, then the fetus ought to be removed in such a way to preserve it's life.

If the fetus has little or no chance, then the removal method ought to be extremely protective of the mother's body and life-- and nothing else should be taken into consideration--- for it is not a human you're removing, but only a potential human.

..........

I've heard many times the religious arguments, that a "soul" is instilled at conception.  That may or may not be.  If so-- then roughly 50% of all of the souls ever thusly created, died before childbirth.  At least, that is the conservative estimate.

By that, I mean, that it's (conservatively) estimated that roughly 50% of all human eggs that are successfully fertilized, fail to develop properly, and are automatically discarded by the woman's uterus.   Most of these, a woman might notice her visit from aunt flo is later than usual, is all.  Some might have more cramps than is typical, but nothing more.

Thus, if the religious argument is true, that a soul goes into a fetus the second it's fertilized, then god likes to make unborn-souls, if the natural order of things is any judge-- No, I think that argument has little or no weight.

Another religious/moral argument is the "sanctity of life" argument.   In that we ought to do everything we can to preserve human life, wherever possible.

I agree. 

But, when this argument is used as an anti-abortion argument, it begs the question:  what about the sanctity of the mother's life?   What about her sanity?  Her mental health?  Forcing her to term, against her will and against her wishes says that the sanctity of HER life is as NOTHING!

_{(I usually see this argument put forth by men, who have zero clue about the physical cost of a pregnancy on a mother's health.  Someday, we may be able to force these nutjobs to truly comprehend what it's like.... but I can dream)}

I usually counter it thusly:  is it moral and ethical to FORCE someone to give up a kidney, to save the life of someone else? 

Sadly, I find that at the heart of many who use this argument, is the hidden idea that a woman who wants to end a pregnancy, for whatever reason, is really some sort of "sinner" and ought to "pay".  Pretty sick point of view, but it's prevalent among the fundamentalist crowd.

[pieces o nine]

Some of the most painful and disturbing arguments I have ever heard from the xtreme! anti-abortion worldview is that it is 'murder' to remove an ectopic pregnancy.

These people cannot wrap their minds -- or hearts -- around the reality that an ectopic pregnancy *is not viable*. The developing fetus will die. Period. Surgery will save the woman from excruciating pain and, possibly, death. Doesn't matter to these people, they are convinced that it is God's will. I have come to the conclusion that there is a poorly disguised absolute *hatred* of women in the birth-at-all-costs zealots, regardless of their gender and regardless of their professed religious sensibilities.

The second hard-line, no-compromise stance I find incomprehensible is the insistence that a fetus which has died --[especially late term, after movement has been easily detected]-- but not been expelled by the body through miscarriage, must be carried until it is, or else the woman is participating in 'murder'. The fact that there is no fetal heartbeat or brainwaves in these rare instances cuts no ice with this crowd.

Again, the almost gloating quotes of religious texts (out of context) indicates to me an extreme fear and hatred of women that far exceeds the proclaimed love for innocent little babies. Especially since the absolutely no abortions mentality seems to coincide with a heartless, absolutely no post-birth social support for either mother or child stance.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

.... absolutely no post-birth social support for either mother or child stance.

And here, you nailed the proof-of-real intent.

I'm amazed at the level of hatred.

Sometimes, I think it's stems from a bit of jealosy, too-- they somehow think that everyone who is not in their little circle of "faith" (if that's what it is) is really out there, whooping it up, having a blast and so forth.

And, they KNOW that their own lives are pretty miserable ('I'm not worthy'...as if!), they are jealous of everyone else.

My <relative-specifics deleted> often said that were it not for his beliefs (he's a fundy) that he would be a horrible person.

What?

And he also often said things that made me think he was jealous of all those "non-believers"....  What again?

What sort of god would DEMAND of it's followers that they live in misery and envy all the time? Not a GOOD being, certainly!

*bleah*

I just can't seem to stay on topic! 

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I had never thought about the misogyny in the movement, more than just the "Babies at all costs!"



And all the women who go along with this...

[anthrobabe]

I agree- what is this telling our daughters

a potential life is more than you.
a life that will neve be (death before birth, ectopic, extreme disability that will cause death at or before birth) is more important than you.

I agree with Pieces-- extreme hatred for women- in many cases perpetuated by women against their very own...

and also- the post birth support, oh they march and wave and yell- but then who helps a mother with a severly disabled (sometimes) child who did not want the pregnancy (hence the kid) and who can not care for the child.
well so often they say that is her punishment for sin (even if she is 12 and reped by her father).
After all the entire judaeo-christian birth idology comes from the pattern of Eve who conceived in sin and it better hurt and be rough all you hussys! (no offense to sibs who are christian- you surely know what I mean)

[Sibling Chatty]

I know, and as a Christian, I am probably the MOST supportive of Freedom of Choice among this group.

The "death-toll" mentality of these protesters is something that makes me want to kick them until they bleed... Like Bob said, about half of all 'conceptions' end in spontaneous abortion..."God" decides it's not time. Well, DUH. So God has the only working brain in the Universe?? Nooooo...although sometimes the Fundamentalists give one pause to think about that.

The Bible describes the time in a pregnancy called 'quickening'. That's the time when the fetus (not embryo, fetus) starts to move spontaneously. Wanna draw a nice 'Biblical' deciding line? How about there? After that, any pregnant Christians have to talk it over with their clergy before an abortion can be performed. Anybody else? Up to THEIR belief system.

Late terms? Take that 'viability' issue and work from it. With scientists and doctors, not zealots. But, under NO circumstances, is a person to be denied the chance to disavow themselves from the responsibility for that eventual child. If you FORCE a woman to give birth, SOMEBODY better be ready to take responsibility for that baby. She had reasons to NOT bring a/another child into her life, so the 'decider' gets to be responsible.

I still wish that those asses in the Virginia legislature had pushed through their "products of conception" law. They wanted all miscarriages, etc. evaluated as possible "murders of the baby"--even though there WAS no baby. Can you imagine every woman that was a week late, then started, packing up soiled underwear and used protection and the calling the cops to turn themselves in? The state would have come to a standstill. Of course, MY solution was to send the resulting mountains of 'forensic evidence' to the guy who proposed the stupid law to begin with.

My response to "Abortion stops a beating heart" is LACK of abortion can stop more than one. It can end lives that are in mid-stream, it can deprive families of daughters that could have used their education, their abilities, the rest of their already-started lives. Ask my Mom. Ask my brothers, who barely remember their oldest sister. Less that a year before Roe V Wade, my sister died while trying to NOT have the unplanned baby of her by-then-dead (VietNam) boyfriend.

Yeah, I've been arrested three or four times at demonstrations. When they start spouting off about 'immorality', I lose it. I see a big black cloud, and then I just want to hurt somebody the way my family hurt...and I start yelling at individual assholes. Never hit anybody, not first, last or in between, but have BEEN hit.

It's NOT your body, demonstrators. It's NOT your life to screw up. And it's none of your damn business, Catholic Church, or anybody else.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

It's NOT your body, demonstrators. It's NOT your life to screw up. And it's none of your damn business, Catholic Church, or anybody else.

RUUUMBLE!!!!

[The Meromorph]

I've said it elsewhere. I'll say it here.

A man's role in a decision about an abortion is to humbly offer his opinion if and only if asked by the woman involved, and then to provide complete. committed, loving and helpful support for her decision, whatever it may be.

[pieces o nine]

This topic, more than any other, radicalized my conscience and political leanings. I was raised RRC (Really Roman Catholic -smile-) and quite sheltered, to boot.

But in my twenties, a college friend still living in a small town with an even more repressive family contacted me for help. She wanted someone who truly understood and would not judge or preach, to help her find options. She picked me and I didn't think twice about her 'value'. On my lunch hour, I started calling the yellow page listings. I thought I would be given information, and perhaps be offered referrals to a prenatal care and adoption services as well. Not.

The response to my first call, "I have a friend who..."  was an earful of angry biblical invective, accompanied by brutally harsh assessments of my own -- clearly lacking -- morality. I sat down, in total shock, to recover my composure. Next call: same. Third call: same. (It took me a bit to catch on to their assumptions regarding: "I have a friend who..." which changed my flight  adrenalin to fight.  If they assumed *I* was the crisis pregnancy, their approach was 180° off what was appropriate to reach someone clearly desperate enough to consider extreme measures.) Next two calls: more judgement and damnation. A coworker -- and a churchgoing mother herself -- stood at my side, hand on my shoulder, handing me tissues in between calls.

The last number in the list was answered by a receptionist for an actual doctor, not a hard-line 'ministry' masquerading as pregnancy counseling. She was crisp and efficient: How far along? An appointment was available on x  date at x  time and x  location. Fee would be x,  payable in cash prior to the procedure. Recovery would involve x, y, and z.

I booked the appointment and did not tell my friend about any of the 'counseling' options. She and her future husband stayed with me for the weekend. I drove them to the clinic and sat with him in the waiting room. I celebrated their wedding a couple years later when they were ready to take that step, and later still met their children; both were wanted and loved.

The only 'penance' I assigned myself was a decision to help one existing child to make up for the potential child I had elected to not help. That led to being a long-term youth mentor in a national program, a truly wonderful experience and a long-winded tale best left for another time. I have no regrets about my action. I suspect part of her will always wish that pregnancy had occurred two years later, but she made the right decision for her life.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Epilogue: flash forward ten years to a RRC boyfriend, exerting more and more pressure for me to marry and submit my will to his in godly obedience. (He expected me to provide five children, the number in his family and therefore the right number. There were three in my family; there is a good possibility I can't conceive; both irrelevant. It took a bit for me to divine that wanting fewer children than he grew up with equaled [in his mind] a wish that the younger siblings had been aborted. [?!?] ) I laughed this off when it first surfaced, several months into the relationship.

In a debate about birth control, family planning, and abortion, I rolled out this story to explain how I had reached my views. He was shocked, although it took him awhile to give up, let go, and move on. He got even, though. I learned later that he went around to *all* of my friends, some of my acquaintances, a couple  men he learned I had dated, artisans I networked with and patronized at art fairs, considered contacting past, present and future employers, my out-of-state relatives, and people in my change-of-denomination church, in order to sadly inform them that I had once had an abortion.  He did this under his favorite persona of 'incapable of lying' due to his deep religious convictions.

FWIW, I am not singling out any denomination here! But the scales fell from my eyes -- twice -- about how 'religion' can pervert those who follow it too blindly. Those who would deny accurate information, birth control and outlaw abortion as harming the innocent, seem always first in line to limit, impoverish, and punish children born outside of privileged families. They do not hesitate to break all the commandments in the process. And they quote passages in their sacred texts of choice to bolster both actions. Jesus wept.

[Sibling Chatty]

Ex-BF needs a quick and painful experience with libel laws. Oh, and expensive...

Or we can just put him in the freezer and then warm up the wood chipper.