Right to Life

[Griffin NoName]

Show me some Hunk Smilies

Last _{let's get down to basics/ begging} Post

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

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.

No, that is too kind, Chatty.

As satisfying as it would be-- think of it this way:  if he's still alive, he has to LIVE with himself.  Such a vindictive puke CAN NOT be a happy sort; not really.   Letting such trash live is more punishment than ending his miserable existence.

On the third hand, it would prevent him from contaminating anyone else....


_______________

Show me some Hunk Smilies

Last _{let's get down to basics/ begging} Post

Ooops?!?  LOL!

[Swatopluk]

At least one practice is not fashionable anymore: To deny a woman that dies while pregnant a place on the church cemetery because the unborn is unbaptized* unless the unborn is cut out of her and buried outside.
As far as ectopian (abdominal or tubal) pregnancies are concerned RCC doctrine far into the 20th century was that even then an abortion was not allowed because a woman dying of that was natural (GOD's will), while any attempt to save her but "endangering" the unborn was unnatural and immoral**. As far as I know the current doctrine is that "accidental death" of the unborn while trying to save the woman's life is "tolerated", if the doctor doing the treatment is willing. It is still "more moral" to remove the whole fallopian tubes ("accidentally" containing the fertilized egg) than to simply remove the egg from it (the first aims at the woman, the latter at the unborn).

*this "problem" led among other absurd things to the development of devices for pre-natal baptism
**Catholic doctors were instructed to put the spiritual life of the unborn higher than the earthly life of the woman, i.e. if the unborn could be baptized with it and the woman dying afterwards, that was preferable to safe the woman's life but leaving the unborn unbaptized (and going to hell).

[pieces o nine]

I took no action against xBF, despite the damage he intended with that lie, because the indoctrination he received was at the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time in the right/wrong family dynamics of his life to permanently warp him. He has my pity, not my vengeance. Those who truly know him have also been on the receiving end of his thoughtless remarks, brutal judgement, and fear-transformed-to-accusation in the guise of 'truth'.

:: Pieces adds that she has lived with herself all her life, and can testify that she ain't no picnic herself, sometimes. ::


[edit] Too true, Swato. Another reason they don't like wimmenfolk to read and get edjicated. Gives 'em ideas about rights and options. Also gives 'em the strength to walk away and never look back. [/edit]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hunk smiliies! Yay!

('snipped' of course. heh heh) 

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Silly little man, that ex of yours, Pieces. I find those sort astounding.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

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.

That -to me- sounds extremely reasonable. I know viability doesn't really come until the 5th/6th month but still if a woman wants an abortion she should be reasonable and take care of it sooner than later IMO.

I personally don't like abortion much, but having lived most of my life in a country where abortions are illegal has thought me how completely absurd and irrational the law is. Thousands of girls still have abortions but they seriously risk their health at the hands of the first guy claiming that he knows what he is doing. A number of them die of infection and others will never have a child and will have to deal all of their lives with the consequences of a badly done procedure. It doesn't make sense, much less when poverty is high and some families are quick to throw out a pregnant girl.

At least the state actively tries to educate children about sex although more could be done. That is why it boggles my mind to find out how less kids know about the stuff here in the States and the angry rhetoric of the fundies. Why don't they all go to a place where they can implement their beliefs without bothering everybody else, like -say- the planet Venus?

[Darlica]

My point of view is that abortions will happen, legal or not. 
There is no such thing as being Pro Abortion, just Pro Choice. Let the woman decide that is IMHO the only alternative.

I had and ectopic pregnancy about 11 years  ago, with an UID in place. It ended in a miscarriage 2 days before the abortion procedure and I still had to undergo the procedure to make sure nothing was left in my womb.
Years after I talked to a woman my age, and found out that she had done an abortion on the same clinic during roughly the same time, when I was treated very well and almost pampered with they where not as nice to her, she was met with the attitude that she was a bad girl who had gotten her self  into trouble... The difference? I had an UID and a ectopic pregnancy, for her and her BF it was the condom that failed. Treating people in more or less the same situation so differently is unforgivable to me.

Had I got pregnant with out the UID in place, I would still had that abortion, the hormone storms took a real toll on me, and my life could very well have ended right there and then if an abortion was impossible. Not to mention the fact that I was unemployed by SO was a struggling student and non of us wanted a kid... I feel no shame, no sadness over the potential life lost, it wasn't meant to be.

A child should be wanted, a gift, if the thought of a pregnancy and a child feels like an burden, I think one for the sake of the child should refrain from putting it into this world.

[pieces o nine]

Very well said, Darlica!



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Another act in the US political circus which deeply disturbs me is the 'designated sinner' at anti-abortion rallies. Some poor woman who had an abortion for very sensible reasons but has since been 'born again' is moved to confess her sin to her new pastor. Unlike the Jesus whom they claim to serve, they don't [[[forgive]]] her and go on with their respective lives. Oh no.

She is put on a circuit and trotted out at every stop to tearfully recount her testimony and relive the experience for the vicarious thrill of the revival crowd. Forever.  She will never be allowed to move beyond 'murdering her baby' so long as she remains within the cult. Even if a compassionate and enlightened person helps her to get out, her image and story will be used in perpetuity to thrill, enflame and guilt others, and to passively accuse her of apostasy.

Let those who are without sin cast the first bible verse.

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

Spilt from Embryo research topic ~Griffin

I like to think of self-awareness and/or sentience as the demarcation.

Then I consider people with severe mental handicaps or those in coma. There is no easy marker, no pat solution.

Your first marker is quite valid.

We, because we are compassionate and social, make a special dispensation for people who's brains do not work like the rest of us-- and therefore these are people, too.

But, a deliberate creation of a brainless human body?  That one is an interesting case.  It is not "people" by the first qualification, and since it NEVER had brain activity, you can't argue that it might "some day".

On the other hand, it DOES fall under the "special dispensation" rule, even though the missing brain was deliberate.

No-- brainless husks deliberately created are still "people", and should remain so.  Else we might be tempted to start treating those poor unfortunates who's brains work Differently Than Us  as Not People.

So, no total-body cloning, sans-brains, then.

What about cloning individual body-parts?  Like kidneys, livers and so forth?   I'd say that parts are not people, and are okay.

Then, how about THIS conundrum:  suppose cloning of human tissue becomes routine-- need a newer, younger heart?  No problem, trot down to the cloning facility, and have your heart cloned and implanted.

Here's the dilemma:  if it becomes routine, suppose Joe Smedlap has a brain injury.   He is effectively brain-dead.  His family has his brain tissue cloned, and implanted into his effectively-brainless body.   Is it ethical to clone a New Brain?  Would it be Joe, afterwards?

Suppose the brain injury is only partial, and a partial-brain tissue replacement is grown-- will it be Joe afterwards?

Food for thought....

[Sibling Chatty]

Look at the "Roe" of Roe v Wade.

This Wiki article only has part of the story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

When she recanted, Flip Benham (former saloon keeper tuned FundiMinister and Operation Rescue bully) baptized her and dragged her around like a show pony. They had to keep it quiet that she was still in a lesbian relationship.

Of course, none of her earlier life (3 kids, 3 fathers, one marriage, and not sure on paternity on 2 of the 3, according to one of her children) is in the Wiki. Nor that she worked for Planned Parenhood for years (a 'gimmie' job as a receptionist'). But it does say she became a Roman Catholic (1998) and is no longer a lesbian...now.

She's been everything in the world, but mostly, she's been somebody's symbol. Of something...

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

A symbol of sheep-hood.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Here's the dilemma:  if it becomes routine, suppose Joe Smedlap has a brain injury.   He is effectively brain-dead.  His family has his brain tissue cloned, and implanted into his effectively-brainless body.   Is it ethical to clone a New Brain?  Would it be Joe, afterwards?

Suppose the brain injury is only partial, and a partial-brain tissue replacement is grown-- will it be Joe afterwards?

Not Joe, in all probability.
Each part of the brain plays a role in who you are, with the exception of the bit that acts as a bridge between the hemispheres--and even that plays a role in allowing you to be YOU.
Damage the hippocampus. Replace it, and you lose memories.
Damage the amygdala. Replace it, and you'll have to recondition the person to fear.

Cloning a whole new brain leaves the person without speech, memories, fear, and a number of other things. And once the brain is past a certain age, it can't really learn language (see Victor of Aneyron). The cells that you use to clone the brain will determine Joe's temperment, since a good portion of that seems to be genetic.

This is all assuming that the cloned brain can be forced to mature, of course. Otherwise, Joe will be a child in a man's body.
In any case, it will not be Joe, however.

[pieces o nine]

A too-much-sacrificed one...

[Aggie]

Then, how about THIS conundrum:  suppose cloning of human tissue becomes routine-- need a newer, younger heart?  No problem, trot down to the cloning facility, and have your heart cloned and implanted.

Here's the dilemma:  if it becomes routine, suppose Joe Smedlap has a brain injury.   He is effectively brain-dead.  His family has his brain tissue cloned, and implanted into his effectively-brainless body.   Is it ethical to clone a New Brain?  Would it be Joe, afterwards?

Suppose the brain injury is only partial, and a partial-brain tissue replacement is grown-- will it be Joe afterwards?

Food for thought....

Whether it's still Joe or not, given the technical feasibility to clone and implant brain tissue, is it ethical to NOT "repair" a brain-damaged individual? Would brain-death still be grounds for 'pulling the plug'?  What if the restoration was technically possible but prohibitively expensive for the patient's family?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Ethical Angle--he won't be Joe*. He'll be more or less a child for the rest of his life--unable to speak more then a few words (probably, though I wonder what modern science would come up with to change that), though he will be ALIVE and thinking on some levels.

Joe is gone, period. There's nothing that can be done to bring him back. We will, however, have a whole new person to could a source of joy and happiness and learning for others. I suppose it sort of balances itself out. Lost one person, gained a new one.

In the instance of only a small area of the brain needing to be replaced, I would argue that it's fully ethical. You're bringing Joe back! He may be a little different, and he will probably need some help (reconditioning to fear, learning his past again, regaining certain things like balance and so on), but the thing's he'll need will be fairly simple.

_{*He WILL NOT be Joe, in the situation of cloning a whole new brain. If he's only lost a particular part, then he could still be Joe, more or less. This occurred to me later, after I posted. Sorry.}

I can see some foundation paying for the first couple whole brainers, since they'd be incredible to study and to try to help. Who knows what we could learn about the brain and how to help people?

edit: have we recombined the threads? Because I sure as heck don't remember posting this here.