The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The right to choose the right to choose > Comments

The right to choose the right to choose : Comments

By Natasha Stott Despoja, published 29/9/2005

Natasha Stott Despoja argues pregnancy counsellors who won't refer for terminations should advertise the fact.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. Page 21
  10. 22
  11. All
Pt2
Newsroo>I think the differences in our opinion are coming from you thinking it's a human being/life whatever and me feeling that that is inconsequential to the question

The main problem inconsistency on treatment/value of non-persons.
We give personhood rights to post-natal non-persons ie infants severely mentally handicapped and some impaired elderly.

Using current abortion justification we should be able to kill, experiment and use as body banks post natal non-persons in the same way as pre-natal if they aren’t wanted and cause suffering to care givers.
Not only that, extreme late term abortions & experimentation body banks is justifiable and there can be no objection to gender or cosmetic abortions.

Also allows a man who be contributing financial care to kill infants if he is suffering.

>Here’s my real curiosity…how come you prioritise the life of those not yet born over the quality of life of those already here?

Being born is an arbitrary selection criteria no different from race or sex or post natal age.

Let us allow the killing of all unproductive non-person post natals unwanted orphaned infants, say male black babies (since they more likely to turn into criminals) the mentally handicapped and mentally self aware impaired elderly as they don’t contributed to the living and are in fact are either a drain or will be a future drain.

If a human life is only a commodity & valued arbitrarily then at least be consistent on it & use the unwanted post natals like you do the pre natals. The advances we would make from the body banks and experimentation would advance health care immeasurable saving and improving the quality of life for countless human beings.

>Do women contribute that little to the world in general that they are literally only incubators?

If we forced women to have children that did not involve them consenting to sex, then took them away from her just to increase the workforce they could be argued as just incubators.We aren't so no.
Are the responsibilities of parenthood nothing more than glorified 24 hour care givers?
Posted by Neohuman, Sunday, 16 October 2005 1:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1) Consenting to sex, particularly if precautions are taken, does not equate to consenting to bear a child.

2) Women are not the sex police. Although they have more to lose by falling pregnant (and that's why they get to decide whether they stay that way or not), it's unreasonable to expect them to be solely responsible for deciding when and how much sex takes place and therefore be solely responsible for any product of conception. I would like to think most sex takes place in a state of mutual consent.

3) The difference between internal and external care is immeasurable, mostly in that external care has at least some element of choice (as in, you are bound by what you can physically manage - and a lot of that is mentally willing, to do.) and an option to physically separate from your charge (a breather if you will). Internal care has no such perks.

4) While I can see where your logic is coming from, I don't see the real relevance as long as we lack the ability to transplant early term foetuses. And I still don't see the relevance because I can't imagine a man wanting to bring up a baby on his own.
You really trivialise pregnancy and childbirth in every argument.
One is never quite the same after, even Elle with her lipo and personal trainers.

This is not an argument about the value of diversity.

Do you think we'd be better off with all those pre-natal persons alive and here on the planet or are you just trying to say we should not be having sex?

PS - Was I right about the general anaesthetic? Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by Newsroo, Monday, 17 October 2005 7:54:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NewsrooConsenting to sex, particularly if precautions are taken, does not equate to consenting to bear a child.

Not if you don’t care to take responsibility for your actions, and your solution is killing human lives to fix responsibility.

2) Women are not the sex police……. I would like to think most sex takes place in a state of mutual consent.
Do you think we'd be better off with all those pre-natal persons alive and here on the planet or are you just trying to say we should not be having sex?

If abortion became illegal both would bear responsibility birth for the female, 18 years of child support for the male. (again should we give up the imperfect financial compensation?) Society then becomes the enforcer. BTW I would imagine with multiple levels of protection, condom, spermicide, plus the rhythm method -that’s my compromise no vaginal sex during the fertile period- we wouldn’t have the unplanned pregnancies problem. I’d like to see a study into how many are failed contraception, how many use multiple contraceptives and how many is just see abortions as just another contraceptive method.

3) The difference between internal and external care is immeasurable, ……
Ad Hoc if people are suffering, many to the point of suicide then they have the same justification to fix the situation.

4) And I still don't see the relevance because I can't imagine a man wanting to bring up a baby on his own.

& you any idea whether men want to be single parents?

>You really trivialise pregnancy and childbirth in every argument. One is never quite the same after, even Elle with her lipo and personal trainers.

No you overplay it I don’t see women banging on the door of the medical establish to please God hurry up and develop artificial wombs so you don’t have to go through the ravaging experience of childbirth. Please tell me about all the cultural heritage that glorifies childbearing & about all the mothers who ‘glow’ during- childbirth & see it as afulfilling experience. Your argument would have legs if women were-
Posted by Neohuman, Monday, 17 October 2005 10:48:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
-foregoing this and & just looking for adoptions if it is such debilitating ordeal. BTW the other reason I think you are overplaying it is that when adoption is raised as an alternative this ravaged body isn’t the main objection rather women say I won’t because of the emotional pain of giving up the child. If your ravaged body was such a winner there would be no need for the selfish irrational ‘I don’t want to feel emotional pain & would rather kill it’ rationalization the ravaged body would suffice.

>This is not an argument about the value of diversity.
Didn’t say was, it was about arbitrariness and inconsistency.

>PS - Was I right about the general anesthetic? Anyone? Bueller?

Sorry forgot about that point, easy, would you be happy if we killed unwanted infants, the mentally handicapped or impaired elderly if it was done with anesthetics? PLS answer.

You haven’t addressed the non-person inconsistency , nor the killing of post natal non-persons to FIX responsibility. Nor the abortions experimentation on pre-natals extreme late terms.

You see what you are giving are socialized rationalizations to be consistent on your core justifications you would have to allow these actions to take place.

To be consistent first change current child support laws, then treat all non-persons the same killing experimentation body banks & lastly allow the killing of non-persons if it causes suffering to the care giver, to the point of suicide is easily a sufficient justification

Otherwise you are no different than any member of a morally socialized society that allowed slavery, human sacrifice, non equality for women in that you arbitrarily rationalize core values to suit your personal benefit.

Go figure many in western culture are more worried about not having genetically modified plants and animal rights but allow experimentation and the killing humans at the earliest stage of life.

Shall we play ‘beat my analogy’ you try to highlight the inconsistencies in the others core values want to give it a try?
Posted by Neohuman, Monday, 17 October 2005 10:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1
Yes - I am a believer in euthenasia - so killing of people BY THEIR OWN CHOICE, in a painless way is ok by me - the only thing is - what of people who have mind made of mush or a mind which hasn't developed enough to allow thought (and therefore no choice as choice implies reasoned thinking..?). Painless death is a nice wish to have for anyone - sounds funny but think about it. We all go one day.

I think the only thing you could say is that either way, you're playing 'god'. Whether you keep something alive that would never have survived 'in the wild' (severe disability, extreme age either way etc) or you kill something, it's all projecting what you THINK is right.

I do in some ways think it *is* more 'human' to do as the ancient Spartans did and leave the unwanted on the hillside for the wolves - we are only animals after all, survival of the fittest! But I also think the 'fittest' is sometimes the more co-operative and nurturing among us - that's what makes us 'humane'.
I also think there *is* value in the diversity which results from NOT killing everything which falls outside the 'norm'. Should someone be able to kill their charge because it is causing them pain? Not exactly, but they are able to get away from it and therein lies the difference.
They could certainly make a choice not to care for that (non) person anymore, which is the same reasonable choice available to a woman who doesn't want to continue a pg. currently.
The difference being - there IS another way for the external non-person to be cared for - by someone else who makes the CHOICE to. There is no other way for the foetus
Posted by Newsroo, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:15:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2
I would tentatively concede that women who want to have their baby don't use the same sort of language I have about pg, but if they spoke plainly and it was clear that their answer didn't make them a 'bad' woman, I wager they would agree that it's no cake-walk.
To inflict it upon someone who was neither keen to have OR keep the baby is in-humane. Even women who have enjoyed their pg's would agree to that.
I can understand why the most popular reason for preferring abortion over adoption is the 'can't leave you so I'll kill you' you keep carrying on about - abortions don't come back 18yrs later asking questions. It is easier to 'move on' from abortion like it never happened. You will probably disagree but I think that's a good thing.
But the SECOND most popular reason (and linked to the above) would be 'why go through all this if I'm not going to keep it?'. Even if you forget the discomfort, the pain and what the wrinkled little thing looked like before they took it away, your stretchmarks and skin tags and weak bladder will always be something left to remind you.

I don't really expect that all people can understand what goes on inside the head of a pregnant woman desperately trying to make a decision which will impact anywhere between 2 to 1000 lives, every circumstance is different - which is why it MUST be the decision of the person who has to live with it.

Getting back to the actual topic - with a sensitive time frame it is imperative that the time of these women isn't wasted by tricksters advertising advice when there is no intention of discussing one major option (or misinforming on that major option - even worse!).
I agree with Natasha.

Glad to hear my logic is sound regarding General Anaesthetic. Yay!
Posted by Newsroo, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:25:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. Page 21
  10. 22
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy