# Sickening - Religion May Kill Babies



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/169562



> As Canada's first sextuplets continued to fight for survival in a Vancouver hospital yesterday, questions surfaced about what medical interventions would be taken if the babies need blood transfusions, which would conflict with the faith of their parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses.


How very convenient for the mother. She uses medical technology to get pregnant, but may not use medical technology to save her babies.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It hasn't been confirmed that fertility drugs were used. Why assume it?

From the article cited above:



> Citing the family's desire for privacy, the hospital will not even confirm the sex of the babies, their birth weights, or how many physicians and nurses were involved in the delivery. Nor will officials say if the mother underwent fertility treatments, which often result in multiple births.
> 
> What surprised many was the hospital's decision to reveal the family's religion, a move that was made specifically at the request of the parents, said Cech, adding that information had already been leaked to media.
> 
> ...


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Agreed, but 

"Nor will officials say if the mother underwent fertility treatments, which often result in multiple births."

What However said


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The chances of having sextuplets without fertility drugs is one in 4.5 billion.

It's a pretty safe bet she used them.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Doh! seems *however* beat me to this sentiment....



guytoronto said:


> How very convenient for the mother. *She uses medical technology* to get pregnant, but may not use medical technology to save her babies.


You say *"She uses medical technology"*.... Where do you get that info?

The article itself says: "Nor will officials say if the mother underwent fertility treatments, which often result in multiple births."

Which is it?

EDIT: yes fertility drugs increase chance of multiple birth, but that fact is not itself evidence that fertility drugs were used in this case...... This remains unconfirmed.



guytoronto said:


> It's a pretty safe bet she used them.


"Safe bet" isn't evidence...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Religion killing babies has been old news since Abraham of the old testament...

As Bob Dylan paraphrased it, "God said to Abraham, kill me a son"..... _(from Highway 61 revisited)_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What usually happens in these cases is that a court legally assumes responsibility for the children while transfusions are offered. Although this is anecdotal evidence, a nurse I once dated told me that in the cases where she saw this occurring, the parents were always relieved that the transfusion could take place and never attempted to battle a court order authorizing it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So much for freedom of choice. There is no guarantee that the blood transfusion would be successful in the first place. The watchtower has some interesting arguements against them.

http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/article_02.htm


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Well that settles it then.




JumboJones said:


> So much for freedom of choice. There is no guarantee that the blood transfusion would be successful in the first place. The watchtower has some interesting arguements against them.
> 
> http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/article_02.htm


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You think you've got a good argument going, then someone pulls out the Watchtower and now you're looking like a fool...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Oh yeah... like the Watchtower is an authority I'd recognise.... NOT  

The Watchtower has all the journalistic credibility of the National Enquirer.... beejacon


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

rgray said:


> The Watchtower has all the journalistic credibility of the National Enquirer.... beejacon


Less.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm shocked that blood transfusion is not a zero-risk action. Next they'll come up with comprehensive proof that not having enough blood is also risky and that being alive puts you at risk of getting sick and dying.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Beej said:


> I'm shocked that blood transfusion is not a zero-risk action. Next they'll come up with comprehensive proof that not having enough blood is also risky and that being alive puts you at risk of getting sick and dying.


But.. but... being alive *is* dangerous..  :clap:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Proof: hospitals are full of sick people. Now how do you think they got there?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I think this opens up a whole debate on the use of fertility drugs period, even though that has not been confirmed as of yet in this case.

There are many factors to consider when using these types of methods. The first of course is the cost to the public system to keep babies alive who are born far too early. It is not in question in a normal birth, but how much is society willing to spend on couples who wind up in this type of situation?

Should any couple be allowed to bring these types of problems upon the medical systems in place in Canada?

Or should their use be outlawed and adoption encouraged as an option to such couples? Before the advent of fertility drugs, I assume many multiple births were terminated by Mother Nature herself and the system never had to deal with them unless natural. (Think Dionne quints).

Keep in mind I am not advocating anything here, just asking what others think about such situations, who should stand the costs and is the use of such drugs right?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think with a public system that we have little to no choice. I don't think public medicare should be used as a moral club to exclude or deny. It's public and paid for: if someone's taxes are good enough for the system, then their problems are the system's responsibility. 

If the cost concerns are that serious (versus, say, very expensive treatments to keep terminally ill people alive for a few more months) then there may be other ways (make some fertility treatments expensive...are some covered now?), but I doubt the problem is that big. My only "evidence" would be that it still makes the news, so there probably aren't an overwhelming number of cases with so many births.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

That settles it then, everyone should conform to your way of thinking, forget your religion, forget your right to choose, what you believe is right, and what I believe is wrong, sorry. 

So lets get our pitchforks and start a fire, start collecting the JW's, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims heck while we're at it lets get the homosexuals too. Calling all cancer patients, lets hook you up to Chemo and radiation because your right to refuse treatment is now gone. You want to die with dignity, too bad. Apparently we all have lost the right to choose for ourselves what we want to believe and not believe.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think adults can refuse treatment or, in the case of comas and such, ensure that legal documentation is prepared before-hand. Adults cannot, however, do anything they want (deny anything they don't want) to their children.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Are you able to distinguish between the right to deny yourself treatment and the right to withhold it from infants?




JumboJones said:


> That settles it then, everyone should conform to your way of thinking, forget your religion, forget your right to choose, what you believe is right, and what I believe is wrong, sorry.
> 
> So lets get our pitchforks and start a fire, start collecting the JW's, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims heck while we're at it lets get the homosexuals too. Calling all cancer patients, lets hook you up to Chemo and radiation because your right to refuse treatment is now gone. You want to die with dignity, too bad. Apparently we all have lost the right to choose for ourselves what we want to believe and not believe.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

But the Jehovah's Witnesses save the health care system so much money in so many other ways...




SINC said:


> I think this opens up a whole debate on the use of fertility drugs period, even though that has not been confirmed as of yet in this case.
> 
> There are many factors to consider when using these types of methods. The first of course is the cost to the public system to keep babies alive who are born far too early. It is not in question in a normal birth, but how much is society willing to spend on couples who wind up in this type of situation?
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would go so far--even as a libertarian--to suggest that when parents choose death before dishonour for their own children, then those children are better "dishonoured" until they reach the ripe old age of majority when they can choose for themselves. 

It's too easy to say a dead child agreed wih you.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Another consideration with regard to funding the use of, as well as funding the consequences of, fertility therapy is _population_.

Given that population underlies most all of the major issues such as global warming, disease transmission, etc... (there was a thread on this a little while ago) perhaps it is simply not in the people's best interest to be doing anything that increases that population.... 

 {climbing into flamesuit...}


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC, good question.
I believe the % of preemies due to fertility treatment is around 30%.

I don't think that the public system should pay for playing with nature although I do understand the desire of some to have children no matter what the cost.

That said, we should not deny medicare on that basis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would agree with that rgray. If all a certain treatment does is to increase chances for having children, but the underlying condition causes no ill health, I would ask the recipients of the treatment to pay for it. On the other hand, if the ability to bear children was a secondary effect of treating a problem that caused other health effects, I would see that as acceptable.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Beej said:


> Adults cannot, however, do anything they want (deny anything they don't want) to their children.


Dare I ask if you are circumcized or not?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Dare I ask if you are circumcized or not?


You don't need to ask to raise the issue.

"Anything" doesn't mean "everything", but that issue does have some relatively small groups (last I checked) pushing the courts. Spanking is a more common challenge where lines needed to be drawn. 

Parents have more rights over their children than everyone else, but those rights are restricted. That's pretty straight-forward and sensible. Drawing the lines is difficult.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This is a non-issue. Canadian courts have ruled that teenage witnesses should receive blood despite their own and their parent's religious opposition.

When it comes to these babies, they will receive the necessary transfusions as long as there is a reasonable hope that they will survive by receiving them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, good question.
> I believe the % of preemies due to fertility treatment is around 30%.
> 
> I don't think that the public system should pay for playing with nature although I do understand the desire of some to have children no matter what the cost.
> ...


It would appear for once we agree on an issue. I raised the question because I was curious what others thought. Obviously you cannot deny the babies medical aid any more than deny a 95 year old a few more weeks of life. I must admit however that the latter is all too common and I disagree with such measures. We weren't made to live forever and I have taken steps to ensure I will never be a cost burden to the system with unnecessary treatment to prolong my life by weeks. When it is time to go, it is time to go.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

First of all What religion denies medical help? 

A sect of the Christian Religion takes a position on transfusions.

Secondly If parents take a position with regard to provide or withhold medical treatment based on a belief or article of the faith is it not still a choice of the parents not of the faith per se?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

BigDL said:


> First of all What religion denies medical help?


Ummm....Jehovah's Witnesses...(and some sects of The Flying Spaghetti Monster). That's what this thread is about.



BigDL said:


> Secondly If parents take a position with regard to provide or withhold medical treatment based on a belief or article of the faith is it not still a choice of the parents not of the faith per se?


Sure. And do we not have the responsibility as a society to stop parents from making decisions that will kill their children.

What if a parent felt girls shouldn't be educated? Should we let them make that decision?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

More than that



> blood products, blood transfusions, organ donation, life support
> 
> Generally, drugs, blood products, blood transfusions, organ donation and life support are not acceptable within the teachings of Christian Science. However, although all healthcare decisions are up to the individual, some parents may agree to their children receiving life-saving medical intervention.
> 
> ...


http://www.ethnicityonline.net/christian_scientists.htm


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Ummm....Jehovah's Witnesses...(and some sects of The Flying Spaghetti Monster). That's what this thread is about./QUOTE] So! When did Jehovah's Witnesses become elevated to a world religion?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

BigDL said:


> So! When did Jehovah's Witnesses become elevated to a world religion?


They pushed for it right after the Blue Oyster Cult got international recognition.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm

JW stats. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses

Related wiki link.

It is international.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Wow, when was it acceptable to bash Jehovah's Witnesses? If this thread was on Homosexuality it would have been shut down by now.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Wow, when was it acceptable to bash Jehovah's Witnesses? If this thread was on Homosexuality it would have been shut down by now.


Identify the bashing of JWs (not Watchtower as a reference) and keep in mind that, whether we agree or not, people have been labeled as bigots and racials slurs used, in certain contexts, in the past. I may very well have missed a couple posts (I differentiate mannered ridicule from "bashing"...a personal choice), but the JW "bashing" has been very mild. I resolve to try harder. beejacon


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Wow, when was it acceptable to bash Jehovah's Witnesses? If this thread was on Homosexuality it would have been shut down by now.


Being homosexual does nobody harm.

Being a Jehovah's Witness and forcing your religious beliefs on a newborn child may cause them death.

There is no comparing the two in this situation.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Being homosexual does nobody harm.


Well, it might do no one harm, but the body is still questionable.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Did you look in the windows of JW place of worship? Why Not?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So if a homosexual couple adopt kids and push their values on them is that any different than parents doing that with religion?

And I guess parents that choose to have their children circumcised, eventhough it is not medically necessary arn't putting their kids in danger either?

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/

Right you guys, and comparing JW's to "sects of The Flying Spaghetti Monster" and saying they arn't even a religion isn't bashing them? I must have read into that wrong.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

As tragic as this story may turn out, beliefs of religious people certainly don't have a monopoly on threatening innocent human life.
How about the hundreds of thousands of forced abortions each year in China in the name of population control.
How about partial birth or late term abortions condoned in the name of "progressive" ideology. (allowed to happen because some believe you're really not a person until you've completed the trip down the birth canal despite the biological realities) Babies just as developed or even more so than the ones we're so concerned about in this case.
There's seniors in Holland frightened to go into the hospital for fear some "progressive" thinker will declare its time to kill them.

So yes it would be a tragedy to see these babies die for the sake of a religious belief (which I personally don't agree with) but before we make wide sweeping condemnations, what are the consequences of the ideologies you may embrace or that others outside of religion do? Are your own ideologies or those of others outside of religion any less culpable?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

You may not have noticed, but the majority of Canadians agree about homosexuality. "Pushing" this view on kids is done in most Canadian homes, thankfully. Time to join the anti-homophobic nation.




JumboJones said:


> So if a homosexual couple adopt kids and push their values on them is that any different than parents doing that with religion?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> So if a homosexual couple adopt kids and push their values on them is that any different than parents doing that with religion?


I'm not sure what you mean by homosexual values, but show me how they could possibly cause the death of a child.



JumboJones said:


> And I guess parents that choose to have their children circumcised, eventhough it is not medically necessary arn't putting their kids in danger either?
> 
> http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/


The medical community is split 50/50 on this one. There are advantages, and there are disadvantages.



JumboJones said:


> Right you guys, and comparing JW's to "sects of The Flying Spaghetti Monster" and saying they arn't even a religion isn't bashing them? I must have read into that wrong.


I mock most religious beliefs. It's in my nature.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GT: I think you bash FSM too much by associating it with other religions.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> You may not have noticed, but the majority of Canadians agree about homosexuality. "Pushing" this view on kids is done in most Canadian homes, thankfully. Time to join the anti-homophobic nation.


I'm far from being Homophobic, and I dont think you understood my point. The point was sex couples encouraging their children to be homosexual is no different than encouraging religion on a child.

GT, you believe everything the medical community spews out? I think the disadvantage of having your pecker mutilated far out way the occational urinary tract infection.

Go ahead and mock, I just find it very hypocritical that most people on this board jump at the chance to defend certain people/religions/beliefs/rights in our society but not others. These people are not refusing medical treatment as a whole, they just don't want their children to receive a blood transfusion.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Important Concept*

I'm reading a great book* right now, which raises a very important point relavent to this discussion.

There is no such thing as a 'Christian child', or a 'Muslim child', or a child with any other religion. People aren't born with these beliefs. They may, or may not come to believe these things as they grow into individuals with life experiences, and unique internal patterns of thought. That a child may be born into a familly of Jehovahs' Witnesses does not make the child a JW. Statistically, it is obviously true that any given child is more likely to adhere to the faith of their parents than any other faith chosen at random, but that is not evidence that these beliefs are somehow genetically determined.

Therefore it is essential to distinguish the religion of the parents from considerations of what is in the child's best interest.

It is obviously true that the parents of a child have a special relationship with the child and consideration of their beliefs should be applied to whatever extent is compatible with the primary consideration of the child's interests.

In this case the religious beliefs of the parents are in direct conflict with the interests of the children, so it's a no-brainer: the children's interests trump the parents' beliefs.

Cheers

* "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Brilliantly written. Impeccable logic. Anyone who wonders why people believe, and what the consequences of their beliefs are should read this book.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> There is no such thing as a 'Christian child', or a 'Muslim child', or a child with any other religion. People aren't born with these beliefs.


True enough, but certain religious groups do their best to get 'round this. How do you fit the Church of Rome's obsession with 'original sin' into this?



bryanc said:


> In this case the religious beliefs of the parents are in direct conflict with the interests of the children, so it's a no-brainer: the children's interests trump the parents' beliefs.


Indeed, but then one is stuck with the thorny issue of who gets to decide "the children's interests"


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I'm far from being Homophobic, and I dont think you understood my point. The point was sex couples encouraging their children to be homosexual is no different than encouraging religion on a child.


What? Have you got your head up your a**? Homosexual couples don't take their 6yo kid to bath houses to enjoy the finer things of male-on-male sex. Religious couple DO take their children to church, and make them pray to God.



JumboJones said:


> GT, you believe everything the medical community spews out? I think the disadvantage of having your pecker mutilated far out way the occational urinary tract infection.


I'm sorry JumboJones. I never knew you where a doctor and had all the facts. I am circumcised. I've never had a urinary tract infection. I've never had any complications. I have a fully functional unit (boy do I). I've read both sides of the arguments. It is indeed a 50/50 split. Personally, I lean towards having it done, but since it's considered elective surgery, I will have to pay for it.



JumboJones said:


> Go ahead and mock, I just find it very hypocritical that most people on this board jump at the chance to defend certain people/religions/beliefs/rights in our society but not others. These people are not refusing medical treatment as a whole, they just don't want their children to receive a blood transfusion.


Well, I'm not one of those hypocritical ones. Religion is a personal thing. Religion should be kept to yourself. It's kinda like smoking. Don't pollute my air with your religious beliefs.

And it's not as simple as "they just don't want their children to receive a blood transfusion." That's the whole point. It may be required to SAVE THEIR LIVES.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Do you have any friends who are homosexual?

Same sex couples do not encourage their children to also be homosexual. None of the ones I've met, and it isn't even known to be the case generally.

In fact, the ones I've met tell their children not just to make up their own minds, but because they are like most parents and do not want their children to suffer unnecessarily, they relate to their children how difficult their own youth was.

But the point still is: this won't kill them. Even if they find out they are gay. 

But nobody grows up and finds out they could have had a blood transfusion, their parents differed, they didn't, and instead were killed. That's the point of this thread.





JumboJones said:


> I'm far from being Homophobic, and I dont think you understood my point. The point was sex couples encouraging their children to be homosexual is no different than encouraging religion on a child.
> 
> GT, you believe everything the medical community spews out? I think the disadvantage of having your pecker mutilated far out way the occational urinary tract infection.
> 
> Go ahead and mock, I just find it very hypocritical that most people on this board jump at the chance to defend certain people/religions/beliefs/rights in our society but not others. These people are not refusing medical treatment as a whole, they just don't want their children to receive a blood transfusion.


----------



## kevs~just kevs (Mar 21, 2005)

Interesting read this threaD is... My wife and I are both JW's. When my wife was born the hospital tried to force a blood transfusion on her saying without it she would die. Her parents DID fight it and won, no transfusions were given and my wife is in very good health and always has been. That was years ago. Nowadays there are so many non blood alternatives to choose from for most cases and JW's would gladly except these non-blood alternative treatments.

We don't refuse medical care. We do request the hightest level of care which in most cases and most Dr's agree doesn't involve blood transfusions.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kevs~just kevs said:


> Interesting read this *threat* is...


Freudian slip? beejacon


----------



## kevs~just kevs (Mar 21, 2005)

lol sorry about that. It should read Thread of course


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I'm far from being Homophobic, and I dont think you understood my point. The point was sex couples encouraging their children to be homosexual is no different than encouraging religion on a child.


So where does one sign their kid up for homosexual sunday school? Seriously that analogy was either based on ignorance or borderline bigotry.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That's never happened to me...



FeXL said:


> Freudian slip? beejacon


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Do you have any friends who are homosexual?


 Yes in fact I do, I might of actually had a few experiences with it myself.



HowEver said:


> Same sex couples do not encourage their children to also be homosexual. None of the ones I've met, and it isn't even known to be the case generally.


 Just because you haven't encountered doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'm sure there there are many extremists, just as there are homophobes.



dajonsey said:


> So where does one sign their kid up for homosexual sunday school? Seriously that analogy was either based on ignorance or borderline bigotry.


 The purpose of the analogy was to show how much people on this board run to save the day for our opressed gay nation and not others. Their beliefs haven't killed anyone, and it is interesting to hear kevs wifes story on the subject, all mighty medicine isn't always right.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

"Religion May Kill Babies" - just a slightly inflammatory statement isn't it? I don't know the reason why these children may require blood transfusions (is it known?) but NOT having one does not always result in death. Sometimes it just means recovery is a little slower (speaking from experience here, although obviously not an infant). Anyway, religion kills babies every day, indirectly, and has done for a very long time. Why all the fuss over these particular ones?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Our "oppressed gay nation"? I don't know what to make of that.

I think since it became common knowledge that children of alcoholics tend towards alcohol abuse, people started thinking that other situations perpetuated similarly. Generally though, it isn't true among the children of homosexuals.

But please stay tuned: we're quite happy to run to save the day for *anybody *who is oppressed.




JumboJones said:


> The purpose of the analogy was to show how much people on this board run to save the day for our opressed gay nation and not others. Their beliefs haven't killed anyone, and it is interesting to hear kevs wifes story on the subject, all mighty medicine isn't always right.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Surely if homosexual parents "encouraged" their children to be homosexuals, then eventually there would be no people left, would there? Also, following that logic, there should be no homosexuals at all because, presumably, hetero parents "encourage" their kids to be the same. Or does all this "encouragement" just not work? 
Seriously though, I cannot imagine anyone "wanting" their children to be gay, knowing the bigotry and prejudice they have to encounter in this society. I think most parents just want their children to be happy.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> ......... opressed gay nation and not others........


Oh please.... ALL of my gay friends just want to be treated like regular people.

Interestingly, about 3000yrs ago Cicero pointed out that democracy would fail if too much attention was pain to individual and minority rights, by definition of democracy.... Now that we are, as a society, better than we were at recognising minorities and individuals, there is a growing feeling that we need to reinforce the collective of which the individuals and minorities are a part- the totality of humanity, ie. 'regular people'...


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Some people think babies should have full human rights when they are fully developed in the womb and can medically survive outside of the womb

Some people think babies should have full human rights only as soon as they are born and outside of the mother

Some people think children should only have full human rights after they are 18

Let's face it, very few people would consistently say that the parents, or the mother, should not have the right to kill the baby, at some point in its development. People just tend to draw the line differently... often for no coherent reason.

Personally, I lean towards applying basic human rights to babies.... even if it is inconvenient to the parents or mother.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Your post is incomprehensible without the distinction between "foetus" and "baby." This may be intentional, but it's so 19th century it hurts to read. Time to stop scraping those knuckles.

Betwixt foetus and baby: the latter has been born, is alive and has rights. The former has the same rights its mother has.

About your last point: I can assure you that the mother is always one of the parents. Mine was, at least.

By the way, if you're Amish, or Doukhobour, my apologies for the above.




Sun Dog said:


> Some people think babies should have full human rights when they are fully developed in the womb and can medically survive outside of the womb
> 
> Some people think babies should have full human rights only as soon as they are born and outside of the mother
> 
> ...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Your post is incomprehensible without the distinction between "foetus" and "baby." This may be intentional, but it's so 19th century it hurts to read. Time to stop scraping those knuckles.


LOL! Yeah the name change make all the difference. Maybe we could eliminate the term "baby" and call them displaced foeti for a year or two after they make the move and get a few more years of "choice"?  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

And maybe joking about killing children is in bad taste. Hey, even I know where to draw the line.




MacGuiver said:


> LOL! Yeah the name change make all the difference. Maybe we could eliminate the term "baby" and call them displaced foeti for a year or two after they make the move and get a few more years of "choice"?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> LOL! Yeah the name change make all the difference.


Legally, semantics like this make a huge difference. Unfortunately, our legal system is full of black & white distinctions where the reality is shades of grey. In order to make the system workable we wind up having to draw lines, and these lines are necessarily arbitrary.

Pragmatically, the argument reduces to finding a 'least-bad' place to draw the line, but because the reality isn't black and white, any line will have fundamental flaws, and there will be cases where the line will have to be moved due to special circumstances.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> And maybe joking about killing children is in bad taste. Hey, even I know where to draw the line.


Yes it was in extremely bad taste. Glad to see you have a line at birth anyhow, many progressive folk have endorsed just such thinking. Maybe they're just more evolved than yourself. 
The irony is that we're "claiming" to be appalled that these babies (25 weeks gestation) could dye without a transfusion yet down the hallway in the same hospital, a human equally developed or even more so could be getting burned to death in a saline bath in its mother's womb. And the same people will turn around and fight tooth and nail to allow that to happen. How schizophrenic is that? Its now a Canadian value right up there with peace keeping and multiculturalism.  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The essential difference here is the existence of parents who want to raise the child.

I agree that it's sadly ironic, that two organisms of essentially identical ethical value can receive diametrically opposite treatment. But it's no different than the cat that gets euthanized vs. the cat that gets adopted and spoiled it's whole fat happy life from the SPCA.

And if you argue that we're talking about human beings, not cats, my question will simply be how does that change the ethical equation? The values may be greater, but the calculation remains the same.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think the CMA does limit when they'll perform an abortion.

To me, if there's a reasonable expectation of intelligent survival and the "entity" is unwanted, then doctors should remove it, not kill it. It, now a baby by common language, would then be raised by the state and up for adoption. With this approach, the state of technology defines the terms. 

I think MacG does make a good point that can not just be sidestepped due to other "unfairness" in life. Parents wanting to raise the child, while I agree that that is how we have settled into the current approach, is not a good test and the approach should be changed. Although, if I'm right about the CMA, I think we've already moved towards a more science-based approach.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

How late in the pregnancy do you actually think that abortions are being performed in Canada? From the sounds of it, I'm pretty sure it isn't as late as you believe.




MacGuiver said:


> Yes it was in extremely bad taste. Glad to see you have a line at birth anyhow, many progressive folk have endorsed just such thinking. Maybe they're just more evolved than yourself.
> The irony is that we're "claiming" to be appalled that these babies (25 weeks gestation) could dye without a transfusion yet down the hallway in the same hospital, a human equally developed or even more so could be getting burned to death in a saline bath in its mother's womb. And the same people will turn around and fight tooth and nail to allow that to happen. How schizophrenic is that? Its now a Canadian value right up there with peace keeping and multiculturalism.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I thought this comment deserved an answer on its own--but not from me necessarily.

If you are equating abortion and peacekeeping and multiculturalism, I'm afraid you need a different kind of answer than any forum response is ever likely to provide.




MacGuiver said:


> *Its now a Canadian value right up there with peace keeping and multiculturalism.*
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> I thought this comment deserved an answer on its own--but not from me necessarily.
> 
> If you are equating abortion and peacekeeping and multiculturalism, I'm afraid you need a different kind of answer than any forum response is ever likely to provide.


That was just a reference to the last election when the "right to choose" was being promoted as a Canadian value. I believe it was Paul Martin declaring that. By no means do I think they are similar in anyway but they all are held up as Canadian values by some. That value allows an unborn baby to be legally killed in this country right up until delivery. We have absolutely no laws governing abortion.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Just because it _never_ happens doesn't make it true...



MacGuiver said:


> That was just a reference to the last election when the "right to choose" was being promoted as a Canadian value. I believe it was Paul Martin declaring that. By no means do I think they are similar in anyway but they all are held up as Canadian values by some. That value allows an unborn baby to be legally killed in this country right up until delivery. We have absolutely no laws governing abortion.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Yes it was in extremely bad taste. Glad to see you have a line at birth anyhow, many progressive folk have endorsed just such thinking. Maybe they're just more evolved than yourself.
> The irony is that we're "claiming" to be appalled that these babies (25 weeks gestation) could dye without a transfusion yet down the hallway in the same hospital, a human equally developed or even more so could be getting burned to death in a saline bath in its mother's womb. And the same people will turn around and fight tooth and nail to allow that to happen. How schizophrenic is that? Its now a Canadian value right up there with peace keeping and multiculturalism.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


 To answer your question it is not schizophrenic at all. The mental disorder of schizophrenia should not be confused with irony or duality. Schizophrenia|ˌskitsəˈ frēnēə;|
noun
a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Stop making schizofrenacan'tspellit look bad by comparing them to us normals!  

"I think the CMA does limit when they'll perform an abortion.



> To me, if there's a reasonable expectation of intelligent survival and the "entity" is unwanted, then doctors should remove it, not kill it."


-Beej

From what I know, Canada does not regulate aboriton...but you think as the majority on the US Supreme Court does, as it has ruled that states 'can' regulate the terms of aborition after the fetus is viable to live outside the womb (which changes with medical technology)... although I think rape cases are the exception. 

HowEver, if the fetus is viable, is it not a baby? Is it a fetus right up until it plops out? Does the law not define the fetus as a human life when it stipulates a higher penalty for a crime against a pregnant mother when the fetus is harmed? How do you define a baby, HowEver?

Ask yourself this: If you were aborted, do you think your mother should have aborted you, for whatever reason she wanted to? Or would you have prefered to be born, and put up for adoption by the state? 



> "I agree that it's sadly ironic, that two organisms of essentially identical ethical value can receive diametrically opposite treatment. But it's no different than the cat that gets euthanized vs. the cat that gets adopted and spoiled it's whole fat happy life from the SPCA."


-Bryanc

I don't know much about adoption to be honest... but I believe it can cost up to 10K in the US to adopt a baby... and many Canadians adopt from China because of a shortage here. So, I don't think we're gonna end up with babies raised by the state if we regulate abortion.



> "Your post is incomprehensible without the distinction between "foetus" and "baby." This may be intentional, but it's so 19th century it hurts to read. Time to stop scraping those knuckles."


-HowEver

If our Supreme Court ever deals with abortion again it will have to tackle all of these issues, so it is not prudent to simply dismiss them.


----------



## sadponyguerillaboy (Oct 19, 2006)

Sun Dog said:


> although I think rape cases are the exception.


How is a rape case any different in terms of human life by your stated definition? Same **** different pile. Is still a human life. What if the rape baby wants to live? 

Personally I believe in Pro choice. Tell me, what do you remember form the whom?
We're all gunna die someday, some just get to check out before others. Cynical but true. What is the only thing in this life you can never be denied. Your own death.

Edit: I like how sundog edited his post..lol.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You forgot taxes.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

And System Updates.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SunDog: I don't think we have any laws on the matter (except the basic right...Canada muddles on) but that the doctor's organisation set its own standard. Again, science-based (hopefully). The line at the opposite end would have to be drawn too (when does it start to become, arguably, a person). Eventually technology will have those two lines meet.

I think there was a recent case in Alberta of a couple getting an insurance claim based on damages to the unborn. Stuff like this will force courts to face the issue as it is: more complex than previously imagined. Is damage caused during pregnancy damage to property or damage to future human potential? Not as easy as many would wish. 

The best first step is completely eliminating religion and sentimentality from this, as well as empty presumptions of "choice" which clearly can not deal with the difficult questions, unless "choice" ends with birth, regardless of biology.

Then you need only two standards: one, when "it" starts as the absolute and, two, the feasible test of when "it" can be supported without the mother as the end. As I said, eventually the two standards meet. No one should be forced through child birth but, with adequate technology, rights should not be randomly assigned based upon umbilical connections. 

Connected: property to sue for related damages; unconnected full human rights?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Wiki:
........................
Third-trimester abortions are not generally available. For instance, in Quebec, there is currently no doctor who will perform a third-term abortion unless the health of the woman is in great peril or there is a genetic disorder. Currently the province sends women who seek to have third-term abortions performed to the United States. Quebec is currently actively looking to hire a doctor to do third-term abortions, but has not been successful as of October 2004.
........................


This issue is immensely more complex than "pro-choice" and "pro-life", once science becomes involved because it can remove the issue of forcing a woman to give birth (after a full term). With that gone, paternal rights become relevant as does defining the beginning of "its" rights. Science will make many seemingly clear moral issues much more difficult. Good. Too many things have been carried forward based upon tradition or presumptions of various roles based upon gender, race, sexual orientation etc. Time to move forward.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

sadponyguerillaboy said:


> How is a rape case any different in terms of human life by your stated definition? Same **** different pile. Is still a human life. What if the rape baby wants to live?
> 
> Personally I believe in Pro choice. Tell me, what do you remember form the whom?
> We're all gunna die someday, some just get to check out before others. Cynical but true. What is the only thing in this life you can never be denied. Your own death.
> ...


I was merely pointing out the US court decision, but that is a good point. However, she could simply have an abortion before the baby even had a heart beat or brainwave.

Would you say that we can leigitimatly deny you rights because you will die someday? 

I don't remember much from the womb... except that I couldn't wait to get out and into the fray  



beej said:


> Then you need only two standards: one, when "it" starts as the absolute and, two, the feasible test of when "it" can be supported without the mother as the end. As I said, eventually the two standards meet. No one should be forced through child birth but, with adequate technology, rights should not be randomly assigned based upon umbilical connections.
> 
> Connected: property to sue for related damages; unconnected full human rights?


Agreed. I'm not against abortion carte blanche either. 

Are you refering to the cases of children sueing their parents for damages while in the womb (drug use etc)?

Thanks for the information on abortions in Quebec Beej. 



beej said:


> This issue is immensely more complex than "pro-choice" and "pro-life", once science becomes involved because it can remove the issue of forcing a woman to give birth (after a full term). With that gone, paternal rights become relevant as does defining the beginning of "its" rights. Science will make many seemingly clear moral issues much more difficult. Good. Too many things have been carried forward based upon tradition or presumptions of various roles based upon gender, race, sexual orientation etc. Time to move forward.


The thing is, can someone be 'forced' to give birth, if it is an internal process? It would be the woman's own body doing the so called forcing. Removing the baby through an operation is much more forceful and dangerous.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

BigDL said:


> To answer your question it is not schizophrenic at all. The mental disorder of schizophrenia should not be confused with irony or duality. Schizophrenia|?skits?? fr?n??;|
> noun
> a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation.


BigDL

You missed this part of the definition:
• (in general use) a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements.

That definition of schizophrenic is what I meant. I wasn't inferring that people were clinically schizophrenic.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> The thing is, can someone be 'forced' to give birth, if it is an internal process? It would be the woman's own body doing the so called forcing. Removing the baby through an operation is much more forceful and dangerous.


By science, it is not an exclusively internal process at some point. Keeping it internal would be a choice.

If it is unacceptably dangerous (that can be defined with reasonable legal certitude) then the rights remain fully with the mother. That precedent is quite clear and sensible, to me. Laws can not require undue harm upon a person.

If not, and "it" can become a baby under care of the state then the rights shift to the baby and the options offered are removal (at any time...permanent c-section option) or "natural" birth. 

Parental financial obligations become an issue, but not any more complex than divorce (less so, I think). Off the top of my head, if both parents don't want it, then zero obligation but if one does then they are both obligated. This is similar to current laws with the twist that, in the case of state intervention, the same standard applies to both genders. 

The current notion, as it is often blandly put (choice until birth which arbitrarily assigns rights despite having none moments prior yet the same biology), is disingenuous to me (good points regarding this made in the thread) and, apparently, not even supported by doctors (can they be sued for that?). 

To me it is a matter of scientific capability drawing the line (still some grey, but much less), not old-time presumptions of various gender roles that rely upon biology in absence of any consideration for current capabilities. 

If a person's body is required, their rights are clearly superior. Once science eliminates this requirement, things change.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Most excellent post Beej. I think you're onto something.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> To me it is a matter of scientific capability drawing the line (still some grey, but much less), not old-time presumptions of various gender roles that rely upon biology in absence of any consideration for current capabilities.
> 
> If a person's body is required, their rights are clearly superior. Once science eliminates this requirement, things change.


Even if/when technology can take over from the mother aren't we still left with the problem of getting the baby out?

Is it ethical, or even constitutional, to require a woman to undergo major abdominal surgery, or the natural birth process if she doesn't want to?

My wife gave birth to our son through a c-section and we were warned that it was major abdominal surgery that has risks and requires a lengthy recovery period.

A D&E (usually required after 20 weeks) allows many women to resume normal, or close to normal activities the next day. A c-section takes a minimum of three weeks and sometimes as long as three months to recover from.

Even if the technology exists to keep the child alive, shouldn't the mother still have the right to decide how best to proceed?

In other words, the mother's body will remain an issue.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

How much is too much? If the technology is not there yet, then there's no choice. But at what point is it no longer too much to expect of someone? Courts develop legal tests for such grey areas. Maybe c-section technology isn't there yet, maybe so, maybe just in some cases. I'm not sure.

I don't think human life can be credibly defined by where it is, the intent of the mother, or pain in recovering it (any precedence in siamese twin separation?) but its value (precedence for survival over anothers' state of being) can be defined in terms of harm to others in recovering it. This seems to be roughly where we are now if doctors are refusing to do abortions after a certain period. I'm more comfortable with them determining this for now because I don't think society is ready or willing to handle the debate yet. But we can't go on like this forever.

What about the notion of an abortion at 9 months? I assume that is a rare to non-existent occurence, but laws will need to deal with this sort of thing. Similarly, damage to a foetus (by others or by the mother): property damage or something else? 

We've been fairly comfy with an inadequate set of practices and no laws. They fit the times well, and addressed the challenges of the time well, but will need to progress from here.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/12/02/albertasuit051202.html

This is the case I was thinking of earlier SD.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs2-753/1999rcs2-753.html

This looks like the Supreme Court decision. Clearly, there is difficulty and acknowledgment of the precipice.
.....................................................
Held (Major and Bastarache JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed.

Per Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Binnie JJ.: The judicial recognition of a legal duty of care owed by a pregnant woman towards her foetus or subsequently born child requires that the two?step test articulated in Kamloops be satisfied -- (1) establishment of a relationship sufficient to establish a duty of care, and (2) existence of no public policy considerations negating this duty of care. The conclusion reached with respect to the second branch of that test determines the outcome of this appeal. The public policy concerns raised in this case are of such a nature and magnitude that they clearly indicate that a legal duty of care cannot, and should not, be imposed by the courts upon a pregnant woman towards her foetus or subsequently born child. However, unlike the courts, the legislature may enact legislation in this field, subject to the limits imposed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


In light of the very demanding biological reality that only women can become pregnant and bear children, the courts should be hesitant to impose additional burdens upon pregnant women. In addition, the relationship between an expectant woman and her foetus is truly unique. Accordingly, there can be no meaningful analogy between a child’s action for prenatal negligence against a third-party tortfeasor, on the one hand, and against his or her mother, on the other.

The actions of a pregnant woman, including driving, are inextricably linked to her familial role, her working life, and her rights of privacy, bodily integrity and autonomous decision?making. Moreover, the judicial recognition of this cause of action would involve severe psychological consequences for the relationship between mother and child, as well as the family unit as a whole. The imposition of tort liability in this context would have profound effects upon every pregnant woman and upon Canadian society in general. Such after?the?fact judicial scrutiny of the subtle and complicated factors affecting a woman’s pregnancy may make life for women who are pregnant or who are merely contemplating pregnancy intolerable. The best course, therefore, is to allow the duty of a mother to her foetus to remain a moral obligation which, for the vast majority of women, is already freely recognized and respected without compulsion by law.

There is as well a need for judicial restraint in the development of tort law as it pertains to sensitive and far-reaching issues of public policy. The imposition of a legal duty of care upon a pregnant woman towards her foetus or subsequently born child cannot be characterized as the simple application of existing tort rules to meet the requirements of a specific case. Rather, it constitutes a severe intrusion into the lives of pregnant women, with potentially damaging effects on the family unit.


Moreover, there can be no satisfactory judicial articulation of a standard of conduct for pregnant women. A rule based on a “reasonable pregnant woman” standard raises the spectre of tort liability for lifestyle choices, and undermines the privacy and autonomy rights of women. A compromise judicial solution, based on the murky distinction between “lifestyle choices peculiar to parenthood” and a “general duty of care” owed to third parties, is simply too vague to be manageable, and will inevitably lead to inequitable and uncertain results.

Finally, a rule based on a strictly defined motor vehicle exception to delineate the scope of maternal tort liability should not be created by the judiciary. To do so would be to sanction a legal solution based solely on access to insurance. If this approach were to be adopted, the provincial legislatures would be required to amend their legislative compensation regimes for motor vehicle accidents. Any such amendment might well be required to specify that it constituted an exception to the general rule of maternal tort immunity for prenatal negligence, and that the injured child could not recover damages above the limit established by the insurance scheme. A carefully tailored solution could benefit both the injured child and his or her family, without unduly restricting the privacy and autonomy rights of women.


Per L’Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin JJ.: The common law must reflect the values reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Applying common law liability for negligence generally to pregnant women in relation to the unborn trenches unacceptably on the liberty and equality Charter interests of pregnant women. The intrusion on the autonomy of the pregnant woman by common law tort liability cannot be reduced to the point where the infringement on a woman’s liberty and equality interests is acceptable without distorting its methodology and introducing new difficulties. The proposal that only children “born alive” can sue leaves a vast scope for curtailment of the pregnant woman’s autonomy. The proposal that liability follows only where the mother is insured against the damage flies in the face of the maxim that tort liability cannot be predicated on the defendant’s means. The precept that a common law duty of care arises from the relationship between the parties is violated by the proposal that liability should be restricted to where a pregnant women owes “general” duty to hypothetical people or by its variant that duty is owed to actual third parties.

Per Major and Bastarache JJ. (dissenting): The appellant mother owed a duty of care to other users of the highway, to passengers in her car and to her foreseeably injured born alive child. No intrusion into a pregnant woman’s freedom of action can be demonstrated where a duty of care is owed to a third party in respect of the very same behaviour of which the child complains. The pregnant woman’s freedom of action is not in issue in this appeal. This bright-line test easily distinguishes situations in which the pregnant woman’s freedom of action is in issue from those where it is not. Tort law is well equipped to distinguish between the two.


The bare assertion of social policy concerns expressly and unilaterally centred on a pregnant woman’s rights is not a sufficient answer to determine whether a pregnant woman’s rights should prevail over the equally recognized rights of her born alive child. While the law may grant immunity from liability based on policy reasons, those reasons, which must be clear and compelling, are conspicuously absent here. The removal of the child’s cause of action is extreme and the policy reasons for doing so should be obvious and persuasive. No jurisprudence was advanced that would negate a pregnant woman’s legal responsibility for negligent acts against her born alive child where the effects of those acts are reasonably foreseeable and where they violate the physical integrity of a legal person. The special relationship between a pregnant woman and her foetus is significant for both the mother-defendant and the born alive child-plaintiff and the legal or social policy implications to be drawn from this biological fact cannot be ascertained in the absence of equal acknowledgment of the rights of the child. To grant a pregnant woman immunity from the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her acts for her born alive child would create a legal distortion as no other plaintiff carries such a one-sided burden, nor any defendant such an advantage.

Policy considerations flowing from concerns about the appropriateness of intra-familial litigation may be sufficient to negate any child’s right to sue his or her parents in tort. The conclusion that such concerns only bar tort action brought by born alive children who sustained injuries while still in utero is not justified.
.....................................................


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

CMA policy, 1988: http://policybase.cma.ca/PolicyPDF/PD88-06.pdf
...............................
The CMA's position on induced abortion is as follows: 
• Induced abortion is the active termination of a pregnancy before fetal viability. 
• The decision to perform an induced abortion is a medical one, made confidentially between the 
patient and her physician within the confines of existing Canadian law. The decision is made 
after conscientious examination of all other options. 
• Induced abortion requires medical and surgical expertise and is a medical act. It should be 
performed only in a facility that meets approved medical standards, not necessarily a hospital. 
...............................
The CMA stresses the importance of considering fetal viability when active termination of a pregnancy is being discussed by a patient and her doctor. It must be remembered that when the fetus has reached the stage where it is capable of an independent existence, termination of pregnancy may result in the delivery of a viable fetus. Elective termination of pregnancy after fetal viability may be indicated under exceptional circumstances. 
...............................


Anyone have a newer policy statement?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> How much is too much? If the technology is not there yet, then there's no choice. But at what point is it no longer too much to expect of someone?


First of all, you are stating a belief that science can reduce a c-section to the same level of inconvenience as a D&E. You are trying to resolve the issue based on your beliefs, not on actual science. Perhaps we will be able to make a c-section as convenient as a D&E, but that isn't certain and either way, it does not solve the ethical dilemma for us today. All it does is offer that after a "rapture" of science, things will be better.

Consider that a D&E involves going in through the vagina, dismembering the baby and vacuuming it out. When performing one, the only life we are watching out for is the mothers. All the parts are small.

If a vaginal birth is not possible, and a c-section is required, we have to make another hole and that requires a deep incision large enough to get the whole baby out.

Further, if we believe that a c-section can be improved upon don't we also have to believe that a D&E can be improved upon? How do we know a c-section can ever catch up?

I think you are making too many assumptions and all of them are based on some future possibility that may or may not happen and doesn't give us any kind of guidance on this issue for the present time.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> First of all, you are stating a belief that science can reduce a c-section to the same level of inconvenience as a D&E. You are trying to resolve the issue based on your beliefs, not on actual science. Perhaps we will be able to make a c-section as convenient as a D&E, but that isn't certain and either way, it does not solve the ethical dilemma for us today. All it does is offer that after a "rapture" of science, things will be better.
> .....................................
> I think you are making too many assumptions and all of them are based on some future possibility that may or may not happen and doesn't give us any kind of guidance on this issue for the present time.


Nope. It's an "if". Perhaps I have not been clear that this is based upon such determinations. If it is still too intrusive (some test) then the mother's decision remains supreme. I think you've read too much into what I said but maybe I was unclear.
.....................................
That is the difference. My point is that we will have to deal with this, like the courts kept trying to get politicians to deal with SSM. Right now, we are ok, but all the indications are there that more will be needed. 

Right now, medical practitioners are making choices that happen to work (we send people elsewhere when they don't). This is not sustainable and the SC decision, aside from having clear dissent and too much vague sociological language, clearly highlights the need for policy.

Again, you are reading way too much into what I have said but if others have read similar things into my posts (all political shock and anger aside) then I will take my lumps for being unclear.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Again, you are reading way too much into what I have said but if others have read similar things into my posts (all political shock and anger aside) then I will take my lumps for being unclear.


No need to take lumps, if I didn't follow where you were going I am sorry and didn't mean to misrepresent what you were saying.


----------

