babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Here we go
February 1, 2002 - 8:58am
[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: earthmother ]
Quite right. So why didn't he?
You'd think that Bush and co. would be the last people to want to separate women from the fetuses they carry. And in that sentence, Thompson is pretending that he's not doing that -- but he is.
But, true to the direction the pro-life lobby has turned, they're starting out by saying they're doing it "for women". Oh, we're kind and compassionate, we LOVE women, we want their babies to have the best - oh, that is, unless they're on welfare or poor. Then screw them and their "babies" - unless, of course, they "murder" them - then their "babies" will be the country's most precious resource and we'll charge them with murder - oh, btw, didn't we mention that we're going to consider it murder now when a woman aborts a "person"?
Can the prolife portion of our society win at all?
They say they want to protect those that cannot speak for themselves, human beings that are in their first stages of developement, and they are ignored and labelled dogma touting morons.
They say they want to also protect women from abortion, as they see it as damaging, anti-woman and they are disbelieved.
I am not a religious nutt, and consider myself pretty darn open minded, I can't STAND Bush and you won't hear me defending him, but that doesn't mean that every person that thinks abortion is violent and unacceptable in a compassionate society IS George Bush in mindset.
I've found more tunnel vision in the pro-choice side of this debate than I do in most circles of the pro-life perspective.
[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]
After all, no one on the pro-choice team is threatening to do anything to you and your team -- whereas pro-lifers feel fully justified in doing a whole lot to pro-choicers.
But, it's my experience. I used to be prochoice when I was in highschool and used to argue with prolifers -who were usually coming at it from a "soul" angle-, however, I was not dismissed by them as an atheist death monger, but offered information... over and over and over again.
There is tunnel vision on both sides, BUT, in my experience from being on both sides of the table, I have found it very difficult to be heard by the pro-choice side now that I'm arguing against it, and I'll admit that I'm very frustrated by this.
And, of course the prochoice side isn't "doing" anything to the prolife side, other than ignoring them, usually. They don't have to "do" anything at this point in time because Abortion is legal. It's the people that are trying to change things that need to do the "doing" so to speak.
Know what I mean?
[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]
You point out the very crux of the abortion arguement however, and we sure aren't going to settle it here. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] It would be nice if we could, mind you, but this is why this is a "tough" issue.
See, prochoicers see it as the woman's body and hers alone.
Prolifers point out that there are now TWO bodies involved, not just one.
Example, if a woman wants to pierce her tongue or donate a kidney, or shave her head, or get drunk I have no problem with that... if other prolifers do, I don't really care, I'm only arguing it the way I see it and I don't usually align myself with the stereotypical prolifer.
I don't know if the term "civil libertarian" is proper for me, I'm not sure. I usually say my freedom ends at the other persons nose. From my perspective, there is another person involved, and they do have a nose.
Like I said, it's the very crux of the entire debate, to me, it's clear as day. To others it obviously isn't. And I'm sure I've ranted at all of you enough and made my points in previous posts... so I'll try not to brow-beat.
But, sorry for not getting your point the first time skadl. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]
The aborted fetus placed in an incubator.
Properly looked after, it will mature and become a baby.
The baby will then be placed with an adoptive parent(s).
Presto, both sides win!
[Warning: It does cost money. (Who pays? Would pro-lifers be willing to pick up the tab?)]
I guess somebodies got to do it. But, I wonder, do they ever feel pangs of guilt or remorse - or does the $250,000 a year income sufficiently dull their consciences?
Are they even human? Certainly only a machine could perform dozens of abortions a day and then go home and play with their kids.
I of course don't speak for the prolife movement, as there are many different people involved. But I personally would be totally fine with that if they could develop the technology. That's my whole reason for being against abortion, that a human life ends, here, the human life doesn't end, and if the biological mother truly doesn't want it, then she can avoid pregnancy and labour.
However I doubt that there would be a great success rate for artificial wombs... trying to get the blood circulation and nourishment right, there's no great substitute for nature- as demonstrated with the artificial heart-... and yes, there would be a whole lot of cost, I'd rather compensate the biomother for going through with the pregnancy and birth. But, if there were no other way, by all means, that would be better in my view than the alternative.
This won't affect the laws in Canada at all.
My feelings are that more needs to be done to promote awareness of any and all alternatives as I feel abortion is and should be the absolute last resort a woman has in the choices available. And to that end, care and upbringing of those children brought into the world should be placed in a higher standard of living then is present now.
I think it would be an easier choice if the mother knew that the baby should it become a baby, would have all the opportunity and caring and if not love then atleast compasion and understanding that is possible.
But after taking the time to examine all the alternatives, should a woman find that abortion is still the only solution then this should be respected and the procedure carried out with as much campasion and understanding as possible.
At the end of the day I will never know what it feels like to give up something of this magnitude. I am a man and though I hope to offer my best advice it remains only something to consider as it is down to the woman's own sense of herself and her life.
I, too, value life. Regardless of my feelings, I acknowledge -- without ifs, ands, or buts -- that there exist certain inalienable rights that each individual, in a free and democratic society, enjoys.
One such right is that of a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. It's nobody else's business. Period.
I am afraid that what President Bush is doing, by declaring the fetus to be a person, is preparing for legislation to prohibit abortion. While his real motive remains to be seen, it is, to say the least, very suspect.
I cringe whenever Canadians take a similar tack. Legislation against abortion is a cruel intrusion into a woman's womb. And an unnecessary dominance over women (skdadl has already made that quite clear).
Pro-lifers are entitled to their belief ... that too, is an inalienable right
If only they could acknowledge that legislation -- any legislation -- is but the work of mere mortals and therefore, inherently flawed, then perhaps, they could consider using technology to try to save as many unborn as is humanly possible. Of course, technology costs money. And it won't save all. Nothing does -- not even legislation.
I disagree with you, as I explained before, to me, it's not just the woman's body, it's the OTHER body that is developing at a rapid rate inside of hers that I'm talking about. It is a human life, and therefore has a right to live.
Of course it's none of my business if she gets a hysterectomy, but that's JUST her body then, not another unique human life. That's the big difference.
I'm not in any way a fan of George Bush, let me be perfectly clear on that. He's the type of "prolife" (HHAHHAHAHAHA) person that paints the entire movement a horrid shade. He's a war monger. He's signed death warrants for thousands of people and will keep this war going for as long as he can to line his own pockets. He's ... oh, don't get me started, I printed his State of the Union address just so I could have proof in case aliens ever come visit that someone that dense and scary once led the US... if I live to tell aliens about him. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Can you please point me in the direction of this technology? I have never, ever heard of it and I read about this subject everyday, and I'd love to know more about it.
[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]
I'd be very curious as well. I've studied the subject in-depth and the closest thing I'm aware of are some of the induced ectopic experimental work that have come out of the former Soviet Union. Not exactly artificial as it entirely relies on the host's CV systems and endocrine feedback loops (the trick being to do it without killing them). I can't begin to imagine what it would take to reproduce that externally, especially as half of those feedback loops are only kinda-sorta understood - if that. It's an extraordinarily complicated problem. I'd be impressed if they managed an IE, and in fact have offered to be a test subject, but an artificial womb is light years beyond that.
Myria
[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Myria ]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,634776,00.html
*dips paw in water*
Dubya's an idiot.
*dashes off to shake self free of water* [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Ok, I know that wasn't really informative or necessary, but given that abortion is such a hot-button issue I don't wish to comment too much when the positions are already known among us babblers as to who favors what. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
My friend, these people are heroes. They are working under a very real and ongoing threat of physical violence. Here in Vancouver, the same abortion doctor has been both shot and knifed on two seperate occassions. Countless other doctors and clinic workers have to put on flak jackets before they leave their houses--in Rosedale or otherwise--and work behind bullet proof glass. How many Doctors do you know who are willing to risk their **lives** for women's reproductive rights? And now there is this little anthrax scare that's going around. If anything, these people should be paid ten times as much as their colleques--particularly since they are taking on a responsibility that by all rights is that of the entire medical community-- not just a handful of commited, unthinkably brave individuals. Mercedes, Rosedale homes--I don't begrudge them any of this. These people deserve medals.
[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Relyc ]
Seriously. It belies his claim to be pro-choice.
[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]
Actually no Lance he is pro everyones choice to do exactly as he says.
Thank you very much for the reference, Doug.
To be honest, however, the article really provides nothing of substance to back up it's basic claim. It's a very long ways from keeping a goat fetus alive for a max of ten days to keeping a human fetus alive and developing properly for nine months - the two are several orders of magnitude apart at the very least.
I had to laugh at the author's use towards the end of human cloning and producing organs from stem cells as examples of things we didn't think would be here five years ago but are. In fact neither is here today and may indeed not be for quite some time. Mammalian cloning is turning out to be far more problematic than they thought - note the problems with "Dolly", similar genetic defects exist in every mammalian clone created to date. Not a single practical application, let alone working organ, has come out of stem cell research to date. In fact there have been some rather notable horrors with the early human experiments gone awry. Both cloning and stem cells will no doubt yield real-world applications someday, but we're not there yet and may not be for quite some time.
We may have the level of knowledge required to construct artificial wombs in twenty years, who knows? But it's going to be a very bumpy road. If people are having fits over stem cells, imagine the ethical debates over the experiments and failures that will be required to create an artificial womb - you don't just throw something like that together, toss a fertilized human egg in, and have it work perfectly the first time. It's certainly a much more complicated problem than "pumping in blood, oxygen and nutrients and disposing of waste products", as the article describes the goat womb - which is how people typically think of the problem. Among many other things, a mother's body provides a whole host of interdependent endocrinological feedback loops that will have to be reproduced with exactitude and in some cases we don't even known how to produce endogenous-identical substitutes let alone regulate them. To date we only barely understand how most of those feedback loops work - it's mostly black box and there are a lot of arguments about some of the interdependencies.
There are just so many unknowns. And so much room for disaster.
DES (Diethylstilbestrol), an artificial estrogen, was first synthesized in the UK by Sir Charles Dodds in 1938. It was used widely in pregnant women through the early seventies (in Europe until '83, some countries even later) as a way to try and stop spontaneous miscarriages - in fact it turns out it wasn't even good for that, which is more than a tad sadly ironic. At the time nobody knew that, of course, and they really didn't think there was much to worry about from its use. After all, it was just an estrogen, what's to worry about? Lots, it turns out. A study in the United States, little noticed at first, showed an increase in a particularly rare cancer (clear cell adenocarcinoma, or CCAC) in the daughters of women who had been given DES during pregnancy. Subsequent studies have shown that its use had widespread, if generally not easily detectable, effects on both sons and daughters (including what is euphemistically referred to as "psycho-social", which I frankly find personally insulting). Worse yet, subsequent animal model studies indicate a third-generational effect, something no one would have dreamed of in a million years because it means there was genetic damage - what's sometimes being referred to as "estrogenic imprinting".
In any event, DES has been heavily studied since the seventies. A lot has been learned, some of it rather surprising - like the aforementioned third-generational effect or the fact that those exposed children have a higher progesterone receptor density in breast tissue. But, 64 years after it was first synthesized, we still have no real idea why it does what it does to a developing fetus, we just know that it does.
Until we can answer questions like that we're still a long ways away from an artificial womb, at least as far as I can see.
Myria
If I was a doctor, I would feel obligated to do it. Either you believe in extending comprehensive health care to women, or you don't. Anything else is hypocrisy.
What would give me nightmares would be knowing I had the power to assist a woman in exercising her own rights over her body, and had withheld it.
That gives me an idea for a thread. . .please stand by.
Here, let me set you straight.
Doctors are obligated to do no harm and to care for the physical health of their patients. "Assisting women to exercising their rights over their own bodies" is NOT a professional dillemma, it is a moral one. And even Doctors are permitted to have morals.
If there is reason to believe that a pregnancy
will harm the health of a woman, a Doctor has a right to do someting. If it is a normal pregnancy, brought about by consentual sex by a mentally stable woman, well, NOONE has the right to tell that Doctor that he/she is a hypocrite if he/she refuses to abort the fetus at the mother's whim.
I repeat, even Doctors are permitted to have morals. And abortion is as much a moral issue as a medical one.
Some people have concerns about the validity of a fetus as a human life. Some people have no problem with dehumanizing a fetus and sanctioning its termination at the will of the mother.
Both sides should treat the other with empathy and respect. Those who do not, are fanatics, unworthy of consideration. (And don't doubt it, there are as many pro-choice fanatics as there are pro-life.)
Tell me, do you approve of partial birth abortions? How about abortions in the last week of gestation? I bet you do. For you, abortion is a black and white issue. AnyTHING in a woman's body must be subject to the whims of the woman.
Right?
[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]
[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]
Fellow babblers, should I even get into this? What say you?