Science > Abortion > Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2006 08:03:16 PM |
| Object: |
Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709046/posts
Mother of Seven Arrested Without Warning for Showing Abortion Image
LifeSiteNews ^ | 27 September 2006
Posted on 09/26/2006 10:54:14 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
FREDERICTON, New Brunswick, Sept. 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A
pro-life woman was arrested Tuesday for holding an image of an aborted
child outside an abortion facility in Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Suzie Ryan, mother of seven, was silently holding the image outside the
Morgentaler centre as abortions were being performed inside. Mrs. Ryan
was charged with violating s.163 of the Criminal Code. S.163 is about
the display of obscene material. She was released after being held in a
jail cell for several hours. She must face the charges in court in
November.
Prior to her arrest Mrs. Ryan was not warned in any way that she was
committing an illegal act. Six to eight police officers arrived and
forcibly put her in a paddy wagon, while confiscating her sign and
umbrella.
Police Staff Sergeant Kelly later explained to Mrs. Ryan's husband,
Campaign Life Coalition New Brunswick (CLCNB) president Peter Ryan,
that the police were acting following instructions from the Crown
Prosecutor office and some 35 complaints about the display of abortion
images. Mr. Ryan believes the abortuary staff must have put in one or
more complaints this morning.
CLCNB is not aware of any other case in Canada where a pro-life citizen
was arrested without prior warning for simply displaying an abortion
image in a public place. Such images have been repeatedly displayed by
such groups as Show the Truth which has won precedent-setting cases in
which it also was charged for showing graphic abortion pictures. That
group visited Fredericton twice this past summer. At the time
Fredericton Mayor Brad Woodside expressed displeasure with the group's
tactics, but said there was nothing the city could legally do to
prevent such displays.
The Morgentaler abortion facility has no legal restrictions against
protest in the surrounding public area. Pro-life supporters regularly
are present on Tuesday mornings when abortions usually take place.
Mrs. Ryan says she is quite shaken by the incident.
Peter Ryan says it is incredible when someone can be accused of a crime
for peacefully protesting the murder of innocent children. "Here's the
analogy," he said. "The Nazi death camps are exterminating Jews.
Outside someone protests with an image of the Holocaust. The camp staff
complains to police. The person is arrested as a criminal. The
slaughter goes on. That's where we now are in this country.
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 08:28:22 PM |
|
|
In article <MqYVg.118$PK1.1089663@news.sisna.com>, TopPoster
.. <.TopPoster@poster.com> wrote:
Those religious old Muslim men are telling their women what to do with their
bodies
Those religious christen men are telling their women what to do with their
bodies.
Correct. What the Right Wing wants in the U.S. (and Canada) is what is
currently in place in Iran and Iraq. (What a surprise.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 09:22:11 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:071020061828227797%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <MqYVg.118$PK1.1089663@news.sisna.com>, TopPoster
. <.TopPoster@poster.com> wrote:
Those religious old Muslim men are telling their women what to do with
their
bodies
Those religious christen men are telling their women what to do with
their
bodies.
Correct. What the Right Wing wants in the U.S. (and Canada) is what is
currently in place in Iran and Iraq. (What a surprise.)
If you believe what you see on television, the women in some Muslim
countries are murdered by either their father or their brother before they
conceive. Killing two birds with one stone? Oh well at least the family
honour remains intact...
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 09:41:54 PM |
|
|
In article <ugZVg.5951$FV7.616@newsfe14.lga>, <4newsgroups@mts.net>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:071020061828227797%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <MqYVg.118$PK1.1089663@news.sisna.com>, TopPoster
. <.TopPoster@poster.com> wrote:
Those religious old Muslim men are telling their women what to do with
their
bodies
Those religious christen men are telling their women what to do with
their
bodies.
Correct. What the Right Wing wants in the U.S. (and Canada) is what is
currently in place in Iran and Iraq. (What a surprise.)
If you believe what you see on television, the women in some Muslim
countries are murdered by either their father or their brother before they
conceive. Killing two birds with one stone? Oh well at least the family
honour remains intact...
It is ironic that so many cultures in the middle east are nearly
identical to what the Right Wing wants so bad, but the Right Wing hates
them anyway - just as they hate so many other things.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 12:51:08 PM |
|
|
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
OK. But that position is contrary to the laws of the U.S. and Canada.
Not quite.
you're wrong, as you admit in the next sentence.
In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
have not made it illegal.
so barnes' statement "But that position is contrary to the laws of
the U.S. and Canada" was perfectly correct, despite your mistaken
response.
I think they should.
how shameful.
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock‚.cray.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 04:32:22 PM |
|
|
In article <bCRVg.1745$cz.26028@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
I believe that the choice to have an abortion, except when
medically necessary, should not be legally available.
OK. But that position is contrary to the laws of the U.S. and Canada.
Not quite. In Canada it is legal only because our legislators
have not made it illegal. I think they should.
So it is LEGAL. And in Canada, as in the U.S., a fetus is not a person
until it is "born alive."
The phrase "abortion on demand" is Right Wing
propaganda with different meanings depending on which Right Wingerer is
using it.
Now 'that' is propaganda.
"Abortion on demand" comes closer to reality in Canada.
Yes, I suppose that is correct.
And Canada is better for it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
05 Oct 2006 12:43:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:58:23 GMT, Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <74XUg.441$cz.5153@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MqOUg.92$cz.1788@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
Abortion is not a rights issue. If it is anything but a moral
issue it is a responsibility issue. Abortion on demand is
nothing more than an attempt by irresponsible people to escape
responsibility for what they conceive when they copulate.
Therapeutic abortion is a whole different issue.
Contrary to the position of so many "pro-life" out here, I have never
stated whether I "support abortion."
Do you or don't you?
I don't even know what that means.
It means 'do you support abortion or not'. Remember the term
'support abortion' was yours, not mine.
Do you mean, "Do I support the
right of a woman to obtain a legal abortion?" Sure. Absolutely.
No I don't mean that.
I do, however, support the choice
being left in the hands of the woman. Hopefully they act wisely, but
either way, it is their choice.
I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that
reason is confirmed by competent medical authority.
What if the "valid reason" is not medical?
It still must be confirmed by whatever authority is competent to
deal with it. My point is it cannot be 'on demand'.
competent authority - the woman's doctor.
If the woman says she wants to have an abortion, no further reason is
needed. When the doctor confirms that she is wants the abortion and
is not being coerced then the reason has been confirmed.
You may qualify to be pro-choice, but of course, the rest of us would
have to decide if we want to associate with you. And that is a very
big "if".
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
03 Oct 2006 08:57:44 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion needed to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
That may be true in the US David. This, however, is a Canadian
group and in Canada the courts have indeed indicated that new
legislation is required concerning abortion. Our legislators
have not seen fit to deal with the issue and, by doing nothing,
have created a legal vacuum in which abortion is neither legal
nor illegal.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 09:40:27 AM |
|
|
In article <s%tUg.2137$%6.46073@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion needed to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
That may be true in the US David. This, however, is a Canadian
group and in Canada the courts have indeed indicated that new
legislation is required concerning abortion. Our legislators
have not seen fit to deal with the issue and, by doing nothing,
have created a legal vacuum in which abortion is neither legal
nor illegal.
Even in Canada the job of the courts is not to make law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 11:32:58 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Peter D <please@.sk>
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion
needed to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
That may be true in the US David. This, however, is a Canadian
group and in Canada the courts have indeed indicated that new
legislation is required concerning abortion. Our legislators
have not seen fit to deal with the issue and, by doing nothing,
have created a legal vacuum in which abortion is neither legal
nor illegal.
Even in Canada the job of the courts is not to make law.
And I did not say that it was. I specifically stated, "What the courts have
stated is that the law(s) covering abortion needed to be rewritten." Which
part of that says that they made laws? Read it again until you comprehend
and then get back to me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
03 Oct 2006 11:10:30 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <s%tUg.2137$%6.46073@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion needed to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
That may be true in the US David. This, however, is a Canadian
group and in Canada the courts have indeed indicated that new
legislation is required concerning abortion. Our legislators
have not seen fit to deal with the issue and, by doing nothing,
have created a legal vacuum in which abortion is neither legal
nor illegal.
Even in Canada the job of the courts is not to make law.
I already made that point to Jeff in another post. By indicating
that new legislation is required, the Canadian courts did not
attempt to make law.
Carter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
02 Oct 2006 09:49:46 PM |
|
|
Jeff Stapleton wrote:
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
news:HI%Tg.1034$Cs6.965@newsfe22.lga...
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Z8HTg.71363$5R2.62900@pd7urf3no...
"SunDancer" <Big_Bad_John@CompaniesStore.com> wrote in message
news:efnbtl$5ol$1@utornnr1pp.grouptelecom.net...
...when it comes to killing unborn children, Canada shows no mercy
on the child or pictures thereof.
get over it already abortion is legal in canada. It is not murder as
you like to believe.
Anyone who states one way or another on this issue hasn't thought
about it long enough. If it isn't outright murder it's close to it,
especially with abortions late in the pregnancy cycle.
close only works with horseshoes and hand grenades
That's not only trite, it is incorrect. Manslaughter and
infanticide are both close to murder in a legal sense.
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until
that changes just get over it.
You like that phrase, don't you? Your continual use of it shows
how shallow your thinking is. If pro abortionists had followed
such advice in the past, abortion would still be illegal in this
country.
Just because pro abortionists didn't 'just get over it' and
managed to get the law changed doesn't mean that the law has to
stay as it is now. Abortion can be made illegal again by the
efforts of those who just won't get over it.
BTW Jeff, it wasn't the courts that ruled abortion is not murder,
it was our legislators who were swayed by the lobbying efforts of
pro abortionists. Courts do not make laws in this country.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
02 Oct 2006 10:49:53 PM |
|
|
In article <edkUg.2037$%6.43998@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: That's not only trite, it is incorrect. Manslaughter and
: infanticide are both close to murder in a legal sense.
Blah blah blah, murder, manslaughter, infanticide. Nothing more than loaded
words intended to provoke an emotional reaction. It may seem sincere to you, but
to others it's trite and tiresome, and does not progress the discussion in any
meaningful way.
The whole situation boils down to the fact that anti-abortionists believe that
their particular set of morals is somehow absolute, universal and/or divine, and
that justifies them trying to force their morals onto others. If you believe
that's right, then that's fine, but that's not a free and just country; more
like an arbitrary theocracy.
Despite what some might think, the law is not an instrument of morality. While
most things it might proscribe happen to be commonly held as immoral, and most
things it allows may happen to be commonly moral, morality itself should never
be the foundation of laws.
If you are morally opposed to abortion, then don't have an abortion. However,
recognize that nothing gives you the right to force that view on others, nor
should anything.
The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede the rights
of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully independent
being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester). Being a half-formed wad of
cells doesn't quite qualify. That's as far as logic will take you in either
direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to sit,
regardless of what "morals" might say.
Or, to put a more conservative slant on it: the government has no business
regulating such things that are better left to the individual to manage for
themselves.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 11:44:08 AM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
If you are morally opposed to abortion, then don't have an abortion.
However,
recognize that nothing gives you the right to force that view on others,
nor
should anything.
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed by
those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus. And it
was those "do-gooders" who created change.
The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede the
rights
of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully
independent
being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester).
The courts have ruled that Section 287 of the CCoC was trumped by Seciton 7
of the Charter (see my other post for specifics). The Courts have also
sought to define "person", "life" etc. What is needed is for legistlators to
sit down and write a workable law covering abortion and related matters.
Being a half-formed wad of cells doesn't quite qualify.
That's as far as logic will take you in either
direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to sit,
regardless of what "morals" might say.
It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a half-formed wad
of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others that it caused the
arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a half-formed wad of cells".
Do you think that this "half-formed wad of cells" suddenly becomes a
fully-formed formed baby in an instant of birth? I thought you were a
"scientist" Tony! <lol>
So, tell me Tony, do you think it's OK to abort a fetus anhour before normal
delivery? If we call the moment when birth would normally occur "B", when is
your cut-off point? How many hours before "B" do you draw your line?
<cue/wiggle and dodge>
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 11:52:19 PM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:qrwUg.76539$MQ5.7825@newsfe15.lga...
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
If you are morally opposed to abortion, then don't have an abortion.
However,
recognize that nothing gives you the right to force that view on others,
nor
should anything.
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed by
those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus. And
it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses can't.
The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede the
rights
of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully
independent
being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester).
The courts have ruled that Section 287 of the CCoC was trumped by Seciton
7 of the Charter (see my other post for specifics). The Courts have also
sought to define "person", "life" etc. What is needed is for legistlators
to sit down and write a workable law covering abortion and related
matters.
What is needed is for pro-force men, who will never have to endure the agony
of childbirth, to mind their own business.
Being a half-formed wad of cells doesn't quite qualify.
That's as far as logic will take you in either
direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to sit,
regardless of what "morals" might say.
It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a half-formed
wad of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others that it caused
the arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a half-formed wad of
cells". Do you think that this "half-formed wad of cells" suddenly
becomes a fully-formed formed baby in an instant of birth? I thought you
were a "scientist" Tony! <lol>
It doesn't happen at conception either.
So, tell me Tony, do you think it's OK to abort a fetus anhour before
normal delivery? If we call the moment when birth would normally occur
"B", when is your cut-off point? How many hours before "B" do you draw
your line?
<cue/wiggle and dodge>
An hour before birth? You apparently have no idea what childbirth is like.
An hour before birth (and several more hours, sometimes even days before)
the woman is in such agony that she'd scream for her own death, let alone
make a rational decision about aborting; in fact, she's in the process of
terminating her pregnancy. And do you really think that any woman would
endure 9 months (or even 6 months) of ghastly pregnancy if she didn't want
to have a child? Late-term abortions are only performed when something has
gone drastically wrong and the results are heartbroken women - not that that
would make any difference to you.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 03:50:59 PM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:qrGdne5geMGWGbXYRVnytA@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed by
those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus. And
it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses can't.
If you are claiming that whatever is inside the womb suddenly changes from
an unthinking and unfeeling mass one second after birth but not before, you
should get your money back for those biology and/or sex ed classes. You were
ripped off. :-)
But if you are claiming that, I'll bite. Prove it.
The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede the
rights
of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully
independent
being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester).
The courts have ruled that Section 287 of the CCoC was trumped by Seciton
7 of the Charter (see my other post for specifics). The Courts have also
sought to define "person", "life" etc. What is needed is for legistlators
to sit down and write a workable law covering abortion and related
matters.
What is needed is for pro-force men, who will never have to endure the
agony of childbirth, to mind their own business.
What is needed is for you to stop being such a whiny-assed victim and stand
up regardless of your gender and make sensible arguments. FWIW, I might
arguen that you have no right to speak to anti-black or anti-Jew sentiment
because you are neither. I won't because I know it's irrelevant. Why?
Because it's not a "black" or "jew" issue. It's a "human" issue.
Being a half-formed wad of cells doesn't quite qualify.
That's as far as logic will take you in either
direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to
sit,
regardless of what "morals" might say.
It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a half-formed
wad of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others that it
caused the arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a half-formed
wad of cells". Do you think that this "half-formed wad of cells"
suddenly becomes a fully-formed formed baby in an instant of birth? I
thought you were a "scientist" Tony! <lol>
It doesn't happen at conception either.
So what? I didn't say it did.
I said, "It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a
half-formed wad of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others that
it caused the arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a half-formed
wad of cells". Do you think that this "half-formed wad of cells" suddenly
becomes a fully-formed formed baby in an instant of birth?"
Which part of that don't you understand? Or are you also claiming that the
second prior to birth whatever is there is signifcantly different -- other
than in a legal sense -- that what is there the second after birth? If you
are, prove it.
So, tell me Tony, do you think it's OK to abort a fetus anhour before
normal delivery? If we call the moment when birth would normally occur
"B", when is your cut-off point? How many hours before "B" do you draw
your line?
<cue/wiggle and dodge>
An hour before birth? You apparently have no idea what childbirth is
like. An hour before birth (and several more hours, sometimes even days
before) the woman is in such agony that she'd scream for her own death,
let alone make a rational decision about aborting; in fact, she's in the
process of terminating her pregnancy.
Actually I know plenty about birth. OK, let's say a day before birth would
normally occur? Do you think it's OK to abort at that point? Is whatever is
in the womb a "half-forned wad of cells" a that point. Oh, and try your best
to stick to the actual quesiotn asked and not side-track on to what wasn't
said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
10 Oct 2006 03:13:02 PM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message news:WvdWg.8$O45.5@newsfe24.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:qrGdne5geMGWGbXYRVnytA@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed
by those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus. And
it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses can't.
If you are claiming that whatever is inside the womb suddenly changes from
an unthinking and unfeeling mass one second after birth but not before,
you should get your money back for those biology and/or sex ed classes.
You were ripped off. :-)
But if you are claiming that, I'll bite. Prove it.
Don't put words into my mouth - I made no such claim. If you had read all
the posts in this thread, you would have seen that my claim is that foetuses
are not capable of feeling pain until after the neurons have connected to
the brain at about the 24th week.
The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede
the rights
of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully
independent
being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester).
The courts have ruled that Section 287 of the CCoC was trumped by
Seciton 7 of the Charter (see my other post for specifics). The Courts
have also sought to define "person", "life" etc. What is needed is for
legistlators to sit down and write a workable law covering abortion and
related matters.
What is needed is for pro-force men, who will never have to endure the
agony of childbirth, to mind their own business.
What is needed is for you to stop being such a whiny-assed victim and
stand up regardless of your gender and make sensible arguments. FWIW, I
might arguen that you have no right to speak to anti-black or anti-Jew
sentiment because you are neither. I won't because I know it's irrelevant.
Why? Because it's not a "black" or "jew" issue. It's a "human" issue.
Yes, and pregnant women are human too. Did you forget that? As to speaking
out against racism, regardless of the fact that I'm neither black nor
Jewish, I recognise the fact that these are people who can be hurt by
racism. No-one gets hurt in an abortion.
Being a half-formed wad of cells doesn't quite qualify.
That's as far as logic will take you in either
direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to
sit,
regardless of what "morals" might say.
It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a half-formed
wad of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others that it
caused the arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a half-formed
wad of cells". Do you think that this "half-formed wad of cells"
suddenly becomes a fully-formed formed baby in an instant of birth? I
thought you were a "scientist" Tony! <lol>
It doesn't happen at conception either.
So what? I didn't say it did.
I said, "It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a
half-formed wad of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others
that it caused the arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a
half-formed wad of cells". Do you think that this "half-formed wad of
cells" suddenly becomes a fully-formed formed baby in an instant of
birth?"
Which part of that don't you understand? Or are you also claiming that the
second prior to birth whatever is there is signifcantly different -- other
than in a legal sense -- that what is there the second after birth? If you
are, prove it.
There are certainly differences, which have been posted here frequently, as
the baby makes the transition to breathing for itself, but I'll go along
with you and say that the differences aren't significant in the last couple
of months of gestation. I think the term 'half-formed wad of cells' can
only apply to an embryo during the first 8 weeks, when the cells undergo
major differentiation. After that, they're more than half-formed, but
certainly not fully-formed.
So, tell me Tony, do you think it's OK to abort a fetus anhour before
normal delivery? If we call the moment when birth would normally occur
"B", when is your cut-off point? How many hours before "B" do you draw
your line?
<cue/wiggle and dodge>
An hour before birth? You apparently have no idea what childbirth is
like. An hour before birth (and several more hours, sometimes even days
before) the woman is in such agony that she'd scream for her own death,
let alone make a rational decision about aborting; in fact, she's in the
process of terminating her pregnancy.
Actually I know plenty about birth.
Personal experience? :)
OK, let's say a day before birth would
normally occur? Do you think it's OK to abort at that point?
I'm not prevaricating when I say that this is a totally unrealistic
scenario: to abort at a late stage, labour is induced and if the woman is
just a day short of the expected date of birth, it would become a normal
delivery. If you're referring to the ID&X procedure (erroneously called
'partial-birth abortion'), no doctor is going to perform that on a viable,
healthy foetus - it's against the law for one thing. Will you agree to
discussing the abortion of a viable, healthy 8-month foetus as a more
realistic scenario, or will you accuse me of side-tracking? My answer to it
would be the same as for a 9-month foetus anyway.
First of all, at 8 months, even at 7 months, no doctor would abort a healthy
foetus if the woman's life or health were not threatened and it's illegal,
but for the sake of argument let's say that it would be possible for a woman
to choose to abort at that late stage. Would I support her decision to
abort? Two answers: my rational decision has to be 'yes' - it's her body,
her choice and I think that I can't rationally go against that, but I would
never take up the cudgels on her behalf at that late stage, whereas I would
for a woman who wanted an early-term abortion. Emotionally, however, my
answer is 'no' - screamed at the top of my voice. My own daughter was 9
weeks premature and nothing in the world was more precious to me, so the
thought of aborting at this stage is anathema to me. I reason that the
woman has had plenty of time to decide whether to abort or carry to term, so
it seems that a child was wanted at least at some point during that time,
and therefore she should be denied an abortion. I can't decide whether this
is a rational argument or an emotional one, and, as far as the law goes, I
think that the head should rule the heart, even though I would hate it.
Is whatever is
in the womb a "half-forned wad of cells" a that point.
See above.
Oh, and try your best
to stick to the actual quesiotn asked and not side-track on to what wasn't
said.
Are you implying that I've done that before ... and do you consider that
I've done that in this post?
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
10 Oct 2006 06:03:18 PM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:WMKdnYhpUon-mLHYnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message news:WvdWg.8$O45.5@newsfe24.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:qrGdne5geMGWGbXYRVnytA@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed
by those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus.
And it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
If you are claiming that whatever is inside the womb suddenly changes
from an unthinking and unfeeling mass one second after birth but not
before, you should get your money back for those biology and/or sex ed
classes. You were ripped off. :-)
But if you are claiming that, I'll bite. Prove it.
Don't put words into my mouth - I made no such claim.
I didn't. I said "But if you are claiming that". The "If" should make it
clear that I _wasn't_ putting words into yor mouth.
If you had read all the posts in this thread, you would have seen that my
claim is that foetuses are not capable of feeling pain until after the
neurons have connected to the brain at about the 24th week.
I know. See my response to you in another part of this thread.
The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede
the rights
of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully
independent
being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester).
The courts have ruled that Section 287 of the CCoC was trumped by
Seciton 7 of the Charter (see my other post for specifics). The Courts
have also sought to define "person", "life" etc. What is needed is for
legistlators to sit down and write a workable law covering abortion and
related matters.
What is needed is for pro-force men, who will never have to endure the
agony of childbirth, to mind their own business.
What is needed is for you to stop being such a whiny-assed victim and
stand up regardless of your gender and make sensible arguments. FWIW, I
might arguen that you have no right to speak to anti-black or anti-Jew
sentiment because you are neither. I won't because I know it's
irrelevant. Why? Because it's not a "black" or "jew" issue. It's a
"human" issue.
Yes, and pregnant women are human too. Did you forget that?
Now who's putting words into someone's mouth? :-)
As to speaking out against racism, regardless of the fact that I'm neither
black nor Jewish, I recognise the fact that these are people who can be
hurt by racism. No-one gets hurt in an abortion.
I disagee. "Someone" gets hurt otherwise we wouldn't be having this
discussion. That you and I differ on the rights and status of that "someone"
is a differnece I recognise and respect.
Being a half-formed wad of cells doesn't quite qualify.
That's as far as logic will take you in either
direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to
sit,
regardless of what "morals" might say.
It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a half-formed
wad of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others that it
caused the arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a half-formed
wad of cells". Do you think that this "half-formed wad of cells"
suddenly becomes a fully-formed formed baby in an instant of birth? I
thought you were a "scientist" Tony! <lol>
It doesn't happen at conception either.
So what? I didn't say it did.
I said, "It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a
half-formed wad of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others
that it caused the arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a
half-formed wad of cells". Do you think that this "half-formed wad of
cells" suddenly becomes a fully-formed formed baby in an instant of
birth?"
Which part of that don't you understand? Or are you also claiming that
the second prior to birth whatever is there is signifcantly different --
other than in a legal sense -- that what is there the second after birth?
If you are, prove it.
There are certainly differences, which have been posted here frequently,
as the baby makes the transition to breathing for itself, but I'll go
along with you and say that the differences aren't significant in the last
couple of months of gestation. I think the term 'half-formed wad of
cells' can only apply to an embryo during the first 8 weeks, when the
cells undergo major differentiation. After that, they're more than
half-formed, but certainly not fully-formed.
Thank you. In this we find common ground.
So, tell me Tony, do you think it's OK to abort a fetus anhour before
normal delivery? If we call the moment when birth would normally occur
"B", when is your cut-off point? How many hours before "B" do you draw
your line?
<cue/wiggle and dodge>
An hour before birth? You apparently have no idea what childbirth is
like. An hour before birth (and several more hours, sometimes even days
before) the woman is in such agony that she'd scream for her own death,
let alone make a rational decision about aborting; in fact, she's in the
process of terminating her pregnancy.
Actually I know plenty about birth.
Personal experience? :)
Yes. :-)
OK, let's say a day before birth would
normally occur? Do you think it's OK to abort at that point?
I'm not prevaricating when I say that this is a totally unrealistic
scenario: to abort at a late stage, labour is induced and if the woman is
just a day short of the expected date of birth, it would become a normal
delivery.
OK. Five minutes -- or a day -- before labour begins. My point -- which I'm
sure you recognize -- is that those who support abortion (I'm not saying you
specifically) usually want to talk about what is in the womb at or shortly
after conception. and extrapolate the same status and "life" forwards
without thinking it through logically to the end. I want them to start
thinking backwards from the end.
If you're referring to the ID&X procedure (erroneously called
'partial-birth abortion'), no doctor is going to perform that on a viable,
healthy foetus - it's against the law for one thing.
Not in Canada. Which is why I'm trying to cause people -- Canadians more
than anyone else -- to think about it and talk about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
11 Oct 2006 10:20:37 PM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message news:4EVWg.8$OG2.7@newsfe20.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:WMKdnYhpUon-mLHYnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@bt.com...
[snip]
What is needed is for you to stop being such a whiny-assed victim and
stand up regardless of your gender and make sensible arguments. FWIW, I
might arguen that you have no right to speak to anti-black or anti-Jew
sentiment because you are neither. I won't because I know it's
irrelevant. Why? Because it's not a "black" or "jew" issue. It's a
"human" issue.
Yes, and pregnant women are human too. Did you forget that?
Now who's putting words into someone's mouth? :-)
Touché.
As to speaking out against racism, regardless of the fact that I'm
neither black nor Jewish, I recognise the fact that these are people who
can be hurt by racism. No-one gets hurt in an abortion.
I disagee. "Someone" gets hurt otherwise we wouldn't be having this
discussion. That you and I differ on the rights and status of that
"someone" is a differnece I recognise and respect.
OK.
[snip]
Actually I know plenty about birth.
Personal experience? :)
Yes. :-)
:p
OK, let's say a day before birth would
normally occur? Do you think it's OK to abort at that point?
I'm not prevaricating when I say that this is a totally unrealistic
scenario: to abort at a late stage, labour is induced and if the woman is
just a day short of the expected date of birth, it would become a normal
delivery.
OK. Five minutes -- or a day -- before labour begins. My point -- which
I'm sure you recognize -- is that those who support abortion (I'm not
saying you specifically) usually want to talk about what is in the womb at
or shortly after conception. and extrapolate the same status and "life"
forwards without thinking it through logically to the end. I want them to
start thinking backwards from the end.
If you're referring to the ID&X procedure (erroneously called
'partial-birth abortion'), no doctor is going to perform that on a
viable, healthy foetus - it's against the law for one thing.
Not in Canada.
Really? That's surprising. In that case, do you know how many viable,
healthy foetuses are aborted in the third trimester in Canada?
Which is why I'm trying to cause people -- Canadians more
than anyone else -- to think about it and talk about it.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 10:02:49 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
OK, let's say a day before birth would
normally occur? Do you think it's OK to abort at that point?
I'm not prevaricating when I say that this is a totally unrealistic
scenario: to abort at a late stage, labour is induced and if the woman
is just a day short of the expected date of birth, it would become a
normal delivery.
Actually, you raise aninteresting point here. If this happens, and labour is
induced and it becomes a "normal delivery", what happens to the "contents of
the womb" after delivery is done? I mean, she's terminated an unwanted
pregnancy but (presumably) it's now earned the right to be a "persom"
because it's been born alive. In your opinion, what is the legal status of
whatever she delivered? If she doens't want it, what is to become of it?
I ask because one doctor suggested the "delivered fetus" (sounds so much
less of a human being than "baby", eh?) be laid aside and allowed to expire
naturally. No fluids, no food, no intervention, maybe drugs to reduce
discomfort and stress, but allowed to expire (I understand it takes about
4-6 hours, lots of crying and wailing, stuff like that). I love the
"allowed' as if the "delivered fetus" was receiving special consideration
not really due a non-person. He didn't regard it as "kill" because the
"delivered fetus" exprired of it's own accord. Now in my world, any
caregiver who fails to provide the necessities of life to a newborn --
regardless of the mother's feeling towards it -- should be charges with
murder or manslaughter and have his/her license revoked. But that's me.
OK. Five minutes -- or a day -- before labour begins. My point -- which
I'm sure you recognize -- is that those who support abortion (I'm not
saying you specifically) usually want to talk about what is in the womb
at or shortly after conception. and extrapolate the same status and
"life" forwards without thinking it through logically to the end. I want
them to start thinking backwards from the end.
If you're referring to the ID&X procedure (erroneously called
'partial-birth abortion'), no doctor is going to perform that on a
viable, healthy foetus - it's against the law for one thing.
Not in Canada.
Really? That's surprising. In that case, do you know how many viable,
healthy foetuses are aborted in the third trimester in Canada?
I have no idea because such statistics are not compiled and not easily
evailable. It's part of the "abortion is sacred and anything that could
cause discussion that may impinge upon it is not toerlated" position on
enforcing that "right" I suppose. Though how many times it occurs is
irrelevant. That the unwillingness of legislators to write a reasonable law
leaves a vacuum in which it can legally occur is relevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 12:08:22 AM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:nOsXg.50939$nc3.27747@newsfe16.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
OK, let's say a day before birth would
normally occur? Do you think it's OK to abort at that point?
I'm not prevaricating when I say that this is a totally unrealistic
scenario: to abort at a late stage, labour is induced and if the woman
is just a day short of the expected date of birth, it would become a
normal delivery.
Actually, you raise aninteresting point here. If this happens, and labour
is induced and it becomes a "normal delivery", what happens to the
"contents of the womb" after delivery is done? I mean, she's terminated an
unwanted pregnancy but (presumably) it's now earned the right to be a
"persom" because it's been born alive.
Yes, it has.
In your opinion, what is the legal status of
whatever she delivered? If she doens't want it, what is to become of it?
The father may want it, or it could be put up for adoption, otherwise it
would be placed in an orphanage.
I ask because one doctor suggested the "delivered fetus" (sounds so much
less of a human being than "baby", eh?) be laid aside and allowed to
expire naturally.
I'd bet the farm on it that the baby was grossly abnormal - that wouldn't
happen to a healthy baby.
No fluids, no food, no intervention, maybe drugs to reduce
discomfort and stress, but allowed to expire (I understand it takes about
4-6 hours, lots of crying and wailing, stuff like that). I love the
"allowed' as if the "delivered fetus" was receiving special consideration
not really due a non-person. He didn't regard it as "kill" because the
"delivered fetus" exprired of it's own accord. Now in my world, any
caregiver who fails to provide the necessities of life to a newborn --
regardless of the mother's feeling towards it -- should be charges with
murder or manslaughter and have his/her license revoked. But that's me.
Me too, provided that the baby could survive with 'normal' care and wouldn't
live a life of pain.
OK. Five minutes -- or a day -- before labour begins. My point -- which
I'm sure you recognize -- is that those who support abortion (I'm not
saying you specifically) usually want to talk about what is in the womb
at or shortly after conception. and extrapolate the same status and
"life" forwards without thinking it through logically to the end. I want
them to start thinking backwards from the end.
If you're referring to the ID&X procedure (erroneously called
'partial-birth abortion'), no doctor is going to perform that on a
viable, healthy foetus - it's against the law for one thing.
Not in Canada.
Really? That's surprising. In that case, do you know how many viable,
healthy foetuses are aborted in the third trimester in Canada?
I have no idea because such statistics are not compiled and not easily
evailable. It's part of the "abortion is sacred and anything that could
cause discussion that may impinge upon it is not toerlated" position on
enforcing that "right" I suppose. Though how many times it occurs is
irrelevant. That the unwillingness of legislators to write a reasonable
law leaves a vacuum in which it can legally occur is relevant.
I think the number of occurrences is very relevant. I've told you before
that women do not carry a foetus for 6 or more months if they do not want a
baby. Choice has to be available in the third trimester for instances of
foetal abnormality, eg if it is discovered that the foetus has no lungs, or
other vital organ, you wouldn't want to force the woman to carry to term
just to have the baby die as soon as it's born, would you?
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 01:43:31 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kp6dnXtkr6w07K3YRVnysw@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:nOsXg.50939$nc3.27747@newsfe16.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
OK, let's say a day before birth would
normally occur? Do you think it's OK to abort at that point?
I'm not prevaricating when I say that this is a totally unrealistic
scenario: to abort at a late stage, labour is induced and if the woman
is just a day short of the expected date of birth, it would become a
normal delivery.
Actually, you raise aninteresting point here. If this happens, and labour
is induced and it becomes a "normal delivery", what happens to the
"contents of the womb" after delivery is done? I mean, she's terminated
an unwanted pregnancy but (presumably) it's now earned the right to be a
"persom" because it's been born alive.
Yes, it has.
In your opinion, what is the legal status of
whatever she delivered? If she doens't want it, what is to become of it?
The father may want it, or it could be put up for adoption, otherwise it
would be placed in an orphanage.
I ask because one doctor suggested the "delivered fetus" (sounds so much
less of a human being than "baby", eh?) be laid aside and allowed to
expire naturally.
I'd bet the farm on it that the baby was grossly abnormal - that wouldn't
happen to a healthy baby.
You're the second pro-choice person to suggest that abnormality (if
sufficient) can lead to a death sentence. Is that a usual opinion? I'm just
curious.
No fluids, no food, no intervention, maybe drugs to reduce
discomfort and stress, but allowed to expire (I understand it takes about
4-6 hours, lots of crying and wailing, stuff like that). I love the
"allowed' as if the "delivered fetus" was receiving special consideration
not really due a non-person. He didn't regard it as "kill" because the
"delivered fetus" exprired of it's own accord. Now in my world, any
caregiver who fails to provide the necessities of life to a newborn --
regardless of the mother's feeling towards it -- should be charges with
murder or manslaughter and have his/her license revoked. But that's me.
Me too, provided that the baby could survive with 'normal' care and
wouldn't
live a life of pain.
Thank you. As for the potential quality of life issue, I still think a
doctor is unqualified to make a life/death decision. I don't want a doctor
to make that sort of choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 12:46:50 AM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message news:ND%Xg.44$AU6.9@newsfe21.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kp6dnXtkr6w07K3YRVnysw@bt.com...
[snip]
I ask because one doctor suggested the "delivered fetus" (sounds so much
less of a human being than "baby", eh?) be laid aside and allowed to
expire naturally.
I'd bet the farm on it that the baby was grossly abnormal - that wouldn't
happen to a healthy baby.
You're the second pro-choice person to suggest that abnormality (if
sufficient) can lead to a death sentence. Is that a usual opinion? I'm
just curious.
I can't say what the 'usual' opinion is. Legend has it that midwives used
to do this on a fairly regular basis, telling the mother that it had been a
stillbirth, but that was in the days when no medical assistance could help.
Today, many of these unfortunates can be helped by modern medicine, but
there will always be some for whom no quality of life can be achieved, and
if they would be in constant pain, as is often the case, I wouldn't be at
all surprised if they were left to die.
No fluids, no food, no intervention, maybe drugs to reduce
discomfort and stress, but allowed to expire (I understand it takes
about 4-6 hours, lots of crying and wailing, stuff like that). I love
the "allowed' as if the "delivered fetus" was receiving special
consideration not really due a non-person. He didn't regard it as "kill"
because the "delivered fetus" exprired of it's own accord. Now in my
world, any caregiver who fails to provide the necessities of life to a
newborn -- regardless of the mother's feeling towards it -- should be
charges with murder or manslaughter and have his/her license revoked.
But that's me.
Me too, provided that the baby could survive with 'normal' care and
wouldn't
live a life of pain.
Thank you. As for the potential quality of life issue, I still think a
doctor is unqualified to make a life/death decision. I don't want a doctor
to make that sort of choice.
I shouldn't imagine the doctors want to make that choice either, but they're
the ones in the best position to judge whether a baby will suffer and never
overcome the pain. What would you want to happen if you had a baby that
would be in constant pain?
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 11:33:28 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kbudnYbUQMzPVqzYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:ND%Xg.44$AU6.9@newsfe21.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kp6dnXtkr6w07K3YRVnysw@bt.com...
[snip]
I ask because one doctor suggested the "delivered fetus" (sounds so
much less of a human being than "baby", eh?) be laid aside and allowed
to expire naturally.
I'd bet the farm on it that the baby was grossly abnormal - that
wouldn't
happen to a healthy baby.
You're the second pro-choice person to suggest that abnormality (if
sufficient) can lead to a death sentence. Is that a usual opinion? I'm
just curious.
I can't say what the 'usual' opinion is. Legend has it that midwives used
to do this on a fairly regular basis, telling the mother that it had been
a stillbirth, but that was in the days when no medical assistance could
help. Today, many of these unfortunates can be helped by modern medicine,
but there will always be some for whom no quality of life can be achieved,
and if they would be in constant pain, as is often the case, I wouldn't be
at all surprised if they were left to die.
No fluids, no food, no intervention, maybe drugs to reduce
discomfort and stress, but allowed to expire (I understand it takes
about 4-6 hours, lots of crying and wailing, stuff like that). I love
the "allowed' as if the "delivered fetus" was receiving special
consideration not really due a non-person. He didn't regard it as
"kill" because the "delivered fetus" exprired of it's own accord. Now
in my world, any caregiver who fails to provide the necessities of life
to a newborn -- regardless of the mother's feeling towards it --
should be charges with murder or manslaughter and have his/her license
revoked. But that's me.
Me too, provided that the baby could survive with 'normal' care and
wouldn't live a life of pain.
Thank you. As for the potential quality of life issue, I still think a
doctor is unqualified to make a life/death decision. I don't want a
doctor to make that sort of choice.
I shouldn't imagine the doctors want to make that choice either, but
they're the ones in the best position to judge whether a baby will suffer
and never overcome the pain. What would you want to happen if you had a
baby that would be in constant pain?
Here's my thinking on giving doctors the right to make the decision to
terminate a life. There have been cases here inManitoba where a doctor has
declared "do not resuscitate" an elderly patient that was terminal against
the wishes of the patient and the family. There is also a move underway to
give doctors here that authority/right -- though it will be subject to four
days notice to the family and the ability to appeal the decision before a
court. It can never be a simple or an easy decisoin. I understand the
difficulty and anguish of making such a decision. But it has to be left to
the parent -- the mother primarily in the case of a newborn -- not the
doctor. Doctors may have the expertise, but the mother has the child-parent
relationship. I'm always nervous when the doctor and or State seeks such
power. I don't think it's appropriate for them to have it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
18 Oct 2006 05:19:32 AM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message news:3rtYg.554$Zi.60@newsfe22.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kbudnYbUQMzPVqzYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:ND%Xg.44$AU6.9@newsfe21.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kp6dnXtkr6w07K3YRVnysw@bt.com...
[snip]
Thank you. As for the potential quality of life issue, I still think a
doctor is unqualified to make a life/death decision. I don't want a
doctor to make that sort of choice.
I shouldn't imagine the doctors want to make that choice either, but
they're the ones in the best position to judge whether a baby will suffer
and never overcome the pain. What would you want to happen if you had a
baby that would be in constant pain?
Here's my thinking on giving doctors the right to make the decision to
terminate a life. There have been cases here inManitoba where a doctor has
declared "do not resuscitate" an elderly patient that was terminal against
the wishes of the patient and the family.
It seems to be just the reverse here in the UK: we have had cases where
patients fought for the right to die (and lost). I have heard stories,
however, that doctors have said 'do not resuscitate', when the elderly
patient has no-one to look after him or her and that the quality of life
would be very poor. Personally, I think I'm going to get 'DNR' tattooed on
my chest.
There is also a move underway to
give doctors here that authority/right -- though it will be subject to
four days notice to the family and the ability to appeal the decision
before a court. It can never be a simple or an easy decisoin. I understand
the difficulty and anguish of making such a decision. But it has to be
left to the parent -- the mother primarily in the case of a newborn -- not
the doctor. Doctors may have the expertise, but the mother has the
child-parent relationship. I'm always nervous when the doctor and or State
seeks such power. I don't think it's appropriate for them to have it.
I think it's almost impossible to be objective about this. The mother will
almost invariably demand that everything possible be done to keep her child
alive - I know I would - and it isn't always wise. Take a look at the
following, which was reported a couple of days ago:
www.timesonline.co.uk - Baby Charlotte to be fostered as parents separate
Who do you think should have made the decision in this case?
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
18 Oct 2006 10:09:07 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
[snip]
the difficulty and anguish of making such a decision. But it has to be
left to the parent -- the mother primarily in the case of a newborn --
not the doctor. Doctors may have the expertise, but the mother has the
child-parent relationship. I'm always nervous when the doctor and or
State seeks such power. I don't think it's appropriate for them to have
it.
I think it's almost impossible to be objective about this.
I think that objectivity or the lack of it is irrelevant.
The mother will almost invariably demand that everything possible be done
to keep her child alive
Bad, Bad Mother!
I know I would - and it isn't always wise.
Whether it is wise -- in your opinion -- or not not, and so all the time or
not, is irrelevant.
Take a look at the following, which was reported a couple of days ago:
www.timesonline.co.uk - Baby Charlotte to be fostered as parents separate
Who do you think should have made the decision in this case?
The parents after hearing the doctor's advice. Who do you think should have
made the decision in this case?
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
19 Oct 2006 11:47:20 PM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:12jcgsj4g1ec7df@corp.supernews.com...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
[snip]
the difficulty and anguish of making such a decision. But it has to be
left to the parent -- the mother primarily in the case of a newborn --
not the doctor. Doctors may have the expertise, but the mother has the
child-parent relationship. I'm always nervous when the doctor and or
State seeks such power. I don't think it's appropriate for them to have
it.
I think it's almost impossible to be objective about this.
I think that objectivity or the lack of it is irrelevant.
The mother will almost invariably demand that everything possible be done
to keep her child alive
Bad, Bad Mother!
Baby Charlotte's mother, cited below, certainly turned out to be a bad
mother, didn't she?
I know I would - and it isn't always wise.
Whether it is wise -- in your opinion -- or not not, and so all the time
or not, is irrelevant.
?
Take a look at the following, which was reported a couple of days ago:
www.timesonline.co.uk - Baby Charlotte to be fostered as parents separate
Who do you think should have made the decision in this case?
The parents after hearing the doctor's advice. Who do you think should
have made the decision in this case?
Well, I know what it's like to have a new-born in need of intensive care for
a few weeks, and I would have fought Hercules to get that care for her, so I
have to side with the mother. On the other hand, there's the question of
spending other people's money. It's already cost £1.5 million and will cost
even more to provide the baby with the care she will need - and to what end?
She has damage to the brain, lungs and kidneys, so the quality of her life
will never be good. There aren't many countries where taxpayers' money
could be used like this - could it happen in Canada? I also know what it's
like to have a brain-damaged child: my elder son was profoundly autistic and
phenomenally hyperactive. He made our lives sheer hell until he went into
specialist care at the age of 8. Life wasn't much better then, because we
still had the heartbreak of knowing he would never be able to communicate
with us or live a normal life. He died when he was 15, and I have to wonder
what was the point of it all, just as I have to wonder what is the point of
keeping Charlotte alive through artificial means.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
20 Oct 2006 01:57:27 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cpCdnc4KuddqyaXYRVnyjg@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
[snip]
the difficulty and anguish of making such a decision. But it has to be
left to the parent -- the mother primarily in the case of a newborn --
not the doctor. Doctors may have the expertise, but the mother has the
child-parent relationship. I'm always nervous when the doctor and or
State seeks such power. I don't think it's appropriate for them to have
it.
I think it's almost impossible to be objective about this.
I think that objectivity or the lack of it is irrelevant.
The mother will almost invariably demand that everything possible be
done to keep her child alive
Bad, Bad Mother!
Baby Charlotte's mother, cited below, certainly turned out to be a bad
mother, didn't she?
I have no idea. I'ts not for me to judge. You, however, seem to feel very
qualified to judge -- and to decide who has the right to live or die. I'm
curious how exactly you come by such authority --or is it arrogance?
I notice you haven't addressed the case of the doctors making bad judgement
regarding the viability of a perosn who turned out just fine. Or the case of
the father who considers himself a hero for killing his disabled daughter.
Too difficult?
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
