do gooders! or good doers?

[Rich]

Curate wins abortion challenge


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3247916.stm


apparently the doctor thought that the clefpalet was so bad it could be a very strong sign of other problems etc so the family decided to terminate the pregnancy

im of the opinion that its non of her fucking business and she should keep her nose out of it .. the doctor and family did what they thought was best ..and im sure the woman involved feels bad enough as it is having to abort her child ... but to have this afterwards i think is really bad ...

do gooder fs

But

what do you think ?

 

[Spirit]

Agree with you, none of her fucking business, what right does she as a person have to take legal action in a case she appears to know virtually nothing about? If the matter needed investigating it would be done by the proper authorities and an official decision made. In this case, it was investigate by the police

the force says it took the advice of a senior member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists before making the decision not to take the matter further.

who in concurrance with relevant medical authorities agreed this case was within the law and perfectly acceptable.

I hope she gets thrown out of court on her ass

 

[Hector]

What 'right' does she have? That same 'right' that allows any member of society to attempt to right a perceived wrong. If we all just did what we were told then things would never get changed and to simply say that the doctor and family knows best: Family's have their own problems and doctors, well, it's not unheard of that they have made mistakes and their judgment found wanting before, is it? The police can't win, whatever they chose to do could incur some protest group's wrath.

For the record I think a family should be responsible for judgements for the decisions they make regarding terminating pregnancy. But questions have to be asked when a cleft palate is regarded as such a severe abnormality that the child must die. What will be the next reason for termination...slightly too big feet? Sticky out ears?

 

[Rich]

But questions have to be asked when a cleft palate is regarded as such a severe abnormality that the child must die. What will be the next reason for termination...slightly too big feet? Sticky out ears?

too big feet and sticky out ears are not signs of serious defects .. a ceft palet is a pointer to other far more serious abnormalities and due to the severity of this one it was thought best to terminate ..

and she's a paid up member of the God Squad which is another thing that pisses me off .... "its wrong in the eyes of god" .. not if you dont belive in God it isnt. take your religious claptrap and stick it up your vestry.

(sorry for the god rant)

 

[Hector]

and she's a paid up member of the God Squad which is another thing that pisses me off .... "its wrong in the eyes of god" .. not if you dont belive in God it isnt. take your religious claptrap and stick it up your vestry.

Actually it still might be wrong if you don't believe in God because not believing doesn't mean God doesn't exist

I don't understand why it would piss you off, though. For my money when people use religion in their argument it's transparently flawed and they are weakening their own position, so it certainly doesn't upset me.

 

[Ajax]

i hate do gooders who do more harm than good, this is a case of that imo if the doctors thought they had good reason then it should of been np. I guess the woman who was pregnate was council was informed of all the facts and made her choice based on that and if thats her choice then the so called 'do gooder' should of respected it, but instead she has brought it into the limelight without a thought of the stress and emotical pain this woman will go though because of her action.
Yes maybe she has a right to callange it but to bring it into the limelight like this plain old disgusting.

 

[Hector]

i hate do gooders who do more harm than good, this is a case of that imo if the doctors thought they had good reason then it should of been np. I guess the woman who was pregnate was council was informed of all the facts and made her choice based on that and if thats her choice then the so called 'do gooder' should of respected it, but instead she has brought it into the limelight without a thought of the stress and emotical pain this woman will go though because of her action.
Yes maybe she has a right to callange it but to bring it into the limelight like this plain old disgusting.

I agree. I'm just going to slink off this thread so I don't have to admit to not having read the whole article.

 

[dog]

Even if you did read the full article, as I did. Its impossible to judge wether or not the doctors made "the right" call, and ultimately in cases like this, you will never know how severe this would have been for the child had it been born. However it does raise and interresting question, religious nutters and all that removed. What does constitute reason enough to terminate a pregnancy? As scanning grows increasingly more accurate and doctors learn to use all of the modern day leeps and bounds in medicinal technology, the choices we are presented with grow increasingly hard...

I don't know about this case and the english judicial system, but I would belief if anything is on trial here, it can only be the doctors? The mental stress this causes on the family is without a doubt not something they need, from what I know, most women who gets abortions have problems enough with the decision as is...

A religious selfrighteous nutter raising all this bullshit, thank fuck would never happen in .dk, but I still think the more ethical questions beneath this are interresting, when do we call a stop to this? Who is to say what kind of life is a good life?

 

[Spirit]

What 'right' does she have? That same 'right' that allows any member of society to attempt to right a perceived wrong. If we all just did what we were told then things would never get changed and to simply say that the doctor and family knows best: Family's have their own problems and doctors, well, it's not unheard of that they have made mistakes and their judgment found wanting before, is it? The police can't win, whatever they chose to do could incur some protest group's wrath.

I agree, but this has already clearly been taken a step further. The woman exercised her right to disagree by reporting the matter to the police and asking them to perform an investigation. The police did this, consulted senior members of the medial proffesion and the overall opinion was that this was a perfectly valid case and no wrong has been done.

What I think is beyond her right is to launch a civil legal case against a woman who has obviously just been through an incredibly traumatic experience and thus will only cause her a great deal more trauma, when she not only felt this was the best thing for her child-to-be, but also had the backing of the medical proffesion and the police.

Whilst I am quite happy she has the right to voice her own opinion, I do not believe she has the right to inflict that kind of trauma on someone whom society has already deemed innocent.

 

[Hector]

What I think is beyond her right is to launch a civil legal case against a woman who has obviously just been through an incredibly traumatic experience and thus will only cause her a great deal more trauma,

She hasn't launched anything against the woman, has she? Her complaint is with the police for refusing to prosecute the hospital.

 

[Spirit]

Oh hm my mistake doing things too quickly cos I'm supposed to be working

It's still gonna cause the 'mother' further trauma though, as she will be directly affected by the case and quite possibly called as a witness etc, and it is still her judgement being questioned.

 

[dog]

Which is totally irrelevant, tho I strongly disagree with her reasoning:

Since when should considerations towards involved persons influence raising important questions?

 

[Martz]

Abortion used to be a big topic, so maybe this is a good way in the eyes of the Church of England to bring the subject back into public view. The Christian view on Abortion has lost lots of media attention due to War, celebrities, and gay Bishops. Doing something radical like challenging the decision in a high court could be considered just a marketing stunt to get attention from, and steal the Sundays of, The Anti-Abortion Market™.

On a moral level I feel that the UK's abortion laws are just and fair, from what I have seen, although I also do feel that the Male (paternal? ¬_¬) involved doesn't have any rights or input into the process.. and who would anyway? Pregnant women are not to be triffled with. But Women have the right to abortion up until the foetus is at a certain stage of development, which is a fair call since I think it was judged and set by Doctors/Professors and not by an MP.

The solution to maybe reducing the nessasary abortion rate, is another hot subject.. IVF with DNA manipulation... I don't know the funky name for it, but bascially Build Your Own Baby. Good for maybe removing hereditary disease from your child, bad for designer babys who all have blonde hair, blue eyes, and drink only Evian after birth.

Law has (or should have) to keep up with technology and society. Relgion seems to only allow ancient traditions and ways of life, and refuses to moderise. I would've probably disagreed with abortion 2000 years ago, when my GP would only have a dirty rock and sharp stick to perform the operation.

 

[-CrackKing-]

Funny how we allow abortion, yet a woman is pleading innocence after spending 9 months of a life sentence in jail for strangling her 2 7 week old sons. What's the difference?

 

[Martz]

Funny how we allow abortion, yet a woman is pleading innocence after spending 9 months of a life sentence in jail for strangling her 2 7 week old sons. What's the difference?

I think the difference is the key part of abortion debate, At what stage between conception and birth does the creation of a human qualify?

Obviously at 7 weeks old, these are real people - just very young and completely dependant on their mothers. She didn't have to kill them, i'm sure she could have seeked helped, had them adopted or something. And isn't this linked to post-natal depression?

 

[Mughi]

One difference is one is a child, one is a fetus.

Another is one is legal, one is not.

There are those who feel a fetus is just a child that hasnt been born yet, and therefore abortion is murder of a child.

There are those who feel it is not developed enough to be a child, and therefore abortion is not a problem.

As far as I know (and it is just the product of a Catholic ABORTION IS EVEEEL upbringing) the cutoff point for an abortion is 24 weeks, as after this, the thing is capable of surviving outside the womb. Before that, it cant, not even in an incubator.

As time goes by this will become a bit more difficult as the chances for survival during earlier development increase.

As to wether the curate has the right to bring this to court .... well, I agree, its none of her goddamn business. It was cleared with the parents, the doctors, the police, its none of the church's business in this case. However, on the other hand, if a law is just plain wrong, if we dont have the chance to challenge them we are screwed. To remove her right to challenge this law isnt the way forward. But I do hope she loses.

 

[Spirit]

Funny how we allow abortion, yet a woman is pleading innocence after spending 9 months of a life sentence in jail for strangling her 2 7 week old sons. What's the difference?

The difference is a 7 week old baby can think, feel and understand, where as a feotus (below a certain age) can do none of those things. There is a line which can be drawn at a certain age when a feotus changes from being a lump of flesh into a person - that line is where you draw the mark with abortion (well, a few weeks before that age because it's obviously a variable point).

When a feotus begins to be able to think and feel it has become a person, and aborting it then is essentially murder, but before that point it is just a group of cells and it is no more murder than having a mole cut off IMHO.

 

[Hector]

The difference is a 7 week old baby can think, feel and understand, where as a feotus (below a certain age) can do none of those things.

That's quite a contentious statement in itself. It relies on arguably arbitrary definitions of the concepts 'thinking' and 'feeling' as they relate to the unborn, you can't give a foetus a reading or empathy test.
And then there's the matter of POTENTIAL for thinking and feeling, the morality of killing something that in time WILL think and feel and our responsibility to nurture that potential (because if it WILL think and feel in time it means the potential to do that ALREADY exists).

I'm playing devil's advocate here because I can reach no conclusion one way or another. If I was being harsh I would say it's a shitty overpopulated world that still discriminates against the disabled, so do what you gotta do. If anyone gets to choose though it should be the parents.

 

[Spirit]

That's quite a contentious statement in itself. It relies on arguably arbitrary definitions of the concepts 'thinking' and 'feeling' as they relate to the unborn, you can't give a foetus a reading or empathy test.
And then there's the matter of POTENTIAL for thinking and feeling, the morality of killing something that in time WILL think and feel and our responsibility to nurture that potential (because if it WILL think and feel in time it means the potential to do that ALREADY exists).

I'm playing devil's advocate here because I can reach no conclusion one way or another. If I was being harsh I would say it's a shitty overpopulated world that still discriminates against the disabled, so do what you gotta do. If anyone gets to choose though it should be the parents.

It is a contentious statement, and not being medially qualified I have no idea what technologies are available or how they can be used to judge when a foetus becomes concious, however I'm sure they must have means of investigating these things. Tests could show when a foetus is able to feel and react to pain, when it starts to develop actions that show it is completing basic thought processes etc, and therefore a line drawn as a result of these tests.

With regard to the 'potential', that's an arguement I disagree with. You have to pick somewhere to draw the line otherwise you'd end up banning contraception in saying by killing the sperm you are killing a potential foetus and therefore committing murder. There is potential in everything, but imho stopping something with mere potential is not a crime, it only becomes than when you stop something that has already begun to achieve it's potential.

To a certain extent I agree it should be the parents decision. Certainly in the above example I think the parents, along with the doctors advice, had every right to make the decision they did. However, parents shouldn't have total say because otherwise then you will get cases of abortion when it's too far down the line for no other reason than they don't want the child. The line needs drawing at a certain point and imho it's about right as it is now (although I can say for sure, not knowing exactly how developed foetus are at 36 weeks... Is it still 36 weeks anyway?!). Parents have the overall decision but that decision is governed by certain laws which keep their decision within the confines of human rights.

 

[dog]

what is conscious? if you mean reacting to and feeling pain, I am afraid you have to push the legal abortion way back, cuz the central nerve system is among the first things to be developed. The whole issue is becoming increasingly difficult as we learn more and more about how complex the development of living beings are, if I am not mistaken whoever said that the line has been drawn where it is possible to support the life outside the womb, is correct, at least thats how they decided it here in .dk, now, that does not in any way take into account the mental / emphatic abilities of the living entity at that point. And tbh spirit, its a bollox thing to call it a lumb of living tissue, if you are going to take the moral standpoint that abortions up untill a certain age is morally right, at least have the balls to admit that it is most certainly the termination of life, ie. murder.

I am all for abortion btw, I just can't stand these kind of doublestandards.