Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
In all seriousness, I think having Mark and Grant here has been a good thing, despite the poor quality of their contributions. They've allowed me to hone my thinking on the issue in a sane forum (as opposed to most other public debate). I'm sure there are people here who have given much thought to abortion issues, but I can honestly say that I had considered it an issue without much salience in NZ, and therefore not deserving of much attention.
I have, of course, debated abortion, and even took to calling myself "pro-death" for a while, which was a deliberate move to question the terms of the debate. As quickly becomes obvious, terminology matters - as a Marcos has said: "words are also weapons".
-
and just for you danielle to give you an even clearer idea on where i'm coming from,
when my gf had an abortion due to failure of contraception, i 100% supported her decision to do as she felt best, to the point i went to the clinic with her and stayed with her during the process. To this day I still have no idea what happened in that place, simply that tubes were inserted in her, and the fetus was terminated. None of the staff talked to me, there was noone to discuss it with, and on the way out of the clinic the couple in front of me had a pie thrown at them by a prolifer.
Now I can fully understand where you're coming from with regard to it being your body, but I'm merely wondering if the process could perhaps be made more inclusive?
do i seem anti women? anti abortion? or just confused by the whole thing. I'll stress, it wasn't me who had the hot pie thrown at me, but to this day I always wonder about that, what happened to that couple, what was the effect of that pie, and why the whole thing felt like i accompanied my gf to the dentist.
because while i would never tell a female what to do with her own body in that respect, I always feel that a part of me died that day, and i wonder why there was no recourse or service provided to explain or debrief partners on the process.
that's all my cards on the table.
-
really george, what is poor quality about suggesting counseling for or at least a little education for males involved in the abortion process? what is poor quality about suggesting that the father should also be offered the option to be a party to the discussion or that his opinion is heard with regards to the termination,
what checks are in place if a man wishes for an abortion but the the baby is carried through? and he is forced to pay for that pregnancy for the rest of his life? we're not just talking about a autonomy of body here, where talking about future oak trees
If a woman were to convince the male that she will endure the pregnancy and seek no child support, then what public record is there of this statement?
if a woman has had her arm twisted into the abortion by a husband or father, then what role could a partner have in preventing the patriarchy controlling the daughters body assuming things could go on public record and mediated by a nonpartisan female?
why invalidate these concerns george?
-
and to clarify that, further, the girls father insists she terminates the pregnancy on threat of injury, but the father of the child is employed and promises to take care of the child,
firstly if this case were heard by an independent body, with the fetus's father apparent, this could help to distinguish the role of the father the mother and the patriarchal grandfather, and in some cases be more empowering to the female than if she'd just been driven in an uncompromising position to the abortion clinic by her father.
or would you just prefer it as it is george, where what gramps says goes?
-
things that have been through the science process are surely things that we 'believe' to be true, based on scientific testing, observation, review etc. Scientists often seem to use the phrase 'as far as we know'.
Some will be proven to be false, either through bad science, lack of understanding, misleading data etc.
I would have thought that if something that was thought to be correct, can later be proven to be false, then surely we 'believed' it to be correct, and we were wrong.
Science must therefore have an element of belief in it, just belief based on scientific principles rather than religious ones.
Ye-e-e-ss, to a point.
But bear in mind that scientists by the very nature of the profession tend to be working right out on the cutting edge - that edge accounting for a tiny fraction of the mass of what we already 'know'.
So, scientists hypothesise that the graviton exists and that it mediates the force of gravity, 'as far as they know'.
Whether it exists (or not) doesn't alter the repeatably observable fact that unsupported objects will fall towards the centre of the earth accelerating at 9.81 metres per second per second.
Jumping from the roof of a tall building is going to make rather a large mess whether a person 'believes' in the gravitational constant or not.
-
Mark, I have trouble following most of your posts and questions, but your pie anecdote has a horrible, bleak, surrealness all of its own.
I think counselling is entirely appropriate for everyone involved in making a decision like that. No health service that involves people making traumatic decisions is improved by a conveyor-belt approach by the health provider. There's nothing to stop people seeking counselling together, I suppose, but perhaps more could be done in connecting it with the procedure itself. The purpose of counselling as I see it is to help people work out what they really want to do.
And I think there's definitely a role for men who have been bystanders/participants in an abortion decision to have their feelings recognised and supported. But that doesn't mean they need decisionmaking powers. The solution to patriarchy, if I understand you correctly, isn't more patriarchy. I can't think of another circumstance in which one person can prevent or enforce the medical treatment of another adult of sound mind.
-
To this day I still have no idea what happened in that place,
Yes, you do Mark,but know this,your participation is required from the beginning of the first visit to the GP along with a continued support for girlfriend if you would like to feel included. That is when all assessments can and do come into the picture.At that time you can ask all the questions you want.Remember that it is necessary to understand the fact that you are there to support your partner in her situation and any feelings you may have, should be dealt with privately between the two of you.Ultimately, in our democratic society, we are allowed to have an abortion for private, personal,individual,reasons and in NZ we choose to allow women the dignity and respect due anyone that needs to make such decisions.This is why "mental health" comes into it.Experts in this field have interpreted the law and, rightly so, a womens need to not continue with pregnancy is sufficient for them to agree.This is not a bad interpretation of the law.It is a compassionate understanding of what is necessary in each individual case. Please understand this is never an easy decision,which is why there are checks and balances.As Anon said "Right decision, Yes"
One thing to note, the pie in the face thing,is only someone else trying to tell you what to do. Tolerance for those idiots will make you a better person every time.Try to understand it's not about you,it's about you supporting your partner. -
thanks for your replies.
-
do i seem anti women? anti abortion?
Yes. And yes. Well, you did to start with, anyway:
Explicitly making an analogy between a woman having an abortion and illegal torture practices by the United States seems anti-women and anti-abortion, even if I understand your point about the right to criticise the act of a sovereign on its territory. Not only is it a very poor analogy, it's also insensitive and distasteful, and hardly likely to result in an intelligent discussion. Indeed, on a forum such as this one, it seems designed to provoke exactly the kind of responses it got.
Also, if we're going to play quote the dictionary, while dictionary.com may include 'to postpone' in veto, the OED doesn't (I can't link to it because it's behind a subscriber wall).
Veto, n. 1. [a. L. veto I forbid (1st pers. sing. pres. ind. of vet{amac}re), the word by which the Roman tribunes of the people opposed measures of the Senate or actions of the magistrates. Hence also F., Sp., Pg., It. veto.]
A prohibition having for its object or result the prevention of a proposed or intended act; the power of thus preventing or checking action by prohibition. Freq. in phr. to put (also place, set) a veto on or upon (something).
Veto, v. 1. trans. To put a veto on, to refuse consent to; to stop or block by this means: a. With reference to legislative measures or similar matters.
My understanding of veto has always been 'to stop' or 'to prevent' by legislation. This in line with the OED and I assume many other commentators here have understood the word in the same way. I think a preferable word for you would be 'injunction'. I note that in your original post, you used 'to prevent' as a synonym for veto, a usage which is consistent with all but your most recent posting.
-
take it as you want Jack,
I'm satisfied i've clarified myself and satisfied with the answers i received -
sorry,
jake,
"to refuse consent to"doesn't mean prevent or stop, just means refuse to consent to, fortunately if the father doesn't consent to the abortion he can't physically prevent it, but i think it's necessary for further child support cases, that this goes on record
a rhetorical question-
a father can't prevent an abortion of his child?
not a statement of intention or fact or anything else
as I understand it, for all the bad press about guantanamo, it's primary purpose is to protect US and allied interests and prevent foreign interference, the action taken inside is divisive and non passive. and it's highly likely it has saved lives
if you have issues with the torture in guantanamo you can take that up with your local representative
but similarly, I argue that what goes on inside a women's body is her choice, for the betterment of herself, again the procedure, couldn't fully be described as passive to the body or nature, it's again a divisive issue, but again i feel this choice should be without outside interference. because it saves lives,
-
New to the conversation, but read over some of the earlier responses. While I don't support the whole "right to veto" thing, I suspect his intentions may be fairer than he's been given credit for.
In particular, these comments highlight the issue to me:
Remember that it is necessary to understand the fact that you are there to support your partner in her situation and any feelings you may have, should be dealt with privately between the two of you.
Try to understand it's not about you,it's about you supporting your partner.
& consider this:
<i>I always feel that a part of me died that day</i>This isn't the first time I've heard a man suggest that he was distressed by the event, and that he didn't feel like he had any support or counselling himself. Without wanting to put words in his mouth, perhaps mark's suggestion was borne more from a desire to be more clearly offered the same brand of support or counselling as his girlfriend ostensibly gets by default - both before & after? Is it just taken as read that an abortion doesn't or shouldn't affect the partner at all?
-
...urg, I missed the bit where mark taslov conflated abortion & waterboarding.
-
...& my first paragraph was subjected some bad cut&paste editing, "his" refers to aforementioned mark taslov.
-
So Crates:
No those are not facts. Those are your beliefs. The fact's are that at conception a sperm joins with an egg to form a single cell that with the right conditions splits and grows. Those cells are not alive, are not a baby and are not human. You keep mistaking your beliefs for facts.
You have a real problem with accepting facts, don't you? Let me clue you in. The source does not make one ounce of difference to the truth of a statement. Nor do the consequences of facts have any bearing upon their truth. It is a fact that at conception a baby is alive. I know you do not want me to use the word, "baby", but until you can show some facts that show my terminology to be wrong I remain perfectly justified in believing what I believe.
It is still you that are on the wrong side of the facts whether or not it turns out that 'baby' is the wrong word to use.
Danielle
We all know why you keep saying 'baby'. It's emotional manipulation; we get it. Trust me, we've all heard this Not-So-Subtle Weaselling routine before.
I'm not trying to be subtle and I am not going to pretend this is not an emotional topic. I believe it to be the defining topic of our generation. I have been nothing but open and honest with what I believe and the facts that support that belief. It seems that the response to open and honest expression is open assault, vulgarity and denial of obvious truths.
Perhaps we could have a more pleasant conversation for a while?
-
thanks heather, that's pretty much me, and i should stress i'm not a supporter of waterboarding, but i'm not completely against forcing people to watch oprah for extended periods, as a more acute form of torture. I have no idea what goes on inside guantanamo to be hoonest. who really does? it was poorly chosen as jake said, but i feel i have gone to some lengths to clarify the issue, regardless of people's feelings about the means employed by the US to maintain national and international security.
-
Grant Dexter, your "obvious truths" are neither obviously true, nor truthfully obvious to a number of posters here, including myself: they are also neither true, nor obvious.
As has been pointed out several times, they are mere assertions, and not backed by any kind of science. They are personal *beliefs* and as such, not to be argued against: to do so is tedious for most of us because we recognise that arguing with a person's belief system generates neither clarity nor light.I'm not sure what you mean by 'a more pleasant conversation' but it is very clear that - for me- continued communication on your part is a waste of my reading time, so we'll skip your future contributions.
-
I wonder if Mark would be aware of the forced abortion policy practiced in his nation of residence? What is it with a nation that makes brothers and sisters illegal? Does an entire nation that oppresses women get a pass while a single guy with two simple facts gets ridiculed?
-
Islander skipping, eh? :think:
Interesting.
I wonder, if so many here believe that at conception there is no life, what is there? Death?
I wonder, if so many here believe that at conception there is no human, what is there? A fish?
-
Because mental health is a consideration in assessments, it is about the female (she is having the op) but if the man wishes to be involved, that does require his participation from the outset.I suspect it could be a bit daunting for a man to come to terms with,(afterall, just being there is actually, for both) but I think the reality is, if the partner wants more participation, it has to come out of the relationship, and if it's strong etc it will be a good outcome for both. But also as said above, counselling, if he feels the need to look for further answers .I don't think there is a perfect answer that could ever solve a his/her intertwined dilemma and then be introduced as law to make all sides happy.We are talking about an individual relationship, but in a perfect world we wouldn't need them:-)Don't wish to sound insincere about the angle,(I think) Mark is coming from but ,a strong relationship helps to overcome the issues arising so for now, thats the way it is.
-
Grant, I think you've missed proving the argument that if something is alive and human, it deserves the full legal protection of personhood.
Pro-choice means you're against forced abortion as well as prohibited abortion. But the entire Chinese government isn't here telling us we can't accept facts without offering any evidence or argument in support for their propositions.
-
Mark, I was thinking of a particular post, which was in poor taste, but you've since explained what you were thinking - and I hadn't read all of your subsequent contributions, so I'll take what I said back.
-
Grant, a while ago you quoted Linger as saying
The conceptus is only potentially a human (note the article, it makes a huge difference) in any other meaningful sense.
and responded
Potentially human? What does that mean? What is a baby before he is human?
Not many people deny that a blastocyst is alive, in the sense that any cell is alive. Not many people deny that a human blastocyst is human, in the sense that any human cell is human. Those statements are reasonably obvious, and reasonably true, I think.
It is quite a different thing to argue that a blastocyst is a human.
But you completely ignore it the difference. Your question should have been "Potentially human? What does that mean? What is a baby before he is a human?"
And the answer?
Well, a reasonable answer is "before a baby is a human, it's an embryo, a blastocyst, a conceptus."
Your facts aren't universal facts, they aren't universally obvious truths.
-
Oh, Steven, please! The Chinese government has a law that makes brothers and sisters illegal and you want to ignore that fact by saying they have exceptions for farmers and earthquake victims? Gimme a break, mate.
Tim. That's a reasonable summation of where we are at. I already posted a division:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Like that one a few pages ago where I said I had shifted away from the discussion on whether a baby at conception was alive and human to a discussion on the nature of that life and humanity. I would have expected that the simple facts of life and humanity would be fairly easy to accept. Talking about what that means is where it should get difficult. But you lot have taken nine pages trying to come to terms with the simplest of facts.
-
OK, so go with B Jones' question
Grant, I think you've missed proving the argument that if something is alive and human, it deserves the full legal protection of personhood.
Something being human doesn't necessarily mean it can be described as having humanity. Easy to say skin cells are human, hard to say they have the property of humanity or personood.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.