Arizona and abortion : life doesn't start when you thought it did

Naffa said:
I simply asked you if you believed the legislators that are pushing these laws, were doing so for religious reasons, you said that you 'think they are doing it for a lot of reasons, for foremost one being morality....which is entirely subjective'. Ignoring the fact that I don't think morality is entirely subjective, do you think that if these people are evangelicals (and given the extent to which I have studied American politics, the makeup of various interest groups within the legislatures throughout the country, etc, I am fairly confident that they are), they would distinguish between their religion and their morality?
Click to expand...

We need to look at the individuals themselves and also at the legal system of the United States, which is secular, it was purposely secular so that one religion could not dictate to all the others....remember, one of the main reasons that the Pilgrims Fathers went to America was to escape religious persecution. If they are evangelicals (and remember not all Americans are evangelicals, and not all evangelicals are biblical literalists or politically conservative) then what is being suggested is that they are intentionally subverting their oath and effectively not doing their job simply to further a religious ideal. I also accept that the US is riddled with lobby groups and special interest groups that seek to influence public policy both Federal and State. In this case I would suspect that the pro-lifers had ample opposition from the pro-choicers as both are very well funded and supported groups capable of lobbying for their respective positions.

Given that the Bill (which has now been signed) bans most abortions after 20 weeks unless there is a medical emergency or a danger to the mother implies that religion has played little part in the decision making, as if it has they would be contesting Federal guidelines and attempting to ban abortion full stop....this is the same Arizona that tried to bring in some pretty draconian immigration rules despite Federal Law after all.

Arizona is not the first state to do this either, 6 others have done so since some medical research suggested that a Foetus feels pain at 20 weeks gestation and evidence that the later in the pregnancy a termination is done, the greater the risk to the Woman and others are looking to follow.

So I think that they have made a decision based on medical research and evidence, along with their own moral judgement....whether that medical research is contested or being debated is another discussion as is whether their morals are subject to indoctrination and so on....

What you have here in my opinion is pro-life activists v pro-choice activists and the moral and evidential arguments that each support. whether someone is a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Scientologist or Raelian is largely beside the point.

Sometimes things simply are not about religion. That is not to say that Gov Brewer has not been influenced by her Lutheran faith (although her particular synod believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist...:eek:), in other decisions such as the repeal of the law allowing partners of state employees (regardless of gender) to be treated as dependants in the same as married couples it could be argued that her stance on the definition of marriage has influenced that decision...however, considering that a District State Judge (Arizona Lawmaker) has put an injunction on that pending a trial because it potentially counters Arizona equal protection laws would suggest that a persons religion may not be as influential in US lawmaking as we might think especially as Public Opinion is slightly in favour of the Pro Choice opinion....which also implies, given the levels of faith in the US that significant numbers of religious people including those in the legislature are in fact pro choice rather than pro life.....like I said, sometimes things are not about religion.

It is difficult to be conclusive, people are influenced by all kinds of things, but I think we are putting too much emphasis on the suspected religion of the lawmakers and ignoring the actual reasons they gave for the the judgements.

Also morals are subjective, society forms opinion on what is morally acceptable, throughout history different societies have held different moral opinions.....
 
Last edited:
Xordium said:
These are not mutually exclusive conditions you just need to remove the murder as it is a legal killing and therefore not murder by definition. Strange how people are happy for medical staff to weigh up ethical decisions relating to life/death all the time but when it comes to unborn children and people choosing to end their own life they suddenly have to think in absolutes.
Click to expand...

I am happy for medical staff (with the right safeguards in place) to make ethical decisions for abortion, euthanasia, or whatever based on what is best for the patient and with sufficient evidence and support for their decision.
 
I imagine most sane doctors will say something along the lines of "There is information about the foetus i cannot tell you however any doctor over state lines can."
 
Tefal said:
I imagine most sane doctors will say something along the lines of "There is information about the foetus i cannot tell you however any doctor over state lines can."
Click to expand...

I think you've misread it. No doctors are banned from saying anything - but there is protection from being sued for doctors who choose to withold information. In other words if Dr. Religious Nutter decides not to tell Mr. and Mrs. Parents-to-be that their developing foetus has a major defect because he doesn't want them to go and seek an abortion because it would offend his religious ideals, Mr. and Mrs. Parents-to-be can't later sue Dr. Religious Nutter when they find out for themselves after giving birth.

That's a whole lot more sinister if you ask me.
 
Liampope said:
I think you've misread it. No doctors are banned from saying anything - but there is protection from being sued for doctors who choose to withold information. In other words if Dr. Religious Nutter decides not to tell Mr. and Mrs. Parents-to-be that their developing foetus has a major defect because he doesn't want them to go and seek an abortion because it would offend his religious ideals, Mr. and Mrs. Parents-to-be can't later sue Dr. Religious Nutter when they find out for themselves after giving birth.

That's a whole lot more sinister if you ask me.
Click to expand...

And that law, if that is what it actually amounts to, is as you say, far more sinister and I would be surprised if that holds up if contested....
 
Liampope said:
I think you've misread it. No doctors are banned from saying anything - but there is protection from being sued for doctors who choose to withold information. In other words if Dr. Religious Nutter decides not to tell Mr. and Mrs. Parents-to-be that their developing foetus has a major defect because he doesn't want them to go and seek an abortion because it would offend his religious ideals, Mr. and Mrs. Parents-to-be can't later sue Dr. Religious Nutter when they find out for themselves after giving birth.

That's a whole lot more sinister if you ask me.
Click to expand...

ah so i did, that's a whole world more creepy.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Actually in the uk, when working out due dates the folks use last day of previous menstural period as well.
We've used that method of dating things for a very very longtime.
Click to expand...

PapaLazaru said:
This counts in this country as well, as pregnancy is classed as beginning since the time the female last menstruated.
Click to expand...

Well, you learn something every day I guess. :D
 
Castiel said:
I am happy for medical staff (with the right safeguards in place) to make ethical decisions for abortion, euthanasia, or whatever based on what is best for the patient and with sufficient evidence and support for their decision.
Click to expand...

Yes but you are sensible most people aren't and the crazies have the power or rather the inclination to wield it and by crazies I mean some religious and feminist types etc you know the sort.
 
Liampope said:
I think you've misread it. No doctors are banned from saying anything - but there is protection from being sued for doctors who choose to withold information. In other words if Dr. Religious Nutter decides not to tell Mr. and Mrs. Parents-to-be that their developing foetus has a major defect because he doesn't want them to go and seek an abortion because it would offend his religious ideals, Mr. and Mrs. Parents-to-be can't later sue Dr. Religious Nutter when they find out for themselves after giving birth.

That's a whole lot more sinister if you ask me.
Click to expand...

No more sinister than what happens in this country where they can't spot the problem in the first place through lack of training/underfunding/incompetence etc.
 
Xordium said:
No more sinister than what happens in this country where they can't spot the problem in the first place through lack of training/underfunding/incompetence etc.
Click to expand...

From a personal point of view I would say deliberately witholding information is much worse than not finding it out in the first place.
 
RDM said:
From a personal point of view I would say deliberately witholding information is much worse than not finding it out in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yer I should qualify that I wasn't meaning the person doing the scan but the people who knowingly let such a thing persist in this country knowing people are being misinformed. It's pretty much the same thing. I think it's pretty bad that somewhere like UCH can pick up something at 16 weeks and your local DGH can't pick it up at 26 weeks and people knowingly let that happen.

But hey that's maternity services for you - as previously highlighted there are plenty of people who will stick the date of conception, as per already stated, and then induce on a due date from that and wonder why they are inducing and then having to perform an emergency caesarian. Not that I am always moaning about this or anything :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom