Abortion II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Even besides the abortion etc., issues, the notion of surrogacy is one that worries me. If you want to adopt a child, and there are children out there who don't have families, isn't it ultimately vanity to jump through so many hoops just for the sake of genetics?

[Insidious Rex]

Yes it is. But we are wired that way. To propagate the genes at all costs. After all isnt it technically just as vein to produce children ourselves (you know, the natural way...) rather than adopt all the poor helpless children who desperately need a home?

But then this begs the question of is there an UNselfish reason to have kids at all? Most people have kids because they want them. Some people have kids because they felt thats what they were supposed to do. In years past many people had kids to produce labor to take care of the family farm or such. Others have kids to pass on the family name. Arent all these reasons selfish? Ironically, those people who get pregnant by accident and not by choice are often the ones who are castigated as irresponsible and selfish by those of us who have purposefully chosen to create another human being to satisfy our own desires.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yes it is. But we are wired that way. To propagate the genes at all costs. After all isnt it technically just as vein to produce children ourselves (you know, the natural way...) rather than adopt all the poor helpless children who desperately need a home?

But then this begs the question of is there an UNselfish reason to have kids at all? Most people have kids because they want them. Some people have kids because they felt thats what they were supposed to do. In years past many people had kids to produce labor to take care of the family farm or such. Others have kids to pass on the family name. Arent all these reasons selfish? Ironically, those people who get pregnant by accident and not by choice are often the ones who are castigated as irresponsible and selfish by those of us who have purposefully chosen to create another human being to satisfy our own desires.

So you are here yourself because of someone else's selfish desire?

Are you saying they would have made the more noble choice - had they ended the pregnancy or not had you at all?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I suspect IR is thinking of the system of thought where all human action is motivated by self-interest and altruism is a myth; if so, ending a pregnancy would not be any more noble than carrying it to term, since nobility is a fairy story we tell to feel good about ourselves.

After all isnt it technically just as vein to produce children ourselves (you know, the natural way...) rather than adopt all the poor helpless children who desperately need a home?

It's a good deal less grotesque, though. I mean, I believe in proportion. It seems to me that having a child naturally is proportionate to reproduction, while jetting all over the world, impregnating four different women, and all this global baby stuff is way out of proportion, particularly given that there are many children who need homes, and who you could adopt with much less hassle.

But then of course, I'm coming from a perspective where altruism is a meaningful category, and helping someone can be a good thing, even if it doesn't give you anything you couldn't get through other means.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

"Surrogacy's complexity can give rise to extraordinarily difficult decisions, such as whether or not to abort. ...
At 12 weeks into the pregnancies, Mr. Aki and his husband decided to abort two of the fetuses, one from each woman. It was a very painful call to make, Mr. Aki says. "You start thinking to yourself, 'Oh, my god, am I killing this child?'"

One can leave out surrogacy from this equation entirely.
Imagine a couple living in a country were so-called free abortions are an option. The woman becomes pregnant with twins. The couple only wants one kid.
Now legally, they could either go through with the pregnancy or abort it altogether. But what do you say if they wanted to go for the "middle way", i.e. aborting just one of the two?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If you want to adopt a child, and there are children out there who don't have families, isn't it ultimately vanity to jump through so many hoops just for the sake of genetics?

I think the vanity per se is the same as for a couple breeding a child on their first try. It's the effort and dedication that differ.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

So you are here yourself because of someone else's selfish desire?

Absolutely. I think I fall into the "thats what we are supposed to do" category personally (Ill have to ask mom to be sure).

Are you saying they would have made the more noble choice - had they ended the pregnancy or not had you at all?

Oh no... The response was in the context of the question that going to extremes to have a child when there are already millions of children in desperate need of adoption was an act of vanity. I agree with that but I also think if thats the measure of vanity then by default anyone who chooses to have a kid the natural way rather than adopting is also guilty of some level of vanity or selfishness. Now I also agree with Gwai in his response to me when he said theres some level of difference between having a kid the natural way and going to "grotesque" extremes often involving millions of dollars and/or unnatural help by science to achieve a child related to us. I think we can all agree that two loving parents having a child is a wonderful thing ideally. But that still doesnt mean there arent thousands of children around the world living hopeless desperate lives who could benefit immensely from those same two parents. So why do we almost always tend to choose to add more of our genes to the world rather than help already existing genes that are in desperate need of being taken care of? And if you are wondering what Im getting at I do find a similarity between this and those folks who rail against abortion but have not seen fit to adopt children who are the result of someone choosing NOT to have an abortion. How can we ever hope to truly convince people that abortion is the wrong choice if we send the message that making children to carry our own genes is more valuable a choice then taking care of already living children in desperate need of parents?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So why do we almost always tend to choose to add more of our genes to the world rather than help already existing genes that are in desperate need of being taken care of?

Isn't that a tad simplistic? There are also practical concerns, IMO, that can make people prefer to have their own kids, rather than adopting other children. The adoption process is not without its own issues after all. And as a natural parent one tends to have more rights.

[inked]

"One can leave out surrogacy from this equation entirely."

NOT in the case of the article I submitted, IR. The abortion was performed in surrogates x 2 for the convenience of the payors.

[Jonathan]

Of course Inked, that's obvious. It was not a response to the article per se and I hope you're not missing the point. And I'm not IR

-----

I'm acknowledging the dilemma of conceiving kids when there are orphans in the world. But let me broaden the perspective.

One extreme has been discussed, i.e. "jetting around the world, impregnating surrogacy mothers". In comparison, adoption seems much simpler and more moral.

But things are much more nuanced than this. One mustn't forget that adoption, for a childless couple, is often a big deal and requires quite some effort to achieve, due to strict rules and regulations. Many times it can be simpler to seek medical assistance in order for the couple to conceive their own child.


"Unnatural help by science", as IR put it, is also worth considering. Heck, science is present the entire way whenever we try to help a child into the world. In late pregnancies, there are Caesarian sections, artificial labour induction, steroids to mature the fetus' lungs...

As for creating an embryo, there's the "extreme" example with surrogacy mothers. But science is also employed in normal sexual counselling for childless couples. Scientific methods are used for diagnosing and treating infertility. When treatment isn't possible, in vitro fertilisation might be an option (the developers of IVF won the Nobel Prize this year). Inked would know more than I do about all of these things.
Where to draw the line when we shake our heads at "unnatural help by science"?


All things considered (i.e. not just looking at surrogacy mothers vs adoption) I think one is out on thin ice when one attires the wish for an 'own' child with guilt or egotism. If fertile couples are entitled to their 'own' kids without anyone raising an eyebrow, then I strongly feel infertile couples should enjoy the same right.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Isn't that a tad simplistic? There are also practical concerns, IMO, that can make people prefer to have their own kids, rather than adopting other children. The adoption process is not without its own issues after all. And as a natural parent one tends to have more rights.

Practical concerns perhaps. But I have real doubts that most people consider adoption first and then when they realize it would be a hassle they decide oh well lets just have a natural child then if adopting is such a pain. Id hazard a guess that the vast vast majority of people who have children never once considered adoption as an option at all and wanted specifically to have children the natural way. And their logic was never "well its easier than adopting...".

[GrayMouser]

Of course- I have qualms about the idea of impregnating multiple suurogates, and the then aborting the ones that don't work out.
The fact is that most people want to have their own children: it's much more difficult to adopt than have your own- and on the face of it, there's no particular reason to say people are entitled to have their own but under the same circumstances shouldn't be allowed to adopt- but that's the way it is.

Possibly the world would be better if wealthy families adopted poor kids instead of having their own, fostering equality and all, but nobody really supports that.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I suspect IR is thinking of the system of thought where all human action is motivated by self-interest and altruism is a myth; if so, ending a pregnancy would not be any more noble than carrying it to term, since nobility is a fairy story we tell to feel good about ourselves.



It's a good deal less grotesque, though. I mean, I believe in proportion. It seems to me that having a child naturally is proportionate to reproduction, while jetting all over the world, impregnating four different women, and all this global baby stuff is way out of proportion, particularly given that there are many children who need homes, and who you could adopt with much less hassle.

But then of course, I'm coming from a perspective where altruism is a meaningful category, and helping someone can be a good thing, even if it doesn't give you anything you couldn't get through other means.

Sure, if you are telling (comparatively wealthy) people not to have babies when there are poor babies out there available for adoption- but of course you are not. So, proportionate or not is meaningless in this case - it's just a cover for anti-artificial insemination ideology.

[inked]

The most abortion available and using country in the world, the USA, and in Philadelphia PENNSYLVANIA you have this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011902911.html

"PHILADELPHIA -- A doctor whose abortion clinic was described as a filthy, foul-smelling "house of horrors" that was overlooked by regulators for years was charged Wednesday with murder, accused of delivering seven babies alive and then using scissors to kill them.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was also charged with murder in the death of a woman who suffered an overdose of painkillers while awaiting an abortion.

In a nearly 300-page grand jury report filled with ghastly, stomach-turning detail, prosecutors said Pennsylvania regulators ignored complaints of barbaric conditions at Gosnell's clinic, which catered to poor, immigrant and minority women in the city's impoverished West Philadelphia section.

Prosecutors called the case a "complete regulatory collapse."

"Pennsylvania is not a Third World country," the district attorney's office declared in the report. "There were several oversight agencies that stumbled upon and should have shut down Kermit Gosnell long ago."

Gosnell, 69, was arrested and charged with eight counts of murder in all. Nine of Gosnell's employees - including his wife, a cosmetologist who authorities say performed abortions - also were charged. " ...

The link goes on for three pages.

[GrayMouser]

Yes, absolutely horrible, and the bureaucrats overseeing this should have been prosecuted too. Women seeking abortions should be able to get them in safe, clean clinics from qualified doctors, be given correct information and be covered under health insurance to prevent the profit motive from becoming the driving factor in medical care.

[GrayMouser]

And of course there might be more qualified and concerned doctors in the field if anti-abortionists stopped murdering them.

[inked]

This was a legal clinic, GM. From the Grand Jury report:

"The first line of defense was the Pennsylvania Department of Health. The department’s job is to audit hospitals and outpatient medical facilities, like Gosnell’s, to make sure that they follow the rules and provide safe care. The department had contact with the Women’s Medical Society dating back to 1979, when it first issued approval to open an abortion clinic. It did not conduct another site review until 1989, ten years later. Numerous violations were already apparent, but Gosnell got a pass when he promised to fix them. Site reviews in 1992 and 1993 also noted various violations, but again failed to ensure they were corrected."

But at least the department had been doing something up to that point, however ineffectual. After 1993, even that pro forma effort came to an end. Not because of administrative ennui, although there had been plenty. Instead, the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay."

"The only exception to this live-and-let-die policy was supposed to be for complaints dumped directly on the department’s doorstep. Those, at least, would be investigated. Except that there were complaints about Gosnell, repeatedly. Several different attorneys, representing women injured by Gosnell, contacted the department. A doctor from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia hand-delivered a complaint, advising the department that numerous patients he had referred for abortions came back from Gosnell with the same venereal disease. The medical examiner of Delaware County informed the department that Gosnell had performed an illegal abortion on a 14-year-old girl carrying a 30-week-old baby. And the department received official notice that a woman named Karnamaya Mongar had died at Gosnell’s hands.

Yet not one of these alarm bells – not even Mrs. Mongar’s death – prompted the department to look at Gosnell or the Women’s Medical Society. Only after the raid occurred, and the story hit the press, did the department choose to act. Suddenly there were no administrative, legal, or policy barriers; within weeks an order was issued to close the clinic. And as this grand jury investigation widened, department officials “lawyered up,” hiring a high-priced law firm to represent them at taxpayer expense. Had they spent as much effort on inspection as they did on attorneys, none of this would have happened to begin with."

(emphasis added)

See the entire Grand Jury report here: http://www.phila.gov/districtattorne...ensMedical.pdf

This was "safee, legal abortion" in Philadephia, Pennsylvania, GM. There is no way around that legal, official, inspected reality. This is not my opinion but the Grand Jury finding.

[The Gaffer]

Not sure what the point is here. Well, apart from the obvious one of course... These regulators failed therefore all regulation is a waste of time?

This is a really horrendous story and I can barely bring myself to read about it.

However, if you want to have more of this sort of thing going on, the best way of doing it would be to make abortion illegal, no question about that.

[Insidious Rex]

So if I post a horrible story about a case of child abuse does that mean we should outlaw parenting? Or does it mean we should do a better job funding and enforcing child services programs so that awful examples of child abuse are minimized?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro.

What the...? Yeah, NO.

How can politics even be pro-abortion if they go against the very basic principle of why abortion should be legalised? Legalising abortion means that women should be able to have an abortion under proper, hygienic circumstances like any other medical procedure, without prosecution. If you're not going to provide proper care and regulation, why bother legalising it in the first place? The whole point in legalising is that this sort of sick stuff doesn't happen.

I mean, does anyone go around saying, "I'm pro-cancer-treatment, let me just expose cancer patients randomly to some dirty uranium-waste I bought on Ebay because hey, just because I'm for a medical procedure doesn't mean I actually care to see it done properly"? Ludicrous.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health must be either absolutely incompetent, corrupt or just plain bunkers, possibly all three, but they ain't as hell pro-choice! That remark about "inspection putting up barriers" is, IMO, a fake and poor excuse for their blatant irresponsibility. And I ain't buying it.

*goes away to go punch a pillow somewhere*

[inked]

Well, the situation in China is quite remarkably worse - forced abortion.

"WASHINGTON, DC, January 19, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Victims who have lived through imprisonment and harassment by the Chinese government, including the government’s vicious one-child policy, gathered together with human rights leaders on Capitol Hill yesterday to speak out on the arrival of Chinese President Hu Jintao in the United States.

Hu is receiving a high profile welcome from the Obama Administration - including a formal state dinner – prompting House members and human rights groups to criticize China’s abysmal human rights record.

One activist, former Tiananmen Square student leader Chai Ling, pointed out, “As we gather here in Washington, over 35,000 forced and coerced abortions are taking place today in China.”

Ling called the “brutal” enforcement of the one-child policy “the largest crime against humanity.”

“It is the inhumane secret slaughter against mothers and babies,” he said. “It is a Tiananmen massacre taking place every hour; and it is an unending holocaust that has gone on for 30 years.” "

Read the rest at:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/tod...place-in-china

-----------------------------------------

Earniel,
I think the people in Philadelphia responsible for regulating this WHO TOTALLY FAILED IN THEIR PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY are as culpable as the abortionist. They obviously think so too, which is why they have hired lawyers. Nevertheless, this is what "safe, legal abortion" meant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

"The Pennsylvania Department of Health must be either absolutely incompetent, corrupt or just plain bunkers, possibly all three, but they ain't as hell pro-choice! That remark about "inspection putting up barriers" is, IMO, a fake and poor excuse for their blatant irresponsibility. And I ain't buying it."

Neither is the Grand Jury. No rational person would.

(The Chinese, maybe.)