Abortion II

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

Nevertheless, this is what "safe, legal abortion" meant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

This is once again where I disagree. No one can argue that this is "safe", and it is only "legal" if you consider anything that is allowed to continue by the inaction of state officials (who fail to follow their own rules) as legal. I don't. If for example child services fail to place a child into foster care when it was abused at home, this doesn't make that child abuse legal just because the officials couldn't be buggered to do their job.

[inked]

Earniel,

The city and state officials did not do their job.

By any medical standard, it was not safe.
The state should have regulated it to be legal.
The state failed abysmally.

But nonetheless, by their inaction and by their failure to follow up on documented violations and reports of serious problems, they allowed -legally- this to continue.

Therefore, this constituted "safe and legal abortion" in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Clearly the officials involved -since 1979- are to be held accountable for this.

Kinda scary, ain't it.

Edit: this in from the Daily Mail with pictures and details of the perpetrators
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...isted-him.html

Edit: This is what the District Attorney says about the State of Pennsylvania
" The State Legislature has charged the Department of Health (DOH) with responsibility for writing and enforcing regulations to protect health and safety in abortion clinics as well as in hospitals and other health care facilities. Yet a significant difference exists between how DOH monitors abortion clinics and how it monitors facilities where other medical procedures are performed.

Indeed, the department has shown an utter disregard both for the safety of women who seek treatment at abortion clinics and for the health of fetuses after they have become viable. State health officials have also shown a disregard for the laws the department is supposed to enforce. Most appalling of all, the Department of Health’s neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design. …

State health officials knew that Gosnell and his clinic were offering unacceptable medical care to women and girls, yet DOH failed to take any action to stop the atrocities documented by this Grand Jury." (See the Grand Jury report linked above.)

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Earniel,

The city and state officials did not do their job.

By any medical standard, it was not safe.
The state should have regulated it to be legal.
The state failed abysmally.

But nonetheless, by their inaction and by their failure to follow up on documented violations and reports of serious problems, they allowed -legally- this to continue.

Therefore, this constituted "safe and legal abortion" in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

That is simply wrong- if a country/jurisdiction allows mining practices to continue that result in the death of thousands of miners does that mean that mining in that jurisdiction is "safe and legal"? Obviously the main concern of regulators in Pennsylvania has never been the welfare of women seeking abortions, otherwise these abuses would not happen- as they do not happen in other places.

Clearly the officials involved -since 1979- are to be held accountable for this.

Kinda scary, ain't it.

Edit: this in from the Daily Mail with pictures and details of the perpetrators
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...isted-him.html

Edit: This is what the District Attorney says about the State of Pennsylvania
" The State Legislature has charged the Department of Health (DOH) with responsibility for writing and enforcing regulations to protect health and safety in abortion clinics as well as in hospitals and other health care facilities. Yet a significant difference exists between how DOH monitors abortion clinics and how it monitors facilities where other medical procedures are performed.

Indeed, the department has shown an utter disregard both for the safety of women who seek treatment at abortion clinics and for the health of fetuses after they have become viable. State health officials have also shown a disregard for the laws the department is supposed to enforce. Most appalling of all, the Department of Health’s neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design. …

State health officials knew that Gosnell and his clinic were offering unacceptable medical care to women and girls, yet DOH failed to take any action to stop the atrocities documented by this Grand Jury." (See the Grand Jury report linked above.)

Again, absolutely- the primary function of officials supervising abortion clinics is to ensure they offer safe up-to-date procedures for women seeking abortions.

[GrayMouser]

Speaking of accessory to murder, how 'bout that Bishop Olmstead in Phoenix?

Woman comes into the hospital, doctors say she absolutely needs an abortion or she will die, medical council examiones the case and says ohkay, bishop excommunicates nun on council and then strips hospital of Catholic affiliation- which, on the good side, means they can actually concentrate on saving lives rather than jumping through theological hoops.

Give the Bishop and his supporters full points for the courage of their convictions.

They didn't say the doctors might be wrong and the woman might live, they didn't say the fetus might survive, they didn't say the operation might not save her.

What they said was even if it was certain the woman would die without the abortion; even if it was certain that the fetus could not survive (which in this case it couldn't); even if it was certain the operation would save her life; still, the woman had to die.

One can imagine the discussion with her husband and four surviving children afterwards:

"I'm sorry, neither your wife or the child survived."

"Well, doctor, I'm sure you did everything you could."

"Actually, no, we didn't lift a finger. We just stood there and watched her die."

"What? Couldn't you have saved her?"

"Oh, yeah, we could have saved her any time, but we just let her die."
.

"But...why?"

"We're Catholics. We believe in the sanctity of life."

[GrayMouser]

Don't want this to sound like attacks on Catholics in general, just current Catholic doctrine. Many Catholics disagree with the Bishop:

Sister Carol Keehan -- who leads 1,200 Catholic hospitals and health organizations nationwide and riled bishops with her key support of President Obama's health care reform legislation last year -- has told the National Catholic Reporter that the Phoenix hospital that authorized an abortion to save a mother's life "correctly applied" Catholic ethics.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ealth-reform/1

Based on this:

The hospital contended that it was not in violation of that directive but rather was following the modifying principle in Directive 47, which says, “Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child"

[GrayMouser]

A fuller discussion of the issues:

http://ncronline.org/news/ethicists-...-abortion-case

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I was one of those who, at least, had serious misgivings about +Olmsted's stance.

I'm not sure, as it was quite a few months ago, but if I recall, the case would have been one where the abortion was the cause of saving the mother's life, in which case, a coherent argument regarding moral agency could be made that he was more-or-less right. Even so, his approach was hamfisted and narrowly black-and-white in a very, very grey situation.

If I am misremembering, and the foreseen abortion of the fetus was a result of an operation which also and independently would have preserved the life of the mother, then the Catholic moral principle of double effect would seem to render the action justified, and +Olmsted wholly out of bounds.

[GrayMouser]

To use one of those bizarre formulations beloved of moral philosophers, imagine parallel train tracks with two runaway trains and one person on each track (they can't get away, can't be warned etc.).

There's a switch between the two tracks which would put train A on to track B, thus saving person A's life. As I understand the reasoning, this would not be allowable even if person B would be killed by train B a few seconds later, because you are taking action that directly causes the death of a person.


Same thing with the abortion in this case- it's a direct action with the aim of the death of the fetus.

OTOH, if there was a blood-pressure medicine that would save the woman's life, but was so strong that it would kill the fetus, that would be permissible because the death is a side-effect, even if you know for sure what the result would be.

[Starfish912]

It all boils down to whether or not you believe that the fetus is truly alive from the begining or not.

[inked]

Or, possibly, if you draw certain distinctions. As does this chappie:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

After reading this, reflect on the fact that the majority can determine what constitutes a disability. Like, oh, say, gender uncertainty or non-heterosexuality or non-homosexuality or dyslexia or certain ethinic heritages or .......

Comments?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

To my mind, the sanctity of human life is a doctrine rooted in theology rather than philosophy, and so I'm very suspicious of a claim to implode it philosophically. So, I guess I would disagree with him on first principles.

Based on what he says later in the article, it seems that he regards any sanctity of life to belong to those who possess certain qualities, which I see as problematic. I tend to be very suspicious of utilitarianisms, and do not like the idea that personal value derives from possessing this or that ability. If it means anything, it must be inviolable, and thus it cannot be based on having, but on being.

[The Gaffer]

Speaking as a utilitarian, I would have to say that I have sympathy with your point of view but, in fact, people behave very differently from this every day in millions of ways.

[brownjenkins]

I have yet to see a compelling argument for the sanctity of human life. Even calling it a right might be a stretch.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, my argument is that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. Which is why I consider it a more theological than philosophical view.

[inked]

BJ. the fact that multitudes do not regard human life as worthy of protection because of no argument to convince them it is does not constitute an argument that it is not sanctified. And you persistently argue that there are no absolutes, so could you be convinced by an argument?

On the other hand, I believe that if your children's lives are imperiled by such as regard their lives not sanctified, you'd be acting as though you believed it to be so.

[brownjenkins]

You're twisting my words a bit there. Life is very important to me, as it is to a vast majority of people in the world, but I believe it is a human thing to decide, which has nothing to do with sanctity.

In fact sanctity, if you do believe it, has nothing to do with you or me at all. It is outside our realm of comprehension.

[BeardofPants]

My womb, my business.

[inked]

BJ. I have no intention of twisting your words. I am trying to understand them.

The sanctity of human life means it is to generally be protected, especially at its weakest and most vulnerable. What do you think it means?

[brownjenkins]

Sanctity means sacred. It means that life decisions are beyond humanity. It takes us out of the picture.

I believe these kind of decisions are better left to those who have to live with them.

[inked]

Defaulting to zero the one(s) who die in the abortion. Why? Convenience? Career? Movie profits? Bad hair day? Deviancy?

Perhaps "retroactive abortion" would shield those who deliberately and unprovoked-ly take another's life for their own entertainment, profit, advancement up the corporate ladder, or just happen to have a bit of road rage, or take up serial killing as a hobby?