|
Author
|
Topic: Dr. Fraud tricking women out of abortions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H Vincent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4721
|
posted 24 June 2004 10:44 PM
quote:
There is nothing moral in endangering women's and children's lives and impoverishing families. There is no ethical justification for robbing women of their choice in terminating or carrying a pregnancy to term.
It is not moral to endanger a child's life but it is moral to prevent them from being endangered by terminating them. You're right that there is no ethical justification for what this guy did. The choice was hers and she should have explored all avenues open to her. There needs to be more info made available for women so they don't get taken in by frauds.
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 25 June 2004 01:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by H Vincent:
it is moral to prevent them from being endangered by terminating them.
Only if the individual woman deems this to be the choice she faces. No one else can decide whether that is moral or not. That is why it is so important to distinguish what is general morality or, if you prefer, a generally accepted ethical construct, and personal moral/ethical code. The general ethical code would deem it necessary to allow for individual choice. The individual moral/ethical construct is what drives that choice.An individual may find abortion immoral in all cases, or only in particular cases, or find it a completely ethical consideration in any and all cases. It becomes problematic when that individual attempts to impose their personal moral code on someone else. What is central to the issue is a woman's control over what does, or does not, happen to her body. She may make a choice in consultation with, or consideration of, others, but the choice must ultimately be hers.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 21 July 2004 01:41 PM
quote:
The only thing he did was prevent the loss of a human life.
Hailey, this man pretended to be helping someone do something she had a legal right to do. Instead, he purposely worked to ensure that her rights were rendered useless. As a professional, he has violated the ethics of his profession, which I hope you would consider important. Those professional rules exist so that people may rely on professions such as doctor to serve the patient, rather than the patient serving the doctor.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 22 July 2004 07:12 PM
quote:
Why is it that some people on the same side of the political spectrum are aggressive in defending animal rights (Example Athens) while when it comes to abortion, they take what would appear to be an opposite stance?
Because in defending fetal "rights" you necessarily cause damage to (living) women's rights. For the most part, defending animals does not involve a corresponding damage to people. Once in a while, though, it does, and then I prefer the people over the animals. Same as with abortion, where the rights of the living person take precedence over those of a fetus. So, there is no contradiction at all.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 22 July 2004 08:07 PM
PCMag, your analogy doesn't work, for the excellent reasons jeff house has posted. Personally, I find the abortion debate very complicated and emotionally coloured, but I find that I land on the pro-choice side. Whether you agree with the decision of a woman to have an abortion or not, you should never have the right to tell somebody else what to do with her reproductive organs. quote:
A child that isn't wanted either should be terminated or given up for adoption so they do not think that they were a mistake and unloved.
shanni, likewise, you are oversimplifying. You mentioned in another thread that you have kids... Can you imagine putting them up for adoption, even in the most difficult circumstances, after carrying them for 9 mos? It takes a great strength of will to give up a child you've carried to term, and I doubt that I'd be able to do that -- so I won't hold it against some other woman who can't do it, either. Maybe it's not a logical decision, but some decisions just aren't based on consistency or logic.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PCmg
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6075
|
posted 23 July 2004 01:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot Capri:
PCMag, your analogy doesn't work, for the excellent reasons jeff house has posted. Personally, I find the abortion debate very complicated and emotionally coloured, but I find that I land on the pro-choice side. Whether you agree with the decision of a woman to have an abortion or not, you should never have the right to tell somebody else what to do with her reproductive organs. shanni, likewise, you are oversimplifying. You mentioned in another thread that you have kids... Can you imagine putting them up for adoption, even in the most difficult circumstances, after carrying them for 9 mos? It takes a great strength of will to give up a child you've carried to term, and I doubt that I'd be able to do that -- so I won't hold it against some other woman who can't do it, either. Maybe it's not a logical decision, but some decisions just aren't based on consistency or logic.
I don't have an opinion either way to be honest, or rather im torn. So im just working out the logic of the thing, if thats possible.
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
