Archive for the ‘abortion’ Category

Call the Midwife!

Is the Title of a BBC drama about a woman who is a midwife in the East End of London in the 1950s and based on the memoirs of Jennifer Worth.

I was curious if it would make it to the US airwaves given it deals with two no-nos in US politics–woment’s health and nationalised health care.  According to this website, it sounds unlikely.  And given that the repubnlicans are waging a war on women’s reproductive rights, that is yet another no-no.

One can’t have a show on TV praising “socialised medicine” and talking about women’s reproductive issues.

Even though US’s Public Broadcasting pretends to be a true Public Broadcasting service, it is still beholdent to the commercial interests which can stifle information and debate. The problem is that while there may be no governmental intereference in the markertplace of ideas, there certainly is private censorship,

Still, this is a series which should be seen by people in the US for precisely the above reasons. Why are these topics taboo in a society which is allegedly free?

People in the US can probably find this online for download if they know the right places to look. I am a strong believer in the region free DVD player jsut for the ability to break down the international barriers to information.

I can add that the book and audiobook are available for sale in the US.

Sikhism and Abortion

Yet another treasure I found while looking up other things:

Abortion
Sikhism does not define the time at which the soul enters a human foetus and so there is no official position on abortion. Even if the time was defined, it would be a personal decision and as with any important decision in our lives, we should use compassion and intelligence.

I found this while looking up Sikhism in relation to Nimrata Randhawa Haley (AKA Nikki Haley). Does Nimrata use her compassion and intelligence, or is she trying to be a Farangi idiot?

Come on, Nimrata, act proper Desi! Somebody put a Bhangra tape on the sound system at her next speech! Maybe we can get her to do a Parveen Babi imitation!

Same goes for you Piyush Amrit Jindal, stop acting like a Farangi idiot!

See also:
Aaj Ki Raat Hai Baaki {Bollywood Mashup}

Sorry, Barb, but…

The social services are necessary.

As is family planning, including the ability for a woman to have abortion.

And don’t give me the shit about “right to life” since a right to life implies that a person’s life is sacred:

a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.

On the matter of health, it almost goes without saying that the “pro-life” person would refrain from smoking, oppose government subsidy of domestic tobacco production and sale to overseas markets, encourage physical fitness, and donate blood for transfusions to people whose lives might thereby be saved. Also, insofar as a surplus existed, one might also expect the society to provide relief to needy people in other societies in the form of nonmilitary foreign aid, directly providing goods or teaching developmental skills.

So, don’t come pro-life to me if the right ends at birth. A child shouldn’t be punished for the parents’ mistakes.

As for head start, it was a lot more than just education. It included meals and other things to make sure that the children weren’t disruptive. I add in that children have a right to an education, which they won’t appreciate if they are starving. Perhaps that is why they are disruptive.

The charter schools can be just as corrupt as the public ones, but public schooling is a lot less expensive than housing people in prisons. Although, I know you prefer private schools since they are not run by the government. So, they can cost far more than the public alternative, but you prefer them.

Sorry, Barb, but your policies COST society far more in the long run. It’s pretty obvious that the policies you advocate have bankrupted the US.

So, as I have said before, don’t bother posting here as you only prove you are an ignorant cow who would prefer to live in a world where there was child labour and deep poverty because they deserve to be poor.

Musing on the sanctity of life

O.K., he’s crude, but the questions are valid.

From David P. Gushee, PhD, The Sanctity of Life

One way of moving beyond slogans to a more substantive understanding of the sanctity of life is to define the term with some precision. This is my working definition: The concept of the sanctity of life is the belief that all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

Notice several things about this definition.

First, the sanctity of life is a concept that one believes in. It is, in other words, a moral conviction.

Second, it is a moral conviction about how human beings are to be perceived and treated. Belief in the sanctity of life prescribes a certain way of looking at the world, in particular its human inhabitants (with implications for its non-human inhabitants—a subject for another article). This perception then leads to behavioral implications related to how human beings are to be treated. Moral conviction leads to perception and flows into behavior. Notice that in constructing my understanding of the sanctity of life in this way I am emphasizing worldview dimensions first (convictions), character qualities next (perceptions), and behavioral prescriptions last. I think this is actually how the moral life works.

The third thing to notice about this definition is its universality. Rightly understood, the sanctity of life is among the broadest and most inclusive understandings possible of our moral obligations to other human beings.

All human beings are included (each and every human being), at all stages of existence, with every quality of experience, reflecting every type of human diversity, and encompassing every possible quality of relationship to the person who does the perceiving. What all are included in is a vision of their immeasurable worth and inviolable dignity. This means that each of these human beings has a value that transcends all human capacity to count or measure, which confers upon them an elevated status that must not be dishonored or degraded.

This breathtaking and exalted vision of the worth and dignity of human beings is what we mean, or ought to mean, when we speak of the sanctity of life. It is a moral conviction that continually challenges our efforts to weaken it. Yet weaken it we do, whether purposefully or unintentionally. Most often we weaken it when we chafe against the implications of its universality—its vision of the weak, the enemy, the disabled, the stranger, the unborn, the sinner, the poor, the ex-friend, the racial other, or whoever else we find it difficult to include within the community of the truly human.

Every effort to point out someone else’s violations of life’s sanctity implicitly requires us to examine our own fidelity to this exalted and demanding moral norm. This may be why the language of life’s sanctity has perhaps faded from public debate to some extent. Anti-abortion advocates who argued for the sanctity of (unborn) human life were met by anti-poverty advocates who argued for the sanctity of (born but poor) human life. Thoughtful moral theorists recognized that this was precisely right, and that a true understanding of life’s sanctity required a both/and rather than an either/or approach. But this hardly fits the culture wars paradigm. The sanctity of life is not so helpful as a political cudgel after all, which may mean its real value is as a bracing statement of human moral obligation.

Again, why aren’t these people protesting for gun control?

More “Pro-life”

Aaron Gouveia and his 16-weeks-pregnant wife went to a women’s clinic in Brookline, Mass. for an abortion after discovering that their baby had a congenital deformity with no chance for survival. On their way in, they were confronted by images of dismembered fetuses and two women yelling, “You’re killing your unborn baby!” Enraged, Gouveia decided to confront the protesters while his wife was in surgery, and he caught the whole interaction on his cellphone.

Why aren’t these assholes protesting gun dealers who sell to straw purhasers? Seriously, why aren’t they in the gun control movement working to prevent people from being killed? Did the victims give up their right to life after they were born?

Instead, they harass people who are making personal decisions about speculative lives.

Needless to say, I have loads of problems with the “pro-life” crowd and love this video.

Assisted Suicide

There has been talk in the UK about assisted suicide, or assisted death: in particular the cases of Kay Gilderdale and Frances Inglis. Also, Sir Terry Pratchett, fantasy author (the Discworld and Truckers series, amongst others), has announced that he has Alzheimers and wants assisted suicide. I think that if we can give my pet a humane and painless death, we should be able to allow a human the same courtesy.

Kay Gilderdale is now calling for a change in the laws regarding assisted death. This makes sense since those with money are already able to travel to Switzerland. This points out a disparity in the law that those with money can leave the jurisdiction to end their lives.

Similarly, laws against abortion only harmed the poor since the wealthy were able to find alternative sources to the illegal back alley abortions.

Assisted death should be a legal option for those who wish for it in a civilised country. That absolutely isn’t to say assisted death should be forced upon anybody, or even encouraged, merely that the option should be available to those who a) are suffering from a condition from which they cannot recover, and b) expressly desire it.

Some opponents of assisted death argue that man should not “play God”. As Sir Terry says, “the problem with the God argument is that it works only if you believe in God”. Legalising assisted death need have no impact on the lives of those who do believe in God: they can go on dying as naturally as God intended. But it should be there for those who don’t believe in God, and yearn desperately for the salvation of assisted death, a salvation that God tends not to offer.

ed. I had originally called him just plain old Terry Pratchett, but decided to call him SIR Terry Pratchett. Why not?

There is a God!

The Senate Tuesday afternoon voted 54-45 to kill Sen. Ben Nelson’s amendment to the health-care overhaul legislation that would have banned the use of federal taxpayer money for abortions.

Thank you, Blue Gal for getting me the News about this!

Maybe the US isn’t that far gone. Although, I have serious worries when I read the works of the keyboard warriors on the internet.

Posted 08/12/2009 by lacithedog in abortion, Health care, Health Insurance