Printable View
adopting a child, giving him/her Home, Love... and break everything by telling the truth, put him/her suddenly without any references?..... what's the need then to adopt? Please ask them not to reveal anything and keep the kid as his own... because adopting a kid and keeping that kid as an orphan in a Home has no sense...
From today’s “The Times of India”:
Abortion trauma lasts five years
Women can take at least five years to get over an abortion, research shows. The study found many who opted to terminate their babies suffered long-term feelings of guilt and shame. The women who had a termination for lifestyle reasons also felt more anxious and depressed than those who miscarried.
Rachel Heath, of Life, said:”With miscarriage, women are very, very distressed but over time find they can come to terms with it because it was a natural event. “With an abortion, they often feel deeply that it is something they could have avoided. Regret manifests itself in a number of different ways like sleeplessness, anxiety and depression and, in extreme cases, suicide. Women need counseling to accept what they have done and grieve for the child they didn’t have.” The study, conducted by the University of Oslo, revealed the reasons for having an abortion often helped explain the intense emotions that followed it.
Someone please enlighten me as to what is sushmita sen's lead?Quote:
Originally Posted by abbydoss1969
Stem Cell Storage
The ultimate health insurance?
What’s it all about?
Storing your baby’s stemcells might provide a lifeline in the event of serious illness in the future. Stem cells- the basic building blocks of human life that turn themselves into the many different types of cells needed to make up a person can be preserved and used to cure 70 life-threatening diseases including leukaemia, thalassemia and breast cancer. There is a mass of research underway worldwide to find new solutions – the latest being the ability to grow nerve cells, which promises whole new areas of treatment. These cells can be harvested easily from the umbilical cord of newborns at no risk to mother or baby and this as prompted the launch of stem cell banks worldwide and now in India.
Stem cells banks have been operating for years in the US and in some states it is the law to inform new parents about this potentially life-saving facility. Stem cell banks are giving parents-to-be the option of having stem cells collected from their baby’s umbilical cord straight after the birth and stored for up to 20 years, as a sort of “living health insurance” against possible future disease. Interestingly a baby’s stemcells can often be used to treat siblings or parents and even unrelated people.
Any risks?
No. Blood is taken from the umbilical cord, which is normally just discarded after the birth. Your baby no longer needs this excess blood anyway so you can think of it as a useful surplus that just happens tobe an amazing source of stem cells from your body.
The Ethics.
Morally, there is no real concern about stem cell extraction and storage from the umbilical cord as they are essentially by-products from the body or the birth.
Abortion's Middle Ground
How life's lessons tend to de-polarize the issue
By NANCY GIBBS
I watched the demonstrations this weekend marking the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and wonder at their familiarity; the candlelight vigil in front of the Supreme Court, the masses on the mall and in cities across the country, the urgent hope that protesters express as they see the fight breaking in their favor: John Roberts. Sam Alito. New laws in multiple states that are bound to wind up being challenged, so that the next battle is bound to be waged before a more sympathetic High Court.
It strikes me mainly because as visible and volatile as the issue is, the transforming events have already occurred, to an extent that makes the legal fight less practically relevant. It's not just that abortion is already unavailable in the vast majority of communities across the country, and would remain available in some states even if Roe were overturned.It's the personal changes that stand out as I talk to women of the post-Roe generation, those of us who came of age with the assumption that the abortion question was, for our purposes, settled.
When I graduated from college in 1982 abortion was not a matter of debate among women I knew. We didn't tug and pull at the ethical implications of it, or stay up late debating the legal logic underlying the Roe decision. It was just there, a safety net, the kind of right we hoped we'd never to have to exercise, but were grateful to have just in case.
That complacency began to change for me when I went to graduate school and met a philosophy professor who liked nothing better than making lighthearted and unreflective students stop dead in their tracks and assess the sturdiness of their beliefs. The Professor had a big heart, a mild manner and a lethally logical mind, and so in his moral philosophy tutorials, when it came time to discuss abortion he would invite his 20-somethings to choose which side they wanted to argue.
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of us just automatically chose to argue the pro-choice side, which served his educational purposes perfectly. I lasted maybe 5 minutes-maybe less-before I was trapped and whimpering in a logical snare of my own making. These gentle queries, little pokes and probes into the inconsistencies in an argument, would be familiar to any logic student but they were new to me, and unnerving.
"Would it make any difference in your thinking," he would ask, "if a pregnancy lasted for nine hours rather than nine months?"
"What if your belly were transparent," he would ask, "and you could see the fetus as it grew? Do you think that would change your attitude at all?"
And on it went until I cried uncle. And then, most unsettling, the Professor asked if I would like to change sides, which came as a relief since by this time I was feeling like an infanticist and believed he had given me all the logical arguments to win.
Except that when he argued in favor of abortion rights and I took the pro-life side, I was backed into the opposite logical corner in about five minutes more, as he laid out scenarios involving autonomy, and control over our bodies, the proper role of the state in matters of health and privacy and family life.
What I took away from this was less a conclusion about which side stood on the strongest logical foundations than a profound sense that up til then I had reached a position without taking the journey to get there. This sense was heightened when I got married and got pregnant the first time, by which time technology had made the philosopher's hypothetical real: I heard the heartbeat, strained to see the image on the ultrasound, made out the features, like my womb had a windowÖand grieved at a miscarriage. If life, at this tiny, unimaginable stage, was a life worth mourning, was it not one worth respecting, and protecting as well? And then when my daughters did come, and the abortion question refracted through both the miracle of their births and the concern for their future safety and autonomy, I felt I was back in the classroom again, confounded.
At the same time I could turn on Larry King and watch a conservative Republican Vice President admit that if his daughter ever got pregnant, if her life or health or happiness were a stake, well "I hope I never have to deal with it. But obviously I would counsel her and talk to her and support her on whatever decision she made."
These journeys of course, are typical, which is why the public debate has shifted so much in the years since Roe. Many women who once defended the right to life or the right to choose as automatic and unfreighted have matured through their own experiences and those of their friends. It is increasingly common for Democratic candidates who would once have allowed not the least ethical elasticity into their positions to embrace the careful Clinton Construct: that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. When extremists on the right suggest that liberals view abortion as not just a right but practically a sport, or extremists on the left suggest that there is nothing deeply personal at stake here, only political, they are operating outside the region where I think the rest of us have landed. We have conducted, over the course of 33 years, a long and often painful tutorial that works every moral muscle. I don't know if demonstrations ever really change people minds. But life's lessons very often do.
I can't help a sigh escaping me!
PP Mam,Quote:
Originally Posted by pavalamani pragasam
Is that a sigh like "Sigh...abortion is a personal issue.What rights do politicians and the so called moral policemen
have in this ?" or "Sigh..wish these politicians and the courts hurry up and come to a decision more quickly.
Afterall abortion is murder and there are no 2 sides to it.Right"
A sigh to grieve the complexity of the issue! In rare cases when the scanning at the initial stage of pregnancy reveals a dreadful defect abortion is the wise choice, the one & only situation. For that it is better there is legal sanction for it. But when abortion is legalised it is not hard to imagine the extent of its abuse! There will be no holding back of the reckless, irresponsible, insensitive, immoral people from opting for this "murder".
Yes Mam ,I am totally with you in this. I read about a 15 year old child woman brutally raped and forced to bear the consequence of the crime inflicted upon her. Wont an abortion be the better solution here?Then again legalising abortion would mean protecting those who heartlessly throw away a baby just because...
In the heartwrenching scenarios highlighted by you and and PP maam, ssanjinika, denying abortion itself will be a crime.
However, when abortion is used to accomodate one's life style, the answer is definitely no to legalising!!
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by a.ratchasi
Can Law teach responsibility? Legalizing something or alternatively, making something illegal can only impose controls over our actions, but they can do nothing to instill any responsibility in us. And unless we learn that responsibility, we don't really become civilized.
Almost everything seems to be a two-edged sword these days! Gun control, abortion, euthanasia, cloning...on the one hand, there are the dreadful consequences of making these legal (they already are in some countries), at the same time, they can also become vital necessities in some cases. The whole problem with all these is it is so subjective!
AR, you made a statement...
But in the end, what does it say? Can every instance of abortion be taken to court and decided there? The whole idea of legalizing something takes out the subjectivity of it. Here you take up both the sides and say, denying is a crime, as also allowing it!Quote:
In the heartwrenching scenarios highlighted by you and and PP maam, ssanjinika, denying abortion itself will be a crime.
However, when abortion is used to accomodate one's life style, the answer is definitely no to legalising!!
I'm not blaming you, just wanted to point out that the common man/woman is himself/herself not sure of what the right course is! How then can the courts decide, one way or the other?
And so the battle rages on! If only man learnt responsibility!!!
Wait a minute....on second thoughts, maybe abortion should be made illegal except when
a) The child is afflicted with genetic or other abnomalities which will make it a liability both to the parents and itself
b) The child is a product of non-consensual union eg Rape
What other scenarios can we think of?
A woman doesnot want a child. But a mistake (of not taking enough precausion) resulted in pregnancy.
Why shouldn't she get Abortion?
Why is abortion legaly or moraly wrong?
Well, Sandeep, the reason for it being considered "wrong" has already been discussed several times in this and other related threads - that it is tantamount to murder of another human being.
Murder, for whatever reason, is still punishable by law, and the anti-abortionists use the same logic to apply for this as well.
Well said, Badri... :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by sbadri99
CAUTION: Extremely disturbing pictures!
DO NOT click on links unless you want to be haunted for the rest of your lives.
All ladies in fact, are discouraged from seeing these frames.
Click on the links at your OWN RISK.
Aborted fetus at 9 weeks:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...week/01_09.jpg
Aborted fetus at 10 weeks: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...week/01_10.jpg
Aborted fetus at 22 weeks: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...week/01_22.jpg
Aborted fetus at 24 weeks: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...week/01_24.jpg
Source & for more images: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resour...s/archive1.htm
These pictures are graphic. They are not pleasant to look at. They are not suitable for children. If you are squemish, or just don't want to subject yourself to this kind of unpleasantness, then don't go down the page.
http://members.tripod.com/~foxielady/abpics.htm
http://abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html
http://abortionno.org/Resources/inProgress.html
Nov,
I couldn't make up mind to see any more than the first 2 pics...
The total impression the present scenario creates is huan life has become cheap, like all our use-& throw utilities! Life is no more precious.
The "awe" associated with conceiving a child closely knit with sexual union & the sanction of marriage for it is all gone! No planning, no contemplation, no visualisation of conception in the minds of present day youth is very saddening.
Is it such a trivial matter? When conception is no more a serious event automatically abortion fails to be a serious affair.
The condom originally invented for birth control is now the widely recommended "safety" tool made easily available in even universities! Similarly abortion is an easy way out for "uncivilised", beastlike people who will copulate when & where & with whomever their impulse leads to.
There is a surplus of choices, options today, ironically debasing us instead of making us a finer, more sensitive, more intelligent, more civilised people.
If you take the "Murder" logic, then how do you say that in some cases abortion is ok. There is no circumstance where Murder can be justifiedQuote:
Originally Posted by sbadri99
a) Pregnency dangerous to mother - Murder for the sake of saving another life (and at that without getting permission for the person dieing) is immoral. As you would know a doctor will not take the husbands single kidney (means he doesnt have two kidneys) to save his wives life, even if the husband agrees.
As of now doctors are allowed to kill the feotus against the mothers wish if thats the only way to save mothers life. But with this new aproach even with mothers consent you cannot.
b) Rape - How do you Murder someone because others raped or got raped.
c) Abnormality - Its for the person who has the abnormality to decide and not his mother or father.
The moment you give full human status to the foetus (Nov's pictured where very convinsing) you are infact giving "it" (or "him/her") all legal and moral rights of a full human being and citizen. The earlier examples are just a precursur to the enormace adverse impact that decision will have.
I stand by the statement made by me. What you have elaborated, is what I have stated, albeit in a nutshell.Quote:
Originally Posted by badri
Bulls eye, Badri!!Quote:
Wait a minute....on second thoughts, maybe abortion should be made illegal except when
a) The child is afflicted with genetic or other abnomalities which will make it a liability both to the parents and itself
b) The child is a product of non-consensual union eg Rape
See, the common man/woman, are not so undecided afterall. :)
It is the matter of seeing both sides of the coin and wishing for the best possible outsome, albeit with discretion.
When a man kills another, is that man sent to the gallows without a hearing?
Murder is illegal, am I not right?
At the end of the day, it is discretion (his mental state, in self-defence, culpable homoside) that decides whether the man walks away scotfree or spends his rest of the in life in prison.
Just because the common men and women might seemingly 'fight' for certain issues to be made illegal, it does not mean we are detached to the plight of those who need compassion the most.
Sandeep, murder has been justified the world over under particular circumstances. What are wars, police "encounters", capital punishment and so on?
Answers to the list:
a. Very childish, illogical argument. Priorities in relevant situations need to be studied with discretion.
b.It is in fairness to the wronged woman. She cannot be forced to bear the consequences of what was not her doing/option. It will be adding insult to injury.
c.It will be too late to wait for the "abnormal" foetus to decide its fate, if at all it will be in a condition/maturity to assess the problem. All troubles bebest nipped in the bud. Yes it is a painful problem to rear an abnormal child. Spartans didn't hesitate to do away with babies lacking physical stamina!
If by default we are all responsible, honest whatever not citizens, we do not need the law to govern us at all! :wink:Quote:
Can Law teach responsibility? Legalizing something or alternatively, making something illegal can only impose controls over our actions, but they can do nothing to instill any responsibility in us. And unless we learn that responsibility, we don't really become civilized.
In a civilised world government & laws are necessary for peaceful, honourable & progressive living. Legislative changes must be sympathetically, sensibly introduced to ensure the smooth runnin of the machinery, a sort of lubrication. The changing tendencies, lifestyle patterns & technological advancement play a role in deciding the necessary legislative changes. Never can ethics be compromised in any decision. The sense of values, respect for human integrity must be upheld.
Law/Govt. can control only legal actions in ne society, they unftly cannot impose/regulate morality in said society! :(
So the latter rests in the hands of the society alone, which individuals hav to realise. Even in most of the 'developed' countries, law & order is maintained very well but morality on part of individuals, on the contrary, is on the lax!
Sandeep: Your argument has too many holes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandeep
Killing in self-defence is allowed. If a pregnancy is injurious to the mother, then I'd say abortion in such a case is like self-defence. Killing to protect the mother.
As for b and C, you seem to think the foetus has an independent existence!!! Your logic is all valid if the foetus can have survive without the mother. But since it is dependent on the mother, it becomes subject to the mother!
How cruel it is to expect a woman to bear a child that is due to a rape! How cruel it is to expect a woman to bear a child that is medically known to be born with mental/physical abnormalities!
I am sad to say, your arugments may sound logical, Sandeep, but they also sound heartless!
Accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbadri99
ExactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by sbadri99
Couldnt help it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbadri99
Why opposing Abortion on basis of the rights/morality, giving the foetus a full human character, and them conveniently overlooking the very same based on "priority" and "particular circumstances".
The foetus needs to be seen as a part of the Mother and the rights and responcibilties of the foetus need to be bestoned on the Mother
omg ..people have so much to say about this ............
From today’s newspapers:
Most NRIs prefer surrogate mothers from India as it is cheaper and easier to find one. An agency abroad may charge between $30,000 and #15,000 for the surrogate mother. In India, the couple just needs to clear medical bills and pay Rs.1 lakh to the mother.
….A working mother of two children,”I came to know about surrogacy through another surrogate mother. Initially, I had a tough time convincing my husband to shift out of the joint family. However, he agreed as the fee was quite an incentive.”
In another case, three sisters and their sister-in-law have taken to surrogacy as a means of enhancing their living standards. “My mother-in-law suggested surrogacy to me. We needed to buy a good house for the family,” says one of the sisters. Three months back, the sister-in-law became a surrogate mother to twins. Another sister has kept the fact hidden from her joint family. “Only my husband knows about it. I feel it is noble as it will bring happiness into a couple’s life,” says she who is working in a kindergarten and is a mother of two children.
So it looks like even capacity of becoming a mother has become a means of making money these days!
Btw, one thing tho- I first thot the babies given birth by surrogate mothers r all test-tube babies.....but I understand they instead required to actually get pregnant (altho by artificial insemination) & give birth to the baby? Y wud they hav to udnergo tat when test-tube babies r a legally accepted alternative?
"So it looks like even capacity of becoming a mother has become a means of making money these days!"> Yes, a tragic truth, it seems!
In commercial in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) surrogacy the egg of the biological mother is fertilised with sperms of the father in a test tube. The embryo is then transferred into the uterus of the surrogate mother.
we need the help of a surrogate mother if the " original" mother's womb is not strong enough for the entire duration of pregnancy..
Yes I know there r women who r not physically suitable for pregnancy, (which used to result in delivery deaths in the past), but I feel y make another woman pregnant (altho not in the 'actual' way) & make her hav a child if u & ur wife want a baby?? Even if the man happens to be the 'actual' father of the child in this method, his wife wud obv. not hav the feeling of being the mother of the child neway, so wudn't it be better/easier to adopt a baby instead?? I guess this method of involving a 3rd party is all done out of ego on the man's side, as he wud satisfied of being the 'father' of the baby born, whoever the mother may be......also I feel it sounds cheap to use a woman as sumthin like a commercial 'baby-making machine'! :xQuote:
Originally Posted by malsi
Besides, there r so many orphaned babies all over our country, surely adopting one wudn;t be more difficult or expensive than doing this.....! :huh:
How about Outsourcing surrogate pregnancy. :roll:
Could be a real good business as many western women wouldnt want to go through the troubles and pain of pregnancy.
"also I feel it sounds cheap to use a woman as sumthin like a commercial 'baby-making machine'! " :clap:
"How about Outsourcing surrogate pregnancy.
Could be a real good business as many western women wouldnt want to go through the troubles and pain of pregnancy."
I dont know whether to :rotfl: or :cry: :?: :!:
It will be :cry: :?: :!:, was not joking, just writing matter of factly.Quote:
Originally Posted by pavalamani pragasam
One of the very few times, where I COMPLETELY AGREE with PP MAAM.Quote:
Originally Posted by pavalamani pragasam
Babies are symbolisms of emotions and love a couple share with each other.
NOT JUST a symbol of MARRIAGE or for the want of HEIR.
Thanx, SP!
:D :P
well said, Lamby...