Should condoms, birth control pills, and tube tying be banne

Post Reply New Topic

An important factor to consider here is that it actually makes sense in the context of fitness for lower-income people to reproduce early rather than late. In areas with high violence and low access to health care, early reproduction becomes an actual strategy not only because the parents themselves might not survive to reproduce later, but because they are much less likely to have access to the help of grandparents if they reproduce later.

I can't help it. I'm stuck on the fact that you are talking about the life of a fetish. I couldn't care a less about a fetish. Sorry, seriously, I might that sort of typo all the time.

A fetus .. that is different.

And, no, to answer the question you meant to ask, I would not ban any of the above. The Papal paper that advocates Right to Life clearly speaks out against all of it, but it is a sales pitch, not a legislative proposal. It's talk about what God wants for us. We each have to decide how that applies to our own real lives for ourselves, and there are considerations that will allow any one individual to override the paper's recommendation in good conscience.

So perhaps your point is that if certain pro-lifers want to advocate for legislation of part of the right to live proposal in the papal paper, why are they not advocating for all of it? You don't have to get this nuanced to see the answer to that: most refuse to get rid of the death penalty, which the Pope was more strongly opposed to than any of these items you are mentioning. And most don't want to support the social programs the paper also advocates (the paper actually cares about the children AFTER they are born, as well). The members of the movement don't WANT to buy into the whole vision; they want to force everyone to eat the same and partial piece they've swallowed. The movement lacks the beauty and consistency of the papal paper. I might be willing to make abortion illegal the day we end the death penalty forever, and better yet agree to provide certain human basics to everyone already living, but I have trouble getting my theoretical opponents to agree to that deal. I'd probably leave your items out of the bargain, however, because there is only so far I'll let my faith intrude into the private lives of others, and those items are easier to override in good Christian conscious.

I am a great believer in Eugenics. Let only the best and brightest breed.

Look at that woman in America. What do they call her, "Octomom" because she had a litter of 8 kids by invetro fertilization at public expense? She has a total of what? 14 kids and none of them has a father! For all I know she is a virgin because all her kids are test tube babies.

In our Brave New World university graduates are crippled by huge loans so they can't afford to marry/ and or buy a house/ and or have children.

But in "the ghetto" or "the hood", Crack Mommas can knock the first one out at the age of 15 and have four more by different daddies by the time she is 24. All paid for on your dime.

Even when she goes to jail and the kids go into foster care, you are still paying for it sucker.

Where is Adolph when we need him most?

I haven't met enough Arab or African immigrants (read: none) to contradict your statement, but there are several well-known people who immigrated from those areas of the globe, worked very hard and did well for themselves - lived the American dream, basically - to prove that not all of them come to sponge off the system. Read the book Zeitoun for an example.

I am AGAINST the banning of condoms, birth control pills,
and tube tying. What would be the point?

I'm getting a hystorectomy and think that if a woman wants one she should be able to have one. Me getting a hystorectomy is a way of preventing abortion becuase if I did get pregnant I would definatly kill it as soon as it was born or sooner.

[wearing my doctor hat]

Prophylactic hysterectomy is, in my medical opinion, an unwise practice.

There are significant increased risks to the patient including post operative mortality, limitations on daily activity during an extended recovery time, potential for unintended oophorectomy, increased incidence of ovarian neoplasms and cysts in surviving ovaries, earlier onset of menopause, diminished urinary continence and increased risk of vaginal prolapse.

Given the considerably higher risks accompanying surgical resection as compared with other contraceptive methods, I consider it unethical medical practice to resect a viable, healthy uterus with the single intention of preventing conception.

If the owner of the uterus wants it disabled who are you to object?

ruveyn

Why does abortion need to be prevented? It's not less a method of birth control/population control than any other in its end results. People argue the semantics of "what is life" all day but it's a pretty clear cut line* between birth and in utero.


*Health matters aside. I understand that delaying the getting of the procedure increases health risks.

Judging from his post he's a doctor. Also its less objecting and more saying he doesn't agree with the choice based on its intent/thinking its unwise because there are better(in his opinion) options.

It is incorrect to speak of the "owner" of a uterus while it is living tissue.

The legal maxim is that, "there is no property in a human body." This has be somewhat altered due to the property interests that have been exercised in the case of renewable body parts, such as blood, hair, gametes, etc. Typically, the property interest arises only once the tissue has been separated from the body which generated it.

I maintain, though, that you do not own any part of your body--rather, you have a right to bodily integrity. (In Canada we speak of, "security of the person," but the formulation of words will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

You are quite correct that I am in no position to object--after all, I am neither the patient nor the physician. I am expressing a more abstract objection. Were I a physician in such a circumstance, I would feel myself compelled to refuse to perform such a procedure, absent some other medical justification.

Wait. What? Why not? It seems to me that our bodies are the only thing we irrefutably do own. How are our bodies not our own, in the true sense of ownership?

I can see a legal reason not to define any part of a person's body as property until it has been separated from them because slavery really casts a pall over the entire concept of person=property. But even if our bodies aren't defined legally as a piece of property while we are alive and living in them, they are still ours and owned by us.

I think the woman who has a uterus inside her really does own it while it's in her. It's hers so long as it's inside.

A pause for pregnancy topic

I am reminded of a family in the US, whose daughter was severly mentally challenged, argued for and won the the right to medically terminate their daughter's growth by medical procedures such as complete hysterectomy, appendectomy, the surgical removal of breast tissue, and the use of estrogen to fuse the growth plates in the long bones. This was done at the age of nine years, to prevent phycial maturation and limit height--all so the child would be physically easier to care for, and desexualized in order to prevent abuse by others. This procedure--called The Ashley Treatment--was and still is very controversial, and the family still seems bent on enabling other families with "pillow angels" (their name for those severely limited individuals who remain in a position selected by the caregiver) to get the treatment for their children.

It must be remembered that Ashley did not choose this, whereas PunkyKat desires it. Because this is the case, Ms Kat is able to understand how to prevent pregnancy. But this is not all of it. Ms Kat abhorrs her periods, and seems wanting to undergo a hysterectomy in order to prevent menses.

It is possible that Ms Kat will succeed if she desires this radical solution to what she sees as the problem of monthly bleeding, if she can convince doctors that having periods is detrimental to her health, and that should she become pregnant she would end the child's life if it goes to term and is born. To me, this is harm reduction and the chances of succeeding are greater than average.

Good luck, PunkyKat.

Just as it is incorrect to speak of the "owner" of our hair while it is living tissue? Would you make haircuts illegal.

We each own our own bodies and the contents thereof. We do not own bodies outside our own bodies.

Since we are the owner of our bodies and the contents thereof we are free to dispose of our property as long as in doing so we do not interfere with the rights of those outside our bodies.

ruveyn

Wow, what horribly sad story. I'm having trouble even processing it. As far as PunkyKat goes, as long as she fully educated about all of the risks and benefits, she should be free to choose for herself. I mean, people don't even bat an eye at plastic surgery and most of these procedures are done purely for vanity. Good luck from me too.

Hair is not living tissue.

The issue of 'ownership' is framed as it is in order to simplify the regulation of organ transplantation - if people 'owned' their own organs in the regular sense of having the right to sell something to someone else, then it would be rather easy for a market in kidneys, lungs, sections of liver, corneas, skin, bone tissue, etc. to develop. Even hearts and other life-critical organs might be sold, as with a destitute parent who is willing to sacrifice his or her life in order to ensure that his or her children are 'set' for life.

As the law currently stands, hair (dead and renewable) and fingernails (dead and renewable) can be bought and sold. Ova and semen (living but haploid) can as well, but the morality is widely questioned. Organs such as kidneys, bone marrow, and liver chunks can be transferred, but legally no money or other financial incentive can be exchanged with the donor.

Despite this, there is a strong black market in organs. Personally, I think that more people would suffer if the market was legalized; it can be debated whether or not their suffering would be worse if it were voluntary (as opposed to kidnap victims in India), and whether or not it would be truly 'voluntary' when faced with extreme financial duress (as, for example, there is a debate about whether or not the American army is truly 'voluntary').