Calantha
Gryffindor Alumni
My name is Luck, this is my song, I happened by when you were gone
Posts: 4,493
|
Post by Calantha on May 15, 2005 17:13:30 GMT -5
Well, I'm really happy with the ruling. She should be able to have an abortion...she's thirteen, what are the health risks of having a baby at thirteen anyways? I am not sure, but it can't be all that healthy. I'm also positive that this was a traumatic experience for the girl, who attempted to be mature about it (she did get a social worker to get a lift to the clinic) and also, what about the effects on the baby? The child would have grown up knowing that it was not wanted by its mother and seen a political issue...does that make sense? That's a difficult situation for any child and while thinking of the fetus never becoming an infant is upsetting and unnerving, the person should think about what kind of life the baby would have.
|
|
|
Post by Ritsu on May 16, 2005 7:29:38 GMT -5
My my, isn't the board all nice and looking new!
My position towards this issue is a bit ambiguous. I'm both for and against abortion. But first let me give you some data about my country's position on abortion, which is the same thing as saying that abortion is illegal in Portugal, and that has led to some serious confrontments that brought our government to shame:
* Portugal is the second or third European countries with the largest percentage of teenage mothers, or teenage pregnancies; * Portugal is also the second or third European country with highest rates of rape and sexual harassment; * Portugal is one of the few European countries where abortion is still illegal. We had a voting census about it some years ago and it was voted illegal by our own people - who know fight so much to make it legal, which is quite ironic, really. * I don't know if it was this year or last year that that boat... Women on Waves? I can't really remember the name, but the boat came here and tried to dock in Lisbon. I guess it was Lisbon, doesn't matter, anyway. Our Prime Minister banned it from docking. He said abortion was illegal in the country and therefore the organization wasn't welcome. This was one of the most stupid attitudes he took - and they were many. Okay, so abortion is illegal in the country, but is spreading information illegal? Plus, WoW was a legal organization, and women who went there to abort weren't doing anything illegal because the nurses weren't even Portuguese.
I'm against abortion in the sense that... you know, it's that idea of killing a young baby and destroying a life and everything. Killing part of you. I know that a fetus isn't necessarly a life, but the thought of "throwing it out" impresses me a lot. And the psychological effects the experience has on the mother - wether she wanted the baby or not - are also terrible. So I'm against abortion because of it's consequences and what it means.
But the thing is, shouldn't abortion be legal, anyway? Even if people consider it amoral and unethical, I think it should be. There are thousands of Portuguese teenage girls who go to Spain to abort, or go to illegal clinics in Portugal to abort, and end up aborting in a place with no conditions at all, which can lead to serious health problems and stuff. Infections and all. For me, this situation is much worse than abortion itself, because it's not only the damage of the fetus, it's the damage of the mother as well. And people don't seem to realise it. If abortion was legal here, they would go to the hospital, be attended by professional people who knew what they were doing and have the required assistence afterwards.
I'm for abortion if the girl got pregnant through rape. I don't even hesitate on that one.
About teenage pregnancy, it has to do with the lack of information, ignorance and mentaility of the masses. And what sort of things are around. If kids grow in an environment with too much sex around them, of course they consider it a natural thing and do it as soon as possible. It doesn't need to be physical sex. I'm talking about kids who grow surrounded by pornography, sexual inciting music with strong vocabulary and face it, today's pop music world is way too sexual, any young girl with half the brains would go and do exactly what her idol is doing on TV. Of course than in a non-ignorant society, this wouldn't happen, because the right information would be around. But, unfortunately, my country is not that clever and there isn't much information and support around. And when there is, people don't notice it.
|
|
Sarah
Gryffindor Head of House
Posts: 2,865
|
Post by Sarah on May 21, 2005 20:05:43 GMT -5
"What are the health risks of having a baby at thirteen"? How about, What are the risks of having a baby at any age? You can die when you have a baby! My mom got really sick with my older sister and almost died! (and yet she had me... ) Anything can happen when you give birth, ANYthing! And anything can happen when you're pregnant! One of my mom's patients was pregnant and she was fourteen. Upon talking to her some more, my mom discovered she already had a two year old! This means that she had a baby at 12, and that she got pregnant at 11!!! And then she goes and gets pregnant with yet another baby! And sure, I don't personally know her, and I don't know her whole background story, but...ugh. Nevermind. And about the baby growing up...I doubt it would grow up thinking it was unwanted. Maybe, when it might discover that it's mom wanted an abortion it might feel that way, but i'm sure it would be explained. And I don't think it's so much that LG doesn't want the baby, it's just that she believes (or her mother, for that matter) that she's too young.
|
|
Calantha
Gryffindor Alumni
My name is Luck, this is my song, I happened by when you were gone
Posts: 4,493
|
Post by Calantha on May 21, 2005 21:34:48 GMT -5
Of course there's risks of giving birth, there's also a risk of getting into a car and driving, but if you haven't practiced driving, you have a higher chance of getting in a wreck, wouldn't you say? Age helps to determine the amount of risk. If the girl's body hasn't developed completely, there would be a greater risk for complications during labor than an older person who has a fully developed body. The hips haven't widened and so on, right? So the baby would have a more difficult time being born and would lead to a higher risk in death during labor.
I'm not so sure it wouldn't grow up thinking it was unwanted. Maybe if the child had an incredibly loving home, but if the child grows up in the media and knowing that the mother wanted to abort the child, it would be understandable and even expectable that the child would have problems dealing with it...what if someone told you that your parents wanted to abort you and it turned into a legal battle? It would take a very mature and understanding child, teen, even adult, to come to terms with that, or at least it would be difficult for me.
But if she wanted the baby, she'd have it. She ran away from home, it's illogical in her situation to have a child, she clearly doesn't want the child or she wouldn't have an abortion. I know that seems awfully clearcut and I'm assuming a lot of things...but would you "kill" something you wanted? *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on May 22, 2005 1:18:23 GMT -5
I'm going to jump on the point Cal made about killing for a second. Legally, the definition of life for the purposes of abortion are such that something is deemed to be "living" (and presumably therefore able to be killed) when it is able to be born and function freely from its mother. Clearly a fetus up until the age of 3 months is unable to do this; therefore for the purposes of abortion it can be removed without that action being deemed "murder".
Anyway, I reckon that the child if born would have found out that they were unwanted. How would you feel if you found out that you were an accident and that your mum wanted to abort you as a fetus? How messed up would that be?
|
|
|
Post by Ritsu on May 25, 2005 7:01:05 GMT -5
I agree with you there. Sometimes, abortion doesn't mean the child is unwanted, it means the mother (not to say parents) doesn't have the necessary conditions to raise a child - actually, that situation happens more and more nowadays, as the world gets poorer. The mother could still want the child. She just didn't have the background to raise her. And if she does have the child, and experience all sorts of economical difficulties, and if the child ever finds out her mother once thought about aborting... I don't know, it may be hard at the beginning, but I'm sure that same child, when an adult, when the same difficulties start approaching her/him, would understand her/his mother's position. Am I making any sense? I'm finding it hard to express myself these days. In general, I don't think abortion, in most cases, means the mother doesn't want the baby. I think women always feel attached to what they're carrying inside them, it's a hormonal thing. And even people who once said they don't want kids end up feeling attached to them sooner or later. It's just that they don't have the means to raise the child. That's all.
If the economical background was too poor then yes. I think women should be brave enough to do it. If they want the child so badly, they'd know bringing one to a world where they'd experience difficulties would only lead to suffering and disfuncionality (sp?).
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Jun 7, 2005 14:55:04 GMT -5
{I need to read through your posts, so I hope to be able to reply soon.}
This discussion has been going all over Europe quite recently. I know in some countries there was a Referendum about it. Here private hospitals are trying to introduce it to those who wish it.
I'm talking about the technique which many of you know as IVF. I've been trying to keep hold of all that they're saying about it in the media; in Italy the referendum question was whether the people wished that a couple who aren't able to have children naturally, be able to do the fertilisation with another man's sperm, even if he's not the father.
There is a lot of debate going on around here considering the fact that abortion is illegal here. Some people are completely against it, while others are in favour of it but still don't agree with abortion.
I dunno if this is legal in countries like the US or Aussie, but what do you guys think about it?
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Jun 8, 2005 9:04:39 GMT -5
Hermy, I'll change the subject heading for you if that's the next topic we should discuss.
Um, IVF is legal in Australia. It's been around for a long time, and I don't think there have been any problems with it lately in terms of whether it's immoral/illegal/whatnot. Recently there was a thing about a lesbian couple who had a child through IVF, and the biological father wanted to claim visitation with the child and everything but the lesbian couple refused because he wasn't really a parent, he was just a sperm donor. I think the courts ruled that IVF donors don't get parenting rights or something.
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Jun 8, 2005 10:02:49 GMT -5
Thanks Ko.
You know, I think I agree with IVF, even though I still don't agree with abortion. There's only one thing bothering me. There was a time when people were really suffering from poverty and in order to obtain money, they sold one of their kidneys. Which is bad. Now, when I was hearing some of the discussions it appears that the doner is paid some amount of money. If someone is poor and helplessly trying to find a job but can't, don't you think he'd be the first to take this opportunity and become a doner? You may tell me that this case is different, I know, I mean it's a lot different than giving a kidney. But what if repetitive donations cause this man harm or something?
Also, if the father is a doner, the child will never know who his/her father really is. It's kind of like when a couple adopt a child, except in this case, the woman caring for the child is the real mother. I mean don't you think it would be weird knowing your father donated his sperm for you to be born, and you cannot even imagine in what part of the world he may be, if he is still alive?
|
|
|
Post by Robin_Sprouts on Jun 8, 2005 21:51:01 GMT -5
Karen and I, of course, have a very stron position on the issue of invitro fertilization. We plan to start having children in the next couple of years and plan to use IFV (if not officially). Our situation is made less complicated by the fact that we know who our donor is going to be and there will be no problem with terminating his parental rights. In the US, the only problem you would have would be if your known donor wouldn't sign away his parental rights. I work for a lawyer and we have good friends who have done this before, so it won't be a problem. I think most of the people who have a problem with it are really objecting (at some level) to homosexuality. IVF has been being done for YEARS, all over the world. The major reason that its currently in the news is because of the homosexual baby boom that's going on.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Jun 9, 2005 21:04:20 GMT -5
Robin! Good to see you back! *waves*
Hmmm. That's great that you and Karen plan to have kids! I'm excited already, especially because it sounds like you've got everything organised in preparation for this already.
My two cents on this issue: In Family Law here there seems to be some sort of distinction between homosexual couples using IVF and introducing a "sperm donor" to er, "naturally" fertilise the eggs. Personally I think the distinction is pretty silly, but for some reason courts have ruled that even if a sperm donor was a donor but nontheless naturally inseminated the eggs then some sort of parental rights still arose. (*coughs* there was also a contentious issue involving a turkey baster, but I will not get into that right now. ) Is the position the same in the US in relation to the position of sperm donors in artificial and natural insemination issues?
|
|
|
Post by Robin_Sprouts on Jun 10, 2005 9:46:10 GMT -5
Just lurking, mostly, but posting occaisionally too!
Anywho - it is slightly easier, legally, if you have the IVF done in a doctor's office but, you still have to go through a Termination of Parental Rights of the donor, it he is known. If it is an unknown donor, that legality is not necessary.
I heard an article on the radio this morning that confirmed my position, though. Italy is voting to make IVF legal ONLY for hetrosexual couples and to put limits on the number of eggs that can be fertilized and stored. Both of these, current legal "hot button" topics here in the US and obviously, other places around the world. The whole point is, people are trying to prevent/squash the homosexual baby boom that is happening. I just don't get it. If two people go through the expense and hassle of IVF, why does anyone care that they happen to be the same gender? If I wanted to, I could go, get pregnant the natural way and have all the kids I wanted to, not name the father(s) and raise them with no interference from anyone. Just because I want to have a child with my partner, whom I am committed to and have been with for five years - this is a problem!
ARRRGGGG!
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Jun 13, 2005 23:46:18 GMT -5
Just an update on the vote in Italy:
ITALY FERTILITY TREATMENT CURBED
A new law making it more difficult for couples to get fertility treatment in Italy has come into effect. The legislation restricts treatment to stable couples and gives a fertilised egg the same rights as a citizen.
Sperm donations, frozen embryos, and surrogate motherhood are now banned. Only infertile couples can apply for artificial insemination.
The law - one of the most restrictive in Europe - has drawn support and criticism from across party lines.
BBC health correspondent Karen Allen says it is widely seen as a Catholic backlash against Italy's reputation for producing a handful of maverick fertility experts.
Italian doctors recently helped a 63-year-old woman to conceive, and claim they will be able to clone the first human being.
Keeping tabs
Under the new law infertile couples can only get treatment at government-approved centres, and have to prove that they are married or in a stable relationship.
Clinics will also be restricted to producing three embryos per couple. All must be implanted simultaneously.
Critics say the legislation reduces the chances of conception, and could increase the number of multiple births.
Our correspondent says a number of Italian fertility clinics are planning to relocate to neighbouring countries, adding to a trend towards fertility tourism.
The Italian government says it is keeping the situation under review, and if success rates from IVF treatment fall significantly it may reconsider the law.
Its supporters say the abuse of fertility treatment needed to be curbed, and the rights of embryos protected.
I pulled that off the BBC website. Gah! I thought as much would happen. Three eggs? Sometimes doesn't it take heaps of times for someone to conceive through IVF?
At the same time, I also pulled this off the BBC website:
SWEDEN TO ALLOW IVF FOR LESBIANS Swedish legislators are due to amend a law which would legalise fertilisation treatment for lesbian couples.
The new provision, which is expected to pass easily before coming into force in July, will be available to lesbian couples joined in civil partnerships.
After the child is born, both women would be regarded as its mother.
Currently, artificial insemination is only available to heterosexual partners, requiring lesbian couples to go abroad for treatment.
"The basis for the bill is that lesbian couples will be on an equal footing with heterosexual couples when it comes to assisted fertilisation," the government said.
Liberal approach
Sweden has a liberal attitude towards homosexuals, although gay marriages remain illegal.
However, civil unions were introduced in Sweden for gays and lesbians in 1994 and adoption by gay couples is permitted.
"It means that lesbian couples are now accepted in the Swedish health care system on the same level as heterosexual couples," said Soeren Andersson, president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay and Transgender Rights.
"The big thing now is that the government has removed the rule that lesbian couples are not allowed to have in vitro fertilisation."
Under the present legislation, the state-run health system can only offer IVF treatment to women married to a man or living with a male partner.
European countries where assisted fertilisation is available to lesbian couples include Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, Great Britain, Russia, Ireland and Spain.
In Italy, stringent legislation restricting IVF treatment to heterosexual couples, introduced in March 2004, is due to be relaxed.
Any plans on going to Sweden, Robin? I don't understand it though - in all other aspects of family law homosexuals seem to have the same rights as straight couples, in terms of children and property and everything except that they can't legally get married?!
|
|
|
Post by Leia Skye on Jun 14, 2005 0:20:30 GMT -5
Haven't been here in awhile...anyway, I've been reading through this thread and I'm amused because in my Ethics class last semester, we discussed these exact topics in the exact order. Weird. You guys piqued my interest at the end though, because in my class we did NOT discuss the benefits of IVF for homosexual couples. I'm kind of ashamed I didn't think to bring it up, though I did have mono so I suppose that's a decent excuse.
Before reading this, I was pretty firmly against IVF. Just adopt, right? There are so many kids in this world who need homes. I didn't see the need to involve an unnatural step in creating a child. But on the other hand, most women want to experience pregnancy and motherhood - natural instinct. Why should a woman be deprived of this natural right if she's perfectly healthy and able to undergo it? Just because she doesn't happen to be attracted to sperm-carrying humans, ha. No, I don't think so. And now I see that this applies to heterosexual couples as well. The debate is really whether it is more right to preserve a couple's right to a pregnancy, I suppose you could say, or whether it's more right to think about the poor orphans and what's best for them. I don't have an answer at this point because I've always been more inclined to adopt so I'm biased.
|
|
|
Post by Robin_Sprouts on Jun 14, 2005 8:10:40 GMT -5
No plans to move to Sweden, unfortunately!
As far as the adoption option goes, we've talked about it a lot. Karen really wants to have a baby (babies) of her own, biologically. Also, because of the legalities involved we might not be able to adopt. Many states and countries have laws the prevent homosexuals from adopting. We would have to spend a lot more money (money that we don't have) to go through the adoption process and, more than likely, we would have to do it twice, once for Karen and once for me - twice the attorney/legal fees. If Karen has a biological child, we only have to adopt once - I have to adopt Karen's child. I hope it doesn't sound too selfish but, we just don't have the money to adopt - we're going to have to save up just to do it the "natural" way.
|
|