All Posts – Page 43

Post-natal abortion in Canada

December 9, 2014 by Faye Sonier 1 Comment

Once we’re considering euthanasia for adults, we move to the euthanasia of babies:

Doctors would be justified to end the lives of some terminally impaired newborn babies, says a prominent Canadian bioethicist in a report that pushes the country’s euthanasia debate into provocative new territory.

Much of the discussion of physician assisted-death in Canada has centred around adult patients capable of making known how they want to end their lives.

But Udo Schuklenk, a Queen’s University philosophy professor, argues that in rare cases of severely impaired, deeply suffering newborns, actively causing death is morally acceptable, if still illegal in this country.

“The parents should be able to freely decide on what would amount to postnatal abortion…”

This is perspective that I don’t hear often enough:

In a counterpoint to Prof. Schuklenk’s article, theology professor Gilbert Meilanender of Indiana’s Valparaiso University said patients should not be subjected to aggressive treatment if it is futile, but they should also not be intentionally killed, either.

“That would be to think of ourselves … as people who are fit to exercise a kind of ultimate authority over the life of another,” wrote the former ethics advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush. “If we simply sweep such children off our doorstep every morning with euthanasia, medicine will never learn better ways to help them and others like them.”

Two cultures, one demeaning attitude toward women

December 9, 2014 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

Johanne Brownrigg has this piece up at MercatorNet. Certainly challenges what we consider to be “female-friendly” in our culture (abortion) as contrasted with cultures where they practice barbarism of other varieties (female genital mutilation).

I do see some substantive differences between abortion and female genital mutilation. We have a pretty hefty percentage of women, not girls, who take themselves to the abortion clinic. They are not under anyone’s thumb but their own. I’m not sure female genital mutilation is practiced with an eye to being freeing. Neither am I convinced that most women get abortions with an eye to sexual autonomy. (A fringe might see the abortion decision that way, but most women getting abortions are not doing so to please the patriarchy.)

But still, the culture gives us leeway to think abortion is freeing, good and what’s more, culturally acceptable and necessary. And so it is with female genital mutilation too.

From the macabre to the just plain horrifying

December 5, 2014 by Natalie Sonnen Leave a Comment

Two “great” articles on euthanasia. First, a bioethicist from the University of Tübingen in Germany, Ronald Kipke, has pointed out that “commercial assisted suicide” (CAS) – paying a non-doctor to kill patients – is a logical development of physician-assisted suicide, and a much better deal over-all. It means that we don’t have to involve doctors in killing people.

Commercially available assisted suicide means that you get what you pay for without having to convince panels of doctors who might be having qualms with their consciences. There would be no refusals and referrals, no annoying counseling sessions and having to spend time finding a doctor sympathetic to your cause. It is simply a service that is paid for and performed by people trained just for that one purpose.

The point that he is making, in actual fact, is that commercially available suicide horrifies all of us – even those who approve of doctor assisted suicide and euthanasia. The same reasons that one would use to argue against commercial suicide apply just as well to doctor assisted suicide, and even more so.

… there is not a single ethical reason that speaks persuasively only against CAS. Either the arguments do not apply to CAS, or they do apply but equally or even more so to PAS … To reject CAS while endorsing PAS is, therefore, not ethically justifiable: it is not a coherent ethical position. Therefore, the position of the liberal advocates of PAS has to be revised. Either they have to expand their advocacy to include CAS and therefore radicalize their position considerably or they have to revise their rejection of some arguments that are generally raised against assisted suicide.

And while we contemplate the virtues of commercial suicide, doctors in the Netherlands are working on a scheme to increase the number of organs available for organ-donor transplant – by… you guessed it, harvesting them from people who want to be euthanized. It actually has a name and an acronym; Organ Donation Euthanasia or ODE. According to the Mercator.net article,

Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam and the University Hospital of Maastricht have already written national guidelines which are being studied by the Dutch Transplant Foundation.

If the procedures are approved, they would be binding on hospitals and doctors throughout the country.

Now this could prove to be really profitable. Not only could we have for-profit clinics available for killing people, we can harvest their organs and sell them to hospitals doing wonderful life-saving work. Except for the bit about selling them, Oxford bioethicists Julian Savulescu and a colleague, Dominic Wilkinson concur:

Many lives could be saved even if only a small percentage of people opted for ODE… We should encourage and support such altruistic desires.

Herein lies the reason why former pro-euthanasia advocate, Dr. Theo De Boer, has become an internationally known opponent of the practice. He realized that once you legalize killing, the instances of it just get worse and worse. In his words, “once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again.”

photo credit: <a href=”https://www.flickr.com/photos/_flood_/10104162366/”>Flооd</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a

“… there is not a single ethical reason that speaks persuasively only against CAS. Either the arguments do not apply to CAS, or they do apply but equally or even more so to PAS … To reject CAS while endorsing PAS is, therefore, not ethically justifiable: it is not a coherent ethical position. Therefore, the position of the liberal advocates of PAS has to be revised. Either they have to expand their advocacy to include CAS and therefore radicalize their position considerably or they have to revise their rejection of some arguments that are generally raised against assisted suicide. – See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/careful/view/15269#sthash.BKs7XmWx.dpuf

a bioethicist from the University of Tübingen in Germany has pointed out that “commercially assisted suicide” (CAS) – paying a non-doctor to kill patients – is a logical development of physician-assisted suicide. – See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/careful/view/15269#sthash.BKs7XmWx.dpuf

Questions for pro-choicers

December 5, 2014 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Katha Pollitt in an article in which she sought input from pro-lifers. At the end she writes:

I wonder what answers pro-lifers would get if they asked similar questions of pro-choicers.”

The questions I’d have for pro-choicers would be (and from my experience, they are similarly reticent to compromise or dialogue):

Why are relationships a zero sum game to them?

Put differently, why can’t the mother and the child both thrive?

Are they resolutely confident that unwanted pregnancies always remain unwanted?

Are they resolutely confident that human life in the womb doesn’t have any cosmic significance?

If they had every assurance that the law would be kept out of it, would they campaign against abortion and increase support for women in all circumstances including pregnancy?

Since female biology includes the ability to get pregnant, why are they so down on that?

Can they see the point that pro-lifers make that access to abortion requires women to be like men?

Well those are some of my questions. I’d be glad to get non-snarky answers. Katha found that hard and to be sure, the snark goes both ways.

Senators propose euthanasia bill

December 3, 2014 by Natalie Sonnen Leave a Comment

We live in interesting times. Yesterday, Senator Nancy Ruth and Senator Larry Campbell introduced Senate Private Bill S 225, a bill that legalizes euthanasia and assisted suicide by lethal prescription. This bill is based on the private members bills that were introduced in the House of Commons by Stephen Fletcher MP, earlier this year.

According to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, the bill is deliberately permissive.

The bill is designed to protect physicians who act by lethally injecting or assisting the suicide of their patients. It is not designed to protect the patients.

The bill specifically allows euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with disabilities.

The bill allows euthanasia or assisted suicide for “psychological suffering.” Psychological suffering is not defined.

The bill is not limited to terminal illness.

The bill requires the physician to self report the death after it has already occurred. This assumes that physicians will self-report abuse of the law. Since the patient is dead, when the act is reported, therefore no actual protection exists for the patient.

The EPC also quotes Dr. Theo de Boer, who sat on the Regional Euthanasia Review Committee in the Netherlands for nine years. After seeing the progression of the practice of euthanasia, Dr. de Boer went from being an ardent supporter to opposing it internationally. In a recent article, that exposes the incredible increase in euthanasia in the Netherlands, de Boer stated:

I used to be a supporter of legislation. But now, with twelve years of experience, I take a different view.

At the very least, wait for an honest and intellectually satisfying analysis of the reasons behind the explosive increase in the numbers. Is it because the law should have had better safeguards? Or is it because the mere existence of such a law is an invitation to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as a normality instead of a last resort? Before those questions are answered, don’t go there. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again.

A review of The Birth of the Pill

December 3, 2014 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Great, great read:

The cardinal tenet of the Contraceptive Regime is that The Pill safely sterilizes the sexual act. As a result of this belief, we accept the idea that we can have sex with anyone we want, without regard for potential consequences. We think we can have sex with a person who would be a disaster to parent with. And when the inevitable pregnancy actually occurs, we act surprised every time. Women are then faced with the choice of becoming a single mother, having an abortion or placing the baby for adoption. None of these choices is particularly good for the child, nor in the end, for the woman.

Misguided feminism at Fredericton High School

December 3, 2014 by Faye Sonier 5 Comments

A demonstration over school dress codes at Fredericton High School has led to police being called in and several students facing sanctions, including suspension.

A campaign against school uniforms was launched by Fredericton Youth Feminists. According to a student involved in the project, requiring a dress code plays into the rape culture, and as one teen stated, “if a teacher finds my shorts inappropriate, they are sexualizing me.”

Unlike many jaded women, I do think there is still a place for feminism. Some argue that all the battles have been fought and we need to move on. Women are rolling their eyes at feminists who crash events by flashing their bare breasts and screaming obscenities. If feminists are left fighting over the “right” to wear short shorts, they’d argue that clearly all the feminist battles of substance have been fought and won. I agree, but only in part.

If feminism means the fight for the right of women to be treated with respect and dignity, bring on the battle. In the last few weeks, there has been extensive news coverage of the horrors of female genital mutilation and the cruelties associated with child marriages. Little girls need more women, like passionate feminists, to fight for them when they are unable to fight for themselves.

As for wanting to fight the rape culture, feminists need to condemn porn and the porn industry with vehemence. Experts in the field are tracing the rape culture right back to pornography, with one explaining that it “sexualizes violence against women.” It’s not hard to imagine that a culture addicted to internet porn, which displays men using, hurting and raping women is changing for the worse.

If women want to assemble and work together under the umbrella of feminism, they should. Others, like me, will choose to label ourselves as human rights advocates. And others still, like those fighting for the liberation of women trapped in human sex trafficking, may choose to call themselves abolitionists.

The students who organized a rally and gave speeches could refocus their energies toward saving the lives of girls and women, and fighting for laws to protect girls their age and younger from mutilation and rape. Event planning and public speaking are incredible tools for any advocate and these young feminists can channel their passion, gifts and abilities toward real causes. Fighting for the “right” to wear short shorts is neither a serious cause, nor any type of human right.

Lastly, to the feminist students: an institution may set standards of behaviour and dress while still condemning the rape culture and teaching men to respect women. The activities are not mutually exclusive. Many employers and institutions have established dress standards and sexual harassment policies. By requiring dress in accordance with guidelines for institutional conformity, you are not being sexualized. You are being asked to adhere to a standard while you attend your school, and nothing more.

But be passionate. Learn about human rights. Develop the skills you will need if you choose to fight for women who are suffering discrimination and violence. The world needs more women who will advocate for those suffering oppression. Be that voice.

photo credit: Tony Fischer Photography via photopin cc

On the unconsidered realities of future children and abortion

December 2, 2014 by Natalie Sonnen 2 Comments

Any woman considering an abortion should read the quotes of these women who have been there and done it. They are heart-rending, tragic testimonies to the unexpected and often unconsidered long-term consequences of abortion. My heart goes out to these women and their families – so many of them were just never told the truth.

Abby Johnson, Founder of And Then There Were None:

One day in the car, my daughter (out of nowhere) asked if some day she would be able to see her siblings in Heaven. I asked her what she meant…honestly, hoping that she was not talking about my own two abortions. She said that she knew I had two abortions and she wanted to know if she would ever get to meet those babies because she said, “in my heart, I miss them.” I never knew I would pass that sort of heartbreak on to my children.

When I had my abortions, I never thought about how it would affect others. I didn’t think about my future children. I never thought about how I would have to explain my selfishness to them.

My abortions live in me, and unfortunately, they live in them. ”

Ashley Granger, Wife, mother, sonography student:

Now that my son is 4 years old, I sometimes look at his sweet face and wonder what features my other child would have had. I still have dreams about holding him or her and it makes me so deeply sad to think that I have robbed my son of a sibling. Why not just try and conceive a sibling for him today you may ask? Well, I would love to but my husband and I have been struggling with infertility for two and half years. I never once dreamed that I wouldn’t be able to conceive when I wanted to! Every night my sweet boy prays to God for a sibling and every time I hear those precious prayers my heart aches over what I did. Because in retrospect an abortion isn’t an easy fix or a solution to a problem….it is the problem, and it leaves a lasting effect on generations to come.

Dear Mary Wollstonecraft

December 2, 2014 by Andrea Mrozek 6 Comments

I am writing a book about the sexual revolution with my friend Rebecca Walberg. More accurately, I am researching a book right now, so please don’t ask me how writing is going for I will rapidly begin to hyperventilate and it will be awkward for everyone.

I am using this opportunity to catch up on the women’s studies education I never had. And, quite frankly, never wished I had. I’m starting my reading at the very beginning, with a historical defence of the rights of women. Enter one Mary Wollstonecraft.

As a side comment, I’m intrigued by her description of problems she sees around her, which I would hazard to say, in some instances are not all that different today.

So on I read, and enjoying it more than I thought.

Mary Wollstonecraft is long-winded, yes, even more than I. And so in reading today I flipped forward in the pages to see when the chapter would end and what the next chapter might be about.

The next chapter is called: “Chapter III: THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.”

And there you have it. Who said that a spirited defence of women’s rights had to have creative chapter headings? Not I.

Only a symbolic win in New Brunswick?

November 27, 2014 by Faye Sonier 2 Comments

According to Jonathon Van Maren, who is actually quite nice,

Gallant did scrap the regulation stipulating that women get the approval of two doctors before obtaining a taxpayer-funded abortion. This is a victory for abortion activists, but an almost completely symbolic one, as women were virtually never refused an abortion. If women were being refused abortions based on the two-doctor rule, you can rest assured that the abortion activists would have been making these women the star of every press release, media appearance, and sparsely attended rally they held. So there’s no reason to expect a sudden dramatic jump in the abortion rate.

The abortion activists did not get what they were pushing for in the first place, which was funding for the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton. That clinic recently closed down, citing a lack of funding. Activists were demanding that the provincial government provide the cash to get the clinic up and running again, and raised over 100,000 dollars to help things along. However, Gallant’s decision specifically limits abortions to hospitals, denying abortion activists the one concrete victory they were actually seeking.

He makes a few more points in his blog post. Read it here.

So this is actually encouraging. Maybe that’s the wrong term. Less depressing? I’ll take it though. Let’s be clear on our actually wins and losses. If we’re going to be strategic about things, we can’t afford to do otherwise.

Meta