Abortion in Ismaili Religion
Abortion in Ismaili Religion
With our children growing in the world where these issues are not important at all, I wanted to know if anyone knows our belief in this matter. Please feel free to give your opinions too. I would really appreciate if someone knows if there is any farman regarding abortion.
-
AlwaizaRashida
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:43 am
The following are the verses from Saloko Nano which allude to the five Hathyaas. The five Hathyaas mentioned are Par Ninda(slander), aall(false accusation), par gavan(illicit intercourse), aap hathyaa(suicide) and baall(abortion). What is important to note is that they are indeed grave!
satgur kahere: karam to sarave utare
ane na utare par nee(n)daa ne aall
par gavan na utare
na utare aap hatyaa ne baall re.................39
The True Guide says: The entire burden of sins is reducible, except the sin of backbiting and false accusation, illicit(sexual) relationships and sin of suicide and killing of children (abortion).
satgur kahere: paa(n)ch hatyaa to paapnnee
jeen seer lakhee lelaatt aa-e
te neet utthee gatmaa(n)he jaae
to-e jeev amar na thaay re......................40
The True Guide says: The five killers(of the soul) are sinful. Upon whoever's head these are written, will receive kicks. Even if this person gets up everyday and goes to the gat(J.K.), his soul will not attain immortality.
satgur kahere: karam to sarave utare
ane na utare par nee(n)daa ne aall
par gavan na utare
na utare aap hatyaa ne baall re.................39
The True Guide says: The entire burden of sins is reducible, except the sin of backbiting and false accusation, illicit(sexual) relationships and sin of suicide and killing of children (abortion).
satgur kahere: paa(n)ch hatyaa to paapnnee
jeen seer lakhee lelaatt aa-e
te neet utthee gatmaa(n)he jaae
to-e jeev amar na thaay re......................40
The True Guide says: The five killers(of the soul) are sinful. Upon whoever's head these are written, will receive kicks. Even if this person gets up everyday and goes to the gat(J.K.), his soul will not attain immortality.
Women who have abortions face numerous health issues
Susan Martinuk
For The Calgary Herald
Friday, July 04, 2008
Our nation's highest civilian honour has been bestowed upon Dr. Henry Morgentaler, thereby granting him official recognition for his contributions to health care and humanitarian work in Canada.
Uh huh. So what exactly are those contributions?
Dr. (I use this term loosely) Morgentaler made abortion 'legal' through a challenge to the Supreme Court. The Court struck down the law against abortion in 1988. Twenty years later, Canada still has no law against abortion at any time during gestation, but we do have an international reputation for having the most liberal abortion policies in the developed world. Apparently, this is something to be celebrated.
He made abortion available. His great healthcare legacy is a chain of private abortion clinics where doctors can make great wads of cash outside of the medical/ethical oversight of hospital committees and other doctors.
Finally, he is credited with making abortion safe. He said this week that his efforts made abortion "one of the safest surgical procedures" and women are no longer killed, injured or left infertile.
Too many have bought into these claims that Morgentaler is somehow the medical saviour of Canadian women. They likely support the view of one pro-abortion advocate who said, "Like him or not, the man brought safety to women in Canada and we should finally give him credit."
It is an inarguable fact that Dr. Morgentaler made abortion 'legal' (if only because there are no laws) and more readily available. But a growing number of medical studies suggest abortion is hardly the "safe surgical procedure' that Dr. Morgentaler proclaims it to be.
He may have made abortions 'safer' by cutting the so-called back-alley butcher out of the abortion market, but since then 'safe' abortions have put women at an increased risk for hospitalization, breast cancer and psychological events like suicide.
Abortion has been repeatedly documented as a major risk factor for pregnancies resulting in low birth weight and premature birth. In 2001, the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology showed that having one abortion increases a woman's risk of premature delivery by 30 per cent; two abortions by 90 per cent.
In 2003, a study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons evaluated 49 studies that showed a significant increase in the risk of premature births or low birth weight babies in women who had abortions.
Is small size really such a big problem? It is for the baby. Premature birth is a leading cause of cerebral palsy and small babies are at increased risk for infant mortality, disabilities, lower cognitive abilities and greater behavioural problems. The risk of these complications is increased further if the mother has had repeat abortions.
In 1996, a paper in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health provided the first real evidence of a connection between abortion and breast cancer. Pooled data from 28 different studies demonstrated that women who had abortions had increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 30 per cent.
Subsequent studies supposedly disproved this association, but a 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons paper showed these studies had methodologies that were sufficiently flawed "to invalidate their findings." And, in 2007, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reported that induced abortion was the risk factor that best predicted the incidence of breast cancer in European women.
The risk of psychological harm as a result of abortion has also been well documented.
When compared to women who gave birth, women who had abortions were shown to be six times more likely to commit suicide (British Medical Journal, 1996), five times more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol (American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2000) and 63 per cent more likely to need mental care within 90 days of the abortion (American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2002).
Finally, a 2001 study by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario showed that in the first three months after abortion, women have a higher rate of hospitalization for infection (four times greater), other surgical procedures (five times greater) and psychiatric problems (five times greater).
All of the above suggests that Dr. Morgentaler's contribution to the health and safety of Canadian women is questionable, at best.
In fact, the data suggest he could just as easily be cited for putting women at increased risk for major health problems.
If his achievements are suspect, so is his skill as a doctor. In 1976, he was charged by the Quebec College of Physicians for not taking a patient history, blood or urine tests prior to an abortion procedure.
In 1998, he was found guilty of negligence by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for allowing a woman to leave the clinic -- unattended -- within 30 minutes of undergoing an abortion.
She complained of pain and shakiness, yet he allowed her to get into her car and drive. She subsequently fainted and swerved into oncoming traffic.
Based on the facts (and not ideology), there is no good reason for Canadians to recognize -- let alone celebrate -- this man's so-called achievements.
Susan Martinuk is a former medical researcher who conducted PhD studies in the field of infertility and reproductive technologies.
© The Calgary Herald 2008
****
Morgentaler is no hero -- women who don't abort are
Naomi Lakritz
Calgary Herald
Friday, July 04, 2008
When I think of a hero, Dr. Henry Morgentaler does not spring to mind. "Hero" is the wrong appellation to stick on him.
Terry Fox, hop-skipping his way down the Trans-Canada Highway, in that long-ago summer of 1980, is a hero. Even the dog that barks to alert its sleeping owner to a fire is more of a hero than Morgentaler is. You see, heroes save and enhance lives -- they don't destroy them. Yet, this country's most distinguished award, the Order of Canada, has gone to a "hero" whose sole "achievement" is killing unborn Canadian citizens.
The pro-choice faction, having won its appalling campaign to politicize and devalue the Order of Canada, is declaring Morgentaler a hero to millions. Activist Judy Rebick said "most women" see this as a victory. But who elected her to speak for "most" women? I don't remember being given a ballot.
Now that the pro-choice forces have bullied and manipulated their way to this shameful day, Rebick has also proclaimed the abortion debate to be over. Hang on to your empty victory, Judy -- those opposed will continue to write and speak out against this evil. We can do no less.
The melodramatic mantle of heroism that the pro-choice side drapes about Morgentaler's shoulders is intolerably phoney. Heroes rescue people. Morgentaler, who has helped make it open season on the unborn, has rescued no one and condemned thousands.
He has not saved women whose lives would be jeopardized by giving birth, for modern medicine can successfully manage high-risk pregnancies. The Public Health Agency of Canada reports that the 1997-2000 maternal mortality rate for Canada was 6.1 deaths for every 100,000 live births. These women were pregnant by choice, but died from some emergency that arose at the end; they were not "forced" to have babies against their will because abortion was unavailable.
Morgentaler is not rescuing women from lives of dire poverty into which, according to the pro-choice faction, they will automatically descend unless their babies are killed. Fifty-three per cent of abortions in 2004 were performed on women in their 20s. This demographic tends to be employed. Teenage girls, who are most likely to end up in poverty due to pregnancy, accounted for less than 14 per cent of abortions, according to Statistics Canada.
Pro-choicers seem to think that giving up an unwanted baby for adoption also plunges women into poverty. Otherwise, why wouldn't they advocate instead for the income-neutral option of adoption? Why the insistence on death?
Here's the other tiresome canard they trot out -- that unwanted babies should be aborted because their lives will be hell with the mothers who didn't want them. Then, they demand to know why pro-lifers don't step up to the plate and adopt these children. Perhaps they should put aside the empty rhetoric and check the facts. According to parentlinkalberta.ca, there is a waiting list of Albertans who want to adopt an infant and "very few healthy infants are available." Demand has always outstripped supply.
Nor is Morgentaler rescuing the more than 100,000 women a year who have abortions in Canada, from giving birth to the child of a rape or incestuous relationship. American Family Physician says only five per cent of rapes result in pregnancies.
According to a report from the U.S.-based Guttmacher Institute, women going back for their second, third or higher abortion are twice as likely to be over 30. That means they're well-established in their jobs and adult lives, and they're aborting purely for convenience.
In 2004, 30 per cent of abortions in Canada were repeat ones. These women are callously using abortion as birth control.
It's no heroic gesture to offer abortions to the inconvenienced and the irresponsible, although it may certainly swell one's bank statement to heroic proportions -- Morgentaler's revenue has been estimated at $11 million annually.
No -- the real heroes will never get an Order of Canada. They're the unsung women who, finding themselves with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, take responsibility for their actions, and either alter their plans to include a baby in their lives or give the baby up for adoption. They're true heroes because they understand that there is a profound difference between life -- and mere lifestyle.
[email protected]
© The Calgary Herald 2008
Susan Martinuk
For The Calgary Herald
Friday, July 04, 2008
Our nation's highest civilian honour has been bestowed upon Dr. Henry Morgentaler, thereby granting him official recognition for his contributions to health care and humanitarian work in Canada.
Uh huh. So what exactly are those contributions?
Dr. (I use this term loosely) Morgentaler made abortion 'legal' through a challenge to the Supreme Court. The Court struck down the law against abortion in 1988. Twenty years later, Canada still has no law against abortion at any time during gestation, but we do have an international reputation for having the most liberal abortion policies in the developed world. Apparently, this is something to be celebrated.
He made abortion available. His great healthcare legacy is a chain of private abortion clinics where doctors can make great wads of cash outside of the medical/ethical oversight of hospital committees and other doctors.
Finally, he is credited with making abortion safe. He said this week that his efforts made abortion "one of the safest surgical procedures" and women are no longer killed, injured or left infertile.
Too many have bought into these claims that Morgentaler is somehow the medical saviour of Canadian women. They likely support the view of one pro-abortion advocate who said, "Like him or not, the man brought safety to women in Canada and we should finally give him credit."
It is an inarguable fact that Dr. Morgentaler made abortion 'legal' (if only because there are no laws) and more readily available. But a growing number of medical studies suggest abortion is hardly the "safe surgical procedure' that Dr. Morgentaler proclaims it to be.
He may have made abortions 'safer' by cutting the so-called back-alley butcher out of the abortion market, but since then 'safe' abortions have put women at an increased risk for hospitalization, breast cancer and psychological events like suicide.
Abortion has been repeatedly documented as a major risk factor for pregnancies resulting in low birth weight and premature birth. In 2001, the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology showed that having one abortion increases a woman's risk of premature delivery by 30 per cent; two abortions by 90 per cent.
In 2003, a study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons evaluated 49 studies that showed a significant increase in the risk of premature births or low birth weight babies in women who had abortions.
Is small size really such a big problem? It is for the baby. Premature birth is a leading cause of cerebral palsy and small babies are at increased risk for infant mortality, disabilities, lower cognitive abilities and greater behavioural problems. The risk of these complications is increased further if the mother has had repeat abortions.
In 1996, a paper in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health provided the first real evidence of a connection between abortion and breast cancer. Pooled data from 28 different studies demonstrated that women who had abortions had increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 30 per cent.
Subsequent studies supposedly disproved this association, but a 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons paper showed these studies had methodologies that were sufficiently flawed "to invalidate their findings." And, in 2007, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons reported that induced abortion was the risk factor that best predicted the incidence of breast cancer in European women.
The risk of psychological harm as a result of abortion has also been well documented.
When compared to women who gave birth, women who had abortions were shown to be six times more likely to commit suicide (British Medical Journal, 1996), five times more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol (American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2000) and 63 per cent more likely to need mental care within 90 days of the abortion (American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2002).
Finally, a 2001 study by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario showed that in the first three months after abortion, women have a higher rate of hospitalization for infection (four times greater), other surgical procedures (five times greater) and psychiatric problems (five times greater).
All of the above suggests that Dr. Morgentaler's contribution to the health and safety of Canadian women is questionable, at best.
In fact, the data suggest he could just as easily be cited for putting women at increased risk for major health problems.
If his achievements are suspect, so is his skill as a doctor. In 1976, he was charged by the Quebec College of Physicians for not taking a patient history, blood or urine tests prior to an abortion procedure.
In 1998, he was found guilty of negligence by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for allowing a woman to leave the clinic -- unattended -- within 30 minutes of undergoing an abortion.
She complained of pain and shakiness, yet he allowed her to get into her car and drive. She subsequently fainted and swerved into oncoming traffic.
Based on the facts (and not ideology), there is no good reason for Canadians to recognize -- let alone celebrate -- this man's so-called achievements.
Susan Martinuk is a former medical researcher who conducted PhD studies in the field of infertility and reproductive technologies.
© The Calgary Herald 2008
****
Morgentaler is no hero -- women who don't abort are
Naomi Lakritz
Calgary Herald
Friday, July 04, 2008
When I think of a hero, Dr. Henry Morgentaler does not spring to mind. "Hero" is the wrong appellation to stick on him.
Terry Fox, hop-skipping his way down the Trans-Canada Highway, in that long-ago summer of 1980, is a hero. Even the dog that barks to alert its sleeping owner to a fire is more of a hero than Morgentaler is. You see, heroes save and enhance lives -- they don't destroy them. Yet, this country's most distinguished award, the Order of Canada, has gone to a "hero" whose sole "achievement" is killing unborn Canadian citizens.
The pro-choice faction, having won its appalling campaign to politicize and devalue the Order of Canada, is declaring Morgentaler a hero to millions. Activist Judy Rebick said "most women" see this as a victory. But who elected her to speak for "most" women? I don't remember being given a ballot.
Now that the pro-choice forces have bullied and manipulated their way to this shameful day, Rebick has also proclaimed the abortion debate to be over. Hang on to your empty victory, Judy -- those opposed will continue to write and speak out against this evil. We can do no less.
The melodramatic mantle of heroism that the pro-choice side drapes about Morgentaler's shoulders is intolerably phoney. Heroes rescue people. Morgentaler, who has helped make it open season on the unborn, has rescued no one and condemned thousands.
He has not saved women whose lives would be jeopardized by giving birth, for modern medicine can successfully manage high-risk pregnancies. The Public Health Agency of Canada reports that the 1997-2000 maternal mortality rate for Canada was 6.1 deaths for every 100,000 live births. These women were pregnant by choice, but died from some emergency that arose at the end; they were not "forced" to have babies against their will because abortion was unavailable.
Morgentaler is not rescuing women from lives of dire poverty into which, according to the pro-choice faction, they will automatically descend unless their babies are killed. Fifty-three per cent of abortions in 2004 were performed on women in their 20s. This demographic tends to be employed. Teenage girls, who are most likely to end up in poverty due to pregnancy, accounted for less than 14 per cent of abortions, according to Statistics Canada.
Pro-choicers seem to think that giving up an unwanted baby for adoption also plunges women into poverty. Otherwise, why wouldn't they advocate instead for the income-neutral option of adoption? Why the insistence on death?
Here's the other tiresome canard they trot out -- that unwanted babies should be aborted because their lives will be hell with the mothers who didn't want them. Then, they demand to know why pro-lifers don't step up to the plate and adopt these children. Perhaps they should put aside the empty rhetoric and check the facts. According to parentlinkalberta.ca, there is a waiting list of Albertans who want to adopt an infant and "very few healthy infants are available." Demand has always outstripped supply.
Nor is Morgentaler rescuing the more than 100,000 women a year who have abortions in Canada, from giving birth to the child of a rape or incestuous relationship. American Family Physician says only five per cent of rapes result in pregnancies.
According to a report from the U.S.-based Guttmacher Institute, women going back for their second, third or higher abortion are twice as likely to be over 30. That means they're well-established in their jobs and adult lives, and they're aborting purely for convenience.
In 2004, 30 per cent of abortions in Canada were repeat ones. These women are callously using abortion as birth control.
It's no heroic gesture to offer abortions to the inconvenienced and the irresponsible, although it may certainly swell one's bank statement to heroic proportions -- Morgentaler's revenue has been estimated at $11 million annually.
No -- the real heroes will never get an Order of Canada. They're the unsung women who, finding themselves with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, take responsibility for their actions, and either alter their plans to include a baby in their lives or give the baby up for adoption. They're true heroes because they understand that there is a profound difference between life -- and mere lifestyle.
[email protected]
© The Calgary Herald 2008
-
Mehreen1221
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
I say abortion issue is not simple as yes or no. it could be very dynamic and complicated one depending on a lot of different factors that may be involved in each case individually. I personally am so called "pro choice". with certain moralities and common senses...
BTW this term from above Calgary whatever article sort of struck me..."unborn Canadian Citizens"...LOL...since when are they any citizens? , leave alone Canadian. and I started thinking what about "Dead Canadian Citizens" and "_____ Canadian Citizens" (fill in the blank as you wish)...it just boggles my mind.
watch this video and see what I mean...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU
BTW this term from above Calgary whatever article sort of struck me..."unborn Canadian Citizens"...LOL...since when are they any citizens? , leave alone Canadian. and I started thinking what about "Dead Canadian Citizens" and "_____ Canadian Citizens" (fill in the blank as you wish)...it just boggles my mind.
watch this video and see what I mean...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU
-
kjiwani786
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:34 pm
I watched the link you provided that lead to a "comedy" skit by a man named George Carlin. I have never seen anything that shocking and disgusting on the internet EVER. How you've managed to base your opinions on a man who insults the history of Islam in that same video. And he has a related video called "Religion is ********" I have studied biology when I went to university so I can share some facts that you fail to be aware of. The soul enters the fetus the moment the egg is fertillized. And, to rebuttle Mr. Carlin's grotesque description of what happens to women, the woman does not do it by her own free will. First degree murder is defined as the the pre-medidated execution of a human. Also, that fetus, while may be small and under-developed carries the DNA genes of a human. The term "Abortion" comes from abort, which is to cancel. Something only needs to be cancelled if someone did something wrong, which is the case of abortion is having sex before marriage (pardon my language). I hope that fixes your view of abortion and the evils that drive it. And I ask that you apologize for posting a link to that filth on an Ismaili forum!
-Karim
-Karim
-
Mehreen1221
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Of course, I did not base my opinion on merely this video and I know what abort or abortion means.
Well, soul is not the biological term. May be "life" is. Though human fetus may contain human’s genetical elements, biologically and intellectually, it is not a full human being and at any stage it is never called a "human being" by anyone either Pro life and/or Pro choice side...it's called just the "fetus". Abortion, with certain terms and conditions, is pretty much protected by law in the whole western hemisphere and beyond and not considered any degree of murder of anyone. There are always unwanted pregnancies by errors and means other than promiscuous sex where health and social life of women are at stake and hundreds of millions of women in the world are benefited by abortion and cherish this Freedom of Choice.
It may not be your taste but filth is a subjective term and you ain't the judge here either.
Well, soul is not the biological term. May be "life" is. Though human fetus may contain human’s genetical elements, biologically and intellectually, it is not a full human being and at any stage it is never called a "human being" by anyone either Pro life and/or Pro choice side...it's called just the "fetus". Abortion, with certain terms and conditions, is pretty much protected by law in the whole western hemisphere and beyond and not considered any degree of murder of anyone. There are always unwanted pregnancies by errors and means other than promiscuous sex where health and social life of women are at stake and hundreds of millions of women in the world are benefited by abortion and cherish this Freedom of Choice.
It may not be your taste but filth is a subjective term and you ain't the judge here either.
-
kjiwani786
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:34 pm
By that logic then, you would concede that abortion is wrong if it were illegal worldwide. Assuming abortions were legal worldwide in all the countries, it doesn't change that a human life is taken. Drinking and gambling is legal in the western world, but as an Ismaili we know that it is wrong. Deciding whether the end of one life is not a human decision, but Allah's. Shakespeare said "A rose by any other name still smells as sweet." Calling it a fetus doesn't take away its humanity. the difference between an adult and a baby is just as significant as the difference between a fetus and a baby. If I call a person an animal, does that give me the right to choose whether it lives or dies.
Posting material that contains crude language on an Ismaili website is not appropriate as this website has visitor's of all ages and cultures and that should be respected. We are always in the presence of Allah and our behavior should reflect that.
-Karim
Posting material that contains crude language on an Ismaili website is not appropriate as this website has visitor's of all ages and cultures and that should be respected. We are always in the presence of Allah and our behavior should reflect that.
-Karim
-
Mehreen1221
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
I, and I think, billions of other won't concede that abortion is wrong (again, with certain terms and conditions) even if it was not legal by the law of the country/state. Actually that was the case one way or the other to certain extent throughout the contemporary history in most of the world and it still is in certain areas but then things started getting evolved and just like anti-slavery, civil and women's rights movements and several other human intellectual and social developments in recent years, the right of abortion came to existence and became the law in most of the places. It is a right protected by the law and that was obtained by quite a struggle. (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 - 1973)
I think there are many variables involved in abortions rights, morals and laws that depend on the areas and situations involved. I don't know all that in details but I just think that, again with certain terms and conditions, a woman has the right to choose to have a baby or not.
At least, the very early stages of human fetus are not considered a Human Being, as it has not developed any senses biologically, psychologically and intellectually.
Of course the right to end a human being's life is only with God, but what about life in general such as other animals' lives, for example, chickens and other farm animals we eat and insects we kill to keep clean and so forth without any restrictions. And I think Shakespeare’s rose and it's smell is out of context here...my Dog will still be a Dog even if call him Cat...what does that have to do with abortion?
I think the whole argument is boiled down to the point of what do we consider a human being to and what we don't consider a human being to? Everything else is just the metaphors and examples built upon that.
I think there are many variables involved in abortions rights, morals and laws that depend on the areas and situations involved. I don't know all that in details but I just think that, again with certain terms and conditions, a woman has the right to choose to have a baby or not.
At least, the very early stages of human fetus are not considered a Human Being, as it has not developed any senses biologically, psychologically and intellectually.
Of course the right to end a human being's life is only with God, but what about life in general such as other animals' lives, for example, chickens and other farm animals we eat and insects we kill to keep clean and so forth without any restrictions. And I think Shakespeare’s rose and it's smell is out of context here...my Dog will still be a Dog even if call him Cat...what does that have to do with abortion?
I think the whole argument is boiled down to the point of what do we consider a human being to and what we don't consider a human being to? Everything else is just the metaphors and examples built upon that.
-
kjiwani786
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:34 pm
A fetus is a stage in a life, like childhood and adulthood. The fetus is the first stage where a human exists. The genetic code from the father and mother merge and the fetus grows. The fact that we don't see the process makes people quick to dismiss their right. However, you produce a human that does not go through the fetal stage and I will admit that I am wrong. This is impossible though. Even a test tube baby goes through a fetal stage. We have the means to artificially create, and the fetal stage is a part of being a human just as the infant years, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age.
-Karim
-Karim
-
Mehreen1221
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Of course human fetus is a life if it is alive…but, I think, biologically, legally and socially (worldwide) it is not accepted as a human being and so it is not given the same rights as a human being outside the womb…and I don’t think if it is even technically possible…’cause fetus is not a human being with intellect and all the senses and so forth…and that is the whole argument. As for as Life itself, probably Mr. Carling’s argument is not so wrong. I think I’m more inclined on abortion with a scientific and social attitude than organized religious' like you might be with...so we probably won’t be able to justify it one way or the other…though, I don't totally disagree with all your ideas...but favors the other side more for the humanistic and social reasons...
-
kingnothing
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:26 pm
A fetus is a potential and not a human and most of pregnancies end up in spontaneous abortions anyways. Matters in life are not black and white, circumstances should always be taken into consideration. ie: Ectopic pregnancies must be terminated and the earlier the better. Also, do you think it's fair to force a women to care for a child that is a result of incest or rape?
Or just to put it simply? which is better? ending a 100 cells blastocyst with no brain, no nervous system.... or having a child live in a family that never wanted him.
Whether you think abortion is right or wrong is not the issue here. However, forcing your own beliefs and opinions on others definitely is. If you are married and and you decide to keep every pregnancy and not use birth control methods, then good for you. But don't come make your own beliefs as laws.
Or just to put it simply? which is better? ending a 100 cells blastocyst with no brain, no nervous system.... or having a child live in a family that never wanted him.
Whether you think abortion is right or wrong is not the issue here. However, forcing your own beliefs and opinions on others definitely is. If you are married and and you decide to keep every pregnancy and not use birth control methods, then good for you. But don't come make your own beliefs as laws.
-
kjiwani786
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:34 pm
Kingnothing, I find it very strange you claim I'm forcing my beliefs on others. But laws are rules based on beliefs of what is right and wrong. If people followed your advice, there'd be no laws and people can rob and shoot eachother. Maybe that's what you want, I don't know, maybe you want the world to fall into nothingness. Also, the choice you gave me is ubsurd. Perhaps, you have fallen into the darkness of western delights where sex becomes a tool for pleasure rather than its ACTUAL PURPOSE. The fact of the matter is that if parents don't want to raise a child they shouldn't go through the process of baby-making!
As for you Qifar, how DARE YOU QUESTION MY PARENTAL SKILLS! I am a loving father who wants the best for my child and my views on discipline in no way contradicts the view of Islam that all life is sacred. You should be ashamed of yourselves!
As for you Qifar, how DARE YOU QUESTION MY PARENTAL SKILLS! I am a loving father who wants the best for my child and my views on discipline in no way contradicts the view of Islam that all life is sacred. You should be ashamed of yourselves!
AsadALLAH wrote:
Sometimes i wish i was born in my grandfathers time. Wives respected their husbands and so did the kids. Today, there is no respect between the husband the wife, kids to their parents, no respect for mother in laws and father in laws and no respect for our elders.
I blame the government for all this. Government in north America has given too much freedom to women and the kids here. You touch a kid, police will be at your door. You touch or even tell your wife something and she calls the police on you and reports that you're giving her mental abuse. Life was not like this in east africa, i don't think life is like that now.
Some people that come from east africa, show alot of respect to their elders.
***
I totally completely agree with you! The other day, my son told me to "chill out" because he didn't "want to go to khane." Let me say, my temperature was NOT above 98.6 and so I didn't need to be "chilled out." My son keeps trying to use the 'rights" and "freedoms" as a means to destroy his soul. The government is to blame! Canada's communism view is forcing our children to join the atheism society, abandoning all ethics with drugs. I can't believe Canada has a political party named after drugs. I prefer the Canadian flag to have a maple leaf, not a reefer leaf! AND HOW IS ABORTION LEGAL!!! We are losing our human dignity! I pray that the Aga Khan Museum will show Canada into the future, by living life as if it were the past.
-Karim
How else would you expect one to interpret this Karim? Why aren't you concerned about fetuses (a.k.a. unborn Canadians) using their 'rights' and 'freedoms' to destroy their souls?
Also, out of curiosity, have you read Steve Levitt's theory of the crime drop in the early 90's all across North America? If not I suggest you look it up.
And I apologize if my comment offended you, I was just attempting to point out an inconsistency, I did not mean to insult you.
Sometimes i wish i was born in my grandfathers time. Wives respected their husbands and so did the kids. Today, there is no respect between the husband the wife, kids to their parents, no respect for mother in laws and father in laws and no respect for our elders.
I blame the government for all this. Government in north America has given too much freedom to women and the kids here. You touch a kid, police will be at your door. You touch or even tell your wife something and she calls the police on you and reports that you're giving her mental abuse. Life was not like this in east africa, i don't think life is like that now.
Some people that come from east africa, show alot of respect to their elders.
***
I totally completely agree with you! The other day, my son told me to "chill out" because he didn't "want to go to khane." Let me say, my temperature was NOT above 98.6 and so I didn't need to be "chilled out." My son keeps trying to use the 'rights" and "freedoms" as a means to destroy his soul. The government is to blame! Canada's communism view is forcing our children to join the atheism society, abandoning all ethics with drugs. I can't believe Canada has a political party named after drugs. I prefer the Canadian flag to have a maple leaf, not a reefer leaf! AND HOW IS ABORTION LEGAL!!! We are losing our human dignity! I pray that the Aga Khan Museum will show Canada into the future, by living life as if it were the past.
-Karim
How else would you expect one to interpret this Karim? Why aren't you concerned about fetuses (a.k.a. unborn Canadians) using their 'rights' and 'freedoms' to destroy their souls?
Also, out of curiosity, have you read Steve Levitt's theory of the crime drop in the early 90's all across North America? If not I suggest you look it up.
And I apologize if my comment offended you, I was just attempting to point out an inconsistency, I did not mean to insult you.
-
kjiwani786
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:34 pm
I applaud your humility to admit you're wrong. I see you as a spiritual brother and have nothing but the utmost respect for you. But you fail to realize the difference between the right of life and 'freedoms' that keep parents from raising their kids properly. But the fact of the matter is you can't raise children without physical discipline and expect him to uphold ethics and have any sense of human dignity.
-Karim
-Karim
I apologized for your misinterpretation of my comments, not my comments themselves. I do respect you not just as a spiritual brother, but also a human being. I believe you have the right to live you life as you see fit as long as it is within the laws of your society. In Canada corporal punishment has been outlawed. If you are unable to discipline your children without resorting to physical punishment you may wish to consider a parenting course. The field of parental education has, for the most part, been teaching alternatives to physical punishment from the mid-80's. The fact that you children are demanding their rights and freedoms from you indicates that they are intelligent thinking beings, perhaps not fully developed cognitively yet, but certainly getting there. It is up to you to instill a tradition of intellect in you family by challenging their assertions with reasonable argument; and not a tradition of violence by resorting to corporal punishment.
In addition to respecting your rights, I respect the rights of women. WOMEN MUST HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. That includes their right to sexual and reproductive freedom. The entire field of demography agrees that allowing women unhindered control of their sexual and reproductive fates will effectively solve population problems as well as reduce STD incidence rates. Women must be granted dominion over their bodies; which includes fetuses. I have sufficient faith in the honour and dignity of my spiritual sisters to exercise this right with the utmost tact and responsibility. Don't you? Who can appreciate the vitality and sanctity of a fetus than the person in whose own body it was conceived and is growing. I do advocate abortion in any case; however, I do believe that every women deserve access to the full medical arsenal to ensure their own health, well-being and happiness. Abortion and contraception is as old as human sexual behaviour (the original midwifes, the oldest profession in the world, were also carriers of knowledge of natural contraceptives), and they will continue regardless of the laws of the land because reproductive freedom in a fundamental right and critical for the effective propagation of society.
In addition to respecting your rights, I respect the rights of women. WOMEN MUST HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. That includes their right to sexual and reproductive freedom. The entire field of demography agrees that allowing women unhindered control of their sexual and reproductive fates will effectively solve population problems as well as reduce STD incidence rates. Women must be granted dominion over their bodies; which includes fetuses. I have sufficient faith in the honour and dignity of my spiritual sisters to exercise this right with the utmost tact and responsibility. Don't you? Who can appreciate the vitality and sanctity of a fetus than the person in whose own body it was conceived and is growing. I do advocate abortion in any case; however, I do believe that every women deserve access to the full medical arsenal to ensure their own health, well-being and happiness. Abortion and contraception is as old as human sexual behaviour (the original midwifes, the oldest profession in the world, were also carriers of knowledge of natural contraceptives), and they will continue regardless of the laws of the land because reproductive freedom in a fundamental right and critical for the effective propagation of society.
-
kingnothing
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:26 pm
Darkness of western delights? If the west is so dark for you, I don't think anyone would stop you if you wanted to live in a more "enlightened" part of the world!kjiwani786 wrote:Kingnothing, I find it very strange you claim I'm forcing my beliefs on others. But laws are rules based on beliefs of what is right and wrong. If people followed your advice, there'd be no laws and people can rob and shoot eachother. Maybe that's what you want, I don't know, maybe you want the world to fall into nothingness. Also, the choice you gave me is ubsurd. Perhaps, you have fallen into the darkness of western delights where sex becomes a tool for pleasure rather than its ACTUAL PURPOSE. The fact of the matter is that if parents don't want to raise a child they shouldn't go through the process of baby-making!
As for you Qifar, how DARE YOU QUESTION MY PARENTAL SKILLS! I am a loving father who wants the best for my child and my views on discipline in no way contradicts the view of Islam that all life is sacred. You should be ashamed of yourselves!
So now for you, every person who is pro choice, want people to shoot each other? Please just try to maintain the least of objectivity!
If the only actual purpose of sex is having children, can I assume that the number of times you have had sex with your wife is equal to the number of children you have? If your answer is no, why did you do it?
-
haroon_adel
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:55 am
- Location: USA
Just an observation:kingnothing wrote: If the only actual purpose of sex is having children, can I assume that the number of times you have had sex with your wife is equal to the number of children you have? If your answer is no, why did you do it?
One should consider himself VERY LUCKY if by having sex each time makes one baby...LOL.
Couple of reasons: A woman ovulates once a month only, so she has arround 20% chance to get pregnant for a month, if sex is made at the right time. So, evenif you are having sex for the entire month, out of all thoes times--if you are lucky--you can have your wife pregnant.
Besides, baby is gift of God. There are lots of people out there trying to conceive but they can't because they are not capable of reproducing. They undergo many different tests and medications hoping, wishing to have this previledge.
However, I agree that sex should not be considered only a tool, method or whatever you call it, for making babies. Sex is great and has lots of benifits (Provided that it is done with the right person, needless to say).
My 2 cents.
Do not Abort. If you have a weak stomach then don't open the link.
This is what abortion is and does.
http://amightywind.com/abortionf/abortion04.jpg
This is what abortion is and does.
http://amightywind.com/abortionf/abortion04.jpg
The Wise Doctor
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:
'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.'
So the doctor said: 'Ok, and what do you want me to do?'
She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.'
She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.
The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!
'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution. The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.
He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:
'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.'
So the doctor said: 'Ok, and what do you want me to do?'
She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.'
She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.
The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!
'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution. The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.
He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!
-
Mehreen1221
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Not necessarily flawed considering that Hazar Imam has said that the mother is responsible of her child from the moment of CONCEPTION.Mehreen1221 wrote:you know, the thing in the woman's womb could be just a fetus in its very early stage. so that is not a "baby" and definitely not as much a baby as one in her arms..........it's a flawed story.
-
Mehreen1221
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
well, can you please provide what exactly He said and when and where.
let us say that He has said that, as you described, the mother is responsible of her child from the moment of CONCEPTION.
it can be interpreted as that once the conception occured and mother wants to keep that pregnancy and wants to have a baby, then she becomes responsible for all the betterment of that fetus til the baby is born or upto a certain stage of the development of the unborn...for example, not to smoke and drink alcohol or not to inflict any other physical/psychological damages...etc, to the fetus/unborn directly or indirectly and even after that as well.
but if she decides to terminate the pregnancy right at the very begining of the conception when there is no "baby" yet...but just some living organism with Human genetic codes but without all the human senses and attributes and what if that conception occured due to the any kind of error or foul play and can cause even more harm to the baby or mom after the birth and all that...I mean, I might be wrong in my interpretation, but I really am not convinced on your interpretation of what He said as you described.
let us say that He has said that, as you described, the mother is responsible of her child from the moment of CONCEPTION.
it can be interpreted as that once the conception occured and mother wants to keep that pregnancy and wants to have a baby, then she becomes responsible for all the betterment of that fetus til the baby is born or upto a certain stage of the development of the unborn...for example, not to smoke and drink alcohol or not to inflict any other physical/psychological damages...etc, to the fetus/unborn directly or indirectly and even after that as well.
but if she decides to terminate the pregnancy right at the very begining of the conception when there is no "baby" yet...but just some living organism with Human genetic codes but without all the human senses and attributes and what if that conception occured due to the any kind of error or foul play and can cause even more harm to the baby or mom after the birth and all that...I mean, I might be wrong in my interpretation, but I really am not convinced on your interpretation of what He said as you described.
Mehreen is right about that comparison to a fetus and a baby in the mother's arms. As a society we don't even consider life beginning until birth. We count our life as starting after birth... otherwise we'd base our age from conception not birth. When the fetus is created it's essentially a parasite living off the host (mother). You don't see a problem with removing a tape worm do you? I personally don't like the idea of recreational abortion, there are times when it should be allowed because it does not seem fair for a child to be brought up in an unfit environment and look at all the orphans that need parents, this black and white view of abortion leads to nothing but misery for the individual and society. A woman should have the choice, abortion does not need to be the first choice in a decision making process but it shouldn't be ruled out.
Induced Abortion: Investigators at Aga Khan University target induced abortion
February 19, 2009
Posted by ismailimail in Aga Khan University, Asia, Health, Pakistan.
trackback
19 February 2009 - Women’s Health Weekly
2009 FEB 19 - (NewsRx.com) — “Objectives Perception and attitude regarding prenatal screening and induced abortion vary across different populations. This study assesses the attitudes and perceptions regarding prenatal screening and induced abortion among, Pakistani adults,” scientists in Karachi, Pakistan report.
” We Conducted a cross-sectional study among adults (18+) coming to the Aga Khan University Hospital, a private tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Majority (65%) of the study population had knowledge about prenatal screening and it was acceptable to most (85.5%) of them. Significant proportion had high acceptance for induced abortion (23%) of a fetus that has serious congenital anomalies. On the other hand, 15% were Unwilling to consider termination of pregnancy (TOP) in any Circumstances. Women had more favorable attitude toward induced abortion. Most of respondents (63%) were in favor of abortion if fatal death was imminent as a result of a congenital abnormality. Majority wanted mutual Consultation of husband and wife for making decision regarding induced abortion (84%). There was a considerable discord in opinion about abortion in the study population,” wrote M.O. Arif and colleagues, Aga Khan University.
The researchers concluded: “Health care providers should involve both parents in making decisions about abortions and counsel them adequately about congenital disorders.”
Arif and colleagues published their study in Prenatal Diagnosis (Attitudes and perceptions about prenatal diagnosis and induced abortion among adults of Pakistani population. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2008;28(12):1149-1155).
For additional information, contact M.O. Arif, Aga Khan University, Male Hostel, Stadium Rd., Karachi 74800, Pakistan.
The publisher’s contact information for the journal Prenatal Diagnosis is: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., the Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester PO19 8SQ, W Sussex, England.
http://ismailimail.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -abortion/
February 19, 2009
Posted by ismailimail in Aga Khan University, Asia, Health, Pakistan.
trackback
19 February 2009 - Women’s Health Weekly
2009 FEB 19 - (NewsRx.com) — “Objectives Perception and attitude regarding prenatal screening and induced abortion vary across different populations. This study assesses the attitudes and perceptions regarding prenatal screening and induced abortion among, Pakistani adults,” scientists in Karachi, Pakistan report.
” We Conducted a cross-sectional study among adults (18+) coming to the Aga Khan University Hospital, a private tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Majority (65%) of the study population had knowledge about prenatal screening and it was acceptable to most (85.5%) of them. Significant proportion had high acceptance for induced abortion (23%) of a fetus that has serious congenital anomalies. On the other hand, 15% were Unwilling to consider termination of pregnancy (TOP) in any Circumstances. Women had more favorable attitude toward induced abortion. Most of respondents (63%) were in favor of abortion if fatal death was imminent as a result of a congenital abnormality. Majority wanted mutual Consultation of husband and wife for making decision regarding induced abortion (84%). There was a considerable discord in opinion about abortion in the study population,” wrote M.O. Arif and colleagues, Aga Khan University.
The researchers concluded: “Health care providers should involve both parents in making decisions about abortions and counsel them adequately about congenital disorders.”
Arif and colleagues published their study in Prenatal Diagnosis (Attitudes and perceptions about prenatal diagnosis and induced abortion among adults of Pakistani population. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2008;28(12):1149-1155).
For additional information, contact M.O. Arif, Aga Khan University, Male Hostel, Stadium Rd., Karachi 74800, Pakistan.
The publisher’s contact information for the journal Prenatal Diagnosis is: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., the Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester PO19 8SQ, W Sussex, England.
http://ismailimail.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -abortion/
Pro-choicers deny doctors right to choose life
By Susan Martinuk, Calgary HeraldMarch 13, 2009
Abortion on demand may soon take on a whole new meaning in Alberta.
The Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons has rewritten its guidelines covering the standard of care that doctors must provide. Most of the changes are unremarkable, but some doctors and members of the general public are balking at proposed changes that essentially ask physicians to set aside their moral beliefs, conscience objections and medical opinions to ensure women have unfettered access to abortion.
The proposed changes are being debated this week and, if accepted as drafted, doctors who oppose abortion (for whatever reason) will no longer have the option of refusing to assist a woman requesting abortion. The college claims doctors won't have to refer her directly to abortion providers, but they will have to ensure she has "access to information and assistance in making an informed decision and access to available medical options."
At best, this demonstrates that the college has no understanding of moral conviction. If you have a friend whom you know wants to kill someone, it doesn't matter if you give him the gun or tell him the gun's in the front closet. Morally, you are equally culpable because you helped bring about the end result. Similarly, if you believe a child is about to be killed, it doesn't matter if you refer her to a middle man or directly to an abortionist. Moral conviction says doctors who facilitate the abortion are culpable.
At worst, this demonstrates that the college has no qualms about squelching the moral convictions of others. The irony is that the college has acted according to its own moral framework (believing that abortion is a right) in telling its doctors that they cannot act according to their moral framework. Ultimately, it means having a moral framework for making medical decisions isn't wrong--but having a particular moral framework (where abortion isn't a right) is.
Any time policy obligates health professionals to set aside their conscientious beliefs (no matter what side of the issue they support), our society becomes less free. As citizens, we should all be concerned when freedoms that are enshrined in the Constitution (e. g. freedom of conscience and religion) are blithely swept away.
As patients, we should be equally concerned that the body regulating medical practices in Alberta is willing to force its doctors to make medical decisions based on policy instead of their own medical assessment of the situation. (Think of how we would react to this idea if the medical procedure was anything but abortion.)
Some doctors rightly reject abortion as a necessary medical procedure because they are concerned about its medical and psychological impact. Decades of research on a woman's mental and physical health after an abortion reveals a whole new set of realities that have the capacity to bring harm to the patient. Consequently, it shouldn't be wrong to give these concerns greater consideration than her potential inconvenience or even her 'right' to choose.
Research has documented an increase in the rate of suicide, a five-times increase in hospitalization for psychiatric problems within three months of an abortion, an increased risk of premature births, reduced fertility, a 30 per cent increase in the risk of breast cancer, and a four-and fivefold increase in hospital and surgical admissions, respectively, after abortion.
Doctors who believe that the fetus is also a patient in their care knows that advances in understanding brain development and neo-natal science have shown that the unborn respond to pain by 16 weeks and perhaps as early as 11 or 13 weeks of gestation. Such doctors would obviously be reluctant to refer their tiny patients for a procedure that would cause them indescribable pain and would rightly reject any policy that requires them to shut their eyes to such realities and write a referral that facilitates abortion.
We have given abortion a unique and sacrosanct place in our society; we can't question it and we have implicitly decided to ignore all medical and psychological concerns in the name of a woman's right to choose.
This has now led us to doctors being forced to subjugate what is best for women's health to women's rights. It's abortion on demand-- but is it really what we want?
Susan Martinuk's column appears every Friday
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
By Susan Martinuk, Calgary HeraldMarch 13, 2009
Abortion on demand may soon take on a whole new meaning in Alberta.
The Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons has rewritten its guidelines covering the standard of care that doctors must provide. Most of the changes are unremarkable, but some doctors and members of the general public are balking at proposed changes that essentially ask physicians to set aside their moral beliefs, conscience objections and medical opinions to ensure women have unfettered access to abortion.
The proposed changes are being debated this week and, if accepted as drafted, doctors who oppose abortion (for whatever reason) will no longer have the option of refusing to assist a woman requesting abortion. The college claims doctors won't have to refer her directly to abortion providers, but they will have to ensure she has "access to information and assistance in making an informed decision and access to available medical options."
At best, this demonstrates that the college has no understanding of moral conviction. If you have a friend whom you know wants to kill someone, it doesn't matter if you give him the gun or tell him the gun's in the front closet. Morally, you are equally culpable because you helped bring about the end result. Similarly, if you believe a child is about to be killed, it doesn't matter if you refer her to a middle man or directly to an abortionist. Moral conviction says doctors who facilitate the abortion are culpable.
At worst, this demonstrates that the college has no qualms about squelching the moral convictions of others. The irony is that the college has acted according to its own moral framework (believing that abortion is a right) in telling its doctors that they cannot act according to their moral framework. Ultimately, it means having a moral framework for making medical decisions isn't wrong--but having a particular moral framework (where abortion isn't a right) is.
Any time policy obligates health professionals to set aside their conscientious beliefs (no matter what side of the issue they support), our society becomes less free. As citizens, we should all be concerned when freedoms that are enshrined in the Constitution (e. g. freedom of conscience and religion) are blithely swept away.
As patients, we should be equally concerned that the body regulating medical practices in Alberta is willing to force its doctors to make medical decisions based on policy instead of their own medical assessment of the situation. (Think of how we would react to this idea if the medical procedure was anything but abortion.)
Some doctors rightly reject abortion as a necessary medical procedure because they are concerned about its medical and psychological impact. Decades of research on a woman's mental and physical health after an abortion reveals a whole new set of realities that have the capacity to bring harm to the patient. Consequently, it shouldn't be wrong to give these concerns greater consideration than her potential inconvenience or even her 'right' to choose.
Research has documented an increase in the rate of suicide, a five-times increase in hospitalization for psychiatric problems within three months of an abortion, an increased risk of premature births, reduced fertility, a 30 per cent increase in the risk of breast cancer, and a four-and fivefold increase in hospital and surgical admissions, respectively, after abortion.
Doctors who believe that the fetus is also a patient in their care knows that advances in understanding brain development and neo-natal science have shown that the unborn respond to pain by 16 weeks and perhaps as early as 11 or 13 weeks of gestation. Such doctors would obviously be reluctant to refer their tiny patients for a procedure that would cause them indescribable pain and would rightly reject any policy that requires them to shut their eyes to such realities and write a referral that facilitates abortion.
We have given abortion a unique and sacrosanct place in our society; we can't question it and we have implicitly decided to ignore all medical and psychological concerns in the name of a woman's right to choose.
This has now led us to doctors being forced to subjugate what is best for women's health to women's rights. It's abortion on demand-- but is it really what we want?
Susan Martinuk's column appears every Friday
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
-
Mehreen1221
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
KMaherali, Why do you paste stuff only from caglary hairold?...To me, honestly, it mostly sounds judgmental and subjective commentary on people's personal belief and morality, instead of with universally accepted scientific and factual values...most Europeans usually either laugh at that kinda stuff or get upset if they take it seriously...