A most flawed process indeed

[Lateralthinking1]

This issue of contraception has now been introduced. I am concerned that it has been phrased in a way that seeks to narrow the distinction between sensible precaution and abortion. That in fact is precisely my concern about modern attitudes towards the latter. I don't think it is at all acceptable to view it as precautionary. One is about the prevention of unwanted consequences. The other is about dealing with consequences after the event and requiring others to be of assistance. In many instances, though not all, that to me is the difference between the emotional outlook and behaviour of an adult and a child.

The parallel with the main subject of this thread is that one either thinks ahead about taking responsibility for life matters or expects to ignore them until something happens and then wants the parental state to have processes in place for dealing with them.

The other distinction is in the area of physical assault. I am less inclined than Catholics to think in terms of the rights of the unborn child, although I don't like at all what industrial scale abortion says about society's attitudes towards what is easily disposable. I am more inclined to think of abortion as an inflicted and self-inflicted assault on the bodies of women. That is why I tend to feel that it is something that should be discouraged, if still permitted in genuine cases where there is really no alternative.

[John Skelton]

Industrial scale is about right IMO, since it amounts to an industry.

It's "right' if it's also correct to speak of industrial scale heart surgery, industrial scale oncology, industrial scale orthopaedics, etc. All of those amount to an industry if you choose to view them in that way.

[John Skelton]

This issue of contraception has now been introduced. I am concerned that it has been phrased in a way that seeks to narrow the distinction between sensible precaution and abortion. That in fact is precisely my concern about modern attitudes towards the latter. I don't think it is at all acceptable to view it as precautionary. One is about the prevention of unwanted consequences. The other is about dealing with consequences after the event and requiring others to be of assistance. In many instances, though not all, that to me is the difference between the emotional outlook and behaviour of an adult and a child.

The parallel with the main subject of this thread is that one either thinks ahead about taking responsibility for terminating life or expects to ignore it until something happens and then wants the parental state to have processes in place for dealing with it.

The other distinction is in the area of physical assault. I am less inclined than Catholics to think in terms of the rights of the unborn child, although I don't like at all what industrial scale abortion says about society's attitudes towards what is easily disposable. I am more inclined to think of abortion as an inflicted and self-inflicted assault on the bodies of women. That is why I tend to feel that it is something that should be discouraged if still permitted in genuine cases where there is really no alternative.

I "introduced" the "issue of contraception" (issue is rather an unfortunate word in context!) because of scottycelt's 'slippery slope' argument. I'd be interested to know if in his view contraception and its legal / social acceptance is on that slope. It's relevant, because when you start talking about vulnerability etc. it's rather important to know at what stage that vulnerability begins.

"Industrial scale abortion" is a slogan, not a description (unless you choose to describe any medical procedure that isn't uncommon as "industrial scale"). Unless you are a woman I don't think it's up to you to determine what is a "self-inflicted assault" on a woman's body. That doesn't mean only women can or should have views on abortion; it does mean recognising that there are limits to your jurisdiction, as it were.

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, I described it as "an inflicted and self-inflicted assault". I was not saying that it was purely about some women's attitudes towards themselves. The other side of the argument that it is a woman's right to choose is that it conveniently lets men off the hook. Plus ca change. A lot of women find themselves less certain in regard to the kindly assurances about the routine nature of abortion after the event. To create a climate in which it is depicted as power for women leads many up the garden path.

I think of the 1960s revolution in very positive terms. It should have been a wonderful release from the dark ages but it has quickly evolved into just an alternative backwardness and slavery. Many have been misled and I see that as a consequence of the money people make from it. Whenever I hear a woman saying that she has the right to be more like men, I tend to sigh a lot. Fair enough but what I always hear in it is a stereotype of men. I know exactly what she means about how she intends to be. Not only does it say nothing about me and many people I know. The men being described as a totality are generally the ones I regard as apes.

[aeolium]

I said that I don't think WE , that is US , HERE IN THE UK, are able to do this

But some of us ARE able to do it, by going to a Swiss clinic. Rather than talk about hypotheticals, such as whether a new law here would be able to establish adequate safeguards (since we have effecively reached a deadlock in that, you believing it is not possible, and I believing that it is), what about discussing the present situation?

People now are committing (and have been committing) an offence against the Suicide Act 1961 by accompanying their spouses/partners/relatives/close friends to Switzerland and helping them to end their lives there. Since you believe the current law is right in making that illegal, do you believe those people should be prosecuted and sent to jail?

[MrGongGong]

People now are committing (and have been committing) an offence against the Suicide Act 1961 by accompanying their spouses/partners/relatives/close friends to Switzerland and helping them to end their lives there. Since you believe the current law is right in making that illegal, do you believe those people should be prosecuted and sent to jail?

YES (and this does include people I know personally)

what people find hard to understand is that

I don't have a huge moral objection to people committing suicide
but have no faith at all in the ability of OUR (not America, Holland, Switzerland or even the UK in 75 years time !!!) society to protect the vulnerable
and given the way that many disabled and sick people are treated this would be a very unwise step.


that really is the end of the conversation for me

I have music to write

[Lateralthinking1]

aeolium - Are they helping them to end their lives in Switzerland? What role do they have there? I thought that the centre undertook the process or are you referring to cases of dementia when a relative signs the paper? That is not being proposed here.

.....I have another point and it concerns the nature of illness itself. Most of us are inclined to see illness as an individual, almost isolated, phenomenon. It is about someone's age or genetics or lifestyle choices or basic misfortune. In truth, there can often be significant external contributors, not that they could be scientifically assessed.

Class background, levels of wealth, domestic arrangements, nature and length of employment, stresses that lead to lifestyle choices and even experience of the state itself - how it behaves towards the person, what it encourages and discourages - can all be influential in ill health.

With this in mind, doesn't this alter the relationship between an individual and a state that when requested will assist with suicide by promoting the idea of goodness in others when others are to some extent culpable, if not in the majority of cases maliciously? In other words, in such instances, is it not the final external body blow being presented, wrongly, as wholly benign?

[aeolium]

YES (and this does include people I know personally)

Then you have made your position quite clear (even though it does not coincide with that of the DPP ) and we are both I think very clear about where we stand on this matter. Good luck with your composition.

aeolium - Are they helping them to end their lives in Switzerland? What role do they have there? I thought that the centre undertook the process or are you referring to cases of dementia when a relative signs the paper?

Lat1, under the terms of the Suicide Act 1961 s 2(1) "A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or attempt by another to commit suicide shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years." In accompanying someone to Switzerland to end their lives, particularly where significant assistance is provided e.g. in transport for disabled people, a person may fall into the category of 'aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring' that suicide. This is why there have been police investigations - not leading to prosecution - of people in that category, though AFAIK there have been no prosecutions relating to the Dignitas service. It has also led to the DPP being required by the Supreme Court to clarify in what circumstances a prosecution would be undertaken, and that clarification has shown under what circumstances a prosecution would be unlikely.

[doversoul1]

A few years ago, a friend of mine was diagnosed as having a brain tumour. He was a very able and physically strong man. He kept going as long as he was able but was finally admitted into a hospice. He and his wife knew what would happen and had sought for a way of ending his life before the final stage set in but none was available (going to Switzerland was out of question). The day after he died, his wife told me in detail what had happened. It was absolutely horrendous. The seizures he had suffered for days before he died were so violent that on one occasion his teeth broke. She said repeatedly that she had no idea why modern medicine that could do wonders could not help him avoid such suffering.

In order to protect the vulnerable, those who are not vulnerable in their normal state have to suffer does not seem quite right to me.

This is absolutely not the question of which group should take priority. I see Mr GG’s point but I think there is another aspect in this issue besides the concerns for the vulnerable.

[teamsaint]

I "introduced" the "issue of contraception" (issue is rather an unfortunate word in context!) because of scottycelt's 'slippery slope' argument. I'd be interested to know if in his view contraception and its legal / social acceptance is on that slope. It's relevant, because when you start talking about vulnerability etc. it's rather important to know at what stage that vulnerability begins.

"Industrial scale abortion" is a slogan, not a description (unless you choose to describe any medical procedure that isn't uncommon as "industrial scale"). Unless you are a woman I don't think it's up to you to determine what is a "self-inflicted assault" on a woman's body. That doesn't mean only women can or should have views on abortion; it does mean recognising that there are limits to your jurisdiction, as it were.

Industrial scale abortion is not a slogan, its a term I thought fit to use.

Since you ask, I do think that much of the medical world is "industrial.". The drugs companies, the scale of things like cancer treatment are industrial in scale and , in my opinion, in their methods.
Cancer treatment is an absolutely vast enterprise, in which huge amounts of money are spent....and rates are increasing.(which actually suits the "industry", as it provides continuing income streams).

[scottycelt]

I "introduced" the "issue of contraception" (issue is rather an unfortunate word in context!) because of scottycelt's 'slippery slope' argument. I'd be interested to know if in his view contraception and its legal / social acceptance is on that slope. It's relevant, because when you start talking about vulnerability etc. it's rather important to know at what stage that vulnerability begins.

My own view is that artificial contraception is a different 'issue' as, unlike abortion, it is more concerned with prevention rather than destruction. While it might indeed be argued that one is beginning to slide down the slippery slope at that point (artificial contraception), it would be a very brave man/woman who dared to suggest such a thing in a discussion such as this, whereas the moral leap (plunge?) from accepting artificial contraception to that of advocating abortion is obviously considerable.

Can we honestly say the same about abortion and legalised voluntary euthanasia and maybe whatever's next on the agenda ... ?

It's a fairly safe bet that if voluntary euthanasia is ever legalised that there will be eventually 'a next agenda'.

[John Skelton]

My own view is that artificial contraception is a different 'issue' as, unlike abortion, it is more concerned with prevention rather than destruction. While it might indeed be argued that one is beginning to slide down the slippery slope at that point (artificial contraception), it would be a very brave man/woman who dared to suggest such a thing in a discussion such as this, whereas the moral leap (plunge?) from accepting artificial contraception to that of advocating abortion is obviously considerable.

Can we honestly say the same about abortion and legalised voluntary euthanasia and maybe whatever's next on the agenda ... ?

It's a fairly safe bet that if voluntary euthanasia is ever legalised that there will be eventually 'a next agenda'.

It's only "a fairly safe bet" if you accept that there is a continuum which leads from legal abortion to legal voluntary euthanasia and then the next 'step'; and although I'm sure you find that an obvious and logical sequence, I don't. To do so requires accepting a relationship of 'vulnerability' and I just don't agree that there is one (or, better: I disagree that there is a logical relationship or continuity where one implies the other, or an ethical connection. Denise Riley's essay '"But Then I Wouldn't Be Here"' is I think relevant (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Impersonal-P...6115975&sr=1-3 - should you wish to buy a copy ).

I don't deny the consistency of your approach to this, informed as it is by your religious beliefs (which is fine: I genuinely have no problem with that). I just don't think the argument is consistent outside your religious beliefs, and I don't think people who don't share those beliefs or the version of those beliefs you hold need, logically, to be convinced by those arguments as if they held together outside those beliefs. That's a horrible sentence, but I'll leave it alone. (To be clear - I'm not saying it's necessary to share your religious beliefs to agree with you on this, since it clearly isn't from other replies here. I'm suggesting that the argument is only truly coherent from within those religious beliefs).

"While it might indeed be argued that one is beginning to slide down the slippery slope at that point (artificial contraception), it would be a very brave man/woman who dared to suggest such a thing in a discussion such as this, whereas the moral leap (plunge?) from accepting artificial contraception to that of advocating abortion is obviously considerable."

It would take someone who had the courage of that conviction. I suppose. I can certainly see that someone could support contraception and oppose abortion: but that would be regarded as an erroneous position to take by someone who regarded contraception as a first step on the slippery slope denying the 'sanctity of life.'

[Lateralthinking1]

If I may, I am not sure that I have ever heard anyone of a non Catholic belief argue that contraception impedes the sanctity of life. Many say that it does precisely the opposite or at least accentuates wellness.

I too respect the holding of religious beliefs. However, what concerns me about discussions on abortion is that people are perceived either as religious or liberal; against it or in favour. The only variance permitted on the liberal side of this equation concerns the maximum time at which termination is acceptable. I go for a strong emphasis on contraception, permission within limits for abortion and targets for reducing it significantly by making it clear that it is not comparable with heart surgery.

I am far from alone in this common sense, humane, view.

[Serial_Apologist]

I am open to changing my view on this subject. However, as one who understands all life in a continuum, readable from whatever end to end, middle to middle, or middle to end one chooses from ones perspectival starting point, I am wondering to what extent those opposed to assisted suicide also oppose the veretinary practice of putting animals "to sleep". It seems to me that, unless one differentiates in importance between one life form and another - or, making it easier for some I guess, one mammal species and another - the logical position of opponents of assisted suicide should work out in opposition to the practice of euthanasia on animals other than human.

Or, with all the talk of the absence of caring and compassion in this land, is human life held in that much greater a regard as that the question is posed differently?

[John Skelton]

I am far from alone in this common sense, humane, view.

I'm sure you're not. Any more than you are alone in the conviction that your views are common sense and humane ones. However, none of this demonstrates that there is a continuity (a slippery slope, as it were) leading from legal abortion to the legalisation of 'assisted suicide' leading to something else. Which is how abortion was first introduced into this discussion. If you hold to a religious conviction relating to the 'sanctity of human life' in some ideal sense, then it at least makes internally coherent sense to think that one thing leads to another. Outside that context I don't see that it does, which is why I don't see it as having any logical force (other than as being 'obvious' to those who perceive the connection they perceive). The fact that you think there's a pattern, or you think your view is common sense and humane, doesn't make either necessarily the case.

There has been a strong emphasis on contraception for decades (on "an industrial scale", perhaps?)