Comments on: The Fifty Who Survive http://www.bloggernacle.org/the-fifty-who-survive/ Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:45:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Adam Greenwood http://www.bloggernacle.org/the-fifty-who-survive/#comment-2220 Adam Greenwood Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:35:49 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=217#comment-2220 "Nurses are legally allowed to refuse to participate based on moral grounds" Jordan Fowles, This is the current state of things, but in the 70s a lot of development that we take for granted hadnt' happened yet. Not saying that a nurse would have been required to participate, just saying that a lot of expectations we have now that participating in abortion is clearly optional might not have been in place. This doesn't make our nurse into much of a heroine, or even someone who's blameless, but it certainly would make it understandable. “Nurses are legally allowed to refuse to participate based on moral grounds”

Jordan Fowles,
This is the current state of things, but in the 70s a lot of development that we take for granted hadnt’ happened yet. Not saying that a nurse would have been required to participate, just saying that a lot of expectations we have now that participating in abortion is clearly optional might not have been in place. This doesn’t make our nurse into much of a heroine, or even someone who’s blameless, but it certainly would make it understandable.

]]> By: Jordan Fowles http://www.bloggernacle.org/the-fifty-who-survive/#comment-2165 Jordan Fowles Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:02:49 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=217#comment-2165 I found Manaen's comments disturbing but difficult to believe (not to say it didn't happen). First of all, I doubt any LDS nurse who would actually come to institute would participate in an abortion. Nurses are legally allowed to refuse to participate based on moral grounds, and I think assisting in abortion would probably be grounds for church discipline (based of course, on the individual facts of the circumstance and the judgment of the Bishop...). Second, "the callous death of that baby" as you have described probably constituted a criminal act on the part of the doctor, the mother, and the nurse- the abortion probably was legal, but letting a live baby die after three hours of not caring for it is certainly homicide (at least in most of the United States- where I assume you were during the time of the story. Correct me if I am wrong- maybe you were in England). If the nurse talked about it openly, as she apparently did at institute, how is it that the police or the local DA's office did not catch wind of it? Again- heartbreaking story, but tough for me to believe. I found Manaen’s comments disturbing but difficult to believe (not to say it didn’t happen). First of all, I doubt any LDS nurse who would actually come to institute would participate in an abortion. Nurses are legally allowed to refuse to participate based on moral grounds, and I think assisting in abortion would probably be grounds for church discipline (based of course, on the individual facts of the circumstance and the judgment of the Bishop…).

Second, “the callous death of that baby” as you have described probably constituted a criminal act on the part of the doctor, the mother, and the nurse- the abortion probably was legal, but letting a live baby die after three hours of not caring for it is certainly homicide (at least in most of the United States- where I assume you were during the time of the story. Correct me if I am wrong- maybe you were in England). If the nurse talked about it openly, as she apparently did at institute, how is it that the police or the local DA’s office did not catch wind of it?

Again- heartbreaking story, but tough for me to believe.

]]> By: john fowles http://www.bloggernacle.org/the-fifty-who-survive/#comment-2159 john fowles Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:30:18 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=217#comment-2159 Today will be a difficult day to finish after reading that, manaen. Today will be a difficult day to finish after reading that, manaen.

]]> By: manaen http://www.bloggernacle.org/the-fifty-who-survive/#comment-2157 manaen Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:12:07 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=217#comment-2157 In the mid-70's an LDS student came into the Institute shaking and nearly incoherent. A nurse, she had just assisted in an abortion in which the "fetus" was left on the counter, crying, for three hours until "it" was still. She didn't know how to react to what she'd just witnessed. The memory of her trying to make sense of a world in which that would happen still bothers me, as does the callous death of that baby. In the mid-70′s an LDS student came into the Institute shaking and nearly incoherent. A nurse, she had just assisted in an abortion in which the “fetus” was left on the counter, crying, for three hours until “it” was still. She didn’t know how to react to what she’d just witnessed. The memory of her trying to make sense of a world in which that would happen still bothers me, as does the callous death of that baby.

]]> By: Ronan http://www.bloggernacle.org/the-fifty-who-survive/#comment-2132 Ronan Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:37:23 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=217#comment-2132 Good points, John. This is an awful story. You are right to point out the ridiculous inconsistency in the law. I do not think elective abortion should be banned, but this story has served as a sobering reminder to me that the law in the UK is way too liberal on this one, and quite frankly, a moral mess. Good points, John.

This is an awful story. You are right to point out the ridiculous inconsistency in the law. I do not think elective abortion should be banned, but this story has served as a sobering reminder to me that the law in the UK is way too liberal on this one, and quite frankly, a moral mess.

]]> By: john fowles http://www.bloggernacle.org/the-fifty-who-survive/#comment-2131 john fowles Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:16:09 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=217#comment-2131 This news story raises at least three questions for me. The first is contained in the original post above. The second is, how is it that people like Gianne Jessen find out that they were an attempted but failed abortion and how does that affect them psychologically? It seems like this would be far worse than finding out that you were adopted. Third, if the baby survives the attempted abortion, can it still be killed while laying on the table or would that in fact be considered murder as suggested in the Times article? After all, the decision has already been made when the baby was still on the inside to kill the baby, and even more, the attempt has already been made to kill it--the mens rea and actus reus are both already there, so to say. But it still comes out alive. If completing the job on the outside crosses the line to infanticide, how can it be legal while the baby is still on the inside? If it is legal to kill the baby while still on the inside, then it seems inconsistent and arbitrary to say that just because it is on the outside now it cannot be killed (when literally 5 seconds ago it could have its brain liquified by a lethal injection and its head crushed). Consistency seems to require allowing the baby to be killed as it lies there breathing and crying. And yet, even if this seems more <i>consistent</i>, it still feels very uncomfortable to the point of understandably exciting passions and actions to the protection of the baby laying there on the table after a failed attempt to put it down. This news story raises at least three questions for me. The first is contained in the original post above. The second is, how is it that people like Gianne Jessen find out that they were an attempted but failed abortion and how does that affect them psychologically? It seems like this would be far worse than finding out that you were adopted. Third, if the baby survives the attempted abortion, can it still be killed while laying on the table or would that in fact be considered murder as suggested in the Times article? After all, the decision has already been made when the baby was still on the inside to kill the baby, and even more, the attempt has already been made to kill it–the mens rea and actus reus are both already there, so to say. But it still comes out alive. If completing the job on the outside crosses the line to infanticide, how can it be legal while the baby is still on the inside? If it is legal to kill the baby while still on the inside, then it seems inconsistent and arbitrary to say that just because it is on the outside now it cannot be killed (when literally 5 seconds ago it could have its brain liquified by a lethal injection and its head crushed). Consistency seems to require allowing the baby to be killed as it lies there breathing and crying. And yet, even if this seems more consistent, it still feels very uncomfortable to the point of understandably exciting passions and actions to the protection of the baby laying there on the table after a failed attempt to put it down.

]]>