----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:24 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
> Not really what I was asking about, but thanks for taking the time > anyway. > I was looking for a specific occurrence of someone claiming anxiety as > a reason to abort a very late term child. I don't know what actual mental health reasons are given for late term abortions. I know, from experience, that therapists who feel that family therapy is worthwhile need, to satisfy insurance needs, find a DSM-4 diagnosis for one of the people in the family. In a sense this is just jumping through hoops; but in another sense it is quite kosher. For example, of and by itself, couples therapy to avoid divorce is not covered. But, if one of the parties is anxious or depressed about the thought of divorce (which sounds pretty reasonable to me), there is a DSM-4 diagnosis available and the therapy can be covered. My point is not that physicians think of abortions straight away when a women is anxious in her third trimester. But, if a woman wants an abortion at that time, all she needs is a sympathetic clinic. If she finds one staffed by people who have a strong belief in "reproductive rights", then that's all she needs. I cannot imagine a woman who decides on an abortion that late (for whatever reason including to save her own life) who will not be upset, depressed, or anxious enough to show enough symptoms to be diagnosed with a mental health issue. _That_ was my point. Dan M. > My personal belief is that abortions should be restricted to the first > trimester or even just a bit past that in elective cases. But I am not > sold on the idea that this is the governments business. > > It seems to me that many pro-lifers feel that their relationship with > government should be very libertarian, yet "other" people need to be > controlled by government in order that their sensibilities not be > offended. Perhaps this is a symptom of the kind of conservatism people > seem to accrue naturally as they grow old. > > It seems to me that many pro-choicers are so afraid of the slippery > slope (or maybe even of just losing the argument and becoming > irrelevant) that they auto-reject sensible limitations that are > intended to preserve life. > > So what is the value of life when we find it so easy to send new > adults and newly born to their deaths? What I find myself seeing is > people who value life on one hand while devaluing it on the other, and > in that sense, all the rhetoric in the world is not worth the > sophistry it is wrapped in. > Is there any way we can come to an agreement on the value of life that > can be applied consistently across the spectrum of our endeavors? > It does not seem so most of the time. But isn't it our moral > responsibility to do such a thing? > > xponent > Current Moral Graduations Maru > rob > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
