Showing posts with label Baby Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baby Care. Show all posts

Monday 6 December 2021

Can You Gender Test Your Unborn Child?

With only a few drops of your maternal blood you can find out if baby’s sex is male or female. And you can do it as early as five weeks after conception with the newest technology in the area.


The technology has been tested for the last 14 years - and it works! I am amazed that it is possible. When I was pregnant the last time I got the test - which was very easy to understand and perform. The result came within less than 48 hours, and my husband and I was very happy to learn that I was carrying a baby girl. Our two sons were delighted about their baby sister to come. When the baby girl was born, we had made everything ready for her. No worries about getting pink or blue clothes.


The test is done with cutting-edge, patent-pending technology to attain the earliest gender detection with unprecedented sensitivity and unsurpassed accuracy.


The technique traces the amount of active genetic foetal chromosomal DNA in the maternal blood to determine gender. It is proven, well-documented scientific fact that your baby releases its DNA into your blood plasma. In a lab it is possible to determine foetus-originated-specific chromosome sequence detected in the maternal blood stream.


If there is foetus-originated Y-specific chromosome sequence detected in your blood, you are currently carrying at least one baby boy.


If foetus-originated X-specific chromosome sequence is detected in your blood, you are currently carrying at least one baby girl.


If there is a substantial amount foetus-originated Y-specific chromosome sequence detectable in your sample, indicating that you are carrying at least one baby boy and there is a substantial amount of foetus-originated X-specific chromosome sequence detected in your blood, indicating that you are carrying at least one baby girl. Then you are currently carrying at least one baby girl and boy at this time.

Breastfeeding 101: Find The Perfect Breast Pump For You

Breast feeding is said to be the best nutritional choice for feeding your new new-born baby, but it also has proven health benefits for moms as well. You can lose that pregnancy weight quicker by breastfeeding because it burns extra calories and lowers your body fat content - without exercise! Breastfeeding also releases a hormone called oxytocin which will cause your uterus to contract and return to its normal size more rapidly. It reduces the amount of postpartum bleeding and also improves the storage of minerals in your bones which lowers the risk of osteoporosis. Breast feeding can also help in preventing ovarian and breast cancers. And of course, it’s a wonderful way to bond with your new baby.


So if you are a new mom, or mom-to-be who has chosen breast feeding instead of the prepared formula method, you are probably interested in using a breast pump. Breast pumps are especially great for moms who work outside the home or who can’t be available at every feeding time for their new-born. They come in several designs and the two options for usage are either manual or electric.


As in most situations, there are pros and cons each method. Following are some details on these two types of breast pumps to help you make an informed decision and prepare before you buy - or rent.


Manual pumps are preferred by lots of new moms who say that they appreciate the convenient size. They are simple to use because you control the suction manually. Hand pumps are also more affordable, lighter and quieter than electric pumps, and many new mothers say it is a more natural feeling - closer to how it feels when the baby is feeding directly from your breast. 


For busier and working moms, an electric pump might be a better choice than the manual kind because they are much faster at pumping and some models even have the option to pump both breasts at the same time. 


Breast pumps are widely available for purchase and you might also like to know that many hospitals offer the option of renting a top-of-line model directly from them. You’ll have to estimate the cost per day in comparison to the price you would pay if you purchased your own though to make sure that it will work out for you financially.


Being a new mom can have its share of challenges, so be nice to yourself and look for a breast pump that best suits your lifestyle. By comparison shopping online or polling some moms who have been though the experience, you’ll save yourself both time and effort that you’ll be able to share instead with your new bundle of joy.

Balancing Your Home And Business Life Without Having Super Powers

For moms who work from home, balancing the home and business sides of their lives can feel downright impossible, especially when the reason they began working from home was so they could spend more time with family. However, many home businesses actually fail because moms don’t manage to balance business and home life. How can you juggle your family’s needs, your business needs and occasionally find some time for your needs without being a super hero?


The first thing any mom should do to achieve balance is to get the family involved. If your children and husband support you, you will find that they interrupt less often and are more likely to pitch in to get household chores done. You’re probably thinking that will happen the day the moon turns to blue cheese, right? However, if you mention that you need to get a major project done and will be able to buy a pizza and rent a video when you are paid, you may be surprised at how quickly everyone pitches in to help out.


If you have young children, they may not be able to understand the concept of waiting for a reward. To get your younger children involved, try explaining what you are doing in very simple terms and having them help you. Set up a small desk or table for your toddlers and add crayons and paper so they can help you with your work by drawing some pictures or writing a letter. Children that are a bit older can put stamps on envelopes and seal them, paperclip papers together or do other simple organizational tasks.


Of course, no matter how supportive your family and friends are, they are not going to be happy if you work 15 hours a day. Make sure that you ask for uninterrupted time to do your job or run your business, but also make sure that you schedule time for your family and friends. While you are making up that schedule, don’t forget your significant other. If you sit at your computer all evening after the children are tucked away for the night, you may end up with some serious relationship issues!


Once your family and friends are involved and you’ve scheduled time for them in your life, it is time to consider a few ways to make the most of your valuable work time. While you may be tempted to work non-stop during the time you have dedicated to your business, you should actually try to take some breaks. Taking a half-hour walk or having lunch away from your desk can really help you recharge your mind and keeps your body from growing stiff and tired. When you sit back down, you can do so with a clearer view of your goals and fresh energy and focus.


Also, don’t be afraid to make a ‘to do’ list for your business. Write the four or five items you absolutely must do on your list and promise yourself that you will get them done before you visit your favourite forums or check your email. This can really help you get more work accomplished in less time.


So, although you may not have super powers, you can still have a home life, a business life and some time for yourself. The next time you are feeling overwhelmed, take a deep breath, ask your family for some help and try out a few of these great ideas for balancing your life.

Are Stay-At-Home Moms Better?

Can we really have it all, a career, the good life and parenthood? Can parents afford to raise a child on one income? How can new parents decide whether to work or stay home with the kids.


Kristie Tamsevicius, author of I Love My Life: A Mom’s Guide to Working from Home says that the answer has never been clearer. Since September 11, 2001, people are going back to basics. Fuelled by frustration with their current work environments, people long to spend more time at home with their families. This desire has led millions of parents to say ‘goodbye’ to corporate America and ‘hello’ to a work at home career.


One of the toughest decisions you face is whether you will stay at home with the children or go back to work. Financially, it can be difficult to make the switch to living on one income. Additionally, women often wonder if they are sacrificing their career by choosing to stay at home.


New parents are overwhelmed with the onslaught of child relating expenses including baby gear, clothing, diapers, and medical bills. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, raising a child from birth to age 2 costs $13,400 a year. So how can families cut back and survive on less income and endure these added costs?


The common myth is that if both parents work, there will be more income.


But this is not always the case. If you add up the numbers, oftentimes you are not getting ahead financially by working and paying day-care.


When you subtract childcare costs, auto expenses, dry cleaning and other work related expenses many find they are not making that much by working outside the home.


The truth is that we trap ourselves into thinking that we need two incomes to survive. Whether it’s keeping up with the Jones’ or buying high tech toys, it seems when you make more, you spend more. When our income increases, instead of banking the difference, we raise our standard of living.


The pressures of dual working parents can weigh on a family. Sometimes working mothers feel guilty for wanting to work away from home. Then there is the issue of balance. Juggling the pressures of work and home can be tough. Trying to make sure meals are made, the house is clean, and the bills get paid between running kids to soccer practice is trying.


We have to ask what we are teaching our kids with our busy lifestyles.


Are we teaching our kids that this pace of life is normal and desirable?


Will day-care teach your kids the values you would?


No one will love and teach your kids the way you do. Day-care will attend to the physical needs of your child, but are they teaching your kids the values and lessons you would? In situations such as the bullying kid at day-care, or the fight over toys is the day-care provider shaping your child’s character in the same way you would?


Children reap vast benefits when moms stay at home. Mothers can provide care with love. They are there to discipline and teach proper behaviours. While spending quality time, mothers can develop a lasting bond with their children. This bond creates a stronger sense of security and well-being within the child.


Kids enjoy other benefits too. Moms can provide a more varied diet and better nutrition. And children receive more mental stimulation when one on one sharing time with mom.


How can moms learn to live on less and stay at home with the kids?


Shopping smart saves money. Thrifty minded moms cut coupons, look for sales, and buy in bulk to cut costs. Many families are learning that a simple life beats the pressures of trying to keep up. By setting a lower standard of living, you can learn to enjoy the simple things. You teach your children that wealth lies not in material possessions, but in the joy of living.


Working from home can help parents to have the best of both worlds:

precious family time and extra income.


Statistics show that today’s working people are eager to say ‘goodbye’ to corporate life and say ‘hello’ to the joys of working from home.


Working from home offers a variety of benefits including being your own boss, flexibility, the ultimate office space, no commute, increased control, time with family, and the sheer joy of designing your own business and life.


Entrepreneurship offers thrills, stimulation, challenge, and a new powerful choice-driven reality. It provides an option for single parents and families struggling with family and career concerns. It’s allowing dads to quit the 9-to-5 grind and stay at home with the kids.


It’s providing a new chance for people who have been laid off or kicked out of the corporate system. It’s providing a new income-earning opportunity for people who can’t live on their retirement funds alone.


At-home careers offer an income for people with disabilities who have trouble finding jobs in the traditional workplace.


So realize that as a parent, now you don’t have to decide to work or stay at home, you can have both: a career and time with your kids.

Abortion and the Right to Life

Abortion and the Social Contract


See the Appendix - Arguments from the Right to Life


The issue of abortion is emotionally loaded and this often makes for poor, not thoroughly thought out arguments. The questions: "Is abortion immoral" and "Is abortion a murder" are often confused. The pregnancy (and the resulting foetus) are discussed in terms normally reserved to natural catastrophes (force majeure). At times, the embryo is compared to cancer, a thief, or an invader: after all, they are both growths, clusters of cells. The difference, of course, is that no one contracts cancer willingly (except, to some extent, smokers - but, then they gamble, not contract).


When a woman engages in voluntary sex, does not use contraceptives and gets pregnant - one can say that she signed a contract with her foetus. A contract entails the demonstrated existence of a reasonably (and reasonable) free will. If the fulfilment of the obligations in a contract between individuals could be life-threatening - it is fair and safe to assume that no rational free will was involved. No reasonable person would sign or enter such a contract with another person (though most people would sign such contracts with society).


Judith Jarvis Thomson argued convincingly ("A Defence of Abortion") that pregnancies that are the result of forced sex (rape being a special case) or which are life threatening should or could, morally, be terminated. Using the transactional language: the contract was not entered to willingly or reasonably and, therefore, is null and void. Any actions which are intended to terminate it and to annul its consequences should be legally and morally permissible.


The same goes for a contract which was entered into against the express will of one of the parties and despite all the reasonable measures that the unwilling party adopted to prevent it.  If a mother uses contraceptives in a manner intended to prevent pregnancy, it is as good as saying: "I do not want to sign this contract, I am doing my reasonable best not to sign it, if it is signed - it is contrary to my express will". There is little legal (or moral) doubt that such a contract should be voided.


Much more serious problems arise when we study the other party to these implicit agreements: the embryo. To start with, it lacks consciousness (in the sense that is needed for signing an enforceable and valid contract). Can a contract be valid even if one of the "signatories" lacks this sine qua non trait? In the absence of consciousness, there is little point in talking about free will (or rights which depend on sentience). So, is the contract not a contract at all? Does it not reflect the intentions of the parties?


The answer is in the negative. The contract between a mother and her foetus is derived from the larger Social Contract. Society - through its apparatuses - stands for the embryo the same way that it represents minors, the mentally retarded, and the insane. Society steps in - and has the recognized right and moral obligation to do so - whenever the powers of the parties to a contract (implicit or explicit) are not balanced. It protects small citizens from big monopolies, the physically weak from the thug, the tiny opposition from the mighty administration, the barely surviving radio station from the claws of the devouring state mechanism. It also has the right and obligation to intervene, intercede and represent the unconscious: this is why euthanasia is absolutely forbidden without the consent of the dying person. There is not much difference between the embryo and the comatose.


A typical contract states the rights of the parties. It assumes the existence of parties which are "moral personhoods" or "morally significant persons" - in other words, persons who are holders of rights and can demand from us to respect these rights. Contracts explicitly elaborate some of these rights and leaves others unmentioned because of the presumed existence of the Social Contract. The typical contract assumes that there is a social contract which applies to the parties to the contract and which is universally known and, therefore, implicitly incorporated in every contract. Thus, an explicit contract can deal with the property rights of a certain person, while neglecting to mention that person's rights to life, to free speech, to the enjoyment the fruits of his lawful property and, in general to a happy life.


There is little debate that the Mother is a morally significant person and that she is a rights-holder. All born humans are and, more so, all adults above a certain age. But what about the unborn foetus?


One approach is that the embryo has no rights until certain conditions are met and only upon their fulfilment is he transformed into a morally significant person ("moral agent"). Opinions differ as to what are the conditions. Rationality, or a morally meaningful and valued life are some of the oft cited criteria. The fallaciousness of this argument is easy to demonstrate: children are irrational - is this a licence to commit infanticide?


A second approach says that a person has the right to life because it desires it.


But then what about chronic depressives who wish to die - do we have the right to terminate their miserable lives?  The good part of life (and, therefore, the differential and meaningful test) is in the experience itself - not in the desire to experience.


Another variant says that a person has the right to life because once his life is terminated - his experiences cease. So, how should we judge the right to life of someone who constantly endures bad experiences (and, as a result, harbors a death wish)? Should he better be "terminated"?


Having reviewed the above arguments and counter-arguments, Don Marquis goes on (in "Why Abortion is Immoral", 1989) to offer a sharper and more comprehensive criterion: terminating a life is morally wrong because a person has a future filled with value and meaning, similar to ours.


But the whole debate is unnecessary. There is no conflict between the rights of the mother and those of her foetus because there is never a conflict between parties to an agreement. By signing an agreement, the mother gave up some of her rights and limited the others. This is normal practice in contracts: they represent compromises, the optimization (and not the maximization)  of the parties' rights and wishes. The rights of the foetus are an inseparable part of the contract which the mother signed voluntarily and reasonably. They are derived from the mother's behaviour. Getting willingly pregnant (or assuming the risk of getting pregnant by not using contraceptives reasonably) - is the behaviour which validates and ratifies a contract between her and the foetus. Many contracts are by behaviour, rather than by a signed piece of paper. Numerous contracts are verbal or behavioural. These contracts, though implicit, are as binding as any of their written, more explicit, brethren. Legally (and morally) the situation is crystal clear: the mother signed some of her rights away in this contract. Even if she regrets it - she cannot claim her rights back by annulling the contract unilaterally. No contract can be annulled this way - the consent of both parties is required. Many times we realize that we have entered a bad contract, but there is nothing much that we can do about it. These are the rules of the game.


Thus the two remaining questions: (a) can this specific contract (pregnancy) be annulled and, if so (b) in which circumstances - can be easily settled using modern contract law. Yes, a contract can be annulled and voided if signed under duress, involuntarily, by incompetent persons (e.g., the insane), or if one of the parties made a reasonable and full scale attempt to prevent its signature, thus expressing its clear will not to sign the contract. It is also terminated or voided if it would be unreasonable to expect one of the parties to see it through. Rape, contraception failure, life threatening situations are all such cases.


This could be argued against by saying that, in the case of economic hardship, f or instance, the damage to the mother's future is certain. True, her value- filled, meaningful future is granted - but so is the detrimental effect that the fetus will have on it, once born. This certainty cannot be balanced by the UNCERTAIN value-filled future life of the embryo. Always, preferring an uncertain good to a certain evil is morally wrong.  But surely this is a quantitative matter - not a qualitative one. Certain, limited aspects of the rest of the mother's life will be adversely effected (and can be ameliorated by society's helping hand and intervention) if she does have the baby. The decision not to have it is both qualitatively and qualitatively different. It is to deprive the unborn of all the aspects of all his future life - in which he might well have experienced happiness, values, and meaning.


The questions whether the foetus is a Being or a growth of cells, conscious in any manner, or utterly unconscious, able to value his life and to want them - are all but irrelevant. He has the potential to lead a happy, meaningful, value-filled life, similar to ours, very much as a one minute old baby does. The contract between him and his mother is a service provision contract. She provides him with goods and services that he requires in order to materialize his potential. It sounds very much like many other human contracts. And this contract continue well after pregnancy has ended and birth given.


Consider education: children do not appreciate its importance or value its potential - still, it is enforced upon them because we, who are capable of those feats, want them to have the tools that they will need in order to develop their potential. In this and many other respects, the human pregnancy continues well into the fourth year of life (physiologically it continues in to the second year of life - see "Born Alien"). Should the location of the pregnancy (in uterus, in vivo) determine its future? If a mother has the right to abort at will, why should the mother be denied her right to terminate the " pregnancy" AFTER the foetus emerges and the pregnancy continues OUTSIDE her womb? Even after birth, the woman's body is the main source of food to the baby and, in any case, she has to endure physical hardship to raise the child. Why not extend the woman's ownership of her body and right to it further in time and space to the post-natal period?


Contracts to provide goods and services (always at a personal cost to the provider) are the commonest of contracts. We open a business. We sell a software application, we publish a book - we engage in helping others to materialize their potential. We should always do so willingly and reasonably - otherwise the contracts that we sign will be null and void. But to deny anyone his capacity to materialize his potential and the goods and services that he needs to do so - after a valid contract was entered into - is immoral. To refuse to provide a service or to condition it provision (Mother: " I will provide the goods and services that I agreed to provide to this foetus under this contract only if and when I benefit from such provision") is a violation of the contract and should be penalized. Admittedly, at times we have a right to choose to do the immoral (because it has not been codified as illegal) - but that does not turn it into  moral.


Still, not every immoral act involving the termination of life can be classified as murder. Phenomenology is deceiving: the acts look the same (cessation of life functions, the prevention of a future). But murder is the intentional termination of the life of a human who possesses, at the moment of death, a consciousness (and, in most cases, a free will, especially the will not to die). Abortion is the intentional termination of a life which has the potential to develop into a person with consciousness and free will. Philosophically, no identity can be established between potential and actuality. The destruction of paints and cloth is not tantamount (not to say identical) to the destruction of a painting by Van Gogh, made up of these very elements. Paints and cloth are converted to a painting through the intermediary and agency of the Painter. A cluster of cells a human makes only through the agency of Nature. Surely, the destruction of the painting materials constitutes an offence against the Painter. In the same way, the destruction of the foetus constitutes an offence against Nature. But there is no denying that in both cases, no finished product was eliminated. Naturally, this becomes less and less so (the severity of the terminating act increases) as the process of creation advances.


Classifying an abortion as murder poses numerous and insurmountable philosophical problems.


No one disputes the now common view that the main crime committed in aborting a pregnancy - is a crime against potentialities. If so, what is the philosophical difference between aborting a foetus and destroying a sperm and an egg? These two contain all the information ( = all the potential) and their destruction is philosophically no less grave than the destruction of a foetus. The destruction of an egg and a sperm is even more serious philosophically: the creation of a foetus limits the set of all potentials embedded in the genetic material to the one foetus created. The egg and sperm can be compared to the famous wave function (state vector) in quantum mechanics - the represent millions of potential final states ( = millions of potential embryos and lives). The foetus is the collapse of the wave function: it represents a much more limited set of potentials. If killing an embryo is murder because of the elimination of potentials - how should we consider the intentional elimination of many more potentials through masturbation and contraception?


The argument that it is difficult to say which sperm cell will impregnate the egg is not serious. Biologically, it does not matter - they all carry the same genetic content. Moreover, would this counter-argument still hold if, in future, we were be able to identify the chosen one and eliminate only it? In many religions (Catholicism) contraception is murder. In Judaism, masturbation is "the corruption of the seed" and such a serious offence that it is punishable by the strongest religious penalty: eternal ex-communication ("Karet").


If abortion is indeed murder how should we resolve the following moral dilemmas and questions (some of them patently absurd):


Is a natural abortion the equivalent of manslaughter (through negligence)?


Do habits like smoking, drug addiction, vegetarianism - infringe upon the right to life of the embryo? Do they constitute a violation of the contract?


Reductio ad absurdum: if, in the far future, research will unequivocally prove that listening to a certain kind of music or entertaining certain thoughts seriously hampers the embryonic development - should we apply censorship to the Mother?


Should force majeure clauses be introduced to the Mother-Embryo pregnancy contract? Will they give the mother the right to cancel the contract? Will the embryo have a right to terminate the contract? Should the asymmetry persist: the Mother will have no right to terminate - but the embryo will, or vice versa?


Being a rights holder, can the embryo (=the State) litigate against his Mother or Third Parties (the doctor that aborted him, someone who hit his mother and brought about a natural abortion) even after he died?


Should anyone who knows about an abortion be considered an accomplice to murder?


If abortion is murder - why punish it so mildly? Why is there a debate regarding this question? "Thou shalt not kill" is a natural law, it appears in virtually every legal system. It is easily and immediately identifiable. The fact that abortion does not "enjoy" the same legal and moral treatment says a lot.


Appendix - Arguments from the Right to Life


I. The Right to Life


It is a fundamental principle of most moral theories that all human beings have a right to life. The existence of a right implies obligations or duties of third parties towards the right-holder. One has a right AGAINST other people. The fact that one possesses a certain right - prescribes to others certain obligatory behaviours and proscribes certain acts or omissions. This Janus-like nature of rights and duties as two sides of the same ethical coin - creates great confusion. People often and easily confuse rights and their attendant duties or obligations with the morally decent, or even with the morally permissible. What one MUST do as a result of another's right - should never be confused with one SHOULD or OUGHT to do morally (in the absence of a right).


The right to life has eight distinct strains:


IA. The right to be brought to life


IB. The right to be born


IC. The right to have one's life maintained


ID. The right not to be killed


IE. The right to have one's life saved


IF. The right to save one's life (erroneously limited to the right to self-defence)


IG. The Right to terminate one's life


IH. The right to have one's life terminated


IA. The Right to be Brought to Life


Only living people have rights. There is a debate whether an egg is a living person - but there can be no doubt that it exists. Its rights - whatever they are - derive from the fact that it exists and that it has the potential to develop life. The right to be brought to life (the right to become or to be) pertains to a yet non-alive entity and, therefore, is null and void. Had this right existed, it would have implied an obligation or duty to give life to the unborn and the not yet conceived. No such duty or obligation exist.


IB. The Right to be Born


The right to be born crystallizes at the moment of voluntary and intentional fertilization. If a woman knowingly engages in sexual intercourse for the explicit and express purpose of having a child - then the resulting fertilized egg has a right to mature and be born. Furthermore, the born child has all the rights a child has against his parents: food, shelter, emotional nourishment, education, and so on.


It is debatable whether such rights of the foetus and, later, of the child, exist if the fertilization was either involuntary (rape) or unintentional ("accidental" pregnancies). It would seem that the foetus has a right to be kept alive outside the mother's womb, if possible. But it is not clear whether it has a right to go on using the mother's body, or resources, or to burden her in any way in order to sustain its own life (see IC below).


IC. The Right to have One's Life Maintained


Does one have the right to maintain one's life and prolong them at other people's expense? Does one have the right to use other people's bodies, their property, their time, their resources and to deprive them of pleasure, comfort, material possessions, income, or any other thing?


The answer is yes and no.


No one has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or prolong them at another INDIVIDUAL's expense (no matter how minimal and insignificant the sacrifice required is). Still, if a contract has been signed - implicitly or explicitly - between the parties, then such a right may crystallize in the contract and create corresponding duties and obligations, moral, as well as legal.




No foetus has a right to sustain its life, maintain, or prolong them at his mother's expense (no matter how minimal and insignificant the sacrifice required of her is). Still, if she signed a contract with the foetus - by knowingly and willingly and intentionally conceiving it - such a right has crystallized and has created corresponding duties and obligations of the mother towards her foetus.


On the other hand, everyone has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or prolong them at SOCIETY's expense (no matter how major and significant the resources required are). Still, if a contract has been signed - implicitly or explicitly - between the parties, then the abrogation of such a right may crystallize in the contract and create corresponding duties and obligations, moral, as well as legal.




Everyone has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or prolong them at society's expense. Public hospitals, state pension schemes, and police forces may be required to fulfil society's obligations - but fulfil them it must, no matter how major and significant the resources are. Still, if a person volunteered to join the army and a contract has been signed between the parties, then this right has been thus abrogated and the individual assumed certain duties and obligations, including the duty or obligation to give up his or her life to society.


ID. The Right not to be Killed


Every person has the right not to be killed unjustly. What constitutes "just killing" is a matter for an ethical calculus in the framework of a social contract.


But does A's right not to be killed include the right against third parties that they refrain from enforcing the rights of other people against A? Does A's right not to be killed preclude the righting of wrongs committed by A against others - even if the righting of such wrongs means the killing of A?


Not so. There is a moral obligation to right wrongs (to restore the rights of other people). If A maintains or prolongs his life ONLY by violating the rights of others and these other people object to it - then A must be killed if that is the only way to right the wrong and re-assert their rights.


IE. The Right to have One's Life Saved


There is no such right as there is no corresponding moral obligation or duty to save a life. This "right" is a demonstration of the aforementioned muddle between the morally commendable, desirable and decent ("ought", "should") and the morally obligatory, the result of other people's rights ("must").


In some countries, the obligation to save life is legally codified. But while the law of the land may create a LEGAL right and corresponding LEGAL obligations - it does not always or necessarily create a moral or an ethical right and corresponding moral duties and obligations.


IF. The Right to Save One's Own Life


The right to self-defence is a subset of the more general and all-pervasive right to save one's own life. One has the right to take certain actions or avoid taking certain actions in order to save his or her own life.


It is generally accepted that one has the right to kill a pursuer who knowingly and intentionally intends to take one's life. It is debatable, though, whether one has the right to kill an innocent person who unknowingly and unintentionally threatens to take one's life.


IG. The Right to Terminate One's Life


See "The Murder of Oneself".


IH. The Right to Have One's Life Terminated


The right to euthanasia, to have one's life terminated at will, is restricted by numerous social, ethical, and legal rules, principles, and considerations. In a nutshell - in many countries in the West one is thought to has a right to have one's life terminated with the help of third parties if one is going to die shortly anyway and if one is going to be tormented and humiliated by great and debilitating agony for the rest of one's remaining life if not helped to die. Of course, for one's wish to be helped to die to be accommodated, one has to be in sound mind and to will one's death knowingly, intentionally, and forcefully.


II. Issues in the Calculus of Rights


IIA. The Hierarchy of Rights


All human cultures have hierarchies of rights. These hierarchies reflect cultural mores and lores and there cannot, therefore, be a universal, or eternal hierarchy.


In Western moral systems, the Right to Life supersedes all other rights (including the right to one's body, to comfort, to the avoidance of pain, to property, etc.).


Yet, this hierarchical arrangement does not help us to resolve cases in which there is a clash of EQUAL rights (for instance, the conflicting rights to life of two people). One way to decide among equally potent claims is randomly (by flipping a coin, or casting dice). Alternatively, we could add and subtract rights in a somewhat macabre arithmetic. If a mother's life is endangered by the continued existence of a foetus and assuming both of them have a right to life we can decide to kill the foetus by adding to the mother's right to life her right to her own body and thus outweighing the foetus' right to life.


IIB. The Difference between Killing and Letting Die


There is an assumed difference between killing (taking life) and letting die (not saving a life). This is supported by IE above. While there is a right not to be killed - there is no right to have one's own life saved. Thus, while there is an obligation not to kill - there is no obligation to save a life.


IIC. Killing the Innocent


Often the continued existence of an innocent person (IP) threatens to take the life of a victim (V). By "innocent" we mean "not guilty" - not responsible for killing V, not intending to kill V, and not knowing that V will be killed due to IP's actions or continued existence.


It is simple to decide to kill IP to save V if IP is going to die anyway shortly, and the remaining life of V, if saved, will be much longer than the remaining life of IP, if not killed. All other variants require a calculus of hierarchically weighted rights. (See "Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life" by Baruch A. Brody).


One form of calculus is the utilitarian theory. It calls for the maximization of utility (life, happiness, pleasure). In other words, the life, happiness, or pleasure of the many outweigh the life, happiness, or pleasure of the few. It is morally permissible to kill IP if the lives of two or more people will be saved as a result and there is no other way to save their lives. Despite strong philosophical objections to some of the premises of utilitarian theory - I agree with its practical prescriptions.


In this context - the dilemma of killing the innocent - one can also call upon the right to self-defence. Does V have a right to kill IP regardless of any moral calculus of rights? Probably not. One is rarely justified in taking another's life to save one's own. But such behaviour cannot be condemned. Here we have the flip side of the confusion - understandable and perhaps inevitable behaviour (self-defence) is mistaken for a MORAL RIGHT. That most V's would kill IP and that we would all sympathize with V and understand its behaviour does not mean that V had a RIGHT to kill IP. V may have had a right to kill IP - but this right is not automatic, nor is it all-encompassing.


Abortion - No Time To Say Goodbye

By devoting yourself to yourself you can get through this.


Sadly to say there are times when we have to lose a life to save a life when a decision is made to terminate a pregnancy. An early termination is known as an abortion. There are people who strongly oppose abortions but unfortunately when it is a matter of life or death then there is no argument to fight.


Are you left traumatised by feelings of remorse after going through the experience of an abortion or are you hurting on the inside because you had no time to say goodbye to the little one. Then remember heaven is a big place so baby will not be alone. 


It is a big decision for any woman to have to make so listen carefully to all the reasons given for why the proposal of an abortion has been suggested. This will help you understand matters better.


Having an abortion does not affect you conceiving future babies but it can if you don`t regarding the circumstances on your health issues. 


This is the 21st century where so much help and advice is at hand but still the numbers are on the increase with unwanted teen pregnancies. Girls why put yourself through all the pain and heartache that comes with making decisions on abortion - unlike some unfortunate mothers where their choices were zilch.


Abortions are legal under 24 weeks in the areas of Scotland England and Wales if agreed upon by two doctors who believe the health of mother could be affected seriously should the pregnancy be allowed to continue to go the full term. 


Crucial elements that will be considered by the doctor before finalizing any decision on aborting the pregnancy are major issues like the woman`s mental stability and physical well-being where permanent damage can be done. If there are signs that baby may be born with a serious handicap then this is another reason why a woman may agree to a termination.


Remember the earlier you address the situation the easier it is to for any matters to be conducted appropriately for the abortion to take place. However even though the legal system states 24 weeks the sooner the better - this will help ease stress and pressure. Appointments for abortion clinics can tail back to at least two to four weeks.


We have two methods of abortion one is the medical abortion- known as the abortion pill. This procedure is carried out in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy and does not engage any surgery. The patient is given a tablet (mifepristone) a second tablet (prostaglandin) is inserted into the vagina approximately 36 to 48 hours later. These two pills can end most pregnancies in about four hours. 


The vacuum aspiration - known as the suction is the other method performed in theatre where the woman will undergo a general or local anaesthetic. 


The entrance to the womb (cervix) is lightly stretched to permit a tube to pass through. Once the tube is inserted it only takes about 60 seconds to remove by suction. Recovery after surgery in healthy women is not long roughly about an hour (if no complications). 


It is common for a woman to experience some discomfort and bleeding for a few days after the abortion. You will be given just as much advice after the abortion as you were before going in for treatment. 


If you are trying to come to terms with a loss or about to go through the experience of one then please be strong. 


The open wound of heartache heals itself after a matter of time but it is the mental scar that stays with you for ever. Remember not to beat yourself up over the decision you made if it were the right one. How do you know if it was the right decision or not, well that is easy, it was when you realized god was at your side?


If mental anguish still prevails, then to help ease your mind body and soul talk with a yoga master. They do not have the cure but they certainly can help sedate your way of thinking in easing any displeasing thoughts that you have.

Sponsored Article