Minutus

I don't think that the old, the "retarded", the paralysed, or the insane NECESSARILY live in despair. Many of these people are people I see every day in my community--and they are no more in despair than those of us who are "whole". In any case, if they are, they are fully capable, as adults, of accessing help that they need--and many adults who work with them are not in anguish, either.

Are you trying to bring up the entire conversation about euthanasia now, in a round-about way?
This is an extremely simplistic way of introducing quite a complex problem. I have a very firm belief about euthanasia, too--but I'm not going to go into here as it has little to do with the topic I was discussing earlier.

Also, abortion may or may not save the woman from anguish--that's beside the point. The real issue is that abortion will save the woman from being forced to carry and nurture a child she does not want to have.

Its a clear point. What don't you get?

Nancy

>The real issue is that abortion will save the woman from being forced to
carry and nurture a child she does not want to have.

ok, I see. Is any reason to have an abortion acceptable? for example, some
women athletes get pregnant and then have an abortion shortly before
competition which results in a increased amount of blood, boosting
perfomance. This is ok too?

Andrew

> The real issue is that abortion will save the woman from being forced to
carry and nurture a child she does not want to have.

another question arises..though I think Sourush also raised it. If she has
the baby then realises how financially difficult it will be, should she be
able to kill the baby? [ie she does not wish to nurture it in your words].

Andrew

Dear Dave,
I'm sorry if this whole topic has upset you - or touched on anything
personal (ref: your other post you sent to the list today).

I didn't think it was un-homeopathic/off-topic for the reasons I stated
before/below. You could use your delete button or filter out that topic -
just a suggestion if others wish to continue discussing it;). (btw, I
haven't seen anything of late that I wished to reply too - for the
record....but..)
All the best to you,
Lisa
(PS I've posted far less on this topic than some others, btw;))

Only hoping to get back on topic.

Some very "hot" topics, which will NEVER be reconciled fully between the
various viewpoints.

I hope you understand that the moral pro's and con's of abortion as it
relates to feminism and where life begins are clearly off topic-

-and suggesting that others continue discussing it is plainly
counterproductive.

What I am asking is simple consideration for others, myself included.

I joined a list to discuss homeopathy (presumably everyone here did.)

If I wish to discuss the freudian connotations of sword-swallowing, this is
not an appropriate place to do so.

The possible fact that two or three others also wanted to discuss
sword-swallowing does not make it "ok" for them to just go ahead and to tell
others "just use your delete key"

- just post on topic, please..
Dave Hartley
http://www.localcomputermart.com
Santa Cruz, CA (831)423-4284

Tri-Cities Computer (TN) |Asheville Computer (NC)
423-952-0983 or 877-245-3362 |(828)285-0240
$9.95 internet http://www.federalisp.com/?page=ispsignup

Dear group, Dave's point is well taken on the subject of abortion. It is one thing to share information, it is another to convey the same message repeatedly on the same subject from multiple sources.

Each writer has asserted his point of view, some with more repitition than others. I would suggest that a more fluid sharing of information wherein the involvement is with a group of size is for a single reader to remain as a reader if their point of view has been stated. And/or if it may be inferred that repitition of your thoughts may offer nothing new to the discusssion, then it would prove more productive to withhold it.

Having said that, I also concur with Lisa that it is of benefit to convey thoughts on a variety of topics and to push the envelope. We must merely apply self discipline in our desire to assert our personal myths.

Regards, isali

Two issues:

Reversing a vasectomy is a major and complicated op - NOT always successful.
A vasectomy should be regarded as permanent.

However, if you are advocating vasectomy, why aren't you advocating
sterilisation for women? After all, it is the woman who gets pregnant and
not the man and in the FEMINIST society that seems to be promoted by some
colleagues, I guess women would be free to have as many partners as they
wish - so if they don't want to get pregnant, then the answer lies with
them.

Soroush

Actually, vasectomy is not major. As I said, it takes about 10 minutes, uses local anaesthetic, and involves cutting two tubes, that is it. 10 or 15 years ago, it was regarded as a "tricky" operation to reverse. Not anymore, as technology used has made the reversal very easy to accomplish.

Female sterilization, however, is a very complicated, major operation, involving general anaesthetic and several hours of operation time. Recovery time is also much longer. Reversal is impossible.

Soroush, are you this resistant to patients who have come to you and told you they've attempted suicide in the past? Do you immediately pass judgement on them because they wanted to end their own lives, and tried to do so?

I am sure I'm not alone in sensing you have a huge bias against women, and seem incapable of being able to empathise with them or view them as real human people.

More than anything else in homeopathy, this lack and bias require your immediate attention, if you are to help any woman who turns to you for help.
Women make up the vast majority of homeopathy's patients...I can't imagine what it would be like to encounter such undisguised contempt and wilful bias from my doctor, if I had to seek help from him. It certainly would not help me to become well.

Nancy

Dear Nancy

For your information, Female sterilisation is not difficult, it is not a
major op either. It is done by keyhole surgery, clamps are placed over the
fallopian tubes and it is done. To reverse, the clamps are removed -
Further major surgery is required if as a result of clamping there is local
tissue adhesion and the tubes are blocked.

As I said it is the woman that is getting pregnant and unless they are in an
firm relationship with only one man, then it is fair that they should be
sterilised (after all it is primarily they who do not want the baby!!)

For your information, I am not at all resistant to any patient whatever
complaint they have. They receive my FULL empathy. Any judgement I may make
is to help me to find out the state of the patient and not to apportion
guilt!!

Perhaps you need to speak with my female patients (who are a growing a
number and make lots of referrals) for their views and not be SO
judgemental.

Soroush