Amazing! A baby survives being born at 22 weeks. - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2007, 10:20 PM   #106
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:07 PM
I already mentioned this in a previous thread, but I've known several women who've had abortions (four to be precise), only one of them regrets having had it, and even she remains pro-choice. And three of them now have children (in fact, two already had them at the time), so it has nothing to do with not understanding what a child's worth is or anything like that. The fact that so many who have heard such stories "didn't know until years later" speaks volumes about the secrecy and fear of rejection from friends and family abortion is shrouded in for women--one of several reasons why the notion that a woman who has an abortion experiences it as "no different from removing a wart" or some such is nonsense...not to mention the invasiveness, expensiveness and, usually, painfulness of the procedure, as well as the fact that the physical enormity of being pregnant is obvious and palpable to most women from very early on--the nausea, water retention, breast swelling, mood swings, etc. The "tissue blob" talk may seem like a nifty rhetorical device (or a convenient straw man) for some, but it's not reflective of how most women who've ever been pregnant long enough to realize it experienced it.
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
I've re-read this. Isn't this supporting what I'm talking about? Doesn't this fall under the "do everything possible" category?
Everything possible for the baby, yes; for the mother, no, because waiting until said crisis ensues (to maximize the baby's chances) would likely mean her death, and typically with those conditions--and especially those forms of pre-eclampsia--it's impossible to predict when that might occur; if it's diagnosed at 5 months the worst might happen in 3 days, or in 2 weeks, or not at all. Cerebral and uterine hemorrhages of that type tend to cause maternal death almost instantly and there's often very little the doctors can do; however, chances are good a C-section on the spot would get the baby out safely, assuming it's old enough to survive with technological assistance at that point. What I was trying to do--assuming you'd consider abortion permissible in, e.g., the case of a woman diagnosed with life-threatening pre-eclampsia at 20 weeks--was to get you to spell out what criterion you're using to determine that her life should take precedence, i.e., that minimizing the risk to the baby (by leaving it in utero as long as possible, even if maternal death ultimately results) doesn't justify maximizing the risks to her (which would of course be resolved by ending the pregnancy).
Quote:
it doesn't seem anyone here supports an abortion beyond 22 weeks unless it is for some extreme medical emergency. I assume it is because we all agree it would be murder of a human being. So, why not make it illegal for those "rare" occurances where a mother does decide she simply doesn't want the child (or she begins to "show" she's pregnant and decides for whatever reason she can't go on with the pregnancy) after 22 weeks?
I wouldn't object to making abortion illegal after the first trimester save for medical necessity, as is in fact the rule in most of Europe; in my view that's a quite reasonable compromise. As a generalization, the discourse surrounding the legal status of abortion in most of Europe has followed a very different trajectory than it has here--the paradigm has been one of balancing the state's interests in protecting the bodily integrity and legal agency of existing citizens (women) against those of protecting the benefit to society of acquiring and supporting future citizens (babies). (Unsurprisingly, they also do a far better job of promoting contraception and providing social services for mothers and children than we do.) Whereas here it tends to be framed as a head-to-head, black-and-white, either-or collision between equal personhood of mother and equal personhood of fetus: either women have the same right men do, in all cases, to not have the state seize custody of their bodies (barring incompetence or criminality), or they don't; either fetuses have the same right women do, in all cases, to existence from conception on, or they don't...take your pick; it's a demotion to a lower order of personhood either way, and no amount of pontificating about the wonders of fetal development or the woman's inviolable right to privacy can change that. It forces a lot of people to take a side they are not really fully comfortable with (or worse, to leave the extremists on either end to slug it out through case law). In my view, a compromise solution on the standard European model would be preferable to this state of affairs.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 10:29 PM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,774
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Of course she does. She doesn't blame anyone. But she does feel deceived. She has more knowledge now. She wouldn't make the same choice if she knew then what she knows now.
Was this before or after you subjected her to your pro-life barrage?

This thread makes me laugh.
__________________

__________________
blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 10:32 PM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueeyedgirl


This thread makes me laugh.
That is a very sad statement considering the content.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 10:40 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
In my view, a compromise solution on the standard European model would be preferable to this state of affairs.
I found your entire post interesting, but this point really stood out to me.

I also agree there is some room for compromise. Someone suggested that we should mark when life begins the same we mark it when it ends - with the heartbeat.

Other's have suggested that the morning after pill is a good compromise because it keeps the egg from implanting along the wall of the uterus.

I'm not a doctor. But there must be a point before birth when we consider the fetus a human being. It is obvious now that 22 weeks is well past that line.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 02:41 AM   #110
pgv
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,979
Local Time: 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I'm interested in stopping the lie from "women's rights' groups" and stopping the barbaric practice of infanticide.
There are plenty more people who agree with abortion that just members of 'womens rights groups' - you obviously see abortion as some evil a woman can commit, but are you actually looking into all the heart breaking reasons why women actually have abortions?
Or have you just decided that women have been 'brainwashed' into thinking 'abortion is a good thing, lets all do it!' because they can't make probably one of the most hardest decisions in their lives one their own?
__________________
pgv is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 04:02 AM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I'm not interested in hunting down everyone who once had an abortion. I'm interested in stopping the lie from "women's rights' groups" and stopping the barbaric practice of infanticide.
See it's this kind of talk that makes it so difficult to have a reasonable discussion on this issue. This is such a heavily loaded statement you could shoot bear with it. Anyone you address this to is automatically go on the defense and you'll make no headway in making your point.

I'm assuming you read the old abortion thread so you know that my mom didn't "buy into some lie from the women's rights groups." Also insisting on the term "murder" in the face so much of evidence that the vast majority of women who choose in abortion have anything but a "murderous" attitude is wasteful too.

The irony is no one (so far) on this thread actually "supports" abortion and yet we fight on because of the insistence on taking and maintaining stances that dehumanize the opposition.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 06:15 AM   #112
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Well said as usual, Sean!
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 09:09 AM   #113
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


See it's this kind of talk that makes it so difficult to have a reasonable discussion on this issue. This is such a heavily loaded statement you could shoot bear with it. Anyone you address this to is automatically go on the defense and you'll make no headway in making your point.

I'm assuming you read the old abortion thread so you know that my mom didn't "buy into some lie from the women's rights groups." Also insisting on the term "murder" in the face so much of evidence that the vast majority of women who choose in abortion have anything but a "murderous" attitude is wasteful too.

The irony is no one (so far) on this thread actually "supports" abortion and yet we fight on because of the insistence on taking and maintaining stances that dehumanize the opposition.
Have you ever seen a Pro-Choice Parade? They are usually part of larger parades - like Women's Rights. These women (mostly women) are very adamant on their stance of "my body, my choice."

It is also on many bumper stickers here in the SF Bay Area. The attitude is very hostile about preserving this "right to privacy."

My point is this - it is a lie. It is not a matter of a right to privacy and it is not a matter of a cute little slogan "my body, my choice." It is a matter of life and death and it is serious.

Sean, you have your own style of persuasion and I have mine. While I know I sometimes offend those entirely opposed to my views, I also know that my extreme examples that display flaws in thinking have helped people "come off the fence" on several different issues, this one included. I know this because of PM's, e-mails, and the people I've met and had discussions with my entire life.

Am I master spreaker/writer? No. By no means. I admit that you, Yolland, Melon, A_W and most others are far more gifted writers than I am. But I do think I have a somewhat decent ability to expose social lunacy - and marching for the right to have an abortion is social lunacy.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 10:25 AM   #114
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Have you ever seen a Pro-Choice Parade? They are usually part of larger parades - like Women's Rights. These women (mostly women) are very adamant on their stance of "my body, my choice."

It is also on many bumper stickers here in the SF Bay Area. The attitude is very hostile about preserving this "right to privacy."

My point is this - it is a lie. It is not a matter of a right to privacy and it is not a matter of a cute little slogan "my body, my choice." It is a matter of life and death and it is serious.


actually, i participated in the largest pro-choice parade (i think in US history) in 2004 in WDC. over 800,000 people showed up. it had nothing to do with a larger context of Women's Rights, but it did have the understanding that women will never have the same rights as men until they are able to determine when they do and do not get pregnant. i think we all agree that condoms are better than unwanted pregnancies, and every baby should be a wanted baby. i'm actually quite disappointed that you've exposed that part of your opposition to abortion -- or at leaste the pro-choice movement -- is due to entranched, and quite sexist, views on women, feminism, and what "reproductive rights" actually are.

it still amazes me that you're brushing past two points:

1. the vast, vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester
2. you seem totally unconcerned with the mother

essentiallly, you're saying that a fetus has more rights than a living, breathing, adult woman, and that the moment she is pregnant she loses control over her body. she is now a vessel filled with sacred life, and she mustn't touch. she mustn't do anything to interfere with the bringing of yet another mouth to feed into the world. she's merely a conduit.

and i think it's much easier to hold this view when you aren't a woman.

but i don't doubt your sincerity. now i sincerely ask you these questions:

1. are you prepared to offer every child in America universal health care, immunizations, etc.?
2. are you prepared to make sure that every child in America has a roof over its head and food in its stomach?
3. are you prepared to admit that there are more babies than heterosexual couples, so we are going to allow gay couples to adopt?
4. are you prepared to offer free quality daycare to single working mothers who've had to sacrafice to have a baby?
5. are you prepared to offer job assistance to single poor mothers with little or no quantifiable skills?
6. are you prepared to offer a kind of "baby welfare" whereby the government gives a single woman enough money to take care of her children?
7. are you prepared to offer free quality early childhood education to every child in the US?
8. are you prepared to offer full neo-natal care to each and every woman in the US regardless of their insurance status?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:30 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


it still amazes me that you're brushing past two points:

1. the vast, vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester
Well, a vast majority of people don’t kill kids in kindergarten - that doesn’t make it okay to chop up senior citizens.
Quote:

2. you seem totally unconcerned with the mother
I am equally concerned for both the mother and the child.
Quote:

essentiallly, you're saying that a fetus has more rights than a living, breathing, adult woman, and that the moment she is pregnant she loses control over her body. she is now a vessel filled with sacred life, and she mustn't touch. she mustn't do anything to interfere with the bringing of yet another mouth to feed into the world. she's merely a conduit
.
she is more than a mere conduit. The “sacredness” is in the entire process of which mother and child play equal parts. As the mothers I know would tell you, they certainly are “connecting” with their child as he/she grows within them.
Quote:

and i think it's much easier to hold this view when you aren't a woman.
Perhaps. Although my wife is much stronger in her pro-life views than even I am.
Quote:

but i don't doubt your sincerity. now i sincerely ask you these questions:

1. are you prepared to offer every child in America universal health care, immunizations, etc.?
2. are you prepared to make sure that every child in America has a roof over its head and food in its stomach?
3. are you prepared to admit that there are more babies than heterosexual couples, so we are going to allow gay couples to adopt?
4. are you prepared to offer free quality daycare to single working mothers who've had to sacrafice to have a baby?
5. are you prepared to offer job assistance to single poor mothers with little or no quantifiable skills?
6. are you prepared to offer a kind of "baby welfare" whereby the government gives a single woman enough money to take care of her children?
7. are you prepared to offer free quality early childhood education to every child in the US?
8. are you prepared to offer full neo-natal care to each and every woman in the US regardless of their insurance status?
I don’t see these as related. If we made it mandatory that all of these things are in place before another child is born – then we might as well kidnap every single pregnant woman on earth and abort their babies while at the same time make it illegal to ever give birth again.

All of these things you mentioned should be addressed. But they are not a prerequisite for the right to be born.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:42 PM   #116
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

All of these things you mentioned should be addressed. But they are not a prerequisite for the right to be born.


until you can meet all of these conditions, you are not prepared to live in a world without legal abortion.

actually, i almost hope it happens, abortion is made illegal, so you can see what the disasterous social consequences will be.

(warning: graphic photo)

basically, AEON, you're only pro-birth. you are not pro-life.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:49 PM   #117
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



actually, i almost hope it happens, abortion is made illegal, so you can see what the disasterous social consequences will be.
Abortion will never be made illegal.

It is not in the interest of pro-life politicians to do so. They need this as a topic to get morally outraged about, but losing this argument would take away their ability to get on TV and talk about aborted babies and post photos of fetuses.

In South Dakota, which I can only imagine is one of your most conservative states, the abortion ban first suffered a clear defeat by the public and now by the legislature. And it was a stunning legislative defeat.

Abortion will remain legal, because most people, even the ones in SD who oppose it, understand the reality of criminalizing it, and because politicians who use it as a bargaining chip will never, ever give it up.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:54 PM   #118
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




basically, AEON, you're only pro-birth. you are not pro-life.
Well - I like to think I'm both. Again - I said that all of those things you mentioned are good discussion points - but it isn't a reason to have an abortion.

According to this line of thinking - it seems you are advocating making it illegal to have one more child born into this country (if not the world) until these social issues are fixed. Is that correct?

Also - would you consider the compromise Yolland suggested? Making abortion illegal after 12 weeks?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 01:02 PM   #119
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Well - I like to think I'm both. Again - I said that all of those things you mentioned are good discussion points - but it isn't a reason to have an abortion.


you're right, it's not a reason to have an abortion; it is a reason to keep abortion legal.


Quote:
According to this line of thinking - it seems you are advocating making it illegal to have one more child born into this country (if not the world) until these social issues are fixed. Is that correct?

where on earth ... are you taking notes from STING on how to make a wild conclusion out of a totally unrelated set of facts? i think the mantra "every child a wanted child" is completely different from the Chinese government, and the comparison is so laughable that i'm not even sure i should respond.

if you want 14 kids, great! if you want 0 kids, great!



Quote:
Also - would you consider the compromise Yolland suggested? Making abortion illegal after 12 weeks?
not without exceptions for the health of the mother or any other myriad medical reasons. while this isn't on the books, as statistics (and everyone in this thread) points out, this is what happens already: the vast, vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester; those that happen after are nearly all done for medical reasons.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 01:03 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Abortion will never be made illegal.


you're totally right. it brings in way too much money, particularly now that marriage equality is losing the appeal it held amongst the Christofascists in 2003/4.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com