|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: * offer expires at birth
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Are you saying your posts have logical fallacies I miss? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Niteowl2:
I did mention the kids would be forced to get care in the ER - the most expensive care on the planet - if they couldn't get the specialist care they need.
There have been recent cuts in rates paid to doctors who accept Medicaid and there have been reports of docs no longer accepting Medicaid patients or denying certain types of patients or treatments. Instead of paying high rates to ER's and contributing to the log jam there, why not just the docs more money? You'll still save money in the long run.
I suppose that would be up to the people running Medicaid in Illinois. Democrats from Illinois aren't likely to be prolife stalwarts. So...I'm not sure how the way Democrats in Illinois run Medicaid applies to the subject of the thread.
[ 17. June 2011, 21:58: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Niteowl2:
I did mention the kids would be forced to get care in the ER - the most expensive care on the planet - if they couldn't get the specialist care they need.
There have been recent cuts in rates paid to doctors who accept Medicaid and there have been reports of docs no longer accepting Medicaid patients or denying certain types of patients or treatments. Instead of paying high rates to ER's and contributing to the log jam there, why not just the docs more money? You'll still save money in the long run.
I suppose that would be up to the people running Medicaid in Illinois. Democrats from Illinois aren't likely to be prolife stalwarts. So...I'm not sure how the way Democrats in Illinois run Medicaid applies to the subject of the thread.
The study was specifically Illinois, but the problem isn't. It's also happening here in California - which I also mentioned - and I imagine other states as the rates doctors are paid have been cut dramatically. Doctors are bailing and those that are still in the program are refusing to see Medicaid patients with chronic illnesses in their practice. This forces those patients into the ER, for which the taxpaying public will pay for through higher medical costs and insurance premiums, when there is a crisis, which with asthma and diabetes can easily be fatal. This isn't rocket science Beeswax.
[ 17. June 2011, 22:48: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I like Jerry Brown. But, California is another state run by Democrats. Even some of the Republicans are prochoice. Californians also have no clue what they really want and vote accordingly. Voter fickleness leads to economic chaos. How does this prove that prolifers don't care about children and the offer of life expires at birth? You've got a rather limited study and personal experiences that suggest Medicaid dollars in states run by prochoice politicians aren't spent efficiently.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Yes, voters in California are clueless. That doesn't change the fact that there are people who want to make abortion illegal but don't give a shit about poor women and children.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Sure
And there are people who want to keep abortion legal that don't give a shit about the children either even though they go on and on about how people who want to make abortion illegal don't give a shit about children.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
True. But that doesn't invalidate any of my claims. Despite your extensive goal-shifting, your claims aren't doing so well.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You just agreed to the primary claim I've been making the entire thread.
The other claims I've made stand as well.
What goal shifting?
Did you read the article in the OP?
I've maintained the article was a load of bullshit. Nobody has really tried to defend the article's hysterical claims. Some have offered more unfounded hysterical claims. Don't know if those were supposed to be taken seriously or not.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QB] What goal shifting?[QB]
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did you read the article in the OP? I've maintained the article was a load of bullshit.
As you read the OP, I'm sure you noticed that I called the article a "bit of polemic." I wasn't interested in defending it. I simply used it as a jumping-off point for the conversation here.
It really does seem to me that many people who identify themselves as pro-life hold inconsistent positions. Which is okay -- nobody is entirely consistent. But as you have noted, people who have differing opinions on abortion tend to talk past each other. Their positions aren't exactly opposite, although they don't always seem to realize that. So I was interested in learning how people who identify themselves as pro-life made their ideas fit together, how they made them into a rational whole.
You and Liopleurodon have helped me gain some understanding, and Eliab's insights on his thread have also been helpful.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It's also happening here in California - which I also mentioned - and I imagine other states as the rates doctors are paid have been cut dramatically. Doctors are bailing and those that are still in the program are refusing to see Medicaid patients with chronic illnesses in their practice. This forces those patients into the ER, for which the taxpaying public will pay for through higher medical costs and insurance premiums, when there is a crisis, which with asthma and diabetes can easily be fatal. This isn't rocket science Beeswax.
I'm on Medi-Cal/Medicaid. Many doctors had bailed out long before the last few rounds of budget cuts. And many of those who remain will only take Medi-Cal patients who also have Medicare. Medicare pays more (and more quickly IIRC). Even before all these cuts, Medi-Cal paid so little for office visits, was so recalcitrant, and took so long that some docs didn't even bother to bill them. Fortunately, I do have Medicare. (Possible cuts there are a whole 'nother Oprah.)
A couple of my docs, seemingly good, have said variations of "we don't need to monitor this problem any more" (even though it still exists and is symptomatic) and "oh, I'll get your records and review them, then let you know--you don't have to make another appointment" and not contact me...leaving me to wonder if my insurance is the reason.
[ 18. June 2011, 06:45: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pregnant women who can't afford health insurance qualify for Medicaid.
So?
Doctors are not required to accept Medicaid patients. In my state, most pregnant Medicaid patients are put on waiting lists for services and typically give birth long before being seen for their first prenatal appointment.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Even some of the Republicans are prochoice.
What do you mean "even"?
According to opinion polls about 70% of Republican voters are in favour of abortion being legally available in some circumstances. More than 10% of them are in favour of abortion being more widely available than it is now.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Indeed they are. Those circumstances are rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Minus those exceptions, the nation as a whole is split evenly on the right to choose with 68% of Republicans describing their views as pro-life.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
For some of them -- not all, of course, by any means -- I'm sure that would change the moment their bright, beautiful 17-year-old college-bound daughter got pregnant by her no-account asshole of a boyfriend.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed they are. Those circumstances are rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
Or severe disability of the child. (That's not an exception that I'm wild about, but it's one that many, many people think should be allowed.)
quote:
Minus those exceptions, the nation as a whole is split evenly on the right to choose with 68% of Republicans describing their views as pro-life.
I know a fair number of people who describe themselves as pro-life who could equally well be described as pro-choice, and I'm sure the reverse is true as well. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" seem to me to be shibboleths that identify you as "one of us" or "one of them" rather than anything that accurately describes a political position.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
One of the...biological inequities?...of human reproduction is that a man can help create a fetus, not even know it, and (whether or not he knows about the fetus) walk away. I'm talking about the actual *physical* situations here, not laws or ethics. He does not have to deal with the pregnancy.
Whereas a pregnant girl or woman can't walk away. The pregnancy is in her body. Whether she ignores it, has an abortion, has the baby and keeps it, gives it up for adoption, abandons it, sells it, or even kills the infant due to post-partum psychosis, SOMETHING is going to happen, and she'll have the consequences. In her body, in her mind, in her life, in other people's judgment. One way or another, she's stuck with the fact of the pregnancy.
I recognize that this inequity is hard on men, too--some guys would want to know and to be there to help raise the child; and some are broken-hearted if the girl/woman chooses any of the other options.
But because reproduction is arranged so that the pregnancy happens within one partner, she has to be the one to decide.
For the record, I'm very middle of the road about abortion. I don't know what that life--or bundle of lives--is. I think the decision isn't JUST about the fetus, nor JUST about the girl/woman. So I think abortion should be safe, legal, and rare--as long as "rare" isn't part of the law. Because no one can or should make the decision except the girl/woman in whom the pregnancy is happening.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I like Jerry Brown. But, California is another state run by Democrats. Even some of the Republicans are prochoice. Californians also have no clue what they really want and vote accordingly. Voter fickleness leads to economic chaos. How does this prove that prolifers don't care about children and the offer of life expires at birth? You've got a rather limited study and personal experiences that suggest Medicaid dollars in states run by prochoice politicians aren't spent efficiently.
Go ahead and look at any state in the union. Doesn't matter whether run by Dems or GOP. Facts are Medicaid rates have been cut, docs are either dumping those patients or not taking those with chronic conditions. You must not be close to being a rocket scientist as you aren't getting even the simplest of facts, instead choosing partisanship as an argument. As long as you want to play that game there is no talking to you.
[ 19. June 2011, 07:04: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Maybe
You are missing my point. The thread is about how prolifers feel about children. Medicaid is funded by both state and federal government. Cuts can come from either the state or federal level. Increases can happen at both levels as well. Medicaid is administered by the states.
If cuts are happening in every state, then it isn't just the work of prolifers. Do the cuts mean nobody really cares about the children? Maybe. On the other hand, it likely means the governments of those states believe they aren't making health care for the poor impossible to obtain just giving them less choice in where they go for health care and make them wait longer for it. In the study cited in your article, which we don't have enough details, 34% of children with Medicaid still received appointments. The ones who didn't had the option of going to county hospital or the ER. Yes, people with private insurance have more options and wait less time to see specialists as those with government provided health care. That's the case in the UK as well. The UK just has fewer people with private insurance. Perhaps, the system needs to be drastically changed. However, the system says very little about prolifers feelings about children.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I like Jerry Brown. But, California is another state run by Democrats.
To be strictly fair the constitution of California with its weird system for the raising of taxes (requiring a two thirds majority to do so) means that if a sufficiently large group is playing hardball, then nobody runs the place. Every collection has its pathological example - California is it in terms of constitutional strangeness.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
I suspect that most prolife, American, republicans see nothing hypocritical in beleaving that drowning all the children in a world wide flood is just and right.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
I know a fair number of people who describe themselves as pro-life who could equally well be described as pro-choice, and I'm sure the reverse is true as well. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" seem to me to be shibboleths that identify you as "one of us" or "one of them" rather than anything that accurately describes a political position.
Tell me about it. I self-identify as pro-choice, and when we discovered our third baby was going to have an "alternative lifestyle" due to gross skeletal abnormalities, I exercised my choice and chose to continue with the pregnancy. One of the hospital doctors told me that I was pro-life; as soon as I chose not to abort, according to him, I ceased to be pro-choice. According to him "pro-choice" meant having the right to choose an abortion, not the right to choose not to abort. According to him, by making a choice, I had ceased to be pro-choice! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
NorthEastQuine - I'm similarily pro-choice. I have every sympathy with people having early abortions, within the first few weeks, because they really cannot deal with pregnancy or a child for whatever reason. But it's so much harder having decided you want the child and scans show later that there are problems. You're then dealing with a wanted child.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
In the event, our son was stillborn. But having chosen to continue the pregnancy my worst fear was that he would have such a poor quality of life that I would come to regard the decision not to abort as one of moral cowardice. Part of the problem is that the outcome is so uncertain -our consultant had not had any previous parents choose to continue, and so she had no experience of the latter part of such a pregnancy. None of the midwives did, either. This is actually an area where medical expertise is diminishing over time.
I know four people who have had late abortions of wanted babies. (Three personally, one the daughter of someone I knew personally.) It's a horrendous situation. None of them stopped loving their babies despite aborting them. None of them could see any prospect of a good life for their babies. I have no doubt that all four ended their pregnancies unselfishly, because they felt that not living was the best thing for their baby.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I suspect that most prolife, American, republicans see nothing hypocritical in beleaving that drowning all the children in a world wide flood is just and right.
American Republicans have plans to drown all the children in a world wide flood!
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I suspect that most prolife, American, republicans see nothing hypocritical in beleaving that drowning all the children in a world wide flood is just and right.
American Republicans have plans to drown all the children in a world wide flood!
Ha ha I wouldn't put it past them.
Just commenting on the views of bible literalists.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I suspect that most prolife, American, republicans see nothing hypocritical in beleaving that drowning all the children in a world wide flood is just and right.
American Republicans have plans to drown all the children in a world wide flood!
only if they're on welfare...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Ahhh...a worldwide flood that targets poor children.
Who knew the Republicans were such maniacal geniuses?
the late Phil Hartman that's who
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I suspect that most prolife, American, republicans see nothing hypocritical in beleaving that drowning all the children in a world wide flood is just and right.
American Republicans have plans to drown all the children in a world wide flood!
He didn't say that they plan to do it, but that they accept it. As in, in the past. In Noah's flood. Get it? get it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Because all Republicans but no Democrats are biblical literalists?
I beg to differ.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I know four people who have had late abortions of wanted babies. (Three personally, one the daughter of someone I knew personally.) It's a horrendous situation. None of them stopped loving their babies despite aborting them. None of them could see any prospect of a good life for their babies. I have no doubt that all four ended their pregnancies unselfishly, because they felt that not living was the best thing for their baby.
My God. I can't imagine. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
And as far as I'm concerned, that people who want their babies can bring themselves to abort them totally puts paid to the idea that life is always necessarily the best thing.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
So, let's come up with a list of birth defects or illnesses that make it in the best interest of the child to be aborted. Then, we can abort all babies that are known to suffer from those conditions. It is about the future suffering of the child isn't it?
What about the people already living with those defects or illnesses?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
As I think you well know, that is impossible because of the wide variety of outcomes even within people affected by one condition.
That is why this is so difficult. No-one has a crystal ball. No-one can tell how badly their child is going to be affected by the condition that's been diagnosed. No-one can tell what impact the birth of a child with a severe disability is going to have on their family, and whether their family can handle that.
I have two children. In both my pregnancies, at the 20-week scans, I sat in a counselling room being told that the scans revealed severe problems. I was damn lucky because I sat in that room with my husband holding my hand, knowing that we had the support of our extended families and community, my husband in stable employment, and that all the medical care I would need in the pregnancies, and our children would need after birth would not be a financial burden to us.
I describe myself as pro-life, but after having that experience twice, there is no way I could stand in judgement on a woman who found herself alone, with no support and no free health care, and made a different decision to the one we did.
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Because all Republicans but no Democrats are biblical literalists?
I beg to differ.
What does that have to do with anything on this thread?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, let's come up with a list of birth defects or illnesses that make it in the best interest of the child to be aborted. Then, we can abort all babies that are known to suffer from those conditions.
You just. don't. get. it. It's not about making blanket rules. It's about each woman having to make a terrible decision. See birdie's post.
[ 21. June 2011, 22:23: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Oh...I get it.
If you'll all admit with Apocalypso, that you don't really care anymore about the children than those prolifers condemned in the OP, I'll be happy drop the whole thing.
And, I agree George Spigot's point about Republicans and the deluge has nothing to do with the thread. I was just trying to give him an opportunity to explain how it did. That's what I get for taking his statement seriously.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh...I get it.
If you'll all admit with Apocalypso, that you don't really care anymore about the children than those prolifers condemned in the OP, I'll be happy drop the whole thing.
If you'll just admit you would sacrifice two children you already have to give birth to a third, then I'll be happy to drop the whole thing.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Don't be silly. You can't terminate children once they are born. Fortunately, the prochoice offer expires at birth.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Fortunately, the prochoice offer expires at birth.
No it doesn't. They are going to tax you to pay for medical care and welfare for the kids the right-wingers are happy to watch starve on street corners once they are born.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh...I get it.
If you'll all admit with Apocalypso, that you don't really care anymore about the children than those prolifers condemned in the OP, I'll be happy drop the whole thing.
Did you read what North East Quine and Birdie posted? Because this is one of the crassest replies I've yet to see to posters who have shared with you what it's like to actually face these decisions as a mother. I daresay there is plenty crassness and silliness on the thread to go round, but attempting some kind of empathy when addressing the thoughtful posts of people who have bothered to share with you some of the most painful experiences of their lives would be nice.
L.
[ 22. June 2011, 01:24: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Josephine started this thread with crassness.
Why expect something more on day 8 and page 5?
For what it's worth...if RuthW had left this part out her post...
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
And as far as I'm concerned, that people who want their babies can bring themselves to abort them totally puts paid to the idea that life is always necessarily the best thing.
I wouldn't have posted again on this thread.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
What about the people already living with those defects or illnesses?
We had two diagnoses; one at 20 weeks which would have meant our child would grow up to have an "alternative lifestyle" - gross skeletal deformity, but people with that condition have gone on to have good lives; marriage, children, careers, paralympic swimmers. However each scan showed that our baby was towards the severe end of the condition and at 34 weeks the diagnosis changed to the "thanatophoric" form of the condition i.e. inevitably fatal. And our baby did, in fact, die in utero at days short of 40 weeks.
The hospital told us that no baby with that condition had ever reached its first birthday, but our own research suggested that a life expectancy of 18 months was possible.
So, in answer to your question, "what about people already living with those defects" well, in the case of our baby's condition, no one "lives" with it.
Of the four women I know personally, only one had a reasonable expectation of her baby being able to come home and "live" with the condition.
birdie puts it more eloquently than I can, in her post above.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
For example, as a pregnant woman there are a lot of automatic blood tests taken in the UK, which you don't get a choice about. Say those blood tests pick up the possibility that the foetus has Down's syndrome, the most common chromosomal abnormality. To confirm this the woman then has to have further tests - amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) - both of which are invasive tests with increased risk of miscarriage (2 in 100 for CVS, 1 in 100 for amniocentesis after 15 weeks).
You can choose whether or not to have these tests, but should they come back positive for chromosomal abnormalities then the next question is carry to term or abort. I knew people who chose not to have the tests because, by this stage 12-15 weeks gestation for CVS or 15 weeks for amniocentesis, they had already chosen to carry the baby whatever. But having the tests means a chance to prepare for possible difficulties. However, getting the results means that you will also be asked if you want to carry the baby to term or abort. In fact, mothers of Down's Syndrome children have reported a lot of pressure to abort.
The problem is, Down's Syndrome is a syndrome which ranges from people surviving into their 20s, coping with jobs and supported living in the community, to children with severe difficulties from the hole in the heart they were born with, who don't survive their first bout of pneumonia. You cannot tell how badly affected the baby is at 12, 15 or 20 weeks gestation.
And that's just one condition of many.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Birdie and NEQ: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Josephine started this thread with crassness.
Why expect something more on day 8 and page 5?
For what it's worth...if RuthW had left this part out her post...
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
And as far as I'm concerned, that people who want their babies can bring themselves to abort them totally puts paid to the idea that life is always necessarily the best thing.
I wouldn't have posted again on this thread.
Because making an effort to respond thoughtfully to other thoughtful posts is a way to improve the debate for everyone, and it can help to develop empathy on these issues beyond knee-jerk attacks, as I found from considering the heart-breaking experiences of people who don't share my views for whom the loss of even very early pregnancies was a tragedy. That really made me think about how these issues can be approached to take account of their feelings too. It can move us beyond our own comfort zones and open us up to some understanding of others who believe differently or give us new perspectives on what it's like really to face those situations.
To say 'But X posted this ...' or 'But Y posted that...' misses the point. Nobody's holding us at gunpoint and forcing us to poke each other with sticks. We can always choose to take spats to the Hell board and to respond to thoughtful posts, in kind, thoughtfully.
I don't manage to live up to this counsel of perfection myself as much as I'd like at all (perhaps I fail utterly at it, and I apologise if my post to you was unduly grumpy), but at least that's why, when I give it enough thought, I try to make the effort. I think those posts, like NEQs and Birdie's that share personal experience without being aggressive or saying 'There is only one way - my way.' are the most helpful for these debates, but that's just my opinion.
cheers
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Josephine started this thread with crassness.
Why expect something more on day 8 and page 5?
For what it's worth...if RuthW had left this part out her post...
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
And as far as I'm concerned, that people who want their babies can bring themselves to abort them totally puts paid to the idea that life is always necessarily the best thing.
I wouldn't have posted again on this thread.
I don't see how why you think what I posted was crass. But I will rephrase.
People who wanted their babies, who deeply loved them, who probably cried agonized tears over the condition of their unborn children -- these people made the decision to abort. No one in the world was ever going to love these children more than these folks, and they felt the best decision they could make was to abort. If loving parents in this horrible position find that abortion is a better choice than going forward with the pregnancy, than I can't help but think that the flat statement that "life is always the best choice" is simply not true.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
For me, though, such an argument would be pro-infanticide as well as pro-abortion: if life is so bad that death is the kinder option before birth then why not afterwards too?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
In this country, if a baby's only chance of survival is successful life-saving major surgery, which is in itself dependent on the compatible organs of another baby becoming available quickly enough, the NHS pays.
What happens in America? Who picks up the massive costs of organ transplant at the moment?
In the article Josephine links to in the OP, it is suggested that children might cease to be covered for pre-existing conditions. Presumably a condition diagnosed by ante-natal scan is "pre-existing"? If this happens, who would pay for babies such as this to be given a chance?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Matt, what you are describing as infanticide may be as simple as not providing treatment and allowing the child to die, because without massive intervention that's what is going to happen. The people I knew in that situation found this an easier thing to deal with, and the subsequent funeral of a child carried to term.
But there are risks with a child that compromised - that they might die before birth and the complications that come with that.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Plus there are the whole hazards -physical and other - of carrying the pregnancy to term and delivering the child, I should imagine.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
For me, though, such an argument would be pro-infanticide as well as pro-abortion: if life is so bad that death is the kinder option before birth then why not afterwards too?
If we're talking (as I think we are) about babies who are only going to suffer and then die soon after birth, whatever we do, I personally have no problem with legalised euthanasia for them, before or after birth.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
