That's barely over 5 months, folks.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070220/D8ND49N01.html

Herb

So?

That's, uh, great.

Andrew

Herb, if you're trying to make some statement about baby killers like Rudy Giuliani, you're going to have to be a little less subtle.

Andrew

LOL!!!

Andrew, I never said I would vote for Mr. Giuliani. I merely stated that given his leadership during 9/11, he was America's Mayor. Given a pro-life candidate who isn't soft on fighting terror, that's who I'm voting for. I'm a Nixon man, remember?

So at what age should an unborn child be allowed to live?

Herb

C'mon, Herb, you once famously said Giuliani was "great."

If Giuliani were running against the pro-life Harry Reid in the general, whom would you vote for, Herb?

Andrew

I don't know much about Harry Reid. Is he soft on terror? If he's not, then Harry Reid.

I answered your question, so at what age should an unborn child be allowed to live?

Herb

Society has answered this question.

We have a combination of law and science that determine this. Money is also a factor as well.

It's in the mothers hands. We encourage her to make her decision as early as is possible. Innovations like this, help with that choice and that's good.

Well, age is a term for after-birth. I am not an expert on the development of an embryo or a fetus, but in general, I think by the age of viability a woman should no longer be allowed to abort except if the birth could endanger the life of the mother. I definitely support the type of late-term abortion bill President Clinton wanted to sign, which would have banned the (rare) practice except when the life of the mother is endangered.

Most states ban elective abortion after the first trimester, so what's your point in all this?

Forcing a woman to give birth at, say, 21 weeks in some hypothetical situation (so that the fetus might be allowed a chance to be born) might be considered dangerous to the surviving baby, assuming it survives. These kinds of premature babies are prone to all sorts of health problems, perhaps even brain damange and perhaps great suffering. But I'd guess these cases are so extremely rare that it's not really a question worth debating.

Andrew

one does wonder at what age does an undead human should be allowed to die?

I think the best a man can do about this topic is to marry a woman who believes the same as he. It's also worthy of The Supreme Court ruling.

I've also wished that we, as a nation, could just flat out vote every 5 years or so, on hot button topics like this and move on to other things. It brings out the worst of both sides.

Man, I don't know if that would be a good thing or not.

The idea that serious change could happen that frequently might just send everybody into a more or less constant advocacy cycle beyond what we see today.

Also, that undermines the law and how it works as well.

Making key decisions in a way that is somewhat hard to circumvent is a very good thing in general.

Sure, we've got some bad ones, but we enjoy the protection of a whole lot of good ones too. This would not be the case if we were to just shake it all up every few years.

OK every 5 years and 1 month. But that's as long as I am willing to go...in my, uh...non-reality based election cycle...in my head...with my imaginary friends.

It's not going to happen anyway.

I wonder if her parent's health insurance covers the total cost of 4 months in the NICU. I'm assuming they do have insurance since they could afford to use In-Vitro procedures, and she was a teacher.

Let's check back in a few years and see if she's an average healthy, happy kid with no physical or medical issues.

"Let's check back in a few years and see if she's an average healthy, happy kid with no physical or medical issues."

Even if the child wasn't, Winston Churchill's mother was a syphilitic.

Herb

So? What's your point, if you do have one?

Apples to oranges.

Apples to oranges? HOW?

You note that we should "...check back in a few years to see if a child is an average healthy, happy kid with no physical or medical issues."

Are you the arbiter of 'quality of life', Mrs. Merkin?

Herb

Also, the baby WAS NOT "perfectly viable" as you stated. That is utter bull-caca. It's not even close to being truthful!

The doctors pulled out every tool they had (and invented some along the way) to keep that baby alive. Read or watch an in-depth article from a Miami source that talks more about her condition and the extreme measures they took to keep her alive. Part of me wonders if the doctors were in it for the glory and giving themselves a pat on the back and having "one for the record books" and media coverage. I'm not going to get into a Schiavo-type discussion about when-is-enough-enough and playing God, but I do have concerns.

What does Churchill's sick mother have to do with this baby's (healthy) mother?

Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Again I ask you, what is your point?

"What does Churchill's sick mother have to do with this baby's (healthy) mother?"

You stated:

"...see if she's an average healthy, happy kid with no physical or medical issues."

Actually, I was wrong...it was Beethoven's mother who was syphilitic...Churchill was born into an orphanage, but the prinicipal is similar.

That being the case, my point is that being born to a syphilitic mother as was Beethoven, or with no parents to care for a child, as was Churchill, or, as the case of this young infant who was born prematurely, means that we can't always tell what will happen. Far better to promote life, don't you think? That was my point.

Herb

I don't think anyone was suggesting that we not "promote life," only that we shouldn't start assuming that 21 weeks in the womb is plenty of time for a fetus to develop into a healthy baby. On the contrary, a good many babies born so prematurely will not survive or will develop serious health problems - and whether the baby survives or not, the cost to the parents will be astronomical. That's going to mean bankruptcy for some of them with today's health care system, even if the parents are insured.

So should we simply abort it if a fetus must come out of the womb at 21 weeks? Of course not - but let's not pretend this should become routine. I still don't see your point in posting this.

Andrew

You don't see a relaxed attitude toward life in some of these posts and I do.

That's the difference here.

Herb

So the point of your original post was - what again? That the fact that a baby was born alive at 21 weeks means we should all stop being pro-choice at 2-4 weeks?

Andrew

On one hand, we have HerrB complaining:

"The last half dozen or so topics appear to be...merely observational musings."

On the other (right?) hand, he then posts this thread. I'm confused.

Is he trying to make this a political issue and start an argument, or is it just a "musing"?

I'm done nibbling the bait. I hate the taste of hypocrite.

This is a political issue.
I'd rather be a flawed pro-life person, than one who sniffs with indignity and does nothing to help.

Herb

So what's the donation amount (in dollars) that you'll be sending for the hospital bill? You're the one always complaining about things like high medical insurance costs.

I vote pro-life and donate to Birthright and Oregon Right to Life. I also have an adopted child. I'm thrilled to send the little one some help.

Herb

Nixon was a paranoid OCD freak!
He resigned in DISGRACE!
He was a bigot!

At the risk of getting sucked into the buzz saw that is the abortion debate, I must say that the term "age of viability" seems like a copout to me. An unborn person is perfectly viable as long as they remain in their natural environment. Saying that a life isn't viable since it cannot survive outside the womb is like saying a person's life is not viable because they can't breathe underwater. This is a terribly gut wrenching issue and I don't have the answers, but the "age of viability" argument just doesn't make sense to me.

don't fall for the emotional BS labels used by the hate-choice group to distract people. A baby is never "unborn". Life begins at birth, whenever it is. Until then, we have a pregnant woman with a fetus, even if she's 10 months pregant.

When does life actually begin? Up until the mid-1800s the Catholic Church's official position was that life began 40 days after conception for males(and 80 days for females!!!). The Catholic Church also wasn't opposed to abortion up until the last 150 years or so as well.

I don't know when life begins. I don't really want to discuss it because the discussion gets too heated. All I know is that as a man I'll never have to make a choice about abortion for myself. Only a woman can. Abortion is an awful thing that as Bill Clinton said should be safe, legal - and rare. But just because something is awful doesn't mean it should be the government's role to decide its legality or morality over a case where life clearly can't sustain itself (first trimester). That's my position on it.

Honestly, I'd have a lot more sympathy for the pro-life movement if so many of the same people weren't also just as opposed to birth control and sex education.

Andrew

'Life begins at birth, whenever it is. Until then, we have a pregnant woman with a fetus, even if she's 10 months pregant.'

Since you're at odds with medical science, let's set one thing straight. That pre-born baby can feel pain, and very early:

Dr. William Matviuw, an obstetrician & gynecologist, says that the nerves that sense pain reach the skin of the fetus by the ninth week of gestation, and that detectable brain activity in response to noxious (harmful or damaging) stimuli occurs between the eighth and tenth week (as noted in Stanislaw Reinis and Jerome M. Goldman, The Development of the Brain, 1980, pp. 223-235. Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas Publishers).

Perhaps you don't particularly care when a baby is torn to pieces inside a mother's womb. You're entitled to your opinion. But many people do care.

Herb

For me, it's about the emergence of the self. If there is no self, then there is no murder. Also, response to pain stimulii happens before the self is self-aware. Same deal. No self, no pain.

All of that reinforces the idea of the sooner the better. Ideally, contraception does the trick, with the morning after pill ready for those times when things are in doubt.

Things happen, we all know this, might as well be real about it and keep the most practical options open and encourage their use early.

Another biggie is seperating the whole sex before marriage issue. Clearly it's effective, but it's also just not gonna happen on a wider scale.

So, given this, we need solid options for those who simply don't buy this approach.

At the end of the day, our health care burden is the lowest, the fewest selves are harmed, and those that are born stand a high likelyhood of being wanted and will be cared for.

"For me, it's about the emergence of the self. If there is no self, then there is no murder."

More accurately, it's about the DEFINITION of the self. Defining slaves as not fully human allowed their captors to sleep very well. It was still wrong.

Now, with micro-cameras able to monitor growth and sensors able to detect what you call 'self' [and what science calls developed BRAIN ACTIVITY], we have no such excuse.

http://cds.ismrm.org/ismrm-1999/PDF2/446.pdf

Herb

Yes we do.

We still need to preserve choice and encourage early action.

Where are you going with this Herb?

Ban all abortion?

Not gonna happen. Ever. Never, ever. Why? Because physical realities enable choice no matter what the law actually says.

Ban or very sharply limit late term abortion?

Yep, we could get that done as a people, given some yield on the absolute ban bit. For a lot of people, the fear of regressing back to pre-Rowe just shuts them down for the whole discussion. This is a biggie for nearly everyone I've ever spoken to.

Another interesting thing to consider: I don't know anybody that does not favor strong limits on late term abortion. Nobody. Nearly all of them also favor these limits in terms of review and clear criteria for what is and what is not ok to do.

On this point, nearly the entire country could come to some solid agreement, set solid social norms and see this issue brought to the background in a single generation! Think about it for a moment. National consensus, resulting in the lowest abortion rate ever! We would lead the world on this tough issue as a solid democratic nation should!

This is within our grasp today.

That same science link also pretty much says that aborting early on does nobody any harm, because NOBODY is harmed. They are not with us just yet. And if they are not with us, then they won't be missing the experience, now will they? I know it's brutal, but it's real.

IMHO, people need to deal on this, or it's just gonna continue to be a big mess. Imagine how much nicer this whole topic would be if we just dealt with the fact that early abortions are ok, and that they are a physical reality. So, if one is going do do it, they do it as early as they can.

And we deal, in like kind, with the fact that later ones are not ok, barring review and some pretty significant situations. That's a killing by any measure and the later it happens the more ugly and wrong it gets.

If we reach this point, everybody can engage in their advocacy with no worries.

Not aborting is still a great option. Want to avoid the whole mess? No sex before marriage is another, as is contraception and the morning after pill. There is adoption too. You and I have both done this and we are good people for doing it.

At the same time, we remain free to live by our morals as we see them, not as others see them. This is important for young people, if we are to get them to make solid choices.

How many young girls wait and hide because the whole issue is too much to deal with? How much harm does this cause and what barriers does it bring to sex education in general.

In our family, we have choice and everybody knows it. The result? Candid and useful discussions in this area. Know what my fully informed kids are doing, after having learned how this all shakes down?

Waiting because it's nothing but trouble! Who would have figured that one out! I sure would not have. No dogma required, just brutal honesty and solid education.

I don't think they are gonna wait until marriage, but they are gonna wait until they meet people worth the experience and are old enough to handle the potential results. I'm happy with that. Damn happy, frankly.

Ready to deal Herb?

You will do your cause a lot of good if you are. For what it's worth, I would deal on that score quicker than you can read the idea that I'm willing to do so.

I hold the position that if a mother-to-be doesn't want to raise a child, she should be able to have the choice of sparing society of having to deal with a neglected child. We have enough bad parents on the planet already.

We also have enough almost dead people that want to go, and by gosh, we should let them.

What about the man?

The woman didn't get pregnant without the man. (It happened once in history, but that's for a separate thread)

The man bears 50% of the cause and responsibility.

What if he wants to keep the baby but the woman doesn't. He should have equal say since he had an equal part in creating the baby. It's half his.

Thoughts?

Uh, no, the man doesn't bear equal responsibility for a pregancy. A pregnancy for one incurs a great risk to a woman's health (even though that risk has been greatly reduced in the last 100 years). A man incurs zero risk in a pregnancy. He doesn't get morning sickness. His body doesn't change. He doesn't have to risk death in childbirth. He doesn't have to endure incredible pain in childbirth. He doesn't have the ability to nurse a baby with his body. He doesn't have to worry about his career due to time off for a pregancy. Most significantly, he can walk away from a pregnancy without having to get emotionally attached to a new person that grew inside of him for nine months.

A man can choose to walk away any time he wants (except financially) during a pregnancy. A woman can never choose to walk away.

So no, I'd say a man should have zero percent say in whether a woman aborts a pregnancy or not.

Andrew

Andrew, I wasn't speaking of the physical issues, I was speaking of the fact that he had a 50% role in creating the baby so technically the baby is half his.

I'm sure there have been some court cases about this, but I've been up late too many nights in a row and am too tired to Google it!

We can pick this up again tomorrow! Good night!

I must say, it is nice to see all of us playing so nicely together in one sandbox.

In the case of rape or incest, there is no argument here, right?

I did a little wander to Webster's and found the cold hard reality of motherhood, which is, by definition, parasitism.

par·a·sit·ism
noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

par·a·site
noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Pregnancy always negatively impacts a woman's physical or mental health. If a woman decides she is ready for the ordeal, the often crippling effects that last for years, and the lifetime of responsibility, I say, best of luck. If she does not, I say, best of luck to her as well. It takes an animal longer to eat a piece of tainted meat than it does for most couples to create an embryo. Both acts are quite common ways to grow a parasite. It is not a miracle, it is not divine, it is a simple biological reaction.

The population has grown to viral proportions. This planet is so full of people that there is no room for another murderous misanthrope or raging dictator or village idiot. We cannot micromanage each uterus, but we can strongly suggest to our young women the best way to use the tools of knowledge. Any half wit can join the dysfunctional, often criminally stupid world of parenting. A woman who is not prepared to work toward creating the best human being possible, should be given a choice, if only to remove any future burden of the mistake from our collective shoulders.

Being a Mom or Dad is earned through years of nurturing, love, discipline and education. A child needs and deserves virtually all of the parents' focus and energy. It takes special people, with a special bond, to be Mom and Dad. I admire those here who are parents, real Moms and Dads, through an intimate act or adoption. I applaud you all for bearing the responsibility of our future.

What about us Men?

All I have to say is choose your women wisely and none of that is an issue.

"Pregnancy always negatively impacts a woman's physical or mental health."

That's not necessarily true. Ever hear about the 'healthy glow of pregnancy?' Besides, women who have had abortions not only have a higher rate of depression, studies also suggest that women who have never had children are at a higher risk of certain cancers.

And while I'm for family planning, you simply take it too far here:

"This planet is so full of people that there is no room..."

Fact is, in the US, for instance, people take up a tiny fraction of our total land mass.

Littlesongs, I think you've bought into some of the extremist views on the other side. And calling an unborn child a 'parasite' is yet another way people try to de-humanize what is indeed a miracle. The human eye is more marvelous and the human brain is more intricate than virtually anything designed by man.

Besides, what you incorrectly call a 'parasite' often provides for parents when older. You could stretch and try to call it mutualism or commensalism, but it doesn't meet the scientific test of parasitism.

Herb

I agree that there is an almost universal glow to an expectant mother. There is beauty to the process, no doubt, but it is harmful and until this century often resulted in death. Having children still maims women every single day and is a trauma to both the body and mind even without complications.

Perhaps you think my view of our world's population growth is extreme, but I will side with science on the matter. As a species, we have grown beyond sustainable levels and that is a concrete fact. I am not a proponent of the single child laws of the more crowded countries, but I do understand why the concept has been embraced and put into practice.

Until a baby is weaned, it fits all the criteria of parasitism and only then does it slowly begin to escape the definition. We are animals -- despite our id or ego -- and while a child has far more potential than a tapeworm, it does make the body react in much the same way. Both strip the host of valuable nutrients and can result in the death of the host without medical attention.

While the physical harm is lessened with an early abortion, I am in complete agreement with you on the effects of post-natal depression. It is a burden for a woman to bear whether the child is born or not, and unfortunately, is one of the secrets that have been kept from our young women. Educating all young people honestly about birth is a goal I believe all of us would love to see met.

From Kos, discussing the move to enact a abortion ban:

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/02/21/news/top/news00f%20abortion% 20bill.txt

IMHO, we need to all deal and reduce demand by promoting options and by encouraging early action.

"Until a baby is weaned, it fits all the criteria of parasitism..."

That's simply a false statement.

Again, if the mother benefits-which she clearly does in numerous ways-your statement is clearly not true:

http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregnancy/americanbaby/pregnancybenefits.htm l

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5D61F31F932A15750C0A9609C8B6 3

Herb

I hate this thread.

Hey, if you guys wanna let this thread die, I'm fine with that.

I simply hate false statements even more.

Herb

Sorry - I should have been more clear;

I hate what this topic brings out in people.

I will not argue that the risks are lower for an insured, well cared for, healthy woman with a stable home life, a loving husband and a good team of doctors. In fact, the experience can be quite rewarding to a lot of women. However, I will argue that in most cases, some or all of those very crucial factors are missing.

Your first article was discussing women who apparently have relatively little to do beyond taking care of themselves during the pregnancy. In a perfect world, this would be true. All women would have all the medical, financial and emotional support they needed.

In that context, I agree with the things it said and it gave me insight on your viewpoint. Still, I would take this quote to demonstrate my point, "Childbirth has been compared with marathon running, for good reason."

"Peter Donato of Toronto, a veteran race promoter who runs marathon clinics, said there are a lot of runners who overstep what should be their limits and those are the ones who usually get into trouble.

"Some just try to do too much too soon," he said. "If you look at where a lot of trouble happens, it's a-types who work 50 hours, don't eat too well and are egged on by their ego. I do a lot of talks and get a lot of questions and I just end up shaking my head thinking, `You don't know what you're doing.' They don't take the proper approach."

Minnes said it's important for recreational runners to take advantage of clinics to prepare for a race. "This is not like the Olympics where people are vetted in a whole variety of ways. There's no screening process beyond, `Have you discussed this with your physician and are you aware of the risks?'"
http://www.mynextrace.com/Article313.htm

Good questions for mothers and runners alike.