I just read this article on the "Quiverfull" movement where the idea is to have as many kids as possible and that "God is the only one who can open or close the womb". Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I'll just assume that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know the reasons why this is a really bad idea, such as our severely dwindling environmental resources, for one.

On a more mundane level, every time someone complains about a new development going up behind their house, or long lines at the supermarket, or horrible traffic, I feel like screaming "that's because people are having too many *bleeping* kids!

It makes me so mad that people are so dumb.

From the AMA:

H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques

(1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction"(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.

Um, yeah, that's what I said. "instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech" = delivering the baby, feet-first. "breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracrainal contents . . ." (intracranial contents = the stuff in the head = the brains) ". . . of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus" = stabbing the baby at the base of the neck and sucking the brains out with a suction device to ensure that an intact live baby is not delivered.

See how easy it is to take terminology and define it? And clearly it needed to be done, as is evidenced by the earlier question I answered about D&X. Not everyone knows what it is; hopefully they're reading, and now they do. It's a lovely little procedure that was invented because too many saline and prostaglandin abortions ended with the baby being born alive. When you suction the brains out of the head, that doesn't happen.

Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.

I think Carlene said this earlier, that generally abortion is not necessary to save the life of the mother.

I marvel at the AMA's use of the term "sacrifice". When one removed a tumor, it is not called "sacrificing the tumor." The word "sacrifice" has a whole other feel, almost like, {gasp} the deliberate killing of a human being.

"There, but for the grace of God, go I." But none of us who are able to participate in this debate have to worry about that caveat, do we?

Nope, you're right. None of us participating in this debate are dead.

This whole biz of how gets to survive and who doesn't is tricky biz indeed. My brother is a doctor and in his first year in med school he learned that - historically speaking - more women died through childbirth and its complications than men did in war. Yep, up until the 20th century childbirth was a perilous experience for oh so many of us.

Does that mean they should have? Or that because they did, it therefore devalues their lives?

When you walk into a wood you will see a lot of saplings. Most of them won't survive. The rights of the full grown parental trees will trump that of the seedlings.

No, not really. It's just that the full grown parental trees are stronger. Just because a weaker being may not survive something doesn't mean he or she is less deserving of survival, or that we should deliberately kill that being.

I struggle with my beliefs because I am anti-smoking and anti-drinking while pregnant. That said, I am 100% pro-choice.

Thank you for being honest, laurend. I really appreciate it. Most people won't 'fess up to the internal struggle because they're afraid of where it will lead them intellectually.

You are at the crux of the issue. You are anti-smoking and anti-drinking while pregnant, but not anti-scalpel. Please understand, I am not ridiculing you or attacking you. I'm pointing out the dichotomy. And I completely understand why you struggle, because there is inconsistency in many of our belief systems and in the law.

I struggle with my beliefs because I am anti-smoking and anti-drinking while pregnant. That said, I am 100% pro-choice.

I can understand why that would be a struggle. It almost sounds like you're saying "a pregnant woman should be allowed to kill her unborn child, but she should not harm it by smoking and/or drinking".

We have a discussion about the theoretical rights of the unborn, based on theological teachings....which are about to be imposed upon those who do not share those same religious convictions

I've said it over and over and I will say it again. Throw religion out the window. My personal belief about whether the baby has a soul is irrelevant, as is yours. Look at the facts. How do we define life? How do we define the END of life? How should we define the BEGINNING of life? What does science tell us? What does science say is happening in the womb? What does science say when there are two brains in place, two circulatory systems in place? If under any other circumstances you told someone there were two brains in a room, they would naturally assume you meant there were two people.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Black people used to be defined as 3/5 of a person. It's history. It happened. And it was used to deny them their rights. Until they were defined differently, their rights were not intact. Were they indeed 3/5 of a person until the law changed? Of course not! They were 5/5 of a person at all times, but they didn't enjoy the rights of being a full person in the eyes of the law until the law changed.

We don't define humanness by geographical location, economic status, health, or religious viewpoint. When we do, we open ourselves to gross discrimination. And the worst form of discrimination is when one person kills another because they don't think the other person is quite as human as they are.

One other thing. I've been accused of "trying to make people feel guilty" about their abortions. I don't know how I could accomplish that. If abortion is a morally neutral act and perfectly acceptable, why would anyone feel guilty about it?

If someone comes up to me in a parking lot and starts jumping up and down about how I should feel guilty for purchasing a blue car instead of a green one, they can argue until they're blue in the face . . . I'm never going to feel guilty about it because there's nothing wrong with it. I will never feel guilty about choosing to get banded, because there's nothing wrong with it. The personal convictions of the green-car-advocate or the no-surgery-is-legitimate advocate don't affect me because I don't share those convictions. So if someone feels guilty over having an abortion, it's not me making them feel that way. It is the act of abortion that births the guilt. If they truly don't think there's anything wrong with what they did, they won't feel guilty. Period.

I've said it over and over and I will say it again. Throw religion out the window. My personal belief about whether the baby has a soul is irrelevant, as is yours. Look at the facts. How do we define life? How do we define the END of life? How should we define the BEGINNING of life? What does science tell us? What does science say is happening in the womb? What does science say when there are two brains in place, two circulatory systems in place? If under any other circumstances you told someone there were two brains in a room, they would naturally assume you meant there were two people.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Black people used to be defined as 3/5 of a person. It's history. It happened. And it was used to deny them their rights. Until they were defined differently, their rights were not intact. Were they indeed 3/5 of a person until the law changed? Of course not! They were 5/5 of a person at all times, but they didn't enjoy the rights of being a full person in the eyes of the law until the law changed.

We don't define humanness by geographical location, economic status, health, or religious viewpoint. When we do, we open ourselves to gross discrimination. And the worst form of discrimination is when one person kills another because they don't think the other person is quite as human as they are.

Gadgetlady, the fact that you're not getting the "answer" you want just shows that there IS NO one answer to your question. The answer lies in the definitions, which change depending on the beholder. A fetus is not a person. You choose to believe a fetus is a person, but not everyone believes the same way you do. A fetus is in no way equivalent to a grown human being. It just isn't, and science agrees.

If I would define fetus to someone that had NO idea what I was talking about, I would say it is a group of cells that cannot live outside the mother's womb on it's way to becoming a baby. At 1 week, 5 weeks, or 10 weeks that's what it is. How many 5 or 10 week old fetus have lived outside the womb? I don't know, I'm asking for medical evidence here....anyone a taker on that one?

NOW we're gettin' somewhere. It's not a baby. It's a fetus. THERE'S your bottom line.

So, now everone can go back to basing their decisions on what THEY should do on what THEY believe is the right thing to do regarding the fetus in THEIR womb and leave everyone else's womb the hell alone.

Obviously no one's listening to me, maybe they will listen to you Sue! I don't think these folks realize what our logic is here. I have an odd feeling that the folks that do get cornered into a bad situation should have the right to do what they want to their body (there we go w/the judging thing again). Like I said before, how many viable fetus' we passed thru the birth canal and lived at 10 weeks? Please.

If you were a fifteen-year-old who had never heard of a fetus, I'd have to assume you were being home-schooled by religious fanatics who keep calling a fetus "a baby." If you were a "foreigner," you'd probably be able to educate me on the topic because in most other countries, science curricula is left to the scientists and not the religious-political fervor of the moment.

I WOULD tell you that a library--and not a church--is your best bet for locating that information and point you in that direction.

:pound: :pound: :pound: GeezerSue... i like the way you think!

If I would define fetus to someone that had NO idea what I was talking about, I would say it is a group of cells that cannot live outside the mother's womb on it's way to becoming a baby. At 1 week, 5 weeks, or 10 weeks that's what it is. How many 5 or 10 week old fetus have lived outside the womb? I don't know, I'm asking for medical evidence here....anyone a taker on that one?

I think that is a great description to use! You hear about fetuses that ABSORB into twin inside the womb. One baby had two heads, the other head was a clump of hair and sorts, had an eye that winked and parts that moves but no brain. It only survived bc the child was alive It was FEEDING OFF OF THE CHILD> once removed it was no longer anything just a mass of flesh and hair. it looked like a hair ball a cat would cough up.

ANYWAY... I think that you are right. As long as it can not sustain itself on its own if brough out then it is a fetus.

I knew a woman who was antiabortion. Her baby dies in side of her, she kept it for a year.. She smelled terrible as it rotted and decayed in her.. we finally got the court to intervene. It was disgusting. Her health declined too bc it was fighting the infection of a rotting mass inside of her. She stated she was antiabortion over and over. We got her to the hospital so they could take it out. She lost almost 75lbs during this removal. I am SO GLAD i wasnt in the hospital when it happened. She made alot more sense after it was gone too. :girl_hug:

Zealots make no sense to me.

...It's a lovely little procedure that was invented because too many saline and prostaglandin abortions ended with the baby being born alive. When you suction the brains out of the head, that doesn't happen....

Wrong, again. The procedure was developed to prevent having fetal remains left inside the woman's body post-abortion (see the earlier post about the woman with the fetal remains in her body for months...same thing when it's less than an entire fetus) and because it was SAFER for the woman (you know, the "PERSON" in this scenario.)

I think that is a great description to use! You hear about fetuses that ABSORB into twin inside the womb. One baby had two heads, the other head was a clump of hair and sorts, had an eye that winked and parts that moves but no brain. It only survived bc the child was alive It was FEEDING OFF OF THE CHILD> once removed it was no longer anything just a mass of flesh and hair. it looked like a hair ball a cat would cough up.

ANYWAY... I think that you are right. As long as it can not sustain itself on its own if brough out then it is a fetus.

I knew a woman who was antiabortion. Her baby dies in side of her, she kept it for a year.. She smelled terrible as it rotted and decayed in her.. we finally got the court to intervene. It was disgusting. Her health declined too bc it was fighting the infection of a rotting mass inside of her. She stated she was antiabortion over and over. We got her to the hospital so they could take it out. She lost almost 75lbs during this removal. I am SO GLAD i wasnt in the hospital when it happened. She made alot more sense after it was gone too. :girl_hug:

Zealots make no sense to me.

Barring the rank odor, I'd think she'd become septic or something and also s/been seen by a good shrink! Imagine the story the healthcare providers now have....eeeww! Kewl barfing emicon though! I think the medical term for the fetus living off a host twin you're describing is called fetus- infetu or something. Another thing I learned on discovery health channel!

And yet, despite all of your ridiculing, you still refuse to define it. Are you afraid of the definition?

How about if we start at the other end? What constitutes the end of life? Absence of brain waves, a heart beat? What is the medical definition? Perhaps we should apply that to the beginning of life, too?

What's with the "WE?" Any definition of the meaning of "life" or "death" would inherently contain philosophical and /or religious and/or societal values...often even for those writing the defintions which are found in books or online.

That's why decisions based on such issues--abortions...Terri Schivo's electrical supply...whether the US or Saddam should be killing Iraqis--are never going to have consensus.

Never. So, lose the "WE."

Your position on this issue is reflective of the values of your other beliefs--the mega-church you mentioned, for example. My position is reflective of differing beliefs...maybe I subscribe to something akin to the OLD Catholic Church position on abortion...maybe the traditional Jewish position. Maybe just my own position developed as a conglomerate of those influences.

Whatever their origin, my definitions are value-laden. And so are yours. You want everyone else on the planet to live by YOUR values...and you don't even begin to see how presumptuous that is. I want people to think things over and--in concert with their doctors and advisors--make the best decision they can. And, for reasons known only to those who share your beliefs, you find that my desire to make my decisions without your guidance somehow negatively impacts your life.

So, I'll try again. I don't care about your God...or your Fairy Godmother or your Tooth Fairy or any other belief you have. I don't care about your mega-church--in spite of the fact that they seem to maintain a "classifieds" page where they feel quite free to violate several laws and advertise for Christian employees and Christian work environments and Christian tenants. And, BTW, abortions happened during Christ's time on the planet. How come he took offense at the money-changers in the temple but not at the women having abortions? (Uh...don't ask that one at the mega-church with its $7 million annual budget, okay?)

Kindly consider that your desire to cause the behavior of others to align with your beliefs is intrusive and presumptuous and really, really arrogant.

WWJD? He'd have some wine at the wedding, hang with the hooker and NOT align himself with the money-dudes at the temple.

ANYWAY... I think that you are right. As long as it can not sustain itself on its own if brough out then it is a fetus.

Fetus=ok to abort (kill)

Infant=not ok to kill

Tell me please, how can a one month old, three month old, etc.... sustain itselft on its own??? It needs somebody to feed it, change it, clean it, everything for it, does that mean it can still be killed because it could not live without assistance? Ok, you might be saying that is totally different and I would ask why? Those of you that think that if it can't live w/out machines, it is a-ok to abort, what is the difference with machine assistance until it is strong enough to live w/out them than assistance by feeding, cleaning, clothing???? Please, I really want to know....

My cousin was born sooo early, can't remember the exact # of weeks, but she was so little that 3 of her could fit in the old velveeta box. This was more than 20 years ago and machines kept her alive until she was strong enough to live without them. But guess what, I was born without the need for machines but definately wouldn't have survived on my own if somebody hadn't fed me.

Maybe this is rambling and making no sense to any of you but I get so worked up about this.