 sj |
||
|
||
A Different Kind Of Death Chamber
|
|
|
|||||||
|
A Different Kind Of Death Chamber |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:19 PM GaryT, this si from the earlier link I put in: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus "We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain. "To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different." Jen, yes, I understand....better those risks under legal, antispetic circumstances than the deadly alternatives...best that all women and men have total access to all birth control. Thanks, kat
|
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:30 PM YES! And make research into it less scary and political! |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Mbo Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:32 PM Thank you, Jon, you've summed it up perfectly. Personally, I'm not sure why my religion so detests birth control. In the case of birth control, you are preventing conception instead of destroying the conceived life. That for me is ten thousand times better than abortion or termination or whatever you want to call it. So I'm pushing for the pill, RU486, condoms, etc...please use them so you never have to resort to abortion. Because it's not just some easy forgettable thing, as other said, it can have lasting effects. Better to prevent all this at the starting point with birth control, instead of suffering painful consequencies abortion. Sorry if I sounded like a public service announcement. --Mbo |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:37 PM When my oldest sister was pregnant with the first baby in the next generation, she called her Lamaze classes her "birth control" classes, in contrast to Contraception, which isn't about controlling the birth... Made sense to me! But then again she also (as a long-time pet owner but new parent) called the pediatrician the Vet for the longest time... |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Gary T Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:25 PM Okay, definition time. Yay! Birth control: various methods of preventing or attempting to prevent births, including all the following: Abstinence: purposely not having sexual intercourse Sterilization: removal or deactiviation of primary sexual organs Rhythm: calculating, and avoiding intercourse during, a woman's monthly period of fertility Contraception: use of techniques, devices, drugs, etc. to prevent conception (includes condoms, IUD's, "birth control" pills, douching, RU486, etc.) Abortion: removal of embryo or fetus from the womb and, in extreme cases (wars, etc.)-- Killing of some or all reproductive adults, usually within a plan of genocide (Done without consulting a dictionary. Feel free to correct substantive errors.) Since the term "birth control" has been pretty well spoken for, perhaps Lamaze could be called "birth muscle control" or "birth management". |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:26 PM Mbo, three great BIG cheers for you and it sounded like a personal endorsement to me, from a very wise and responsible young adult. Goodonya!! Mrr....thanks for the **BG**! |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: JenEllen Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:46 PM Mbo..BIG hug to you. Public service announcement maybe, but a wonderfully accepting and responsible one! ~Elle |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 03:33 PM Gary T, I do understand that in terms of the media, there is much sensationalism. They want us to react. It sells. Indeed, it is a matter of perception, which often times can become clouded by any number of circumstances. As I've expressed, my primary concern is to the humane aspects of PBA and if a fetus feels pain during this procedure. I went to the AMA. I trust this association is relatively unbiased. My search criteria was "AMA on abortion". The first web site link offered was from AllPolitics-AMA Recommends Alternatives To PBA. Very profound reading, if you ask me. I even spotted quotes offered from tidalweb.com/life, a Pro Life site. Nonetheless, what I wanted to know is about the suffering issue. I found useful, the number 7 website link, "Abortion Advocates Lie About Anesthesia". For anyone who is interested, scroll down to the section from National Federation Of Abortion, Kathyrn Kolbert, (Counsels Strategy Of Evasion) Paragrah number 2. This information is right from the "horse's mouth". (Not by any means is that intended to be a dirogitory remark.) Anyway, I found what I needed know. Thank you again, Gary T, et al, especially for all the time and energy and the incredible sincerity each person offered. You are all dear souls. m |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Kim C Date: 29 Jun 00 - 03:53 PM Wow. What a discussion. My position has always been, we know what causes pregnancy. If YOU don't want to get pregnant, then do something about it. I have known women who complained that "it's not fair that women have to bear most of the responsibility of birth control." No, it ain't fair. Life ain't fair. But the fact is, if pregnancy happens to ME, and if I don't want it to happen to ME, then I'VE got to take that responsibility. And I have, for the last however many years it's been, and I have never been pregnant. (I am one of those people who likes other people's kids.) Now. That being said, what happens when the birth control doesn't work? I used to work in a shop where about three, maybe four of the straight female employees had had at lease one abortion. I will not begrudge anyone one abortion because everyone's circumstances are different. But more than one? I have a hard time with that. But there again, I don't know the situation. I think abortion needs to remain legal but I haven't made up my mind what restrictions, if any, that I think should be placed upon it. I am pro-choice, but I wish more people felt like they could choose life. KFC |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Jun 00 - 03:59 PM Compare this "the feet, legs and buttocks are delivered, then the skull is crushed"; with this (from my local newspaper): "it involves partially extracting a fetus, legs first, through the birth canal, piercing the skull and draining its contents." Can't see that the latter description is any less distasteful than the first. I suppose it might have been written with that in mind, but it doesn't work.
If a fetus is viable, it's a baby. If you kill it, you're killing a baby. Doesn't make a lot of difference if you say you are crushing its skull or piercing the skull and draining the contents.
If you think all abortion is a form of murder, this is just an extreme and dramatic example. But if you think that abortion is not murder, (arguing that a foetus is not capable of living outside the mother and therefore doesn't have an independent life and so forth), this is something different, as several "pro-choice" people on this thread have said. Directly killing a baby who is capable of living independently is infanticide.
Of course there have been lots of societies where infanticide has been legal under certain circumstances, and there still are a few. And legal or not, it happens often enough. And there are people who would wish to make it legal more widely. But it's a different argument.
And please, don't lets drop into being smart-assed and sarcastic, though it's verey easy, and sometimes very tempting. There are real people in this discussion, and real people aren't wooden Aunt Sallies who can't be hurt. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: mjm Date: 29 Jun 00 - 04:40 PM I now realize that my search engine is not necessarily yours and maybe a couple of ya may wonder where the heck I got the info for which I refernece. Sorry. If anyone wants to know, please ask and I will retrace my steps exactly as I made them (ATT&T Home Page, powered by exacthit I think), and then provide precise addresses which support my above entry. Sorry again for any confusion. m |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Jun 00 - 05:09 PM Kim C, I completely agree that pregnancy is up to the woman to prevent. However, conception doesn't take sides; both men and women who want this sex act to be recreational, and not procreational, have equal responsibility for contraception. Amazing what a little semantics can do, eh? Also, on those great definitions (thanks Gary T), the parens after contraception (which was correctly, to my mind, defined as that which prevents conception) included several post-conception methods of birth control, such as IUDs and RU486, which work more by preventing or undermining implantation after fertilization. This quibble assumes we all agree that conception means the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, rather than the viable implantation of that zygote in the uternine wall. Anybody want to speak to that difference, if any? McGrath of Harlow, I think I don't understand you - you say If a fetus is viable, it's a baby. If you kill it, you're killing a baby...[which] is infanticide...Of course there have been...societies where infanticide has been legal under certain circumstances...And there are people who would wish to make it legal more widely. So far so good, you're describing legal abortion as legalized infanticide to people who believe abortion is murder, I'm with you on that argument (not that I agree with it, but I follow it). But then you say But it's a different argument. How is it different? If abortion is infanticide then it's the exact argument...? PS: Please, I do respect your opinion, I am just trying to follow your argument. This is not Look I Can Poke A Hole In Your Logic Ha Ha. It's intended to be Can You Clarify This Point? I add this because of this being such a sensitive topic and my liking what you post on so many planes that I don't want you all POed at me.
|
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 29 Jun 00 - 05:14 PM KFC, many people do choose life and muddle along, positive or not, raising the child or giving them up for adoption, which brings its own set of long-term problems.I think we just do not hear about them as much. I can remember when I was 16 and rashly decided to be sexually active...birth control was NOT available to anyone under age without their parents' permission. Thus, many of us got pregnant. Abortions were legal in only a handful of states, so there were not a lot of options. I am grateful that I had my son at 17 and he has become a wonderful adult, BUT, I will always advocate easily available and affordable contraception and a woman's right to choose. Sometimes it just isn't all that black and white of an issue. I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that people DO need to take that responsibility, BUT until birth control IS readily available AND affordable, we will have need for safe and legal abortions, preferably first trimester. I also agree that abortion should NOT be used as birth control, in multiple cases such as you mention, esp. Although, I have a friend who had an abortion in her teen years, then, went on to have a son, marry later and when she became pregnant in the first year of that marriage, her husband demanded that she get an abortion, which she did. She also went on to have two wonderful children with him. I am happy to report that she finally got rid of the bastard (IMO) and is a much stronger woman now, than she was when he dominated her life. Sometimes, we just don't know the whole story of what has brought a person to the point of abortion. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Jun 00 - 05:54 PM Thanks Mrrzy for trying to undersatnd what I was trying to say, rather than assuming it meant something it maybe didn't and reeacting to that, which is what often happens in this kind of discussion/argument. What's been good about this thread so far is that it has been mostly about trying to understand and explain our different points of view.
What I meant was that for someone who thinks all abortion is killing, the kind of late "termination" that set off this thread is not essentially different. And it's not in principle different from killing a baby once she or he has been born.
But there are a lot of people who argue that to get rid of what is called an embryo at an early stage, and a foetus at a later stage, is not the same as killing a baby - and a main plank in that argument is that a foetus is not really an independent person because it is not capable of having a separate life outside the mother.
However there is a stage in pregnancy at which there is what everyone would accept is a baby, which is perfectly capable of surviving outside the mother - it just happens not to have been born yet.
And I was observing that people who believe that abortion at an earlier stage is justifiable can well feel just as strongly as any "pro-lifer" that to kill a baby who is capable of living independently is infanticide. In fact that has been demonstrated in this thread.
And arguing in support of legalised infanticide is different from arguing in favour of "the right to choose."
I think I've expressed myself a bit more clearly this time. As to my own views, I think that what matters isn't whether something is legal or not, but whether it's right, and that the whole issue of abortion has been muddled by people who think the law (and coercion ouside the law)is the way to stop abortions, and it never has been. And there is no "right to choose". And that's a complicated position that doesn't satisfy anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: A Different Kind Of Death Chamber From: alison Date: 30 Jun 00 - 03:26 AM Someone asked.... so IUD's work in a couple of ways... firstly they irritate the cervix into making thicker mucus which is more difficult for sperm to get through... but if sperm does get through and contraception occurs... they are also though to increase motility in the fallopian tubes so that any "products of conception" pass through the uterine cavity before it is ready to implant some of them also contain copper which irritates the lining of the womb (endometrium)making it less likely for implantation to occur... and it may increase prsotaglandin production, making expulsion of any conceptus more likely... (Info taken from "Myles Textbook for Midwives") combined with spermicide (kill them before they get through)or whatever... it's as effective as "the pill"...... but in this day and age... unless you are in a monogamous relationship with a partner you are very sure of - the barrier methods will keep you safer ........ contraceptive choices and information slainte alison |
| Share Thread: |