Men in Dark Robes
I lost yesterday. My daughter lost yesterday.
Men in dark robes told us that our autonomy, our dignity, our well-being is irrelevant. Our primary concern is to be a vessel, no matter the cost.
Men in dark robes made a decision. They decided that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Science and best medical practices are irrelevant.
Those men in dark robes decided that if in the third trimester of pregnancy, a woman discovers that her much wanted child has severe or fatal anomalies and bearing that child to full term puts her health at risk, possibly jeopardizes her chances of experiencing a healthy pregnancy in the future – that doesn’t matter. She cannot, in consultation with her doctor, her god, her own conscience, choose to save herself, safeguard her health.
The Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t techinically prevent a woman from getting an abortion in her third trimester. But it does prevent her from getting the safest, possible abortion.
This decision isn’t about the fetus, isn’t about a culture of life, isn’t about protecting women. This decision is about controlling and punishing women.
Men in dark robes told us that our autonomy, our dignity, our well-being is irrelevant. Our primary concern is to be a vessel, no matter the cost.
Men in dark robes made a decision. They decided that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Science and best medical practices are irrelevant.
Those men in dark robes decided that if in the third trimester of pregnancy, a woman discovers that her much wanted child has severe or fatal anomalies and bearing that child to full term puts her health at risk, possibly jeopardizes her chances of experiencing a healthy pregnancy in the future – that doesn’t matter. She cannot, in consultation with her doctor, her god, her own conscience, choose to save herself, safeguard her health.
The Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t techinically prevent a woman from getting an abortion in her third trimester. But it does prevent her from getting the safest, possible abortion.
This decision isn’t about the fetus, isn’t about a culture of life, isn’t about protecting women. This decision is about controlling and punishing women.
Labels: abortion, autonomy, healthcare, intact extraction, Supreme Court, women's rights
posted by Bird | 7:51 AM
55 Comments:
Sigh................ah Bird. Aunty is jes' begin'n ter make rounds and come by fer a spell, and looky here Mercy, honey.
Iffin' I didn't love ya' I'd jes' tip toe out nest, but gracious...
Ever'body has a "science and best medical practices" story --why one o' my grandaddy's was locked in a nut ward fer turnin' the sugar bowl up over his face and rampaging through the cupboards making messes in the middle of the night--docs said he was havin' "brain seizures". He was only diabetic.
Science and medicine are tools that must be used as a resource, not a as a god.
Medicine ain't infallible at any stage of investigation. Recalls of Cellebrex is an example--causes heart trouble, but Lordy nearly every old soul with arthritis was given it--we know better now.
Iffin' you does a bit of lookin'Bird, ya'll see that almost NO third terms are about mother's health. Dang few are because baby is "defective". The babies are able to live--partial-birth abortion crushes skulls of a child that will live with no assistance and would soon be smilin' at ya.
The thing that riles me so much is that women is being fed hogwash about "health" when it comes to the abortion industry.
Bird, yore dog's vet must keep better health standards than an abortuary.
Nobody tells young women that an abortion before a full term pregnancy increases likelihood of breast cancer more than 3 times the average--cause the body gears up for birth and then it is snatched with no warning--body goes hormonally beserk and atypical cells form. THis is not so in miscarriage when body begins the shutdown process naturally before the miscarriage occurs.
Only reason I note this much detail is to suggest that if health were truly the concern, then the abortion industry would advise ladies of these truths. They doan. In fact, their industry dies when babies live.
pro & con
an old debate
bird & auntie = right
i'm stayin' way clear
but will say this: i don't need anybody's permission to save my own life -- men in dark robes and others be damned
/t.
Ah, the mistruths abound on both sides of the argument.
Even the Good Lord gave us the free will to make choices for ourselves.
Men in black robes do strange things all of the time.
It all depends upon whose "dog is in the hunt", doesn't it?
What goes around will come around.
oh Bird, my heart aches for you and your daughter, for all the different reasons you'll be grieving and angry and i'm guessing at your wits ends.
thinking of you.
abortuary - I love it!
right now, now there are also men in business suits in Washington, DC who are going to do fuck-all about gun violence in this country...
third week .... sure
third month.... well, maybe
but third trimester? that really is murder, ain't it boyed? I mean, it has hair, a gender, nerve endings...
a brain.
OK, here's my deal, why allow men to make decisions about women's bodies? I am with you on that one.
This issue should be meditated on exclusively by women. Men can cast in the opinions, but not make the laws on topic.
And I did not know Belle worked at an ...abortuary?
ah ab, of course there are risks. but we don't prevent medical procedures because of risks - we allow doctors and patients to make informed decisions about the risks, to weigh those risks against the probably outcomes.
infini: murder? put this into perspective. about 1% of abortions performed in this country are third trimester. and the majority of those abortions are done because genetic testing has shown a severe problem with the fetus - problems that may prevent the fetus from surviving- and along with that - severe risks to the mother if she carries the fetus full-term and gives birth to it -sometimes including the risk of the mother not being able to carry and deliver another fetus.
the sups' decision now takes a procedure away from those women - effectively putting their health and well-being at risk.
and in its stead, will allow them to use other methods not nearly as safe - methods that are riskier.
the ban provides no exception for the life of the mother.
Bird Beauty, Birdy....
ya say this about late term abortions:
"severe risks to the mother if she carries the fetus full-term and gives birth to it -sometimes including the risk of the mother not being able to carry and deliver another fetus."
Now, let's slow down a bit and jes' think--really think --on this a minute. IF--and it would be exceedingly rare--the mother's life depended on no longer being pregnant, then simply induce labor and in 4-7 hours the mom is delivered of her little one--the baby at this point is able to survive with very little help--a 7 month preemie weighs 3-4 pounds and does fine. No need to kill it, just deliver it.
And ya says that innformed medical risks doan stop procedures-- Okay--but Bird Beauty, them poor girls is almost NEVER informed of the risk of cancer.
As fer the black robes impinging on yore free will or conscience...heh heh..oh they does that fer sure--every day all day...ya notice Uncle is still wif us? Aunty ain't put no pillow over him at night cause then Black Robes doan allow it. My health is at stake here too--try ter git a decent night's sleep with a freight train next to ya!
(Ya'll Uncle ain't in no danger a'tall, of course, being handome an on the debonair side of thangs....but ya git the drift--them supremes is always curtailin' some freedom or another--we call it civil society...the art of living in community, whar' some few folks git the final say so on disputed points.)
Nobody seems to realize that the only reason abortions are done in the third trimester is when there is something Very VERY wrong with the baby. The sister of someone I know was one of the last people to legally get this abortion--the reason? The baby had half a brain. It would have been a complete vegetable if it lived at all.
What this decision tells us it's about quantity, not quality, taking away human dignity, and telling not just women, but families, how they must live their lives. Is it really better for such a child to born, perhaps given to an institution because the parents can't care for it, and live a lonely existence?
I THINK NOT!
riki d:
exactly. keep in mind as well - that a severely deformed baby won't live very long either.
ab: women, in consultation with their doctors, are the ones who should decide if their case warrants a late-term abortion or an induced labor and delivery (which of course, carries its own risks as well). keep in mind as well - the sups didn't ban the other kinds of procedures - which this late in the pregnancy, carry even higher risks. so what is that about?
your comment about snuffing yor poor snoring hubby, albeit perhaps an attempt to keep our discussion from veering off into a heated argument, trivalizes the issue.
abortion carry risks - many of which are well-known. and which are discussed. yes, if you have to many abortions, your cerivcal wall is weakenned (too many pregnancies carry that risk). yes, women who carry babies to full term before their 40s appear to be a less risk for cancer (but we don't, for the good of women's health - mandate pregancy as a preventative measure - now do we?)
Chile, looky, a baby born deformed is no reason to kill it. have some tolerance for the imperfect folks of this world. What is next, a baby whose genetic profile shows it could be born deaf or blind? Plenty of blind or deaf folks is glad they was not snuffed.
Iffin' wee one is imperfect and is gonna die anyway, then no need to hasten it--ya'll wanna tell scary stories of what might happen iffin' a certain doc says baby ain't normal--but this here, Pets, is a real true life situation:
Doc is father of 8 of his own, and he is family friend of young mama whose migraines are so debilitatin' that she cain't take care of the two toddlers she already has--an' both of them two sick enough to be hospitalized regularly.
Doc tells young mama "Chile' yore medicine fer migraines is experimental and contraindicated for early months of pregnancy when brain is forming--ya' gotta abort this baby. You knows I would never say this iffin' it wern't dire. This chile will be born ancephalic"
(Without a brain)
Now this mama was petrified, but warn't able to get mind around abortion, so she had the baby.
As I live and breathe, folks, that baby is near bout the handsomest young feller in these here parts, and his brain is fine enough to manage multimillion dollar portfolios for a global company--and him young enough to be called a "kid" by his secretaries.
In "consultation" wif a fine doc who was also a fine man, a tragic decision could have been made.
Looky--never forgit that them poor docs is afeared of law-suits. Nutty women sue for "wrongful birth"
Ya doan see why a poor doc might advise abortion iffin' he had even a hair's breadth of fear that a baby might not be perfect? Rather than chance his own family's livlihood from a lawsuit, why, he takes the "legal" way out--advise abortion.
The other thang we'uns need to cogitate on is what abortion does to a culture--it simply cheapens life--whar' does we git off thinkin' we "perfect" people has a "right" to snuff "imperfect" people?
As fer Uncle and makin' light of the discussion--akshully Bird, it warn't light at all---iffin' we doan stop the death train, abortion and euthanasia , soon enough some "compassionate" people will decide that you or me is a detriment to this or that societal goal, and they will put us outa *their* misery--compassionately of course.
It's actually true, people with half a brain can adapt and they can function at a normal pace. It has been proven in lobotomy cases. The human brain is a funny organ, it has ways of adapting to change. I don't know exactly the situation on the fetus with only half a brain, but I will say, it did not stand a chance if the parents were not prepared to love it.
Don't know how many of those who commented on this disturbing and sad blog have actually cared for those who have 'half a brain'. I have, in my youth. You are dreaming if you think that they 'function' in anyway that is slightly normal. I nursed profoundly retarded humans...results of attempted self abortion, disease during pregnancy and feotal distress during birth. Go and look at these poor humans before you rabbit on about how they 'have rights' etc.
My heart aches at this decision by those MEN.
Why can't they leave women alone?
Why can't they go and get their power-jollies somewhere else?
This is a huge step backwards in the great "Land of the Free".
All those women, fighting all those years ago for the 'woman's right to choose.'
I ache.
I have had two 'abortions'..not late term as they were miscarriages. But the same procedure occurrs.
Believe me, having had three 'live births' as well I can say that since the miscarriages WERE NOT my decision it was THAT fact that affected me the most.
CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE.
Thank you Bird for this beautifully written piece.
I agree with Onandon where she said:
"This is a huge step backwards in the great "Land of the Free".
All those women, fighting all those years ago for the 'woman's right to choose.'"
But my original point: "rabbiting on" or not, was that the human brain can adapt, and when only LITERALLY half a brain exists, it is POSSIBLE for it to function. As in the case where a normal brain becomes traumatised and undergoes lobotomy.
The brain transfers functioning to the remaining half. Now I have heard of a case where a girl was born with only half of a brain, and she managed to function just fine, she learned to speak and read etc...
This is not rabbiting on, this is medical science.
As for your inquiry regarding my credentials to speak on topic;
Prior to and during my obtaining my Bachelor of Science in the field of Rehabilitation Psychology, I worked in several different agencies that were both respite and in-home facilities for the severe and profoundly developmentally disabled individual. I also was part of a team that went into institutions to seek out individuals who were able to live in the communities but who had been deemed "sad humans" by other people in the past and locked away.
People have surprising potential. And even sad humans have personalities.
Now that I am seeking my Masters degree in the field, I am no longer working, however, the thing that I am being taught time and time again is to value the individual, and to see their potential in this world.
Boyd, I see your point. I do not agree with back ally abortions, if the mother's life is in danger, and the baby is deformed, it is the mother's choice, plain as day.
Solid.
PS:
all human beings have rights.
all of them, even the retards.
/bark bark bark
this is where we met boydie. if we're going to roll with killing basically a live child as auntie says could live now without the mother, then i say you cannot prosecute the girls who deliver and leave a baby in a garbage can.
sometimes, even MEN in black, can see to allow the one thing opens the doors for many, and so they have to draw the line somewhere.
i agree also with vanille above...again the slide applies....if first we say retards arent worthy to live whats next? short people? aunties train is gettin might full.
rabbiting on rabbiting on!
/grr
ah, my dear dog, (so nice to see you by the way- and you to ab - you have been missed. i am also appreciateive of infi''s comments, and onandon as well, not to mention riki d and jack and t./).
but dog, you are applying the slippery slope arugment - a fallacy you know. along the lines of if one says A,then one must also say B as well. it doesn't really follow. one can indeed say A and not say B. though of course, i think those poor girls (who do need some consequences for their actions) also need counseling and guidance. not to mention, comprehensive sex education.)
we talk and talk about the sanctity of life - but not of its quality,, which is equally important. my niece is a "retard." but she is functioning and a delight. but there are indeed situations in which the potential child's life will be short-lived and of inferior quality -must we endanger the health of the mother to bring these fetuses to full term? To what end? to watch them suffer further and die? humane indeed.
infini - your example is well-taken - but perhaps the exception. yes, there are always exceptions - the world is full of unpredictable and unusual outcomes. we operate with the best knowledge we have at the time - and continue to expand that knowledge.
but this ban is not about protecting life, not in the least.
this ban provides no provision for the health of the mother - nor for situations in which the fetus WILL NOT LIVE.
Instead, if i understand the ruling correctly, the mother is forced into an alternative procedure - which is far less humane to the fetus and far more riskier to the mother. and why? to protect the sanctity of life? i think not. to prevent the fetus from suffering unduly? no, the banned procedure is more humane.
this ban is bullshit my sisters. it's not about saving lives at all, or upholding the miracle of life. it's about controlling and punishing women.
since the beginning of time, we have aborted babies when necessitiy dictates. when our lives, or the well-being of our families are at stake. these are not decisions that the majority of women make easily, without much thought. women often make these decisions torn between the desire to care and protect the possiblity that is growing within them and the desire to care and protect and further their own lives and the lives of their loved ones already present.
it has always been a gut-wrenching decision. nonetheless, it is a decision best left to the one who will, whether she carries the fetus to term or not, will experience the conconsequences and otucomes of either choice - in these days of advanced,medical technology - a woman can best make that decision in consultation with her doctor.
this ban forces women to undergo procedures that have more risks than others. this ban is inhumane to mother and fetus.
we speak of valuing individuals - what about the individual woman? is she not to be valued?
this ban devalues the individual woman and so by extension, devalues us all.
I shall leave this argument in your most capable hands, Bird.
You DO speak for me.
Here, here, bird.
And, lest we not forget, just as teenagers don't have the same rights as adults (the parents are in charge of making decisions for them), by an even greater degree (although the state attempts to take these rights away from parent more and more), it is the woman who is in charge of her body, and whatever is in her body, be it a foetus, or her own life.
If she has cancer, she can decide whether she has surgery or not. In utero, a mother basically has power of attorney over the foetus, as the foetus does not have the capacity to speak for itself. While some might say, well that just shows our argument that the foetus must have legal rights in case the decision the mother makes isn't "right". However, we also can't assume that the foetus would choose a life of very limited, bed ridden--perhaps not even a way to communicate--capacity. We can't assume that.
And can we actually trust our government to actually take care of such children better than the soldiers at Walter Reed? Probably not. And are they going to help the parents? Probably not much. And are all these people who cry for the rights of the foetus going to adopt ALL of these children. Doubt it. I'm sure some will be adopted, but many will not.
So, I must take utilitarian ethical approach, rather than a "virtue" approach on this one.
For interesting discussions of this ethical debate, please see the following website: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/
Actually, I am a man, and so, in your eyes, I cannot make the correct statement here.
Would it have been any better if the "men in dark robes" had been women in dark robes?
Don't get me wrong here. I believe that a medically based abortion is better than going to ol' Pete down on Brown Street to "fix the problem" as it were. And, to what I understand, that's exactly why it got legalized in the first place....too many women were being terribly damaged by aspirin toting, coat-hanger doctors.
If a woman has carried to third trimester, what would bring her to abort? Downs, siamese twins joined at the head (one brain), no arms or legs, one eye in the center of it's head. So, if it's OK to do these in at the end (which is their beginning) then how about lter in life when we see that a child isn't actually performing up to par with the other children?
A lil slow, perhaps. Keeps picking her nose and eating her bugers.
Put her out of her "misery"?
Dang!
It ain't the easiest thing, y'know, to put down something as powerful as the death sentence on a child. A baby.
My friend Lee has cerebral palsy. The doctors suggested to his mother that he wouldn't live to four years old. They should hold back food until the child is dead.
She, of course, told them to go screw themselves, and today I have a friend named Lee, who for all the world, is useless.
He can't feed himself, go to the bathroom without help, talk or communicate save using his Liberator (look up "blissymbols" for a look at the language they have to learn) and has to be rolled everywhere he wants to go to.
I realize that it seems that the men in dark robes don't care about the rights of women.
Of course they don't. They are politically motivated and have no interest in the rights of any citizen of the USA, but rather in looking good. And dang! They DO look good, don't they? Folks have been coming to the supreme court for years with requests of "JUSTICE!" but have left wanting because they men in dark robes don't want to overstep their place.
I always stood at the side of any woman who felt that an abortion was the way to go, but, inside I hurt for the baby. Then one day, after one of m'dogs had brought uyp a litter of pups, m'other female dog got in the family way.
With tyears in my eyes, I took her to the vet. When I got her back, the WHORE of a receptionist told me there were nine pups aborted.
For the rest of her life I gave her freely of whatever food I had on my plate, as much from guilt as from her being an excellent dog.
So, what answer have I come up with? None, really.
I'm too desperately lonely to even consider abortion as being a good idea.
Likewise, if it's got to be done, get it done by a professional!
But, third trimester? Heck, give it to the state. If they think it's OK to give birth to the beby, then they can take care of it.
thanks for the warm welcome boyed.
i would have preferred to see this happen as a result of changing hearts and minds through reason, not legislation.
in the context of how the left would define the US as a barbaric nation with regard to war, or the violence that is a sad by product of the right to bear arms, then why not extend that same consideration
to the most innocent and defenseless life there is.
by supporting the destruction of an infant we have the implicit authority to destroy whatever we please...if i have the proper reasons to support that action.
er, that'd be "if WE have the proper reasons to support that action"
No, I am, on occasion, as human as everybody, and sometimes use inappropriate adjectives and adverbs.
The term "whore" here is mixt with spit and snarl as I pronounce the word from deep within my gut, and has little to do with those who charge money for services rendered.
More like the whore of babylon or delilah the whore. That sort of thing. Did anyone pay her money for sex? Well, can't say if I know the answer to that one....she had a really ugly attitude...I'm thinking she may have had to PAY for sex.
Lonliness a reason to have children? Where did this come from? I'll go up and read m'comment again and see how this came to be.
found it...
you're refering to:
"I'm too desperately lonely to even consider abortion as being a good idea."
Lonliness is a terrible monster, that. It eats at people when they aren't even expecting it. It eats at me. At a restaraunt, I stare at the window reflection for some semblance of company. I talk to myself. I am lonely.
If I were having a baby right now, no matter that I couldn't take care of it, no matter that I'm a guy, no matter that I'm so broke it would be a great hardship for the two of us.....
I would have the baby.
('Course, if that happened, well, there wouldn't be any money problems after that because I heard there's a great deal of money availiable to any man who concieves...)
So, I have to assume that my inappropriate usage of the term whore is what got yer fur up...
sorry. I didn't mean any disrespect for yours or anybody's proffession.
(ps, I've tried to get away from tangent commenting, but when I went to yer site there seemed to be a problem with it. Everything was posted like a long time ago.)
Again, sorry.
boney is funny!
boney:
off topic or not, you are welcome here. as is everyone who keeps the discussion civil - and so far, though we are all passionate on the topic, we have all maintained civility. kudos to all commenters.
riki d: you make a valid point with the utilitarian ethic argument. as a culture, as a soceity, as a country, we use this ethic often - indeed we have precedent for this ethic. now i'm trying to remember - is john stuart mill a utlitarian ethicist? i'd best study up on my philosophers....
she: you are again calling on the slippery slope - by aborting fetuses, "we have the implicit authority to kill whom we please" no, we do not. every society makes provisions for killings of some kind - and one of the major tasks of any society is agreeing on what killings are allowed and which ones are not - and why. however, you have not addressed one of my main concerns with this ban - the health of the mother. the ban provides no exceptions for the health of the mother and instead dictates a riskier and less humane practice. what say you to this, she, ab, infini (and anyone else for that matter).
flap/flap/flap and
SWOOOSH and SWOOP!
(OT: The Giants swept the Rockies today - we take joy in the Barrys (Bonds and Zito) and in Matty "our boy" Cain - and are thankful to the highest gods in baseball that Benitez, even though he keeps walking hitters, at least did not lose the games he "closed." can't say he saved them either - the team did that.)
i am incredibly embarrased. not only did i go OT, but i said the Giants swept the rockies - they did not - they swept the diamondbacks.
Flap/flap/SQUAWK!
Bird Beauty, ya said:'
"this ban is bullshit my sisters. it's not about saving lives at all, or upholding the miracle of life. it's about controlling and punishing women."
Now, Sugar, think on that a minute...iffin' that was true, then they's a zillion more ways to do it--
And what sort of filter do you look at the world through, when you think a few fellas wanna "punish" and "control" women?
Gracious--let's see iffin' we can think that mebbe--jes' mebbe in the same passion you want ter have "rights" to abort baby when it is troublesome , these fellas have passion for the sake of babies
that could simply be delivered!
Looky--this is the real thang:
No one thinks it is about the mama's health, Bird. Iffin' that *were* the case, the lady can simply be induced --or C-sectioned--and she will be un-pregnant in 2 hours--as quick as any third term abortion .. ya see?
IF health were the reason, then that is taken care of in two hours.
It ain't health. Who we kiddin'?
It is a woman not wantin' to have to raise the child, or spend anytime worrying about adoption....or, in case of a "defective" baby, this mama jes' hopes to be spared making hard choices. We can all sympathize wif tough situations--but as they say, hard cases doan make good law. EVERYbody has a reason why THEIR case should be an exception to any rule. So they choose to abort a baby that can live if simply delivered!
That is what is "controlling" and "punitive"--to the baby, and this is a baby that can live.
The plain truth is third term abortions are not about health issues for the mama. They are about heart issues for the mama. (And Daddy) She seeks relief from somethin' uncomfortable.
But her relief as a "right" means that Crick and Singer will prevail: no birth certificates until 5 years old since some genetic anomalies doan show up til' then.
Bird, what does a society look like whar' folks can legally kill a four year old because her IQ is 75, or his bones won't knit, but bend?
This is what the Black Robes know--that waitin' on the sidelines is folks like Singer--with his Princeton credentials and silky toned lies--uh huh---"this girl has no "quality" of life" (says WHO??) so we will deny her life.
Black Robes ain't controlling women. They's ruling on a point of law that protects ALL of us from assault via legal antics.
YA' make me very uncomfortable with "quality of life" chatter. WHO is to decide that?
That is precisely the argument that
is made for anything that offends us --old folks with dementia, quadriplegics, bi-polar victims....despite the truth that many of them *do* want the life they have, however "less" that your it may be.
I'd say street shufflin' addicts and AIDS sufferers doan have no quality of life--- but I shure ain't fer injectin' 'em wif' cyanide. Who the heck knows? Mebbe they will git cleaned up, or medicine will discover a cure---let's give every human the benefit of the doubt. it is the more tolerant and compassionate approach after all.
(An' now, Honey, I'se finished gnashin' this one---done said aplenty, and youse swell to let me make these counterpoints)
boyed,
could you clarify what you mean by control and punish women?
Also, what specifically are you referring to when you say that they will not allow the most humane proceedure, but the other more inhumane proceedure is on the table?
Do you mean make the option so horrible that no woman would choose it?
Also What in particular are these 1% of cases where the mother's life is in danger or the child is not going to live... could you give a what if scenario?
It may be good counterpoint for Auntie.
BIRD WROTE:
"about 1% of abortions performed in this country are third trimester. and the majority of those abortions are done because genetic testing has shown a severe problem with the fetus - problems that may prevent the fetus from surviving- and along with that - severe risks to the mother if she carries the fetus full-term and gives birth to it -sometimes including the risk of the mother not being able to carry and deliver another fetus."
Boneman, I am sorry about your dog, and I know that you did not mean to offend anyone, and You Were NOT offensive, just so you know... I got you.
Hi Boney,
No, my site has not been updated in quite a while because I've been busy working, but I do occasionally check birdie's site, and felt compelled to write.
Sorry if I was a bit gruff, I just found the reasoning and rhetoric a little bit, say, not convincing. But hey, we are all practicing the fine art of persuasion here, and kudos to us all for bringing up WELL-REASONED discussions of our positions.
Nobody will ever agree on these issues; it will always be something that swings back and forth on the political radar because politicians are always trying to influence ethical approaches to such difficult issues in life, and the powers that be are the ones that most effectively persuade the majority of their ethic. I still take the utilitarian. I think, in effect, you are also taking the utilitarian approach, Boneman, but from the point of view of the parent, not the child.
Once Bush got in for that second term this direction became inevitable. And lifetime tenure...
Bird Beauty,
youse and me both need a new post...I'm packin' thas' my excuse.
But I will get somethin' up afore I departs--so come and see while I'm away.
Hold the fort, er...nest.
"Retards" is an offensive term. Please don't use it, ever!
boyed - I couldn't stay away from blogging (during CotL)... so I posted something new on my Fragmentia 13 blog... and there's more to come... tell your friends! btw, as a teacher I imagine you might have a bit to say about the F13 post...
....er. There was one more thing t'answer up to, and on it I spent time and consideration.
It was the first question....did I equate dogs with females?
And the reason I spent the time thinking on it was because I think dogs are better than females. But, before y'get yer fur or feathers up, I also think dogs are better than males, too.
Heck, they DO get into fights, but just as quickly they're done and back t'sniffin each other's butts and stuff.
Never once heard a dog call for the death of someone out of revenge.
Jerks that beat their dog still get the love....wait a minit...wait a minit...
Jerks that HIT their dogs, still get the love from the dog without strings or demands.
Yup,...dogs are better'n people, and my guess is, the next time around, dogs will be the ones in charge.
I am not controlled or punished by anyone...nor is my daughter.
All deliveries- ALL- have some risk to the mother.
So far all I've heard is "what-if's"...and not one good example of how crushing the head of a baby just before birth would save a mothers life- in any case.
This decision is about stopping a horrific practice- which thankfully was not performed very often anyway, and I suppose there's a reason for that.
It simply isn't necessary.
On the other hand, a woman who could make this choice- this far into a pregnancy- to have the head of her baby crushed and it's brains sucked out- maybe that's a kid who shouldn't be here?
"Every child a wanted child?"
Now there's a slippery slope if ever I saw one...
ah,sigh.
the point is - there is absolutely NO EXCEPTION for the life or health of the mother in this ban.
this procedure is extremely rare.
this procedure does not crush the skull. it collapses it. an incision is made, the brain tissues is removed, the skull collapses. in the event of a severe case of hecephalus (sp?), in which the baby's head is extraordinarily enlarged, a vaginal delivery could be extremely dangerous for the mother - and c-section has a much higher risk of infection.
some can argue (and do) that hecepahlus is treatable - but others can show that in extreme cases, the child doesn't live long and suffers as well.
women do not choose this option cavalierly. these are heart-breaking decisions to make.
why the court is determining best medical practices is beyond me.we generally allow our medical instituituions to guide medical practices. we don't have a court of judges determining what medical options should be available in other situtiatons - why this one?
in his majority opinion, justice kennedy speaks of a woman's remorse and regret. but that is no reason to ban a procedure. we have remorse and regret over many life decisions - but the court doesn't legislate them to protect us from our emotions.
kennedy also hinted at the woman's lack of knowledge about the procedure - but that is also no reason to ban the procedure. rather, that is reason to ensure that informed consent is practiced. i worked at planned parenthood long ago, before "informed consent" was even a byword - and believe you me - the women who came to planned parenthood were very well- informed about their medical options, the risks and probable outcomes.
flap/flap/swoosh
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pig,
I wil let your comments stay for just a bit and then I will delete them because
1) the first one is off topic, and is very much in the spirit of "trolling" - purposefully calculated to create a fight - as opposed to a reasoned, rational debate or argument.
2) the second one has no place is a reasoned, rational debate and is merely hyperbole calculated to cause drama and a fight.
Although you may behave poorly and rudely on other blogs, you may not do so here. I will countenance only reasoned, civil discussion. Your comments do not qualify as such.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Your snide comments, which generally attack the person, not the idea, do not represent truth Pig,and they do nothing to add to the discussion. I am quite fed up with your bullshit, and though I will tolerate it to a certain extent at other blogs, I will not do so at my own roost.
If you wish to participate on this blog, and you are welcome to, then you'll play by the house rules, which in no way prevent you from speaking a contrary point of view (you'll note that others before you have argued against me and I have not removed their comments nor questioned their civility).
Although your last few comments have not been as incendiary as usual, they nonetheless add nothing to the discussion. Charged language thrown out as sound bites does not take the place of intelligent, reasoned discourse.
Now, as to your pithy comment, "Giants SUCK" - I will ignore that such a comment is off topic (because, after all, it is baseball season and baseball is never off topic) and I will concur with you as well: The Giants suck and I have been muttering such a statement all day, under my breath. However, the Giants were quite beautiful when they played the Dodgers last week - swept 'em in fact.
I have not checked the standings for the Mariners. Because I am a kind and generous bird, I hope they are playing reasonably well, though I have heard they often suck.
flap/flap/flap
swoosh!
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
helly this is not your finest moment. i wouldnt presume to tell you what to do, but when you go this far you devalue every correct observation you have ever made. this is the dawg watching your back, so c'mon now.
just teaching the teacher
But Dawg I do respect your advice and I probably pushed my point a little far
Bird you may choose DELETE
Next time think twice about defending trolls at Bogs
tossing out a red herring are we, pig?
this has nothing to do with trolls (except for you).
and darlin', i suspect the lesson you have "taught" me probably is not in the least the one you intended.
i shall have to print out the various posts and comments and use it in my class. students will enjoy analzying your arguments and noting the fallacies you so readily provide.
your antics are now somehow less irritating - in fact, this has become quite humorous. thanks for the chuckle dear pig!
No Bird I was throwing you a olive branch,but being the jaded liberal you are,were unable to accept gracefully.
OH! Is that what that was - an olive branch? Hahahaha! That's too funny Pig! How insensitive of me not to notice. I blush.
But my darlin' swine, I am not a dove, so I can't accept an olive branch. Try something else perhaps. Arctic terms like shrimp and crab - you are a fisherman, correct? OH! EXCUSE ME - us liberals say FISHERPERSON. I forgot myself for a moment - what with all the hilarity...I do hope you will forgive my gaffe.
Now, enough of this nonsense. I am off to watch the Giants and hope they do not SUCK.
Beers all 'round!
GO GIANTS!
yes me deleting my posts so you didn't have to is a olive branch.......but your sarcasm is making me regret my choice
do you really want me to change my mind?
I am more then happy to please you mistress bird
BTW what are you wearing?
Oh my Pig!
Don't delete your posts. Afterall, I didn't delete them; I let them stand.
What am I wearing? That is a provocative question. Hmmmm... I will have to ponder this. What could I wear that would please a pig?
http://www.dma.org/~doogie/1984_hot.jpg
*yawn*
might be
time for a new post
/t.
get a room!
onandon:
not that you will see this probably, or that you would get it as you did not get it the first time, but I was using the term RETARD to exemplify your use of the term POOR HUMANS
which I found to be equally as offensive.
Of course I know that retard is an offensive term. Duh.
Do you know that referring to someone with a developmental disability as a "poor human" is offensive?
You may as well say retard, it has the same effect.
That was the point of my choice of words.
YOU offended ME.
They do not give out Rehab. Psych. degrees to people who actually use the word "retard" to refer to individuals with developmental disabilities.
duh duh.
Post a Comment
<< Home