|
Post by Mordecai on Oct 2, 2015 21:31:39 GMT
It has not gone beyond my notice that you continue to question but have not answered your own, or anyone else's questions. But the fact you question without fully divulging your own views appears to point to pro-life. I'm merely asking questions that test the moral consistency of your views (and I specifically answered your questions- if you disagree, please ask them again). If I were to just point out that I too am pro-choice (if it can be made that black and white) and fervently support planned parenthood (which I do), neither of us would stand to gain anything. Why do you appear so hostile towards me for asking mere questions? For me to answer my own questions would be silly, since they are built around your ethical views. However, you're welcome to prod my ethical views and question them. To start: I believe abortion should be legal and free, except in cases off negligence (which most cases are). In these cases, I believe that abortion needs to be somehow discouraged (like smoking butts around kids), but not illegal. Until now, I avoided mentioning my own views so as not to discourage pro-lifers from posting. instead of responding to my post where I pointed out the US House voted to defund Planned Parenthood, you instead chose to tell me I was bringing in the kitchen sink and to stay on topic (in so many words). I apologize if I offended you in my strong-arming you to stay on topic. To be fair, going off topic is against the ru- okay, I've made that joke too many times. Anyway, if there is some relevance with regards to the ethics of abortion in bringing up planned parenthood, then please, by all means, make the connection. Also, for the sake of unfettered ethical discussion, assume that "legal" abortions are judged by your moral standards (1st trimester only). My view is that first trimester fetuses are not yet formed enough and don't constitute a whole human, even though there may be a heartbeat. This is the point Dodgy mentioned, where philosophy either stops or starts going in circles. I can't objectively prove or disprove when a fetus becomes a human, but by drawing your own line in the sand, you've made further discussion possible. For the sake of discussion, I will assume that you're correct about personhood. However, I should point out that this claim of yours contradicts your previous claim that, if we apply "murder" to humans, then it applies to all of them, regardless of age. Is a mother, by nature of carrying the baby, impeding on the baby's life, or is she sustaining it? Why would one think that a mother is impeding on a child's life by carrying it to term? Does she have a choice to sustain it, or is someone forcing her to do it by law? Since you've given us an idea of when personhood might be granted, it would follow that, according to your ethical view, the mother has a choice to sustain it up until it gains personhood, at which point choosing not to sustain it becomes morally impermissible on the grounds you previously laid out regarding the application of "murder" to humans. This, in turn, contradicts the belief that all abortions are ethically permissible for the people who choose to do them. How would you reconcile these contradictions? If by law, what rights does she have? The mother would have the right to commit an abortion to preserve her own life or if she was a victim of rape. She also has the right to have an abortion if the fetus is not yet considered a person. why should a woman be forced to carry it and not use her only means of birth control - abortion? Her only means of birth control? Do you mean her only means after conception? Assuming she follows her ethical beliefs strictly, she may be forced to carry to term for a number of reasons (answering your question), such as: the fetus has developed into what she considers to be a person and she believes murdering a person is wrong. She is not some empty vessel with no will. Nobody here has asserted that women might be empty will-less vessels. The debate focuses around the issues of right to life and personhood. To frame it as you have is to put up a straw man. If the woman does not take precautions with birth control, the man should. If neither does, it's both their faults and they are taking their chances. They've decided to take a chance, knowing that if it happens, it might end in termination of pregnancy as a decision after the fact. If the fetus has personhood though (which we've established it doesn't until after the first trimester), then that may mean that the parents have obligations to that child, and the parents' negligence certainly isn't the child's fault (so it follows that the child shouldn't pay for the parents' poor decisions). You want me to focus exclusively on abortion, fetuses, and life decisions. It's almost impossible to discuss life decisions without bringing up the hypocrisy of killing in general. Because people bring religion into why they think abortion should be illegal, they overlook their decision to kill 10s of 1000s of people just because the government claims they're evil or enemies. This is an excellent connection, with which I have no misgivings. I only asked you to avoid bringing up other topics if you don't have a point or connection to make. I feel passionately about UO being the best MMORPG of all time- the PvP is near perfect, the aesthetic is beautiful, and the music and sounds are exquisite- and I might find some way to make that relevant, but if I don't, then all it's doing is making my already-long wall of text even longer and more difficult to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Oct 2, 2015 21:40:36 GMT
Also, I like the hypocrisy you've pointed out by bringing in other topics. Pro-lifers, sending our troops to die for oil, support the death penalty. Pro-choicers, taking away our constitutional right to bear arms, support forced healthcare insurance.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 2, 2015 22:12:56 GMT
I would like to respond to your lengthy post, but not possible yet.
I simply can't look at the subject on a scientific level, or with pure logic as you attempt. Humans are complex and not everything is consistent in how we see things.
The full brunt of the decision falls on a woman. Casual sex often leads to a man disappearing, or washing his hands, of any responsibility of his own part. The woman has to pay the consequences, never the man. So one could see how it can come across of suppression of women and their rights. It's easy to point a finger at the woman, but in reality, the man should be called on the carpet as well.
I haven't brought in the Catholic religion's stand on no contraception and following "god's will" if multiple children are produced. Or abstinence as a form of birth control, and only procreation as the reason for sex. As a society, we've gone far, far beyond those religious ideas. And with that, there are often consequences to recreational sex.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Oct 2, 2015 22:20:15 GMT
I would like to respond to your lengthy post, but not possible yet. Take your time. I can get carried away with walls of text. I simply can't look at the subject on a scientific level, or with pure logic as you attempt. I'm all 'bout dat logic. The full brunt of the decision falls on a woman. I must disagree. Certainly, most of the brunt does fall on the woman, but assuming personhood exists in fetuses, some of that brunt could also fall on the child. In rare cases, clever women have had numerous kids just to collect support, putting some of the brunt on the man. Just ask my father.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 8:49:07 GMT
In rare cases, clever women have had numerous kids just to collect support, putting some of the brunt on the man. Just ask my father. Two complete stereotypes there. I think there is welfare culture, that is very hard to break out of. But to pop out babies purely to get on the welfare roles is something I cannot agree is a standard by any means. As for your father, he was present in the decision to help her pop out more kids, was he not?
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Oct 3, 2015 13:58:28 GMT
In rare cases, clever women have had numerous kids just to collect support, putting some of the brunt on the man. Just ask my father. Two complete stereotypes there. I think there is welfare culture, that is very hard to break out of. But to pop out babies purely to get on the welfare roles is something I cannot agree is a standard by any means. As for your father, he was present in the decision to help her pop out more kids, was he not? Is that really a fair assessment of my post? Seldom do sweeping generalizations or stereotypes start with "In rare cases..." As for my father, I was speaking in jest.
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Oct 3, 2015 14:25:22 GMT
In rare cases, clever women have had numerous kids just to collect support, putting some of the brunt on the man. Just ask my father. Two complete stereotypes there. I think there is welfare culture, that is very hard to break out of. But to pop out babies purely to get on the welfare roles is something I cannot agree is a standard by any means. [emphasis added] Is that really a fair assessment of my post? Seldom do sweeping generalizations or stereotypes start with "In rare cases..." The idea that someone asserted that such behavior is "standard" is but another straw man. Let me speak with you from heart to heart for a moment Caliya. I feel that you're less interested in ethical discussion and more interested in discrediting what I say or ask. Two complete stereotypes there. It has not gone beyond my notice that you continue to question but have not answered your own, or anyone else's questions. But the fact you question without fully divulging your own views appears to point to pro-life. I don't think you're trying to troll at all. And yet you also don't answer I will probably blast any guy that disagrees with me You ask questions that can't be answered. I don't really know if we're having a discussion But I see a discussion here, with answerable questions and meaningful unanswerable ones, questions that strike to the core of our ethical beliefs on abortion. I aim to foster civil and engaging discussion. I only have asked so many questions because your views have been inconsistent with each other. It is ethically wrong to have an abortion It's probably always wrong My view is that first trimester fetuses are not yet formed enough and don't constitute a whole human, even though there may be a heartbeat. I think abortion is right for the person that chooses to do it and it should not be illegal.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 16:05:07 GMT
Anyway, if there is some relevance with regards to the ethics of abortion in bringing up planned parenthood, then please, by all means, make the connection. The discussion on Planned Parenthood has been in the news during the same time we're talking about abortion. The right wing's strongest argument to defund PP is because of abortion, pure and simple, even though that constitutes only a small fraction of services they offer women. It may not be relevant in other countries, but it is in the US at this point in time. They also say taxpayer dollars are spent on abortions, and people who don't like their taxes used in that way want to defund PP. Well, I don't like my taxpayer dollars spent towards a war (and killing) we should've never entered in the first place. And it's far, far in excess of any small amount PP gets. But do I, as a taxpayer, have a say in that? Why does the right wing have a say in women's services, and also a say in war? It's a bunch of BS. The right wing brought up the ethics issue of abortion - claiming that PP sells aborted fetuses. And they claimed all women should be mandated to have intra-vaginal probes in their vaginas, in order to "see" the fetus before being allowed to make the decision to abort. I want government out of women's vaginas. It's all completely related.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 16:23:15 GMT
For me to answer my own questions would be silly I ask questions that I answer all the time. I see no reason not to. Sometimes questions are rhetorical. And some can't be answered. It just seemed the probing was a bait, in order to discredit. Usually when people ask questions for detailed or personal answers, it's for the distinct purpose to tear down an argument. That's why you sometimes get what appears to be a hostile response. I believe that abortion needs to be somehow discouraged It's discouraged. If you ever heard what abortion counseling is like, they offer alternatives, help the mother think about what she's really doing. Mothers are not encouraged. She knows she's affecting the life of her unborn and that carries a huge amount of grief and guilt. Abortions are not an easy thing for women. They are painful, humiliating, and induce guilt without all the forms of additional discouragement. Believe me, if you're around a group of women who talk about these things openly (it's very difficult for women to open up unless they feel safe and not condemned), you would know just how gut wrenching of a decision it is for them. But smoking discouragement is done for the express purpose to humiliate into submission, to make feel guilty, or to raise awareness. And why? Because that person is polluting other people's air and oxygen supply. They aren't doing it just to themselves. But somehow they feel entitled unless someone points it out. Here in Europe, I can't go anywhere without walking in a cloud of smoke. I see mothers with their babies in strollers, sitting on park benches smoking. I see cigarette butts everywhere. They can subject children to their 2nd hand smoke, and harm their health, but that seems to be just fine. Christian fanatics believe in "spare the rod, spoil the child" and beat their kids, spank them, slap their faces, feed them crap food like McDonald's, yell at them and humiliate them publicly. And hey it's all good but by golly, don't abort them. You can abuse them for decades, and have an autocratic household where kids have no say, but you must have them.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 16:33:36 GMT
I should point out that this claim of yours contradicts your previous claim that, if we apply "murder" to humans, then it applies to all of them, regardless of age. The moment of conception, there is a life. But it's not an independent life. It cannot survive outside the womb, so it is not a fully formed human being. It's a living thing, but not in and of itself. You try to get at what constitutes personhood, or what is a human being? I don't know if science agrees it's a human being the moment it's conceived. It's not even formed yet. An abortion ends the possibility of that life. If a mother felt it was ethical to abort, she would suffer no guilt. And what about the father? Does he suffer guilt? Whether I'm contradictory or not, doesn't really matter to me. But for pro-lifers to say it's murder and condemn that person, while sending their sons and daughters to war to kill others, it's a bunch of hypocrites.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 16:37:50 GMT
Why would one think that a mother is impeding on a child's life by carrying it to term? If she doesn't take care of herself - if she uses drugs, alcohol, has unhealthy food or not enough healthy food, if she's an emotional basket case, these are sometimes charges raised against her for harming the fetus. So women are sometimes charged with negligent behavior and taken to court, to force them to take care of their own bodies for the benefit of the child. But hey, she carries it to term even though she's given it a terrible start. What if she ends up not able to care for the child adequately? What responsibility does the father have in any of this?
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 16:40:23 GMT
This, in turn, contradicts the belief that all abortions are ethically permissible for the people who choose to do them. How would you reconcile these contradictions? Is it ethical for a woman to take care of herself and not regard a potential burden to her life? I would much rather the mother not suffer from having a child, if she can't care for it, than subject the child to a life of misery.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 16:44:09 GMT
To frame it as you have is to put up a straw man. I had said, "She is not some empty vessel with no will." In what way is that a straw man? When people are trying to force women to carry a child, and make abortion illegal, she essentially becomes just what I said.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 16:50:47 GMT
Also, I like the hypocrisy you've pointed out by bringing in other topics. Pro-lifers, sending our troops to die for oil, support the death penalty. Pro-choicers, taking away our constitutional right to bear arms, support forced healthcare insurance.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 16:56:27 GMT
Is that really a fair assessment of my post? Seldom do sweeping generalizations or stereotypes start with "In rare cases..." Sorry, you did say rare. I just hear that kind of BS from so many right wing folks, I want to be sure people know this is just not a true stereotype. Besides, as poorly as welfare and food stamps pay, it simply does not pay to have more kids. They cut SNAP benefits even though food prices continue to rise. I know a single mother working 2 jobs and they cut her SNAP benefits, and she is really struggling. Fathers grumble they don't like to pay for child support, but the fact is, if they actually did, there wouldn't be the need for so much social welfare. Clinton's "Deadbeat Dad" act was a complete failure.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 17:03:34 GMT
I feel that you're less interested in ethical discussion and more interested in discrediting what I say or ask. That may be so. My take is that you seem more interested in the same thing you say I'm doing, by the kind of questions you ask. <shrugs>
|
|
|
Post by Mordecai on Oct 3, 2015 19:52:58 GMT
The discussion on Planned Parenthood has been in the news during the same time we're talking about abortion. I'm not sure this constitutes a connection but that's irrelevant because you make the connection elsewhere (below). The right wing's strongest argument to defund PP is because of abortion, pure and simple, even though that constitutes only a small fraction of services they offer women. Okay, so I see now that abortion is an important topic with regards to PP, but does PP have any relevance in abortion? If we can divorce the politics from the issue and dive into the ethics, I don't think it does, however- I'm starting to get a better picture now. My relation with abortion is purely through philosophy, whereas yours seems to be through politics. I think that is why we misinterpreted each other. I ask questions that I answer all the time. I see no reason not to. The problem with my questions is that they probe at ethical stances (at least in this thread), so for me to ask myself why, say, I believe that abortion is permissible in all cases, wouldn't make sense since I don't believe that. It just seemed the probing was a bait, in order to discredit. Usually when people ask questions for detailed or personal answers, it's for the distinct purpose to tear down an argument. That's why you sometimes get what appears to be a hostile response. I appreciate the honest explanation. In politics, and on the Internet, I suspect that you are right. The miscommunication here is a result of our different experiences with abortion. In ethics, and in philosophy in general, it is standard to ask questions like the ones I've posed. The purpose is kind of to bait the other person, but not in a malicious way. The idea is that, through questions, we try to find inconsistencies in other people's ethical views. This informs both the views of the asker and the answerer. In fact, here are two examples of that happening in this thread, the first in which I change my view after gaining insight, and the second in which you do the same. It is discouraged. [emphasis added] If you ever heard what abortion counseling is like, they offer alternatives, help the mother think about what she's really doing. Mothers are not encouraged. She knows she's affecting the life of her unborn and that carries a huge amount of grief and guilt. Abortions are not an easy thing for women. They are painful, humiliating, and induce guilt without all the forms of additional discouragement. Believe me, if you're around a group of women who talk about these things openly (it's very difficult for women to open up unless they feel safe and not condemned), you would know just how gut wrenching of a decision it is for them. With this insight, I'm tempted to say that abortion should be legal in the first trimester unconditionally. Your writing speaks to my emotion, and to a strong effect. The moment of conception, there is a life. But it's not an independent life. It cannot survive outside the womb, so it is not a fully formed human being. It's a living thing, but not in and of itself. You try to get at what constitutes personhood, or what is a human being? I don't know if science agrees it's a human being the moment it's conceived. It's not even formed yet. This is a good case for personhood not being granted until later in a pregnancy. Specifically, I think that the claim to be made here is that personhood doesn't begin until the fetus gains a greater degree of independence from the mother. This might not be as much independence as needing to be fully born, but certainly it is more than being a mingling sperm and egg. For the record, science cannot tell us when personhood begins. Such matters are not scientific or objective in nature- personhood is a status we somewhat-arbitrarily grant. This is probably why the issue of abortion is so dividing. If she doesn't take care of herself - if she uses drugs, alcohol, has unhealthy food or not enough healthy food, if she's an emotional basket case, these are sometimes charges raised against her for harming the fetus. So women are sometimes charged with negligent behavior and taken to court, to force them to take care of their own bodies for the benefit of the child. But hey, she carries it to term even though she's given it a terrible start. What if she ends up not able to care for the child adequately? What responsibility does the father have in any of this? Wow, this connection changes that question entirely. Personally, I support abortion for this reason. If the parents are nowhere near adequately equipped to take care of their child, is it really better to bring the child into the world anyway (you also would argue no I assume)? However, the other side of this is, to what standard of health must we hold people in order for them to be fit to have kids, and how do we address adverse health effects that result from causes beyond the mother's control (such as pollution)? We've all known since at least 1962 (thanks to Rachel Carsen) that hundreds of toxic chemicals are present in human breastmilk (the result of bioaccumulation and biomagnification), but nonetheless it seems silly to assert that women should not have children because of this. Where is the line (rhetorical question)? If the standards for raising a child are anything to go off of, we don't have to do much to be healthy enough to have a kid. Avoid drugs and alcohol (since you're kids can't legally consume them) but eat all the big-macs you want. Something about this seems wrong too, but now we're bumping into the issue of personal liberty/freedom vs. mandatory health laws. Of course, the key ethical contention in abortion arises in the fact that, if you were say, two years old, born into such an environment, killing you would still seem abhorrently wrong. The reason such is wrong is because taking human life seems wrong, which brings us to the questions of when does life begin (the answer: it doesn't actually stop between generations), and ultimately to the question of personhood. With the idea that personhood doesn't begin until the fetus is independent enough to exist outside the mother, it could be argued that abortion in any trimester is permissible. However, if we see an aborted third-trimester fetus, we're bound to feel something wrong about it, which may suggest that personhood begins sooner. When it begins, or if it begins sooner, is subjective (like a good deal of philosophy), so that is inevitably where the debate concludes. Going through that process of reasoning though, even with personal moral deviations from my own, reminds us that these issues aren't as black and white, as polarized, as the media outlets would have us believe. Is it ethical for a woman to take care of herself and not regard a potential burden to her life? I would much rather the mother not suffer from having a child, if she can't care for it, than subject the child to a life of misery. I think that women and men both are free to disregard grievances on their own lives without ethical consequences, so long as their disregard doesn't have an outstanding effect on others around them. In the case quoted, I too would permit an abortion. I had said, "She is not some empty vessel with no will." In what way is that a straw man? When people are trying to force women to carry a child, and make abortion illegal, she essentially becomes just what I said. Because I have not made the claim which you refute, the refutation is a straw man. In this discussion, despite my personal beliefs, I have taken the opposing role from you (pro-life). Under this role, I have laid out issues with abortion, issues much more compelling than "well c'mon, woman are just empty vessels without will of their own so..." though I don't mean to suggest that others haven't made that argument. The statement unjustly simplifies my argument from decent points to extremist right-wing nonsense. However, I do understand that, given your political relationship with abortion, you would want to refute the crazy talk we hear in political settings. My experience in philosophy didn't leave me privy to that until now however. Anyway, to refute the idea that women are empty vessels and such is to imply that such an idea has been proposed in the discussion in which the refutation was made.
|
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Post by titsup on Oct 3, 2015 20:14:51 GMT
I don't have time to read this now, but I figure it might be worth getting my opinion on this prior to reading the thread first.
I come at this from a perspective different than most. My wife and I had twin boys at exactly 24 weeks of gestation. I had to choose to stop treatment on the first to die just a few minutes after he was born. He measured 11 1/2 inches and weighed 1 lb. 3 ounces. Our other son lived for 3 days in the NICU before I again had to choose to end efforts to continue his life. He was 8 1/2 inches long and 1 lb.
I only throw that out there because gives some insight as to where my response is coming from and it forced me to consider the abortion issue. If my wife were to become pregnant again, the doctors would recommend a selective abortion (we asked, as we were afraid of this potential issue for her second pregnancy). The situation we were in with our twins was life threatening obviously to both of them. A selective abortion would at least lessen the risk to 1 of those lives.
A lot of people, typically anti-abortion types, tend to be surprised when I reply that I'm more in favor of abortion as an option (though I was pro-choice prior) after the loss of our twins.
Eh, fuck it. I was going to try to tie all this shit together or something, but I'm kind of trailing off. I'll leave what I typed though. Basically, I'm a pro-choice supporter.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 21:17:55 GMT
The statement unjustly simplifies my argument from decent points to extremist right-wing nonsense. However, I do understand that, given your political relationship with abortion, you would want to refute the crazy talk we hear in political settings. My experience in philosophy didn't leave me privy to that until now however. Anyway, to refute the idea that women are empty vessels and such is to imply that such an idea has been proposed in the discussion in which the refutation was made. I think you misunderstood me. When I made the original comment about an empty vessel with no will, I meant that's how many men were treating women, the ones who are trying to make laws to make abortion illegal and defund PP. Not you. So it wasn't directed at you personally. My argument comes from both political and emotional sides. I've seen women's rights suppressed since before I was born - we do live in patriarchal societies for centuries. Women didn't used to have the right to vote. It wasn't all that long ago they couldn't own any real property. And even more recent (up until the 1970s), they couldn't even have a bank account without their husband on their account. Credit cards, credit, and home mortgages, even in the last century, were all a man's domain, and name. So when mostly men are trying to make laws for women, I get pretty bent out of shape.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 3, 2015 21:21:39 GMT
titsup I'm so, so sorry for your losses. That must have been devastating to you both. It's a grief that never fully goes away. It also puts strain on a marriage, and the divorce rates for couples that have lost children, such as you have, are higher than ordinary. I hope you both see things through. And if you do have another pregnancy, best of luck to you both.
|
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Post by titsup on Oct 3, 2015 22:36:48 GMT
titsup I'm so, so sorry for your losses. That must have been devastating to you both. It's a grief that never fully goes away. It also puts strain on a marriage, and the divorce rates for couples that have lost children, such as you have, are higher than ordinary. I hope you both see things through. And if you do have another pregnancy, best of luck to you both. Thanks Cal, no worries tip toeing around it though, its been 3 years (September 20th, our fucking anniversary if you can believe). We deal with it as well as we can. Strain a marriage it does, but the common assumptions that it increases divorce rates are exaggerated. Statistically its not much different than the norm. My guess would be underlying problems in a marriage explode in that sort of situation. It didn't for us. We've had our daughter now for a year and a half and its awesome. I left out a key phrase in my previous post, drs. would have recommended a selective abortion were she pregnant again with twins. It was unlikely, but its more likely in those who've had a twin pregnancy than those that haven't. Its a really weird position to be in to think about a potential abortion. I realize after rereading it it seemed as though I was saying she'd have to have abortions if she became pregnant again, which is not the case. Its funny, two women at work who are both born again Christians and pro-life both said that in my case, they understand having an abortion. Its all those other abortions with people just having them 'because they feel like it' that are the problem.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Oct 4, 2015 1:50:09 GMT
I don't have time to read this now, but I figure it might be worth getting my opinion on this prior to reading the thread first. I come at this from a perspective different than most. My wife and I had twin boys at exactly 24 weeks of gestation. I had to choose to stop treatment on the first to die just a few minutes after he was born. He measured 11 1/2 inches and weighed 1 lb. 3 ounces. Our other son lived for 3 days in the NICU before I again had to choose to end efforts to continue his life. He was 8 1/2 inches long and 1 lb. I only throw that out there because gives some insight as to where my response is coming from and it forced me to consider the abortion issue. If my wife were to become pregnant again, the doctors would recommend a selective abortion (we asked, as we were afraid of this potential issue for her second pregnancy). The situation we were in with our twins was life threatening obviously to both of them. A selective abortion would at least lessen the risk to 1 of those lives. A lot of people, typically anti-abortion types, tend to be surprised when I reply that I'm more in favor of abortion as an option (though I was pro-choice prior) after the loss of our twins. Eh, fuck it. I was going to try to tie all this shit together or something, but I'm kind of trailing off. I'll leave what I typed though. Basically, I'm a pro-choice supporter. Fuck bud, words cant express how that must of felt. Im so sorry for you and you Mrs. Its worth nothing but Im hoping the best possible outcome for if you try again.
|
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Post by titsup on Oct 4, 2015 5:51:57 GMT
I don't have time to read this now, but I figure it might be worth getting my opinion on this prior to reading the thread first. I come at this from a perspective different than most. My wife and I had twin boys at exactly 24 weeks of gestation. I had to choose to stop treatment on the first to die just a few minutes after he was born. He measured 11 1/2 inches and weighed 1 lb. 3 ounces. Our other son lived for 3 days in the NICU before I again had to choose to end efforts to continue his life. He was 8 1/2 inches long and 1 lb. I only throw that out there because gives some insight as to where my response is coming from and it forced me to consider the abortion issue. If my wife were to become pregnant again, the doctors would recommend a selective abortion (we asked, as we were afraid of this potential issue for her second pregnancy). The situation we were in with our twins was life threatening obviously to both of them. A selective abortion would at least lessen the risk to 1 of those lives. A lot of people, typically anti-abortion types, tend to be surprised when I reply that I'm more in favor of abortion as an option (though I was pro-choice prior) after the loss of our twins. Eh, fuck it. I was going to try to tie all this shit together or something, but I'm kind of trailing off. I'll leave what I typed though. Basically, I'm a pro-choice supporter. Fuck bud, words cant express how that must of felt. Im so sorry for you and you Mrs. Its worth nothing but Im hoping the best possible outcome for if you try again. Thanks dodgy, we do have our daughter now. She's happy and healthy and with the help of being considered a high risk pregnancy, she was watched like a hawk this time. It always matters to hear it. I apologize for derailing this thread otherwise pretty interesting thread.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 4, 2015 9:25:51 GMT
it seemed as though I was saying she'd have to have abortions if she became pregnant again, which is not the case. I understood what you meant, it made sense. Its funny, two women at work who are both born again Christians and pro-life both said that in my case, they understand having an abortion. Its all those other abortions with people just having them 'because they feel like it' that are the problem. When "Life" hits the road, it's often not what our ideals say we should do, but what our hearts say. I once had a partner, who almost died as an infant, from encephalitis. He was in a coma for 19 days. His parents belonged to Jehovah's Witness, a religion that believes in "God's Will" and no medical intervention. He needed a blood transfusion to survive, and their cherch said it should not be done, to accept God's will. It was then they quit their cherch. Edit: Ok, who changed the word censor that when you type the correct spelling of cherch, it says "house of lies." lol So I intentionally misspelled it to get around the filter.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Oct 4, 2015 9:32:40 GMT
Though I personally think this illustrates an absurd way to make a point, it still makes an interesting point.
|
|