Punished for pumping?
One of our young pro-life feminist commenters, prettyinpink, advocates accomodating pregnant mothers to lower the abortion rate.
One of our moderators, Lauren, has told her horror story of being discriminated against in college when she became pregnant.
Is this an example of discrimination? From the Associated Press, September 12:
A breast-feeding mother who wants extra breaks so she can pump milk during the licensing exam that she needs to secure a prestigious medical residency has asked a Massachusetts judge to settle her dispute with the board that administers it….
Sophie Currier has completed a joint M.D./Ph.D. program at Harvard University while having two babies in the last two years. Her goal is a residency at Massachusetts General Hospital and a career in medical research.
“The one requirement is to pass this exam,” she said Tuesday.
Currier, 33, requested extra break time during the nine-hour test, saying that if she does not nurse her 4-month-old daughter, Lea, or pump breast milk every two to three hours she risks medical complications.
The National Board of Medical Examiners, which administers the test, said it understands the needs of breast-feeding mothers but cannot grant extra time for pumping….
“If we are variable in the time that’s allotted to trainees, we alter the performance of the examination,” board spokeswoman Dr. Ruth Hoppe said.
Currier filed a petition in state Superior Court in Massachusetts asking the court to intervene and grant her the extra time during the test later this month….
Currier… has already received special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act for dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; she can take the nine-hour test, which is offered throughout the nation several times a year, over two days instead of one. She is seeking an extra 60-minute break each day to pump breast milk….
Hoppe said other nursing mothers who have taken the exam have found the 45 minutes of permitted break time sufficient.
“We’ve had women who either fed their infant or pumped during their break time,” she said.
But Dr. Ruth Lawrence, who chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics’ breast-feeding section, called the medical examining board’s position too rigid.
“It’s a classic institutional response,” said Lawrence…. “You would hope that everyone in the medical profession had an appreciation for the tremendous importance of breast-feeding one’s infant.”
Medical authorities have long touted the benefits of breast-feeding for mother and baby. Lawrence said the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that babies be fed breast milk exclusively for the first six months of life and that they continue to nurse for at least six more months while other foods are added to their diets.
Some employers have made accommodations for breast-feeding mothers such as providing lactation rooms for pumping in private, but federal anti-discrimination laws do not protect nursing mothers.
The Breastfeeding Promotion Act, pending in Congress, would protect women from being fired or punished for pumping or nursing during breaks.
It appears the medical board is being unreasonable. Here are details on the time being requested. Per the Boston Globe, September 10:
Currier… [said] the 45 minutes of free time allowed over the course of the nine-hour exam was not enough for her to expel milk in addition to eating and using the restroom.
Per Currier’s blog:
[W]hen I called NBME in to ask if they would give me 20 minutes of extended break time during the 9 to 10 hour period in which I would be taking USMLE step 2, I was shocked when they replied “no, nursing is not a permanent condition”.
Per WCVBTV, September 12:
“Because it’s physically impossible for a nursing mom to go nine hours or nine-and-a-half hours without expressing milk, I told them that they were putting me in a position of choosing between nursing my child and taking this exam and advancing my career,” Currier said….
“I think that it’s actually discriminating against women because men don’t have to do this job. No male will ever have to face this problem of deciding between feeding (his) child and taking an exam,” Currier said.
The Boston Globe reports that the NBME’s request for this case to be held in federal rather than state court will be decided in court today. Currie’s side says this is a ploy by the NBME to delay the case until after the exam when the point is mute.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Okay, I know nothing about breast feeding. 45 minutes is not enough time?
I have never had any interest in breastfeeding. I bottle fed my children. I was watching TV the other day, and I saw that there was this hospital in NY who wants all moms to breast feed. They are really going to push the issue.
The Doug Wars:
It’s not “taking away” any right. They’re not attributed in the first place.
The right to life is afforded to all persons. By claiming that the unborn are not persons, you most certainly are taking away their right.
As Bethany and I have pointed out, it is your valuation, and not facts, that have decided that the unborn are non-persons…Their right to life has been stolen by you. We have already determined that they are human beings. There are no other “human beings” whose right to life is not protected. Your side is the group that made up (ah…yet another fantasy?) that there is some difference between a human being and a person. Nowhere, has any other group of human beings been defined as non persons in America except for the slaves. And we know how wrong that was. This is just as wrong.
Your valuation that there is somehow a difference between being human and being a person HAS taken away their right to life.
It is simply your valuation that they had no right to life to begin with. An idea that has no precedence, other than slavery, and quite frankly has no merit now, either.
Doug,
No, because again – there’s no will there. You may personify the unborn in your own mind, but they don’t care. Women and the slaves certainly cared/care.
Oh please, a 2 week old newborn has no “will” and doesn’t care either…yet you consider them persons…you’re arguments are irrational. Now if you said we could kill babies up to 4 months old (post born) because they have no will and wouldn’t care, you’d have a better case. You’d still be wrong, but at least your arguments would be logical.
See thats anti choice, Heather. This hospital shouldn’t be forcing every new mother to breast feed, it should be the woman’s choice whether or not she wants to do it.
Doug,
Week Thirteen Her hands are functional – Your baby may start playing with her fist.
Playing. Playing with their fists. Doesn’t sound reflexive to me…and remember, this was YOUR source.
Week Fourteen Your little one may have learned to suck his thumb by this point!
Learned. Learned to suck their thumb…as in trying over and over until they can actually get it in their mouth…again, not reflex…again, YOUR source.
Week Nineteen Your baby has the same awake and sleep patterns of a newborn. He has a favorite position for sleep and recognizable active and rest periods.
The operative phrase here was NOT regular sleeping patterns…it was “favorite positions for sleep” as in “will” and “preference”…things only a sentient mind could have. YOUR source, not mine.
However – I realize that there is at least an argument about some of that. There are some gray areas which make for good discussion. I have no problem with those.
Gray areas that you just deny. Gray areas that you just brush over. Gray areas that you ignore. Gray areas that don’t jive with your argument…
So what are you going to do about them?
Doug,
People do need to learn how to get along in society, if they want to be in society, after all, and my parents did pretty well with us.
Was it them that taught you that getting along in society means doing whatever you want, and whatever you have to do to avoid sacrifice, responsibility, hard work and decency. As long as YOU are happy and not inconvenienced then that qualifies as getting along?
Sounds to me like what you learned was that society needed to learn how to get along with you…
JKeller, I agree. However, this is different than abortion. I don’t see as much of an outcry on this. Oh, I don’t have a thing against BF [[just to clear that up]] I feel that it should be the choice left up to the individual. Like it or not, the government does tell us what to do with our bodies at times. The smoking ban, seat belt and helmet laws, stricter DUI laws, now breast feeding. Outlaw abortion, and people will have to adjust.
Okay, well, I’ve nursed, I’ve pumped, I’ve done both at the same time!
45 minutes is enough time, generally, to nurse a baby. This assumes she has someone who can bring the baby to her at the exact time, nurse, and then hand the baby back. It assumes the baby won’t need a change in the middle of nursing or burp the entire feeding back up on her blouse, necessitating a clothing change.
It may, or may not, be enough time to pump, especially if there is stress (other people watching, having to be in a bathroom) or engorgement involved.
It is not, however, enough time to nurse AND eat AND go to the bathroom.
Certainly it is not enough time to pump and do all of those things.
If a mother becomes engorged she can get mastitis, an infection, which can require antibiotics, which can cause thrush in the infant, necessitating MORE medication (for the baby…) It’s a downward cycle that is difficult to recover from! Her baby can also later have trouble latching on until some milk is expressed. But it is difficult to express if you are engorged…again, it starts a negative feeding cycle.
Pregnancy is not a permanent condition, but it is protected under the ADA, BTW.
How come I can’t see Doug’s comment but I can see everyone’s response to it?
Smoking bans, seatbelt and helmet laws and DUI laws are there to save our lives. Not breast feeding doesn’t carry the same risk to your life as not wearing a helmet when you’re riding a motorcycle, so I don’t see any reason to make women breast feed when many children have grown up happy and healthy on formula.
JKellar, I used to consider myself PC. That was until I researched abortion, and how women were abusing it. I’ve seen one too many people just up and say, “I’m gonna get an abortion.” as if they were ordering lunch. Today it isn’t uncommon at all to meet women who admit to multiple abortions. It isn’t like you walk up to someone and say “Hi. Nice to meet you. Have you ever had an abortion?” Generally, some women will just bring it up and say “Ya, I had 3,4,5, add your #..abortions.” Talking about killing like it was drinking a few beers. This is where I began to change my mind about abortion.
Mile,
Doug, Bethany and I are having an ongoing “battle” and when the post is about to be dropped we move the skirmish to a new post…you can find his comments on the Britney post.
Heather,
Could you link to that story? I’ve never heard of a hospital FORCING breastfeeding.
Encouraging, yes, but not forcing. Usually the formula companies are all over the place in the OB dept., giving away free diaper bags and toys.
Doug,
Tell me something…
You say: It’s not “taking away” any right. They’re not attributed in the first place.
If this is true then why doesn’t it apply to the women also. They were never given the right to kill their children, (not expressly, only through the back door using the privacy amendment) so how can making abortion illegal take away a right that was never there to begin with?
Milehi, Hi. Actually, I saw this on the news a few weeks ago. I know the hospital is in NY. I am looking for a link.
Breast-Feeding May Lower
Rheumatoid Arthritis Risk
Excerpt By Charnicia E. Huggins, Reuter’s Health
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Women who spend a total of 2 or more years of their lives breast-feeding may be less likely to develop rheumatoid arthritis than those who breast-feed for 3 months or less, new study findings show.
“We know that breast-feeding is good for the babies,” lead study author Dr. Elizabeth W. Karlson of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told Reuters Health. “This is a study that suggests that breast-feeding is beneficial for the mother.”
Rheumatoid arthritis occurs when the immune system, for unknown reasons, mistakenly attacks the joints, leading to inflammation, swelling and pain. Over time, this process erodes the bone and soft tissue within the joints. The condition is more common in women than in men, and previous research suggests that certain hormonal factors may be associated with an increased risk of the disease.
Karlson and her team investigated that association in a study of about 80,000 women from 11 states who were involved in the on-going Nurses’ Health Study from 1976-2000. They evaluated the influence of several reproductive and hormonal risk factors including the women’s age at first menstruation, their number of children, their age at their first birth and their length of time spent breast-feeding.
Overall, 623 women developed rheumatoid arthritis during the study period. Those who did not have children were more likely to develop the condition than mothers, the investigators report.
And among mothers, those who spent a cumulative 2 or more years breast-feeding were 50% less likely to develop rheumatoid arthritis than those who breast-fed for 3 months or less, study findings indicate.
Those who breast-fed for 13 to 23 months also tended to have a lower risk of developing the condition, but the risk was lowest among those who breast-fed for at least 24 months, which suggests that the “longer you breast-feed, the larger the reduction” in risk, Karlson said.
Furthermore, the link between the length of time spent breast-feeding and the reduced risk of rheumatoid arthritis remained even when the investigators took into consideration the women’s smoking, which is known to be associated with an increased risk of the condition, Karlson said.
The exact reason for the association is unknown, but Karlson speculated that it may be due to one of the hormonal factors that are elevated during breast-feeding. More study is needed, she said.
No association was found between any other reproductive or hormonal factors and rheumatoid arthritis risk.
The study findings were presented on Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Reference Source 89
Milehi, this is not the link I wanted, but this is the theory they are going on. I’ll keep looking though.
“It’s not “taking away” any right. They’re not attributed in the first place.”
MK: The right to life is afforded to all persons. By claiming that the unborn are not persons, you most certainly are taking away their right.
No, you have it backwards. The argument over personhood is, in large measure, whether to attribute that right in the first place. You can’t “take away” something which isn’t in place yet.
…….
As Bethany and I have pointed out, it is your valuation, and not facts, that have decided that the unborn are non-persons.
You are simply wrong there. Personhood hasn’t been attributed, and that has nothing to do with my valuation.
…….
..Their right to life has been stolen by you.
Again – nope – it just hasn’t been granted in the first place.
…….
We have already determined that they are human beings. There are no other “human beings” whose right to life is not protected. Your side is the group that made up (ah…yet another fantasy?) that there is some difference between a human being and a person.
Wrong again, MK. “Human being” there is physical reality. Personhood is an attributed status, a societal construct. Two different things.
…….
Nowhere, has any other group of human beings been defined as non persons in America except for the slaves. And we know how wrong that was. This is just as wrong.
Again, two different things, as above.
…….
Your valuation that there is somehow a difference between being human and being a person HAS taken away their right to life.
And once again – that’s not a valuation, it’s just fact. The physical reality isn’t at issue. The status most certain is at issue. Two different deals.
……
It is simply your valuation that they had no right to life to begin with. An idea that has no precedence, other than slavery, and quite frankly has no merit now, either.
Wrong. The right has never been attributed, not in the history of the US. Abortion being illegal didn’t change that fact. In practice I don’t think any society on earth, past or present, attributed real personhood to the unborn.
Doug
“No, because again – there’s no will there. You may personify the unborn in your own mind, but they don’t care. Women and the slaves certainly cared/care.”
MK: Oh please, a 2 week old newborn has no “will” and doesn’t care either…yet you consider them persons…you’re arguments are irrational. Now if you said we could kill babies up to 4 months old (post born) because they have no will and wouldn’t care, you’d have a better case. You’d still be wrong, but at least your arguments would be logical.
Wrong. The 2 week newborn does indeed care. It can suffer. It has emotions.
“People do need to learn how to get along in society, if they want to be in society, after all, and my parents did pretty well with us.”
MK: Was it them that taught you that getting along in society means doing whatever you want, and whatever you have to do to avoid sacrifice, responsibility, hard work and decency. As long as YOU are happy and not inconvenienced then that qualifies as getting along?
No, MK, that’s not what they said and not what I said, either.
……
Sounds to me like what you learned was that society needed to learn how to get along with you…
What you made up sounds that way to you, but that’s not my position.
“It’s not “taking away” any right. They’re not attributed in the first place.”
MK: If this is true then why doesn’t it apply to the women also. They were never given the right to kill their children, (not expressly, only through the back door using the privacy amendment) so how can making abortion illegal take away a right that was never there to begin with?
Incorrect premise. Abortion was legal to a point in gestation under English common law – it’s not like women were considered not to have the right.
Doug
Doug,
As Bethany and I have pointed out, it is your valuation, and not facts, that have decided that the unborn are non-persons.
You are simply wrong there. Personhood hasn’t been attributed, and that has nothing to do with my valuation.
It has been decided in your mind, and in the hearts of all pro-choicers. Otherwise abortion would be illegal. It most certainly is your valuation that the unborn are not persons…
Personhood hasn’t been attributed due to “valuations”…yours, societies…the unborn have been deemed non persons.
And I stand by my first statement. In claiming that the unborn are NOT persons, you have stripped them of a right which would be theirs if they were determined to be persons.
If they are persons, they have that right to life.
If you strip them of personhood, they lose that right.
Everything comes down to whether or not they are defined as persons by the law. And as of now they have been loosely defined as nonpersons, and their right to personhood and life has been taken away.
We have already determined that they are human beings. There are no other “human beings” whose right to life is not protected. Your side is the group that made up (ah…yet another fantasy?) that there is some difference between a human being and a person.
*
Wrong again, MK. “Human being” there is physical reality. Personhood is an attributed status, a societal construct. Two different things.
Well then Doug, I’m afraid you are just going to have to show me where any other group of human beings has been determined not to be a group of persons…
Again, there is no precedent. Calling the unborn non-persons is trying to set a precedent.
Doug,
Your valuation that there is somehow a difference between being human and being a person HAS taken away their right to life.
*
And once again – that’s not a valuation, it’s just fact. The physical reality isn’t at issue. The status most certain is at issue. Two different deals.
Yes, but only because of your valuation that there is a difference. Show me where and when human being and person were made into two different things.
Even personhood does not protect the unborn from abortion. Persons are not entitled to live inside another person’s body without the owner’s continuing consent.
Doug,
In practice I don’t think any society on earth, past or present, attributed real personhood to the unborn.
Nor did they not attribute it. It was never an issue. Again, show me where this “law” is that says personhood and human being are two different things.
Doug,
Wrong. The 2 week newborn does indeed care. It can suffer. It has emotions.
Really? And you can prove that those cries and giggles are not just reflexes how? You can prove that a newborn “cares”, how?
And Heather, sorry to burst your bubble, but judging from your previous comments you have NOT researched abortion well enough to have an informed opinion. In fact you are shockingly ill-informed, given how strongly you seem to feel about it.
Week Thirteen Her hands are functional – Your baby may start playing with her fist. Playing. Playing with their fists. Doesn’t sound reflexive to me…and remember, this was YOUR source.
There is no necessary implication there of consciousness or will, MK. The muscles may contract, moving the hand. That, by itself, isn’t evidence of anything more than reflex or autonomic stuff.
…….
Week Fourteen Your little one may have learned to suck his thumb by this point! Learned. Learned to suck their thumb…as in trying over and over until they can actually get it in their mouth…again, not reflex…again, YOUR source.
That really is a reflex, plain and simple.
“Thumb sucking and finger sucking are natural reflexes that babies develop while they are still in the womb.”
http://www.dotcomwomen.com/parenting/preschoolers/thumb-sucking.shtml
…….
Week Nineteen Your baby has the same awake and sleep patterns of a newborn. He has a favorite position for sleep and recognizable active and rest periods. The operative phrase here was NOT regular sleeping patterns…it was “favorite positions for sleep” as in “will” and “preference”…things only a sentient mind could have. YOUR source, not mine.
Nope – while there may be a tendency to repeat certain actions, like the positions, in no way does that necessarily mean that will is involved, same as for thumb-sucking.
…….
“However – I realize that there is at least an argument about some of that. There are some gray areas which make for good discussion. I have no problem with those.”
Gray areas that you just deny. Gray areas that you just brush over. Gray areas that you ignore. Gray areas that don’t jive with your argument… So what are you going to do about them?
Nope – I dont deny them nor ignore or brush over them, as above. They jive with my argument just fine.
Doug
How come I can’t see Doug’s comment but I can see everyone’s response to it?
Good mornin,’ Milehimama. You know, I bet my co-workers switched this computer over to that darn invisible ink again…
To be serious, I’m not sure which comment you mean. On the breastfeeding, I say let her have the time.
If she’s supposed to get nine hours to do the test, so be it, but I don’t think she’s “cheating” if she takes more time “off-duty” so to speak in-between taking the test.
Seems to me this is the system being inflexible without a good enough reason for it.
Doug
When is this society going to recognize the importance of MY activites, choices and lifestyle?
I love my horses.
Have my educators and employers ever recognized the need I have to execize, feed, groom, medicate or emotionally nurture my horses during school or work hours?
NO!
They claim that I should conduct my personal life on my own time.
I really think it’s about time these people recognized my right to bring my horses to work and school, as well respect my right to ride them and care for them as often as I see fit. It’s also about time the federal government realize the need for taxpayer money to be spent to house, feed, train and vet my horses.
These are LIVING CREATURES people! Wouldn’t you agree that, on some level, you as Americans all have a responsibility to care for my horses?
I’ll accept direct donations.
Doug,
I swear, if I told you it was proven that the unborn could ride bicycles, make fondue and braid hair, you’d still say it was “reflexes”…obviously, you have your mind made up and evidence won’t change it.
Play, practicing, preferring are all words that denote sentience…if you can’t/won’t see that, then there is no point in pursuing this line of reasoning.
I have shown you scientific evidence that says a baby will drink more amniotic fluid if it’s sweet, that they “play” with their hands, that they have preferences for sleep positions, that they “practice” until they get their thumbs in their mouths, that they respond to music, their mothers voice, loud noises, pin pricks, poking, and pain and I could probably go on, but your response would remain the same…
“wrong MK, these are just reflexes”
Reflexes, which when the newborn exhibits them, are suddenly willful and performed by a “person” who “cares”…
Have at it Doug. Reality doesn’t suit you anyway.
Laura,
These are LIVING CREATURES people! Wouldn’t you agree that, on some level, you as Americans all have a responsibility to care for my horses?
I say take ’em out an shoot ’em…their inconvenient and smelly and expensive. I don’t want any. There are more households without horses than with. We are the mainstream! They are not “persons”. Sperm are living things! What we should give them rights, now? Feed? Train? What are you nuts? These are just reflexes. They only eat because the food touches their lips. They don’t have any real feelings.
Get with it!
As Bethany and I have pointed out, it is your valuation, and not facts, that have decided that the unborn are non-persons.
“You are simply wrong there. Personhood hasn’t been attributed, and that has nothing to do with my valuation.”
It has been decided in your mind, and in the hearts of all pro-choicers. Otherwise abortion would be illegal. It most certainly is your valuation that the unborn are not persons…
Yet again, for the manyeth time – abortion being illegal is not necessarily the same thing as having personhood attributed to the unborn. I am fine with society’s position on this, yes, as are most pro-choicers. You’re right that if things were different, if there was less significantly less sentiment for abortion, that it would be illegal, but that’s not personhood.
…….
Personhood hasn’t been attributed due to “valuations”…yours, societies.
YES – right on target, there, MK, as far as society. That’s the deal.
…….
.the unborn have been deemed non persons.
Well…. sort of. Personhood just hasn’t been granted in the first place.
…….
And I stand by my first statement. In claiming that the unborn are NOT persons, you have stripped them of a right which would be theirs if they were determined to be persons. If they are persons, they have that right to life. If you strip them of personhood, they lose that right.
It would have to be there in the first place to be “stripped.”
…….
Everything comes down to whether or not they are defined as persons by the law. And as of now they have been loosely defined as nonpersons, and their right to personhood and life has been taken away.
No, it’s not that they are “defined as non-persons,” they just haven’t been granted the legal status of personhood. There really is a difference.
Doug
We have already determined that they are human beings. There are no other “human beings” whose right to life is not protected. Your side is the group that made up (ah…yet another fantasy?) that there is some difference between a human being and a person.
“Wrong again, MK. “Human being” there is physical reality. Personhood is an attributed status, a societal construct. Two different things.”
Well then Doug, I’m afraid you are just going to have to show me where any other group of human beings has been determined not to be a group of persons…
That would not necessarily matter. As it is, you’ve already mentioned slaves.
…….
Again, there is no precedent. Calling the unborn non-persons is trying to set a precedent.
The Birth Standard is age-old. There’s precedent out the ying-yang.
So to speak…
Doug
As Bethany and I have pointed out, it is your valuation, and not facts, that have decided that the unborn are non-persons.
“You are simply wrong there. Personhood hasn’t been attributed, and that has nothing to do with my valuation.”
Personhood hasn’t been attributed due to “valuations”…yours, societies.
YES – right on target, there, MK, as far as society. That’s the deal.
Which is it?
Oh please Doug,
Yet again, for the manyeth time – abortion being illegal is not necessarily the same thing as having personhood attributed to the unborn.
The minute we determined that the unborn have been attributed personhood, they would be protected under the same law that protects you and me, and abortion would become illegal! It would be considered murder.
Laura,
The only thing I agree with you on is the fact that you decided not to have children. Good decision. I just hope you didn’t abort any.
Again, the number is 1-800-GET-HELP
Doug,
And I stand by my first statement. In claiming that the unborn are NOT persons, you have stripped them of a right which would be theirs if they were determined to be persons. If they are persons, they have that right to life. If you strip them of personhood, they lose that right.
*
It would have to be there in the first place to be “stripped.”
The unborn either are persons or they are not. Determination will not change that reality. It might change the law, but not the reality.
If they are not persons, then I take my ball and go home. If they are persons, then you have stripped them of the right to life.
Not if they are determined to be persons, but if they are persons. You seem to think that you/society holds the power to decide if they are persons or not. You only hold the power to make it law. In your words, two different deals.
Somg, care to prove me wrong? I think that the pictures of aborted babies is enough for me.
Doug,
That would not necessarily matter. As it is, you’ve already mentioned slaves.
I mentioned slaves and then added that we realized we were wrong. A perfect example of where the law has no bearing on the reality. They were always persons, even when the law said that they weren’t!
And of course it would matter…You are trying to set a precedent. You have to make an awfully strong case to that. As you have pointed out, there is no law that says they are persons, and no law that says they aren’t.
There are no other human beings that are not considered persons, so it would stand to reason that these human being are persons also. Unless you can show me where somewhere else another group of human beings are (as in the present) not considered persons, then you would have to prove why these human beings are different.
You are trying to make a law, that has no precedent and goes against all logic.
All human beings are considered persons. Now you want to single out one group of human beings and by law, make them non persons.
Not only does it matter, but it matters a great deal!
Doug,
The Birth Standard is age-old. There’s precedent out the ying-yang.
The birth standard says nothing about personhood or non personhood.
The precedent is in determining that an entire group of human beings are not persons.
No, the precedent is determining that it is possible to BE a human being without being a person.
I swear, if I told you it was proven that the unborn could ride bicycles, make fondue and braid hair, you’d still say it was “reflexes”…obviously, you have your mind made up and evidence won’t change it.
Oh please, MK. Thumb-sucking in the womb is indeed reflexive. Those other examples you just gave are not.
…..
Play, practicing, preferring are all words that denote sentience…if you can’t/won’t see that, then there is no point in pursuing this line of reasoning.
I think that saying the fetus “playing with its fist” at 13 weeks gestation is misleading. If conscious “play” is actually the deal, then I agree that sentience is implied. In no way do I think that site actually means that there is conscious intent on the part of the unborn there.
……
I have shown you scientific evidence that says a baby will drink more amniotic fluid if it’s sweet, that they “play” with their hands, that they have preferences for sleep positions, that they “practice” until they get their thumbs in their mouths, that they respond to music, their mothers voice, loud noises, pin pricks, poking, and pain and I could probably go on, but your response would remain the same…
Now hang on here – where was the “scientific evidence” that the unborn will “drink” more fluid if it’s sweet? Wasn’t that from Chamberlain? Without taste buds?
Yes – “play” with their hands should definitely be in quotes. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the tendency of the unborn to repeat sleep positions, for example, is indication of consciousness or will.
There can be any amount of personification of the unborn, as in saying, “Oh look, the baby is practicing kicking a football,” or “playing with its foot,” but sometimes a reflex is just a reflex, and actions due to autonomic functions are not “conscious.”
…….
“wrong MK, these are just reflexes”
Reflexes, which when the newborn exhibits them, are suddenly willful and performed by a “person” who “cares”…
Now hang on again – even the late-term fetus may exhibit “willful” behavior, just as the full-term, born infant may. The brain is usually developed enough by then to make such things possible.
…….
Have at it Doug. Reality doesn’t suit you anyway.
MK, I think you want to substitute wishful-thinking for reality.
What a surprise Doug!
Your response? Just relfexes.
And the site that YOU cited, well they just chose words like practice and play because they felt poetic!
If I can’t use a source that you gave, and I can’t use a source that I gave, well then, I give up. You have made it virtually impossible to go on…
I’d put in a call to God Himself, but you wouldn’t accept Him as a source either!
OK, I am breastfeeding now and I don’t understand why she can’t pump in advance and freeze the milk and have someone give her baby a bottle when she is hungry. Why is that so hard?
MK: Your valuation that there is somehow a difference between being human and being a person HAS taken away their right to life.
“And once again – that’s not a valuation, it’s just fact. The physical reality isn’t at issue. The status most certain is at issue. Two different deals.”
Yes, but only because of your valuation that there is a difference. Show me where and when human being and person were made into two different things.
Sigh. No, MK, not because of “my valuation.” Personhood, by definition, is a societal construct. It is an attributed status. It is an idea. Physical reality, as with an entity being a living organism, and human, is not that way.
Doug
MK: As Bethany and I have pointed out, it is your valuation, and not facts, that have decided that the unborn are non-persons.
“You are simply wrong there. Personhood hasn’t been attributed, and that has nothing to do with my valuation.”
……
Personhood hasn’t been attributed due to “valuations”…yours, societies.
“YES – right on target, there, MK, as far as society. That’s the deal.”
Which is it?
It’s both. It’s not my valuation that determines personhood. It’s society’s.
MK: Oh please Doug,
“Yet again, for the manyeth time – abortion being illegal is not necessarily the same thing as having personhood attributed to the unborn.”
The minute we determined that the unborn have been attributed personhood, they would be protected under the same law that protects you and me, and abortion would become illegal! It would be considered murder.
Yes, but you’re still putting the cart before the sheep, uh, I mean…. horse.
Personhood = right to life = illegal to kill them = murder, yes.
But that does not mean that the act of abortion being illegal equates to granting personhood to the unborn. Do I really have to explain why that is?
Doug
Rosie,
Sometimes the MAMA needs to breastfeed, for her own health and well being! See above examples in my comment of the results of engorgement.
I mentioned slaves and then added that we realized we were wrong. A perfect example of where the law has no bearing on the reality. They were always persons, even when the law said that they weren’t!
And of course it would matter…You are trying to set a precedent. You have to make an awfully strong case to that. As you have pointed out, there is no law that says they are persons, and no law that says they aren’t.
There are no other human beings that are not considered persons, so it would stand to reason that these human being are persons also. Unless you can show me where somewhere else another group of human beings are (as in the present) not considered persons, then you would have to prove why these human beings are different.
You are trying to make a law, that has no precedent and goes against all logic.
All human beings are considered persons. Now you want to single out one group of human beings and by law, make them non persons.
Not only does it matter, but it matters a great deal!
GREAT points, MaryKay. What’s sad is that we have to KEEP bringing this same point up time and time again, yet he refuses to acknowledge it.
Yes, but you’re still putting the cart before the sheep, uh, I mean…. horse.
Personhood = right to life = illegal to kill them = murder, yes.
But that does not mean that the act of abortion being illegal equates to granting personhood to the unborn. Do I really have to explain why that is?
Doug, before slaves were legally stated to be non-persons, were they granted personhood? Was it stripped from them, or did they never have it in the first place? I’m honestly curious. I don’t know.
Doug,
It’s both. It’s not my valuation that determines personhood. It’s society’s.
And what exactly is society?
Are you not a part of that society that doesn’t think personhood should be attributed to the unborn?
Have you become pro-life? Have I missed something?
So it is not your personal valuation that the unborn are not persons?
And I mean, was it legally attributed to them beforehand, not “did they have it inherently”, because I do know the answer to that.
Laura,
The only thing I agree with you on is the fact that you decided not to have children. Good decision. I just hope you didn’t abort any.
Again, the number is 1-800-GET-HELP
Posted by: Sandy at September 13, 2007 10:27 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What? Schools and workplaces should find time and resourcers for her to pursue HER personal hobbies, but my personal hobbies don’t count?
You must really hate women …not to mention HORSES!
Sigh twice,
Sigh. No, MK, not because of “my valuation.” Personhood, by definition, is a societal construct. It is an attributed status. It is an idea. Physical reality, as with an entity being a living organism, and human, is not that way.
I’m not arguing with society Doug. I’m arguing with you. And I am asking you to show me, where, it has been determined by a dictionary, law, encyclopedia, anywhere, that all human beings are not persons by virtue of being a human being?
That’s all. Show me where this separation was made? On May 11th, 1925? On January 6th, 1982?
Yesterday? When? When were the two separated? When did they become two different things? And if you believe they were ALWAYS two different things, then show me where it says that…
Yes, but you’re still putting the cart before the sheep, uh, I mean…. horse.
Personhood = right to life = illegal to kill them = murder, yes.
But that does not mean that the act of abortion being illegal equates to granting personhood to the unborn. Do I really have to explain why that is?
Yes. You do.
Wrong. The 2 week newborn does indeed care. It can suffer. It has emotions.
Really? And you can prove that those cries and giggles are not just reflexes how? You can prove that a newborn “cares”, how?
I am saying that every single time, the question of a certain group of human beings not being considered a person has come up, it has eventually been shot down…
Slaves, Jews, Christians, Native Americans, Women, homosexuals, children with downs syndrome, the mentally ill…over and over it has been tried, and each and every time the idea that if you are a human being, then by virtue of being a human being, you ARE a person has been the final outcome.
Now you are trying to do the same to the unborn…
And it won’t work, because it can’t work, because it never has worked, because it’s impossible because ALL human beings ARE persons!
Oops, sorry, MK.
“Wrong. The 2 week newborn does indeed care. It can suffer. It has emotions.”
MK: Really? And you can prove that those cries and giggles are not just reflexes how? You can prove that a newborn “cares”, how?
Do you really think that newborn has no emotions? That it cannot suffer? I think you know darn well there really isn’t much debate if any over that. An EEG will show that the brainwaves we find with consciousness are there.
Meanwhile, reflexive motion is not conscious, and isn’t connected with emotions, desire, or any will in the first place.
Doug
That’s all. Show me where this separation was made? On May 11th, 1925? On January 6th, 1982?
Yesterday? When? When were the two separated? When did they become two different things? And if you believe they were ALWAYS two different things, then show me where it says that…
EXACTLY. Show us!
Do you really think that newborn has no emotions? That it cannot suffer? I think you know darn well there really isn’t much debate if any over that. An EEG will show that the brainwaves we find with consciousness are there.
That doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t prove that they “care” in the same way that an adult cares, does it?
MK: I am saying that every single time, the question of a certain group of human beings not being considered a person has come up, it has eventually been shot down…
Slaves, Jews, Christians, Native Americans, Women, homosexuals, children with downs syndrome, the mentally ill…over and over it has been tried, and each and every time the idea that if you are a human being, then by virtue of being a human being, you ARE a person has been the final outcome.
Now you are trying to do the same to the unborn… And it won’t work, because it can’t work, because it never has worked, because it’s impossible because ALL human beings ARE persons!
No, it really was not just “by virtue of being a human being.” In the US, those questions have been settled per the Constitution, in the end. For the born, as it has happened, the courts ended up settling that the Constitution did apply.
That is no guarantee that it should be applied to the unborn.
Doug,
Yes, but you’re still putting the cart before the sheep, uh, I mean…. horse.
Personhood = right to life = illegal to kill them = murder, yes.
But that does not mean that the act of abortion being illegal equates to granting personhood to the unborn. Do I really have to explain why that is?
I am putting the cart before the Lemming because I think it is ridiculous to have to prove that yet again, all human beings are persons. Of course I understand that making abortion illegal will not grant personhood (automatically) but why else would you make it illegal?
It goes without saying that to ban abortion across the board would be to recognize the worth of the unborn!
Doug,
Do you really think that newborn has no emotions? That it cannot suffer?
Yes Doug, I do think that. Brainwaves can be detected very early on in pregnancy. What does that have to do with it? Prove to me that a newborn has emotions…
The unborn either are persons or they are not. Determination will not change that reality. It might change the law, but not the reality.
Nope, MK, there is no “reality” like that about personhood. It’s a granted status, not an independent physical reality. It’s an idea.
…..
If they are not persons, then I take my ball and go home. If they are persons, then you have stripped them of the right to life.
Again, that’s just not the way it works. As of now, the legal status isn’t attributed to the unborn, but in no way does that mean you “go home.” Heck, in large measure that’s what has you arguing in the first place.
Physical state really is not in doubt, here.
…….
Not if they are determined to be persons, but if they are persons. You seem to think that you/society holds the power to decide if they are persons or not. You only hold the power to make it law. In your words, two different deals.
Well, the law’s what does it. Personhood is a concept of the mind, internal to it. There’s no separate existence for it. A physical “human being” will either have existence or not, regardless of what you, I, or society thinks of it. Personhood, however, is deemed by society to be present or not.
Doug
Oh please, MK. Thumb-sucking in the womb is indeed reflexive. Those other examples you just gave are not.
Why is it only reflexive? Is it still reflexive when my son sucks his thumb with his blanket on his shoulder? No, he sucks it because he enjoys the way it feels. It gives him comfort.
Play, practicing, preferring are all words that denote sentience…if you can’t/won’t see that, then there is no point in pursuing this line of reasoning.
I watched my 2 month old unborn son jumping around in my belly and no one could ever convince me that he wasn’t enjoying it. It would be ridiculous to try. He was one crazy little thing, I could almost see him smiling as he jumped inside the spacious area of my womb like it was a trampoline. He had so much energy! He is still the same today, energetic, constantly jumping around and dancing.
I think that saying the fetus “playing with its fist” at 13 weeks gestation is misleading. If conscious “play” is actually the deal, then I agree that sentience is implied. In no way do I think that site actually means that there is conscious intent on the part of the unborn there.
What does that matter? A lot of time a newborn baby reflexively shakes his fists and grunts. but that in no way makes me say, well I guess my baby’s not a human, because he’s just using reflex!
Darn it, Doug, you’ve gone and got me all aggravated again.
“The Birth Standard is age-old. There’s precedent out the ying-yang.”
MK: The birth standard says nothing about personhood or non personhood.
Of course it does. It’s the standard for rights/personhood. We attribute the right to life, etc, and personhood at birth.
……
The precedent is in determining that an entire group of human beings are not persons.
I’m not sure why you said that, compared with your next line, but yeah, that’s the deal. That’s the way it’s been so far.
……
No, the precedent is determining that it is possible to BE a human being without being a person.
That’s not a “precedent.” That’s just fact. The being will be there, or not, and it doesn’t matter what society thinks. For personhood, it’s what society thinks.
Doug
I really hate to say this, but why should Sophie Currier be given MORE special treatment. I think everyone is missing something very important in the post.
“Currier… has already received special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act for dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; she can take the nine-hour test, which is offered throughout the nation several times a year, over two days instead of one. She is seeking an extra 60-minute break each day to pump breast milk….”
We are not talking about a one day 9 – 9 1/2 hour test. We are talking about 2 days of a 4 1/2 hour test. There is a break in between those 4 hours.
Why should eating be an issue if it is 4 hours? I ate snacks while I breasfed. She can’t do 2 things at once?
I hate to say this, but she obviously knew that these tests were going to be a part of her future. She chose to breastfeed. She knew what she was getting into. Welcome to consequences of actions folks! We can’t say that one group of people has to live up to their choices and then give special circumstances to another group of people. Life doesn’t work that way.
Like I said, I hate saying that….. and I fully understand what the “choice” could be with this opinion. However, consequences are consequences…. What the problem here is what is more important to her. Breastfeeding which is best but formula works well, or hold off on taking the test since it is offered several times a year.
Doug,
The term personhood was only invented to allow certain groups to control other groups.
Blacks aren’t persons.
Women aren’t persons.
The unborn aren’t persons.
What other reason could there possibly be for determining that a human being is not a person?
The only reason I can see is to give a legal leg to one selfish group of peoples who want to depersonalize another group of peoples for their own benefit…whether it was slaveowners so they could use people to do work they were too lazy to do themselves, The English so they could steal the Irish’s land, Men so they could control the world,
or now the unborn so people could have sex without consequences. The term personhood is a trap. It’s a deceitful ploy to give honor to a dishonorable action. It’s a lie. It’s a tool.
You say it’s an idea? Yeah, but it’s only an idea to further oppressors agendas!
Nope, MK, there is no “reality” like that about personhood. It’s a granted status, not an independent physical reality. It’s an idea.
That’s your valuation.
Val,
You hate to say it, and I hate to agree. But I do.
Bethany,
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MK: I am putting the cart before the Lemming because I think it is ridiculous to have to prove that yet again, all human beings are persons. Of course I understand that making abortion illegal will not grant personhood (automatically) but why else would you make it illegal?
There is no “proof” like that about personhood, MK. It’s not a separate reality, as physical existence is.
Thank You for saying you understand that illegal abortion doesn’t automatically grant personhood. Abortion could be made illegal because some people, like doctors who felt that midwives were encroaching on the doctors’ rightful domain, wanted it to be.
And in fact that, in large measure, is why abortion started becoming more illegal in the 1800s in the US.
…..
It goes without saying that to ban abortion across the board would be to recognize the worth of the unborn!
Agreed. (Don’t faint.)
Doug
Agreed. (Don’t faint.)
Easy for you to say…we just agreed twice in one post!
Of course it does. It’s the standard for rights/personhood. We attribute the right to life, etc, and personhood at birth.
no, you do. We attribute the right to life when someone is a human being, regardless of age, sex, race, status, etc. It’s your valuation against ours. What makes yours right and ours wrong, Doug?
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
personhood definition
n.
The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality:
per
“Oh please, MK. Thumb-sucking in the womb is indeed reflexive. Those other examples you just gave are not.”
Bethany: Why is it only reflexive? Is it still reflexive when my son sucks his thumb with his blanket on his shoulder? No, he sucks it because he enjoys the way it feels. It gives him comfort.
B, the thumb-sucking we were talking about in the womb occurs before there is any capacity for “comfort” being perceived. Your son has true brainwaves, has emotions, his own volition, etc.
…….
MK: Play, practicing, preferring are all words that denote sentience…if you can’t/won’t see that, then there is no point in pursuing this line of reasoning.
Bethany: I watched my 2 month old unborn son jumping around in my belly and no one could ever convince me that he wasn’t enjoying it. It would be ridiculous to try. He was one crazy little thing, I could almost see him smiling as he jumped inside the spacious area of my womb like it was a trampoline. He had so much energy! He is still the same today, energetic, constantly jumping around and dancing.
Bethany, “2 month old”? You mean when this was an embryo of 8 weeks? Or do you mean 2 months before birth or full-term?
……
“I think that saying the fetus “playing with its fist” at 13 weeks gestation is misleading. If conscious “play” is actually the deal, then I agree that sentience is implied. In no way do I think that site actually means that there is conscious intent on the part of the unborn there.”
What does that matter? A lot of time a newborn baby reflexively shakes his fists and grunts. but that in no way makes me say, well I guess my baby’s not a human, because he’s just using reflex!
Darn it, Doug, you’ve gone and got me all aggravated again.
Bethany, you took the ball and ran with it farther than I threw the darn thing.
I am saying that a website may be “cute,” consciously or unconsciously, with the usage of some words. I don’t think that site meant “willful playing for enjoyment,” etc. If it’s really a big deal, I guess we could ask them.
No, we born humans have reflexes, and of course that doesn’t mean we are “not humans.” But from that you cannot logically say that the mere presence of reflex, alone, means that consciousness is there.
Doug
Bethany,
Awwwwwwwwww….
Shucks!
All human beings are considered persons. Now you want to single out one group of human beings and by law, make them non persons.
Not only does it matter, but it matters a great deal!
Bethany: GREAT points, MaryKay. What’s sad is that we have to KEEP bringing this same point up time and time again, yet he refuses to acknowledge it.
Nope, she’s wrong. It’s the fact that personhood isn’t attributed which has you two upset in the first place.
Doug
Nope, she’s wrong. It’s the fact that personhood isn’t attributed which has you two upset in the first place.
That’s because personhood and human being should never be mutually exclusive terms!
Doug, before slaves were legally stated to be non-persons, were they granted personhood? Was it stripped from them, or did they never have it in the first place? I’m honestly curious. I don’t know.
Bethany, somebody, perhaps SoMG – I can’t remember, said that slaves were considered to be “three-fourths of a person” for some legal reason.
I don’t know much about that, and frankly it sounds crazy to me, but the law is sometimes that way, and same for corporate entities being considered as “persons” for some legal respects. My opinion, anyway.
I don’t know if the law specifically stated that the slaves were non-persons, either…
Doug
From: http://www.jellomuseum.com/
Jell-O Trivia
March 17, 1993, technicians at St. Jerome hospital in Batavia test a bowl of lime Jell-O with an EEG machine and confirm the earlier testing by Dr. Adrian Upton that a bowl of wiggly Jell-O has brain waves identical to those of adult men and women.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m sorry, people-
I am NOT discussing the “personhood” of Jell-O.
What a surprise Doug! Your response? Just relfexes.
And the site that YOU cited, well they just chose words like practice and play because they felt poetic!
Yes, that is what I think. Do you really think that site meant that consciousness or the desire to play or practice was there?
……
If I can’t use a source that you gave, and I can’t use a source that I gave, well then, I give up. You have made it virtually impossible to go on…
You can use them both. But it is a legitimate question if my site actually meant that the “playing” is conscious at that stage of gestation, and it’s a legitimate question if “taste matters” as with the amniotic fluid, when the taste buds won’t appear for quite a few weeks yet.
……
I’d put in a call to God Himself, but you wouldn’t accept Him as a source either!
:: laughing ::
Well, I’m gonna have to ease off on the posting for the next few days, since I’ll be relatively busy and/or incapacitated.
Doug
Bethany, somebody, perhaps SoMG – I can’t remember, said that slaves were considered to be “three-fourths of a person” for some legal reason.
I don’t know much about that, and frankly it sounds crazy to me, but the law is sometimes that way, and same for corporate entities being considered as “persons” for some legal respects. My opinion, anyway.
I don’t know if the law specifically stated that the slaves were non-persons, either…
American Indians
Writing in The American Law Review of 1881, George Canfield summed up the precarious legal standing of Indians that permitted the wholesale assaults on Indian lands and lives:
“Nope, she’s wrong. It’s the fact that personhood isn’t attributed which has you two upset in the first place.”
Bethany: That’s because personhood and human being should never be mutually exclusive terms!
I know you feel that way, Bethany, but they are; and to a large degree that’s what the abortion debate is about.
From: http://www.jellomuseum.com/
Jell-O Trivia
March 17, 1993, technicians at St. Jerome hospital in Batavia test a bowl of lime Jell-O with an EEG machine and confirm the earlier testing by Dr. Adrian Upton that a bowl of wiggly Jell-O has brain waves identical to those of adult men and women.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m sorry, people-
I am NOT discussing the “personhood” of Jell-O.
WOW, Laura, thank you!
See, based on what Laura just posted, how does the EEG prove anything, Doug? If it shows Jello as having the same “brain wave” patterns as grown adults, do you really think it is something reliable enough to prove that an unborn child doesn’t have enough brain waves to be a “person”?
Maybe we all should consider ourselves as dumb as a bowl of jello, because the EEG said so?
See, there is more to it than that!
“Do you really think that newborn has no emotions? That it cannot suffer? I think you know darn well there really isn’t much debate if any over that. An EEG will show that the brainwaves we find with consciousness are there.”
B: That doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t prove that they “care” in the same way that an adult cares, does it?
Bethany, I didn’t say they care in the same way an adult does, but I think it’s a given that emotions are there, that pain can be felt, etc.
I know you feel that way, Bethany, but they are; and to a large degree that’s what the abortion debate is about.
Again, that’s your valuation!
Bethany, I didn’t say they care in the same way an adult does, but I think it’s a given that emotions are there, that pain can be felt, etc.
Well, apparently, the same brain waves can be recorded in a bowl of jello, so….
Well, I’m gonna have to ease off on the posting for the next few days, since I’ll be relatively busy and/or incapacitated.
That reminds me…I’ve been wondering where you work, Doug? Just out of curiousity. :)
No, the precedent is determining that it is possible to BE a human being without being a person.*****
That’s not a “precedent.” That’s just fact. The being will be there, or not, and it doesn’t matter what society thinks. For personhood, it’s what society thinks.
But, as we’ve shown time and time again, Society can be wrong.
Top N.J. Court Reverses Abortion Ruling
By JEFFREY GOLD
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 12, 2007; 6:47 PM
NEWARK, N.J. — A doctor has no duty to tell a woman considering an abortion that her embryo is an “existing human being,” a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, averting a trial over when human life begins.
The decision, citing past rulings, said the court “will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public” on when life begins.
The 5-0 Supreme Court ruling reversed a unanimous ruling by a three-judge appeals panel and dismissed the lawsuit of a woman who had an abortion. Abortion cases pending in Illinois and South Dakota have raised the same issue.
“On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of the common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide,” New Jersey Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the court.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a woman who accused a doctor of failing to give her enough information before she signed a consent form for him to perform an abortion.
Rose Acuna questioned whether Dr. Sheldon C. Turkish misled her in 1996 about the development of the pregnancy, then in the sixth or seventh week. She was 29 at the time and had two daughters following a miscarriage when she consulted Turkish, who had delivered her second child.
“According to Acuna, Turkish told her that she ‘needed an abortion because (y)our kidneys are messing you up,'” court papers said. “Acuna asked Turkish whether ‘the baby was already there.’ According to Acuna, Turkish replied, ‘Don’t be stupid, it’s only blood.'”
Acuna signed a consent form, and Turkish did the abortion. Bleeding continued, however, and seven weeks later Acuna went to a hospital. She was diagnosed with an incomplete abortion and had another procedure.
“According to her, one of the nurses caring for her explained that the procedure was necessary because Turkish ‘had left parts of the baby inside of (her).’ Thus, Acuna concluded based on the reference to ‘the baby’ that she had given consent to an abortion based on erroneous information,” the appellate panel wrote last year.
Acuna, now 40, says she suffered emotional distress for the death of an unborn child.
Acuna’s lawyer, Harold J. Cassidy, said he was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It’s both. It’s not my valuation that determines personhood. It’s society’s.”
MK: And what exactly is society? Are you not a part of that society that doesn’t think personhood should be attributed to the unborn?
Yes, I am a part of society in just that way. It’s still not me that determines things. If I had never existed, I think it’s exceedingly doubtful that things would be different there.
And you’re part of society, a part that thinks it should be attributed. We both have our valuations, but that does not alter the fact that society has a legal position here, and that as of now it’s that the unborn are not persons.
If society deemed personhood to be present for the unborn, you and I would still have our individual opinions, but the fact of society’s legal position would be likewise one thing, and not another.
You started out saying, it is your valuation, and not facts, that have decided that the unborn are non-persons.
There is no external “fact” of personhood beyond society’s attribution of it. Regardless of our opinions, we can point to the fact of where society deems personhood to be present.
……..
Have you become pro-life? Have I missed something? So it is not your personal valuation that the unborn are not persons?
As stated mucho times before, I personally do see some personhood there, late enough in gestation, as the fetus tends toward the qualities that mos full-term born infants have.
It is also not simply a question of our valuation of the unborn, there, either, since with the unborn there is the matter of the pregnant woman to consider as well.
Doug
“Do you really think that newborn has no emotions? That it cannot suffer?”
MK: Yes Doug, I do think that.
I don’t believe you. I think we agree that newborns (provided there was sufficient gestation) have emotions and can suffer.
……
Brainwaves can be detected very early on in pregnancy. What does that have to do with it? Prove to me that a newborn has emotions…
The type of mental development for consciousness and emotions to be present means that brainwaves are there, not the type you mention, there, which are much more rudimentary electrical impulses, but the patterns of activity we see later on, with vastly more organization.
I realize that quite early on there is the “neural tube” and that some electrical activity is there, very early on in gestation, but to call those “brainwaves” is a massive reach.
“Yes, but you’re still putting the cart before the sheep, uh, I mean…. horse. Personhood = right to life = illegal to kill them = murder, yes. But that does not mean that the act of abortion being illegal equates to granting personhood to the unborn. Do I really have to explain why that is?”
Bethany: Yes. You do.
Aye, aye, then, Captain.
Abortion was illegal, for a time, in the US, to generalize. I know that an argument can be made that it always was, late enough in gestation, but I think you know what I mean.
Yet this was not because personhood/rights were attributed to the unborn; this was due in large part to doctors wanting to squeeze the midwives out – the docs felt they were taking business away from them.
If the right to life/personhood really had been granted, then it wouldn’t have been legal to have abortions on the say-so of two doctors, and/or for medical reasons, etc.
Doug
MK: I’m not arguing with society Doug. I’m arguing with you. And I am asking you to show me, where, it has been determined by a dictionary, law, encyclopedia, anywhere, that all human beings are not persons by virtue of being a human being?
That’s all. Show me where this separation was made? On May 11th, 1925? On January 6th, 1982? Yesterday? When? When were the two separated? When did they become two different things? And if you believe they were ALWAYS two different things, then show me where it says that…
By definition they are two different things. It’s not a question of any certain date. It’s the difference between the reality of physical existence (which doesn’t change with the perceptions of society) and the granting of rights and status (which come from the perceptions of society).
Doug
“Nope, MK, there is no “reality” like that about personhood. It’s a granted status, not an independent physical reality. It’s an idea.”
B: That’s your valuation.
No, Bethany. Recognizing the status quo isn’t giving any estimation of worth about it.
“Of course it does. It’s the standard for rights/personhood. We attribute the right to life, etc, and personhood at birth.”
B: no, you do. We attribute the right to life when someone is a human being, regardless of age, sex, race, status, etc. It’s your valuation against ours. What makes yours right and ours wrong, Doug?
Ahem – I meant “we” as a society, Bethany.
I realize that as individuals we may disagree. Ain’t no external right or wrong here. What makes my valuation in the abortion argument right is a primary desire for women to retain the freedom they have.
What makes yours right is a primary desire for the unborn lives to continue.
Doug
“Nope, MK, there is no “reality” like that about personhood. It’s a granted status, not an independent physical reality. It’s an idea.”
B: That’s your valuation.
No, Bethany. Recognizing the status quo isn’t giving any estimation of worth about it.‘
But saying that personhood is an idea rather than a physical reality, that is a valuation. If society agrees with you, then that is also society’s valuation, according to your logic. On what do they base this idea of personhood? On their valuations. Right?
Ahem – I meant “we” as a society, Bethany.
I realize that as individuals we may disagree. Ain’t no external right or wrong here. What makes my valuation in the abortion argument right is a primary desire for women to retain the freedom they have.
What makes yours right is a primary desire for the unborn lives to continue.
Doug
Then what is the point of our debate? All you want to get across to us is what we already know?
That society has not given human beings the status of “person”?
We already know this, Doug. What is the point of you arguing with us? What is it you want us to know, if not that you are right and we are wrong?
MK: Oddly enough, it was hard to come up with a definition of personhood…maybe you can do better…anyway, I’m off for awhile. I’ll be back in a bit…
Yeah, it’s often hard to really nail down, there being so many different social contexts, usages, etc.
I would define it as having rights be granted; having the full legal status that society deems present at birth. And I think that is really the deal with the abortion argument for the unborn – do we say that the right to life is there or not? If not, why not?
“I know you feel that way, Bethany, but they are; and to a large degree that’s what the abortion debate is about.”
Again, that’s your valuation!
No, physical reality is one thing, and the status according to society is another.
Doug
There is a striking resemblance between the above constructs and the
“Bethany, I didn’t say they care in the same way an adult does, but I think it’s a given that emotions are there, that pain can be felt, etc.”
Well, apparently, the same brain waves can be recorded in a bowl of jello, so….
Heh heh – that’s an urban legend. The Jello may have some of the “same patterns,” but it doesn’t give off the organized impulses that human brains of a certain development and function do. We’re talking Alpha, Beta, Delta and Theta waves here.
“Well, I’m gonna have to ease off on the posting for the next few days, since I’ll be relatively busy and/or incapacitated.”
That reminds me…I’ve been wondering where you work, Doug? Just out of curiousity. :)
Bethany, for almost 23 years now (amazing how the time has gone by..) I’ve worked on electrical transformers and the oil that they contain. Not little ones like what hang on power poles, but larger ones that sit inside their own fenced-off substations, vaults inside buildings, etc.
1994 – I pulled up in a truck in NYC, asking where the substation was. These security guards ran out, saying I had to get the heck out of there – it was the World Trade Center, and not long after the 1993 bomb attack in the basement of one of the towers.
“Wall St. Substation” was what it was called, and it was right in the bottom of one tower, at street level, behind huge metal doors that concealed what was inside.
We have our own home plant where transformer oil comes in to be treated and renewed, and we also go “on the road” to do it on-site. 49 states, all the Canadian provinces….been wild.
In the last few years we’ve also gotten into installing new transformers, big ones from overseas (nobody makes them in the US anymore).
However, tomorrow morning I’m on a plane at 6:50 a.m., heading towards St. Simon’s Island, Georgia, for my mother-in-law’s 70th birthday party. A three-day affair where the average blood alcohol level will be substantial.
Doug
B: But, as we’ve shown time and time again, Society can be wrong.
Bethany, “wrong” in some opinion, from some viewpoint.
“No, Bethany. Recognizing the status quo isn’t giving any estimation of worth about it.”
But saying that personhood is an idea rather than a physical reality, that is a valuation. If society agrees with you, then that is also society’s valuation, according to your logic. On what do they base this idea of personhood? On their valuations. Right?
Yes, it’s based on valuation. But it’s not “a valuation” to say that it’s an attributed status, rather than a separate physical reality. Same as for being a “minor” or an “adult,” legally. The “human being” is there, regardless, but a given status may be granted or not.
Saying that society draws the line for being able to buy cigarettes at 18 years of age isn’t a valuation. It’s just noting the status quo. It’s not saying any good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm, nor pronouncing any worth, etc.
Doug
“Ahem – I meant “we” as a society, Bethany. I realize that as individuals we may disagree. Ain’t no external right or wrong here. What makes my valuation in the abortion argument right is a primary desire for women to retain the freedom they have. What makes yours right is a primary desire for the unborn lives to continue.”
B: Then what is the point of our debate? All you want to get across to us is what we already know?
There may be a difference between the legal status according to society and individual opinion of what it should be, and that’s all I was saying above.
…….
That society has not given human beings the status of “person”? We already know this, Doug. What is the point of you arguing with us?
The point is that sometimes people say that “human being” has to equal personhood, and that’s just not true.
……
What is it you want us to know, if not that you are right and we are wrong?
It’s not that simple. There is objective reality with many things here – the physical state of the born and unborn, the legal status of them, etc. Those things are, to varying degrees, independently verifiable, and not subject to your opinion or mine for the truth of their existence. They’re not based on our assumptions, and that is a big difference from the things that are.
Then we get to the moral “rights” and “wrongs” and there the point of arguing may just be communication, the love of argument, or even actually trying to persuade the “other side” in the debate. I don’t claim any absolute/external rightness for my wish that women retain the freedom they have in the matter, but sometimes people do say that’s where their approach comes from, and that’s an argument in itself.
I could ask you the same thing – and in your case I do think you feel there is an “outside” morality. But for me there isn’t the same morality “in a vacuum.”
Doug
For the record, the pro-choice side isn’t the side that has to prove anything according to the basic rules of logical fallacies. Burden of proof falls upon the people looking to show the positive, not the negative. If I say it isn’t a person, and you say it is, you’re the ones that have to prove it, not us. Our justice system works the same way.
Erin,
I say that’s not a valid argument, you say it is. Prove it.
Logical fallacies have rules? Are they coherent rules or illogical ones?
Perhaps you meant, “the rules of logic”?
There are predetermined rules used in most generally accepted strains of logic, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
That’s the logical fallacy.
Google logical fallacies. They’re throughly and uniformly documented. Negative proof is one of them.
Erin, you’re right – lack of proof of the negative is of course not proof.
The burden of proof is indeed on those who make the positive assertion.
Doug
Per Laura:
“What? Schools and workplaces should find time and resourcers for her to pursue HER personal hobbies, but my personal hobbies don’t count?
You must really hate women …not to mention HORSES!”
Having breast fed two children, I hardly think that breast feeding is a hobby.
But I shouldn’t expect you to understand. You compare the unborn to a wad of tissue or worse and now are comparing horses to children.
Also, some babies won’t take a bottle so the mother is the only source of nutrition. I have done many things while breast feeding, but taking a medical licensing exam was not one of them. I can’t imagine taking a test with your newborn screaming for lunch.
In other notes about this article…that baby looks kind of…odd. Was it premature or something? It looks awfully gaunt.
In other notes about this article…that baby looks kind of…odd. Was it premature or something? It looks awfully gaunt.,
Erin, I think mother and daughter look alike.
Also, some babies won’t take a bottle so the mother is the only source of nutrition. I have done many things while breast feeding, but taking a medical licensing exam was not one of them. I can’t imagine taking a test with your newborn screaming for lunch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I work in emergency veterinary medicine. If this woman is too crippled by ADD and caring for her children to take the exam, then she’d be mighty, MIGHTY useless in the medical profession.
(My team-penning partners are ER nurses, a Lifeflight nurse and an EMT. They make my freaky, long hours look pretty tame…)
t is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
* “A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist”.
However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
* “A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.”.
Or maybe like saying that Personhood should be afforded to the unborn because you can’t prove that they aren’t persons…
vs
Personhood should not be afforded to the unborn because you can’t prove that they are persons…
Seems to me that both Doug and I are providing negative proof arguments…
I say they are persons, prove they are not.
He says they aren’t persons, prove they are.
Well Doug,
When you get back the post will have moved…but until then, you nevered anwered this post…
Doug,
The term personhood was only invented to allow certain groups to control other groups.
Blacks aren’t persons.
Women aren’t persons.
The unborn aren’t persons.
What other reason could there possibly be for determining that a human being is not a person?
The only reason I can see is to give a legal leg to one selfish group of peoples who want to depersonalize another group of peoples for their own benefit…whether it was slaveowners so they could use people to do work they were too lazy to do themselves, The English so they could steal the Irish’s land, Men so they could control the world,
or now the unborn so people could have sex without consequences. The term personhood is a trap. It’s a deceitful ploy to give honor to a dishonorable action. It’s a lie. It’s a tool.
You say it’s an idea? Yeah, but it’s only an idea to further oppressors agendas!
“If I say it isn’t a person, and you say it is, you’re the ones that have to prove it, not us.”
you said it was a person, you had a named picked out, correct?
Per Laura:
“I work in emergency veterinary medicine. If this woman is too crippled by ADD and caring for her children to take the exam, then she’d be mighty, MIGHTY useless in the medical profession.
(My team-penning partners are ER nurses, a Lifeflight nurse and an EMT. They make my freaky, long hours look pretty tame…)”
Laura, did you even read the article??
Yes, this woman with a disability has two children all while going to medical school to complete a M.D./Ph.D. program at Harvard sounds pretty useless. She could provide medical research to save your sorry ass someday. You should be greatful. What ever happened to your “choice” montra? I remember just recently you stated you support any woman to live free and choose whatever makes her happy. I guess that only applies when it is by your rules.
jasper- I also have named my car and my bike. Obviously, they’re persons too.
MK- proof of the negative is assumed based on the most basic statement. You state, a fetus is a person. Doug and I state, a fetus is not a person. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. The same argument, by the way, is applied to religion. The fact that our arguments so frequently go with us saying ‘you can’t say they are’ and you saying ‘you can’t say they aren’t’ lays the burden of proof squarely on the life side.
Also, mk, look at how things in our society run. Everything is assumed the negative until proven the positive. We don’t assume that we have every disease in the Physician’s Desk Reference until it’s proven that we don’t- we work under the assumption that we are healthy until proven sick. In our justice system, a person is assumed NOT to have done something until it is proved that he has. Therefore, in making any assertation on personhood, burden of proof logically falls on the positive side.
Sandy: Yes, this woman with a disability has two children all while going to medical school to complete a M.D./Ph.D. program at Harvard sounds pretty useless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ask anyone you know in the medical profession; there’s an entire set of people who are academic powerhouses and are ENTIRELY unsuited to the medical field.
My example (…and I’ll cop to the fact that I hired this woman) had a Master’s in Biochemistry with a minor in Animal Science from Mount San Antonio College. She applied to our place with the intent of becoming a Registered Veterinary Technician in order to work her way through veterinary school at Davis. After two weeks of complaints I called her into my office. It turned out that she was totally terrified of birds and all things bovine.
I wouldn’t put my loved ones in the care of someone crippled by ADD and the challenge of simple child care anymore than I’d hand my beloved creatures over to someone who had a deathly fear of common animals.
Sometimes academic excellence and practical ability just don’t cross paths. (It’s the “absent-minded professor” profile.)
Per Laura:
“It turned out that she was totally terrified of birds and all things bovine.”
Laura,
First of all, how stupid on her part to aspire to be a vet when she is afraid of certain kinds of animals. What does this have to do with the situation in the above article?
Your analogy makes no sense. Why do you assume Sophie has a fear of anything? You or a loved one may very well have been treated by a medical professional with some type of disability and never have known it. They may have saved your life already by research and development of drugs and treatments. The next time you need medical care you should probably state on your medical forms that you don’t want to be treated by anyone with a disability of any kind, or be treated with anything developed by someone with a disability. That would include women with children in your book. Obviously her Dyslexia has not slowed her down in her career aspirations.
Like Sophie, my sister-in-law had her daughter during medical school. She breastfed her daughter, brought her to classes and raised her all the while she completed her degree. She has had a terrific career as a doctor. She may have needed a few hands up along the way.
We need to respect women for their career choices and until men start having babies I say let’s support women raising children to help them achieve their goals.
Like Sophie, my sister-in-law had her daughter during medical school. She breastfed her daughter, brought her to classes and raised her all the while she completed her degree. She has had a terrific career as a doctor. She may have needed a few hands up along the way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes! I agree!
Your sister-in-law handled the situation and became a doctor. I certainly know people with children (my siblings) and people with ADD who not only survive, but flourish.
What kind of red flag is it that this woman can’t seem to handle a situation that normal, average people deal with every day?
It’s my “absent-minded professor” analogy.
She is – without question – an academic star. She just can’t seem to juggle real life. (OK, it’s either that or she’s up to something hinky. She gets to break the 9-hour test up and take it on two consecutave days and she STLL needs two extra 1-hour breaks? How does this woman plan to handle the medical internship she’s trying to land? Do you want this woman to be treating YOUR loved ones over a 12-hour shift?)
If I say it isn’t a person, and you say it is, you’re the ones that have to prove it, not us.”
you said it was a person, you had a named picked out, correct?
Posted by: jasper at September 13, 2007 5:42 PM
……………………………………
Picked out for what? When is that name applied? At birth?
The term personhood was only invented to allow certain groups to control other groups.
Blacks aren’t persons.
Women aren’t persons.
The unborn aren’t persons.
What other reason could there possibly be for determining that a human being is not a person?
The only reason I can see is to give a legal leg to one selfish group of peoples who want to depersonalize another group of peoples for their own benefit…whether it was slaveowners so they could use people to do work they were too lazy to do themselves, The English so they could steal the Irish’s land, Men so they could control the world,
or now the unborn so people could have sex without consequences. The term personhood is a trap. It’s a deceitful ploy to give honor to a dishonorable action. It’s a lie. It’s a tool.
You say it’s an idea? Yeah, but it’s only an idea to further oppressors agendas!
MK, gotta run but I’m thinking that personhood came about over time as an extention of the “one of our tribe” feeling.
Have a good one, and you and Bethany pretty well tired me out yesterday.
More later, needless to say.
Doug
Amen to that, Laura. The mere fact that she’s already failed the exam once makes me slightly suspicious as per her real motives for raising the alarm.
Erin,
I’m responding to you on the PP Fed CEO post…
A lot of you guys are forgetting that no one is asking her to go 9 hrs without breast feeding or pumping. They have already given her the split up day for her ADHD. So she has 4.5hrs of test each day for 2 days. During that she gets 45 min of break (split up into smaller breaks and lunch).
Her complaint is that is STILL not enough to eat, go to the bathroom and pump.
TOUGH LUCK. Deal. Life is hard sometimes and at this point she should be making accommodations herself. Eat in the bathroom/private room she finds WHILE she pumps. Whatever she has to do. She admits she can go 3 hrs without pumping. So she needs to just do it right before the test, at lunch, and right after and she will be JUST FINE.
She is making excuses because she already flunked once (something which almost NEVER happens BTW) and if she flunks again she loses her residency position.
“If a mother becomes engorged she can get mastitis, an infection, which can require antibiotics, which can cause thrush in the infant, necessitating MORE medication (for the baby…) It’s a downward cycle that is difficult to recover from! Her baby can also later have trouble latching on until some milk is expressed. But it is difficult to express if you are engorged…again, it starts a negative feeding cycle…..”
Funny, and breast feeding is soooooooooooooooooo wonderful…NOT.
I did both….maybe the woman should have oh I don’t know, but some breat milk in a darn bottle for the baby? Is she trying to say that she has to wake up in the middle of the night to pump then or her boobs are gonna fall off? Don’t think os. Did she have the baby with her at the test or did she do what normal people do and leave the baby at home with it’s father? Is she married? Ah, screw it, she’s wrong everyone who thinks she’s wrong is right, end of story.
Any woman who would refuse to even consider giving her child the benefits of breastfeeding should rethink her motives for becoming a mother. Women should not be “forced” to breastfeed, but women who think it is “disgusting” or whose “man” doesn’t want to “share” seriously need to grow up before doing anything that could result in a new PERSON.
Caring for a newborn is a 24 hour/day job. Medical school must also be more than a full-time job. How in the world can a mother chase after her dreams or advance her career when her baby needs her? I barely had time to brush my teeth while caring for my newborn PERSON!
Apparently, nursing mothers are not given any leeway when called to jury duty! I received my notice on the day I brought home my newPERSON. I couldn’t carry her right after a C-section, (I could barely walk) and the parking lot was blocks from the courthouse. I could not leave her. She needed to nurse every hour or so. The crazy laws are written so that I would now become a criminal for not being able to leave my home. A note from my surgeon was my only escape from such insanity. Mothers who need to care for children during the day are also not excused from jury duty. crazy
sazzy et al
people who do not properly understand the mechanics, problems, and benefits of breastfeeding should not feel qualified on said subject to judge or lecture. YES, mommies NEED babies to nurse OFTEN. YES, mommies DO need to wake throughout the night to nurse. We are not cows who can survive getting milked twice or thrice a day. Missing a feeding can be very painful. Not all nursing babies even know how to drink from a bottle. Babies were designed to nurse from mommies, who were designed to provide important nutritien and nurturing to babies.
(Prolifer)ations 9-21-07
On the pro-life blogs…. Gotta start with a fantastic find by Big Blue Wave: Bono’s explanation of grace vs. karma. Wow. BBW also found in a Muslim Q&A how they are to view abortion. What a Godincidence. Elizabeth Andrew has…