I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.
~Mikki Kendall describing her experience with a doctor who refused to perform an emergency abortion on her, Salon, May 26
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
As a former Labor & Delivery nurse, I really doubt the veracity of Mikki’s story. She may believe it happened as it did, but I don’t believe it happened as it did. No doctor, unless a true quack deserving of revocation of his/her license and a lawsuit, would leave a woman bleeding to death from placental abruption.
And why no lawsuit? There’s a whole other side to this that I’m sure makes sense.
Exactly, Jill… After I’ve read the story, I couldn’t help but wonder if there’s more to it… I also find it hard to believe that ANY doctor would leave a very heavily bleeding patient with NO care whatsoever… And it has nothing to do with the doctor being pro-life or pro-choice. She also doesn’t mention what diagnosis was given after the tests – was it partial abruption, complete abruption? With complete abruption the baby dies within 15-20 minutes and removing the remains of a dead fetus isn’t abortion and no doctor would refuse to do it. From the story it seems like she had a partial abruption, since it was taking such a long time and the baby was still alive. If I had to guess – the lady probably had partial abruption, which required some medical care and complete bedrest for the rest of the pregnancy, and who knows – maybe she just didn’t want to deal with that and decided better to have an abortion there and then and now is angry at the doctor who didn’t jump at her wishes and performed the procedure straight away. I wasn’t there and try not to be judgemental, but the story just doesn’t sound right to me, that’s all…
“…maybe she just didn’t want to deal with that and decided better to have an abortion there…”
According to the article, she was losing blood rapidly, so she wasn’t really in a condition to have full cognition of her decision at the time. Her husband had to sign the paperwork for her.
If you peruse through her linked blog, she shares how she was a victim of child abuse, so my heart really goes out to her.
Lots of us were victims of child abuse.
Not sure what relevance that has to this.
Follow the money….
Is or isn’t there a lawsuit, did she or did she not seek to have the doctors liscence removed?
Or was she paid by someone for this revelation?
Just a few more thoughts on why things don’t seem to add up…
“Everyone knew the pregnancy wasn’t viable, that it couldn’t be viable given the amount of blood I was losing”
Just the amount of blood someone is losing doesn’t mean the pregnancy is viable or not, you might not lose much blood and have a non viable pregnany or lose tons of blood and still have a viable pregnancy.
“…but it still took hours for anyone at the hospital to do anything.”
I’m sorry, If she was losing THAT much blood as she says she was, she would have died VERY quickly, probably would be unconscious by the time she got to the hospital, never mind staying there for hours and having ultrasounds. When I had a heavy bleeding during my m/c after about half an hour of bleeding I was already “blacking out”, while still waiting for an ambulance.
“The doctor on call didn’t do abortions.”
And she probably didn’t really need one. Also, as far as I’ve read in several articles – abortion ISN’T a standard treatment for placental abruption. The treatment involves trying to reduce the bleeding and putting the woman on a complete bedrest. And only in the case of complete abruption the baby is delivered either vaginally (depending on the strenght and age of the baby) or via C-section. Never found any information about treating placental abruption with abortion.
“one actually showed me the ultrasound of our dying child”
The baby can survive and keep groving with as much as half of the placenta gone. How does she know the baby was dying? How much of her placenta has separated?
it’s just some questions that I found interesting…
I don’t believe this either. I know from a Catholic perspective, pro-life doesn’t mean trying to save a baby that the body is spontaneously aborting over the life of the mother. That makes no sense.
The whole thing seems odd to me, too. Obstetric hemorrhage is recognized as a life-threatening emergency. I can imagine one doctor totally blowing her off, but an entire hospital full of doctors? You’re risking the death of both the mother and the baby and setting yourself up for a massive lawsuit.
And the savior doctor with AN ENTIRE TEAM? Since when does a doctor coming in to treat an emergency case show up with a posse?
She says that somebody DID think to send for an abortion expert, but that there was a communication mix up. Which would mean the “they were willing to let me die” story doesn’t hold up. Though “they were a bunch of bungling idiots” would.
I’ve seen some pretty appalling stuff, though. It could be that everybody just passed the buck with her until her savior doctor was called in. But I’m not seeing anything that calls for abortion in placenta previa or abruption. There’s just a lot of concern for stabilizing the mother while trying to save the baby. Lots of medications. Monitoring for signs of DIC. I don’t know how much of that they did. If she was loopy, the say she says, she might have been unaware of what they were doing. And if medications were simply being put into her IV, she might not have been aware that they were even administered.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2007/0415/p1199.html
Though, like I’ve said, I’ve seen some pretty appalling cases of malpractice. An entire ward at Magee Women’s Hospital just sat on their thumbs while Marla Cardamone went septic and died.
First, I have friends who lost a son at 5 months gestation. They didn’t bitterly call their son “some fetus” like this woman did. She already stated that she thought about abortion early in the pregnancy. How committed was she to this child? Doesn’t seem very, imo. She thought about an abortion at 10 weeks then finally decided to give it a go. Her child at 5 months that she most likely felt kicking etc… a child she claimed she was going to mother, died and all she can conjure up is to call her child “some fetus”. Wow. I wouldn’t call my son “some kid”. He’s my CHILD. Where is her love for her dead child? Cold!
The whole story doesn’t add up. I don’t know about early in the pregnancy… a D&C might be needed in situations like this early in pregnancy, I don’t know. I’m not a doctor. BUT at 5 months the child is old enough to have a shot. If it becomes apparent that the placenta is detaching and there is no hope to continue the pregnancy there is no reason a C-section couldn’t be performed and the child’s life given a CHANCE. How does aborting (a D&E I assume? Which is where they tear the child’s arms and legs off and crush the skull) the child at this late stage, which is very risky for her and can lead to perforation and more blood loss and complications, save her life? Her story just makes NO SENSE.
Mama3,
My “abuse” comment was simply a show of sympathy, not an endorsement of her decision.
I should have been more clear on that.
**************
Here are a couple of comments from Mikki on her comment thread:
I’m a disabled vet, and at that time I couldn’t find regular insurance that would cover me (pre-existing condition clauses are fun) so I was being seen by a doctor at the VA hospital. The Hyde Amendment means that she could not perform the procedure. I knew that in advance. Even if she could have performed it she was out of town, and the closest hospital to me was the one I went to. Ostensibly it is one of the best in the city, not a religious institution, and should have been able to perform the procedure with no problem. To those asking about a lawsuit, we have not filed one, but we are discussing doing so.
And to Jill’s comment, here’s her response:
I was admitted shortly after 3 pm. The procedure wasn’t performed until nearly 12 am. There’s even a note about the need to contact Reproductive Health because they perform D & C’s. So, you can doubt away but the nurse that was on duty that night would disagree with you. As for rushing out to file a lawsuit? I was in mourning for my baby and my fertility, going into a protracted lawsuit wasn’t exactly high on my list of priorities.
I read the story and I didn’t buy it. C-section and vaginal delivery are typical treatments for placental abruption. Considering that the baby was dying or dead, this would not be an abortion. It sounds like she is putting her own spin on his actions and we don’t have his version of the story.
Well, we now have the first documented contact from beyond the grave. Given the rapid blood loss and the fact that,
“…but it still took hours for anyone at the hospital to do anything.”
we have another first, right here at Casa de Stanek.
Jill,
Ask Mikki how my grandparents are doing up there.
Do they do D&Cs at 20 weeks? Isn’t the baby’s body too strong and bones too strong at that point? She was in mourning for the baby? When did the mourning turn to intense bitterness towards the child? She sounds so calloused and hateful toward the baby like the baby had NO WORTH and like she didn’t care just KILL IT. Maybe she had to write that way to spin the story and get pro-choice support? If she actually admitted that she grieved her child she wouldn’t have gotten the story published in Salon and received all the adulation and kudos from the pro-aborts, now would she.
Gerard,
???
What was her exact diagnosis?
I had both placenta previa and partial abruptia with my first son. I lost a lot of blood. We’er talking waking up and the entire bed being covered in blood (sorry that’s graphic)
However, even though I was about the same point in the pregnancy as this women, abortion was never even mentioned as a “solution”.
I was put on bedrest, and monitored very closely. Had the bleeding continued at that rate, there as some talk of a transfusion, but thankfully the site of the abruptia clotted without needing it.
This entire post is heinous, and you ought to be ashamed. For those you doubt the “veracity” of the story, I was the girl who SAW HER in the hospital bed that day. I was the girl who had to take her sons to my house because the doctors weren’t sure she was going to make it. For you and your “people” (and I use that term loosely because I haven’t decided whether y’all are actually human yet) to be so sanctimonious, so cruel…the mind truly boggles.
Entries like these are the reason why the pro-life movement cannot be taken seriously. At all.
I doubt you even post this, because you don’t have the courage.
How dare you people even call yourselves Catholics? What happened to the concepts of mercy? You see a woman in pain, dying, and then immediately start victim blaming?
Id,
If you are who you say you are, then, all emotions aside, there are some legitimate medical questions here that could be well served by Mikki providing some insight or information.
As you can see, some of the posters have firsthand experience w/ placental issues, so their concerns are not so far-fetched.
Now calm down. We can have a decent conversation.
And that goes for the prolifers, too.
Then address these inconsistencies. Her story doesn’t add up.
Pro-lifers believe in saving lives, mother and child- not saving a child over its mother (it’s rare if that could happen) or saving a mother over a child, although that is often what has to happen to save her life and in that case, the loss of the other human life is just a tragedy. It doesn’t sound here like this woman had no choice but lose her child.
She needs to clarify her story. How can someone lose blood so rapidly and yet live for 8 hours?
Jen, not everyone here is Catholic or even religious.
Carder,
“Calm down?” Really? If any of you had bothered to look at Mikki’s Tumblr posts, you’ll see that she’s answered the questions posed here. She’s just smart enough not to engage with the rabid sheep here. But no, keep on with the amateur sleuthing and the righteous indignation. That’ll totally get people on your side.
thewayoftheid,
I’m very sorry to hear the story is true. I know that cases of medical malpractice can be heinous and horrifying and I’m truly sorry that you and your friend had to go through that.
I believe that where the doubt/frustration is coming from is a) most of us can hardly believe that a doctor would be so cruel and b) While we’re sorry for the situation your friend was in, we don’t believe that abortion is ever the answer. Had Mikki had a good doctor, on time, both she and her baby probably could have been saved.
Jen, Catholics aren’t the only ones who have a monopoly on mercy. I’m a Protestant and have the ability to have mercy, kindness, etc. And just so you know, we are reacting to her testimony after the fact. I am willing to bet that if any one of us here on this website had been at that hospital when she really was in pain and dying, we would have stopped at nothing to show her kindness and mercy and to help her.
What we are responding to is her response to this horrific event, and the fact that somehow, she blames it on pro-lifers/pro-life doctors. She happened to have a bad doctor/hospital staff and while we’re sorry that happened, the fact is, we think her conclusion is wrong.
What a bunch of scumbags you all are. Did it ever occur to you that yes- you DON’T have every single minute detail of the story because a)it’s none of your business b)it’s irrelevant? The point of her story is that sometimes an abortion IS medically necessary and not “voluntary”. Who cares if she was ambivalent in the first trimester? So was I. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have been devastated later in the pregnancy if something went terribly wrong. That doesn’t mean that in order to emotionally process and deal with the trauma that I wouldn’t distance myself from personifying the fetus.
I happen to know that she did want the baby and that the story is true. How dare you attack a woman who endured something so awful?
So get off your high horse, pack of vicious rats.
I was a reader of her private blog at the time that it happened. Yes, it happened the way that she wrote it here. At no time since have there been any gaps or wavering from her story. In addition, there are legitimate logistical reasons that she couldn’t go into a lawsuit at the time, as well as the obvious emotional ones around losing her fertility, nearly losing her life, and losing her baby.
There are a lot of people in this comment thread that would rather find some way for every woman who has had an abortion to be cast as some kind of promiscuous irresponsible and callous whore than accept that maybe they are not owed the details of other people’s lives and just need to let other people make their own medical decisions.
Mikki, I’m sorry that you didn’t have access to the kind of medical treatment you needed, and I am sorry that so many people are responding with disdain and a sense of entitlement that you justify your medical history to them. There’s pretty much nothing you could say that would earn their grudgingly-given approval anyway, because haters are gonna hate, and there’s no reasoning them out of it.
Stephanie,
I’m sure it’s none of our business, but since the article was posted on the world wide web, Mikki sort of made it the globe’s business.
There’s even a “comments” section on both Slate and her blog, so in essence she invited the discussion, which really opens her up to reactions, the good, the bad and the ugly.
I’m trying to keep “the ugly” out of our thread here. Let the record show, so far the prolifers have been called a “pack of vicious rats”, “rabid sheep”, and “not actually human”.
Just sayin’.
I just added another comment at Salon in response to Mikki’s rebuttal:
Mikki, there is a two-year statute of limitations for filing malpractice lawsuits. Again, if a doctor almost killed you, why didn’t you do something about it, if not for yourself but to save others from a quack?
I’ve had patients with placental abruption. The placenta is breaking away from the wall of the uterus. It can be minimal or it can be severe.
If minimal, the patient is sent home and watched, particularly if the baby is young.
If severe, the baby and placenta must immediately be delivered, either vaginally or by c-section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placental_abruption). Without immediate intervention the mother will be bleed to death and, of course, the baby will die.
Your story has too many holes to recount, Mikki. If there were medical students present, then you were at a teaching hospital, and there most certainly were doctors available on the premises or on call to perform the necessary emergency surgery.
Your story defies logic, Mikki, I’m sorry. No doctor in a hospital would sit there and let a pregnant patient bleed to death.
The mere fact that the doctor who eventually cared for you transfused “two bags of blood” first indicates this wasn’t a dire emergency. Each bag required 1-4 hours to tranfuse (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/bt/bt_whatis.html). It would make no sense to force a patient supposedly bleeding to death to wait for surgery that would stop her from bleeding to death until she is given 2 pints of blood.
Name the hospital, Mikki. Name the doctor. Show me the charting.
You may really believe your story, Mikki, but it is fiction, and the editors of Salon were irresponsible to print it.
The fact that Mikki shared anything at all about the circumstances of her pregnancy is more than a bunch of random people on the internet are owed. If she deigns to give us more information about her pregnancy and the circumstances under which it ended, then thank you Mikki. She doesn’t have to, though. She is not (or shouldn’t be) obligated to suffer cross-examination because she had the temerity to speak publicly about the fact that she’s had an abortion.
The sense of entitlement to the details of other women’s lives is just shocking. Even if some commenters personally believe that no abortion really has to happen and that anybody who has one simply wasn’t trying hard enough to keep the baby, there’s nothing in there that says people have to be so intrusive, entitled, and insensitive about an issue they should know is deeply personal. Somebody’s baby that she wanted didn’t get born. If you all had half as much sympathy for a woman who lost this chance to be a mother as you have for the fetus, you’d have a little goddamn class about this and nobody would have reason to call you vicious rats.
I added a PS at Salon, since Mikki wrote her charting indicated she had a D&C:
One other thing. If your baby was 20 weeks old, a D&C was impossible. Your baby was too big, with calcified bones. Only a D&E, where babies are removed piece by piece, would have been possible, if vaginal delivery and c-section were ruled out.
More on D&Es here: http://women.webmd.com/dilation-and-evacuation-de-for-abortion (“larger pieces of tissue” meaning parts of the baby).
What a bunch of scumbags you all are. Did it ever occur to you that yes- you DON’T have every single minute detail of the story because a)it’s none of your business b)it’s irrelevant?
By placing her story within the public sphere, Mikki has invited public judgement. She wanted a particular one, true, but by the very dint of inviting public judgement there is tacit permission to do exactly that: judge the story. As carder has pointed out, when you invite public scrutiny, you should either be prepared for some of that attention to be negative, or you shouldn’t do it it at all.
To everyone here who seems to know Mikki, I would like to point out that she choose to share her story in order to support abortion.
In that light, it is only rational that she give as many details as possible in order to verify if her testimony actually supports the conclusion she says it does.
A few months ago there was a woman who was complaining that she couldn’t get an abortion following a Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. She went home, and delivered her child about a week later. The child died shortly after delivery. Her claim was that she should have been able to have an abortion when her water broke, but she wasn’t able to because of Nebraska’s ban on abortion past 20 weeks.
I called BS on her claims, because i’ve also had a PPROM (I know, my first pregnancy was the pregnancy from hell, but it ended with my sweet son being born alive, so I’d do it again in a heartbeat!!) Doing nothing was one of the options given to me, but it was not the only option. I was able to stay pregnant for 7 weeks after my water broke thanks to a heavy dose of medications and complete bedrest. My frist question for that woman was if her doctors had told her all of her options for saving her baby.
Apparently they had, and it became clear that she had chosen to do nothing because of fears about her child’s “quality of life.” That’s not exactly the story she told the newspapers, was it?
Because there is almost always something that can be done to try to save the child when these things happen post-viability, there should be natural skepticism when someone claims that abortion was necessary. Ending the pregnancy? Yes. Killing the child? No.
JMS,
My, what a cold, bitter person you are. I’m truly sorry for whatever happened in your life that has caused your heart to turn to stone. Maybe it’s the lack of the God of love? Hm.
50% – that’s a nice, little tidy figure. Did you make that up? Where did you get that evidence from anyway?
And I’m not a fool, though you may think so. Of course I know that some babies cannot be saved. It’s so sad! (doesn’t seem to make you sad though). So some older, born patients can’t be saved either. But in a case where a child with cancer “can’t be saved” do doctors prematurely kill them in their hospital beds? I would hope not – I love humanity at all stages and I would fight for anyone’s chance at survival, despite the odds – yes, even yours, JMS, though you seem to hate life, I would fight for your chance of survival in the hopes that maybe you can eventually find truth and love and happiness.
You are putting up straw arguments with your babies with no skull and and risky pregnancies stories. I know people who were in situations where the doctors told them that they/their babies would not survive. But they did. Against all odds. Personally, I would rather see what happens and give birth than just kill the baby. Then you’ll never know how long the baby would have lived and you would be responsible for snuffing out the babies life – that’s murder.
But there is where our difference lies – I value life, all life, at all stages and I would see everyone given the chance of a miracle, even if the miracle doesn’t happen and you, you would snuff out hope before life could even have a chance.
If that hope and compassion for all human beings – mothers, unborn infants who are deemed “imperfect” by society, the elderly isn’t a sign that “God is love” I dont’ know what is.
And there is more to life than money, JSM. SO yes I would hope that parents would do all in their power to save their baby.
When I was four years old, the doctors told my parents that I wouldn’t live, that they should goodbye. And do you know what? They didn’t give up. They insisted that the doctors keep trying, they prayed constantly, they got into debt that they paid off for years and by the grace of God, I survived. And I’m so happy I did. And my dad, who worked for years at horrible jobs for long, hard hours to pay off the hospital bills, has always told me that he would do nothing different – that having his daughter live was more important than medical bills.
Calder, in spite of the fact that your own personal comments have not been vicious, I think it’s important to note that that was only after commenters on this blog implied Mikki was a liar, suggested she had been paid money to lie, called her a zombie, bitter, and cold. You don’t think that deserves and angry response from the person who was with her at the hospital? I think that every person on this blog would have a right to be angry if they went through a harrowing, life-threatening experience and strangers accused them of lying and demanded that they share more details than they were prepared to share to “prove” their story.
This isn’t an issue of pro-life versus pro-choice as a debate. This is an issue of people immediately accusing someone of lying and demanding that she lay her personal life bare. She shared as many details as she chose to share– personally, I think we should all act with gratitude and compassion that she felt that she could share that much of her story at all, not act like she has an obligation to lay bare every gory detail, especially when dealing with something so personal, like the loss of a child and a traumatizing medical experience. While I certainly haven’t been through what Mikki has, I nearly lost an arm in an accident ten years ago, and the resulting PTSD sent me into panic attacks for two or three years afterward just from hearing people talk about similar situations. It takes a lot of guts to face something like this and talk about it at all– no one has a right to demand that she talk about it more or differently than she feels comfortable talking about it.
A very large part of the comment exchanges in this post is incredibly dehumanizing, treating Mikki like she is a fictional character in a crime drama, where there must be a piece of her story that is wrong, and not like a real, living, breating wife and mother who went through something terrible.
Jill, my grandmother died because a doctor let her bleed to death after a still birth. She was honest about the fact that she was having a child out of wedlock, and he said he would not treat her because of it.
Not all doctors are decent people.
“Mikki was a liar, suggested she had been paid money to lie, called her a zombie, bitter, and cold.” Huh?
Huh?
To all the prochoicers here: I haven’t read the article, but you are responding with indignation at people who question Mikki’s story. This is what many PC women do to women who have negative experiences at abortion clinics, or have been devastated by their abortion experiences. Perhaps both sides could learn a little compassion.
Mikki is asking us to agree with her that pro-life doctors are scumbags, abortion is necessary and being pro-life puts women with legitimate issues in danger. I am saying that I need more information before I run willy nilly to her side of the argument. If she can’t or won’t provide the facts in her story (its not my job to read all her blogs and other writings. I am reading the article. The article should have the FACTS to support her claim) then I’m going to call her on it. Thats not being mean or lacking compassion or trying to vilify her (who even made a comment about her sexuality? A pro-abort brought that up but not one pro-lifer even discussed her sexuality. She is married. She should be having sex!)
But keep ranting and spitting pro-aborts. You’re making yourself very transparent. You call us sentient adult human beings who are not in wombs rats. You question if we are human. Well here we go… slippery slope. If you can call an unborn human child “not human” based on your whims at the moment then it becomes very easy to call other adults with whom you are having a disagreement “not human”. Guess what? you don’t get to decide who is human and who isn’t human based on if you took your prozac this morning. Which btw, you pro-aborts need to get on that.
Plus, Mikki herself admits that she is merely speculating about the situation. She writes:
” Supposedly there was a communication breakdown and they thought she had been notified, but I doubt it. I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.”
Lauren, go read the comments. Jill started out by saying that she doubted the veracity of the story. Then we have:
“Or was she paid by someone for this revelation?”
“They didn’t bitterly call their son “some fetus” like this woman did.”
“Where is her love for her dead child? Cold!”
“I told you zombies exist”
Phillymiss, that’s very true, but I would personally never do that to another person, and I have had friends who have had bad abortion experiences. I would never question another woman’s experience, especially with something so deeply personal. You can’t assume that the people commenting here would do that. We know that the people commenting here questioning Mikki’s story are doing that. I agree with you that no one should ever do that to a woman, which is the only reason I am commenting here– because this conversation has had almost nothing to do with the question of the morality or ethics or facts of abortion, and everything to do with trying to shame someone who was brave enough to talk about her personal experiences.
Tea,
Jill’s a nurse, so of course she knows not all doctors are decent people.
One doctor in particular was responsible for attempting to terminate a Down’s Syndrome baby, wasn’t successful in doing so, and it was left to Jill to hold the dying baby in her arms for the last 28 minutes of its life.
So if anyone knows about callousness, I’d put Jill into that category.
Now to your point about Mikki and her courage to speak up.
Speaking for myself, yes, it’s quite the leap to make a story like that public and open to scrutiny.
She doesn’t want to clarify her statements, then fine. Welcome to the USA.
I invited her to join the conversation because I don’t want to see prolifers jump to all sorts of conclusions when some rational conversation can help clear up matters.
And I put out the gentle warning that I don’t want to see prolifers ravage Mikki, because, at the end of the day, her baby is dead and no one on either side is doing a happy dance.
I can talk about this decently. Anybody else?
Tea, yeah, I said her response to her dead child was cold. She called her child “some fetus”. Thats cold. I stand by my statement. What of it?
This may shock you guys, but pro-abortion folks’ opinions of my character are no consequence to me. Anyone lacking the moral compass insomuch as they support a mother killing the very child she created is not someone who can make any valid statement on right and wrong. So a pro-abort says I am a horrible person: Since they think someone horrible is good- is this a compliment? I simply disregard it all.
I don’t think pointing out the emperor has no clothes on means I can’t have a respectful conversation. But I am going to call it as it is, not try to mince words and pitter patter around the truth.
I only know Mikki from what she chooses to say in her article. She is using her child’s death to defend killing other children. She dehumanizes her child. She doesn’t call her child by his/her name. She doesn’t even refer to her child as HER CHILD. She calls him/her
“some fetus”. Is that warm? Is that loving? The whole thing is lacking any compassion for her child whatsoever and I call it for what it is. Mikki might be a wonderful mother and wife but I don’t know her. I can only judge her for the face she presents to the public via her article. I call it as I see it. Oh well.
First of all, pr-choicers have to realize, that if her abortion story was so very personal – she would have kept it to herself, not published it for all the world to see on the internet. So, stop saying that oh it’s so personal, stop poking your noses in other peoples lives, if these same people actually WANT the story to be discussed publicly.
Secondly, however much I regret that she had to go through obviously horrific experience and that her baby died, it’s wrong to say that abortion was her only option. I don’t know if she was misinformed by the doctors at the hospital or misunderstood what’s going on, but abortion is NOT a treatment of placental abruption.
Anyone who’s still trying to make heads and tails out of this story – read Jill’s comments again, I think she sums everything up pretty well.
“By placing her story within the public sphere, Mikki has invited public judgement”
Mikki is calling for the condemnation of those doctors who didn’t think she needed an abortion.
She started this whole thing. She is framing and blaming and making the accusations. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. That she doesn’t name the doctor likely means she doesn’t dare name him.
Wow, this comment thread is hard to stomach. While I hate abortion, God knows, I’ve had people doubt my own story to my face. It’s gruelling. I feel for Mikki because I wouldn’t wish this kind of scrutiny on anyone. We don’t always know how things will be after we make a public disclosure about something, and now her story has “grown legs” as they say.
Mikki’s story illustrates why elective abortion is so wrong, so damaging to all mothers. In a pre-elective-abortion culture, everyone pulled for the baby’s life, everyone. Now, from the second a woman realizes her period is late, there is a continue-or-not dilemna that ALL mothers face post-Roe-v-Wade. During every phase of her pregnancy, today, a woman faces terrible pressures to abort even if from conception she loves and wants her baby. In my extended family alone, 4 people, count them 4!, have been pressuring a mother who loves and wants her baby to abort. And I mean pressure: nagging, nagging, screaming, and more nagging. This is no way to run a society.
In an ideal world, Mikki would have received prompt adequate medical care and not had the medical and other staff of a facility add to her woes during an already frightening and dangerous time. Many of us have faced terrible crises in our health and our families. If there had never been legal abortion, Mikki wouldn’t be posting this experience on the ‘net and then be subject to all this terrible scrutiny. If abortion had remained illegal during the 20th century, and into the 21st, her story would be one to call for better care in all health facilities, clinics, hospitals, etc. Instead, her private trauma is turning into a political football. This helps no one.
PS. Under my real name, I endured dozens and dozens of terrible comments on the net about something that was supposed to be a fun and charitable event (not at all related to abortion or pro-life). You Do NOT realize how internet scrutiny will blow up or how you will feel. Mikki couldn’t be expected to have a crystal ball to predict how this would go down, so to say she posted it in public and now deserves this, well, it just ain’t right. Why do you think I use a pen-name on the web today?
Sorry SM but Mikki was (rightfully) more concerned with leaving her BORN children motherless or with a mother severely physically/emotionally damaged from a terrible pregnancy. Claiming that she should have been like St. Gianna or something smacks of just so much self righteousness ignorance and zealotry
After spending the last few weeks investing a good portion of my life towards propagating the prochoice message, I’ve had countless nasty encounters with Antichoicers. I expected this type of backlash after I read Mikki’s article because while she decided so eloquently to share intimate and personal details of her life, she neglected to mention all of the “specifics.” What hogwash!
The real question here is should a woman’s health and life be placed in direct peril due to a political power play or a doctor’s personal perspective on a medical procedure?
What Mikki shared was truly heart wrenching; her words painted a poignant picture of a woman whose life was compromised by the very people who were in a position to help her. Every woman deserves the RIGHT to defend HER OWN LIFE if she feels threatened. Mikki’s story should serve as a cautionary tale, a glimpse into a very foreseeable future for women if Antichoicers get their way.
Sorry Krys,
Mikki is making the accusations. She is the accuser. If she had a real case, it would be in court, not in Salon. Her real complaint is that the hospital tried to save both her and her baby. That she didn’t die is pretty well evidence that they were within standard practice to try to save the baby. Just because she really thought she was bleeding to death, doesn’t mean she really was and obviously she didn’t. This case is more about emotion than anything else.
“Every woman deserves the RIGHT to defend HER OWN LIFE if she feels threatened.”
Sounds like an NRA commercial.
Anyway, when an over emotional pregnant woman feels her life is threatened, doesn’t mean that there is in fact a real threat to her life. The doctors assessed her actuall physical condition. Doctors don’t treat you for what you perceive your condition may be. They use actual criteria, not just the feelings of the patient.
Jill, you were A nurse, you were not HER nurse.
This is a disgusting show of calloused people pretending to be compassionate when it suits their interests.
Shame on all of you.
Sydney- I have gotten the exact same kind of comments from people who were horrified that I jokingly called my baby “Parasite” when I was pregnant after two miscarriages, one of which was with twins (in fact, this miscarriage happened shortly before Mikki’s, and she and I had some long phone conversations about our losses after the fact). The people that acted so horrified had no way of knowing that I *was* trying to distance myself because it hurt too much to think of those babies as babies or children or anything that might have put a face or name to them. I suspect it is the same for Mikki. I know that she very much wanted that baby girl, despite what you guys have decided about how committed she was to the pregnancy. Not all of us grieve the same way, you know? And Mikki doesn’t have to call the baby a baby, a fetus, a parasite, her little girl or Pumpkin to prove that she did want that baby in the same way that I don’t have to refer to the twins I lost with their names or sex or characteristics to make sure you or anyone else understands that I loved them and I lost them, and you have no right to call someone cold or lacking compassion or unloving.
Alright she made it up! Its all made up just to make a political statement. Is that what you want to hear? But seriously how the eff can you pretend to know the reasons why she didnt press charges? Maybe it was too traumatic, maybe she has plans to and isnt making the public privy to it. If the baby was viable and they wanted to save it then they should have AT LEAST discussed this option with the woman and her husband, like said, “Hi this is what we are going to do.” Not treated her like a piece of dirt who was only worth so much as a holding cell for an unborn baby. They treated her inhumanely and nobody here is taking issue with that??
Um hello Krys. Why do you assume I am Catholic? I never brought up any “saint” so the St. Gianna reference is lost on me. Why don’t you argue with real facts? Oh, right, cause you can’t. See ya!
The only Gianna I know is Gianna Jessen who survived her mother aborting her. Abortion kills humans. Thats the facts. Born children are not any more valuable than unborn children. Mikki’s born sons were not any more worthy or needy than her unborn son/daughter.
This thread makes me so sad. What will happen to you when real life doesn’t conform to your rigid preconceptions? When it’s your best friend that needs an abortion? When it’s your pastor that turns out to be a child rapist? It makes me sad because that’s how it happened for me. I was pro-life once. Now I am for life, for all of your lives, your real, messy lives that can’t be lived in black-and-white. I hope that when it happens to you, you’ll find the feminist hotlines, the women’s shelters, the network of those of us who made it out of the world of certainty alive. I hope you’ll find someone to hold your hand when you’re coming out of the anesthetic, to hold you when you cry. I hope you’ll find friends like Mikki.
And her physical condition also encompasses her emotional and mental condition….also valid health-related reasons for getting a late-term abortion
Beth, I am sorry for your loss as well as Mikki’s. But when Mikki publicly dehumanizes her child (no matter the reasons) and tries to bash pro-life doctors I do have a right to call it as I see it. She presents herself as cold and I call her on it. If she didn’t want public criticism then she shouldn’t have publicly told her very one-sided story.
Oh, rereading my comments, I realize I may have confused the issue myself a bit. Although Mikki didn’t realize she was pregnant earlier, many women do find out earlier. Sorry for any confusion.
I wish there had never been a single elective abortion of any healthy child. Then, Mikki’s whole perspective would have been completely different. Her story would be about privacy-invading students and an extended time of being in pain while left on her own, hearing the other patients around her. Her trauma shouldn’t have been about abortion at all.
Hippie,
“When an over emotional pregnant woman feels her life is threatened, doesn’t mean that there is in fact a real threat to her life”
Ah, yes. Pregnant women are incapable of making decisions in regards to their personal health care. Yawn.
Doctors ARE to make informed decisions. It’s when their PERSONAL FEELINGS motivate their reactions that I consider them to be dangerous.
No Krys. Why must the baby be killed to help her emotional and mental condition? Abortion has been shown to HURT women emotionally but you offer it as a valid treatment for such? WHAT? If the pregnancy threatened her life Mikki could have had the baby delivered early. There is not reason to PURPOSEFULLY kill the child by ripping her arms and legs off in the womb and crushing her little skull. Ending a pregnancy is not always wrong. Ending the life of the child IS ALWAYS WRONG. You try to save the child. You try to give the child a chance especially when the child is well into the second trimester. You don’t purposefully dismember the child and pretend it was medicine.
Ninek this is about abortion it’s about doctors who arent even equipped to perform the procedure in emergency circumstances, because med schools under political pressure are putting the kabosh on teaching the practice.
SM sure okay let’s say that all three of her children’s lives had the same moral worth…still doesn’t justify the woman sacrificing her own life/health, and potentially ruining her ability to care for the other two
Re: “Why must the baby be killed to help her emotional and mental condition?”
Because she is a thinking and breathing human being who doesn’t want to be treated like a freaking piece of meat. If she wanted to end the pain of that pregnancy there and then that was her decision, tragic as you thought that decision was. Her nightmare, her decision to end it in abortion rather than getting cut open like a fish to have the child put in the NICU with who knows what chance of surviving and with what conditions.
Krys, I am NOT saying that she should have sacrificed her life to continue the pregnancy. I am saying you don’t have to rip a child to shreds in order to end a pregnancy. If there was a very real threat to her life and needed to end the pregnancy there are ways to do that without intentionally killing the child. What are you not understanding?
The unborn are real human beings and you treat them like a piece of meat. I am saying lets not treat ANY human beings like a piece of meat! Lets respect life! If we denied Susan Smith the right to kill her boys would that be “treating her like a piece of meat”? so not allowing a woman to intentionally kill her child is “treating her like a piece of meat” is what you’re saying? Good to know. Good to know. Gosh, you are so lost.
“it’s about doctors who arent even equipped to perform the procedure in emergency circumstances, because med schools under political pressure are putting the kabosh on teaching the practice.”
First of all, this is moving the goal posts. Mikki doesn’t talk about this issue at all in her article. Second of all, all doctors know how to perform D&C’s (which is what Mikki claims to have had) because they are sometimes required following a missed miscarriage.
LibertBelle:
That nice, round number was the approximation provided in my human genetic counseling class when I was taking my PhD in human genetics. The approximation has actually improved in recent years, with more sensitive assays. From Fritz and Speroff, Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility, 2010:
Up to 60% of all conceptions miscarry within the first 12 weeks of gestation and 20-40% of all early pregnancy losses go unrecognized.
It’s nice that your family had the ability to weather the costs of a medically-intense child. It’s nice that your family had a *choice* about whether or not to maintain a medically-intense child. It would be nice if all these people who are so concerned about one woman’s abortion spent their energy (and their monetary donations) on something like, oh, say, keeping living children alive.
If you’re really so concerned about life, try reading Nancy Scheper-Hughes’ anthropological work Death Without Weeping (http://books.google.com/books?id=YJVt4YxX_vsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Uni%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BDo#v=onepage&q&f=false), which talks extensively about the desperately poor in Brazil, and how the mothers there have to learn not to be attached to their children because the infant and childhood mortality rate is so high that they are more likely to lose their children than keep them. Try spending your “compassion” on, say, keeping those kids alive, or even on improving the quality of life, health, and education of the desperately poor children here in the US (by, say, supporting socialized medicine so everyone can have access to health care, or equalizing funding for all school districts to everyone can have access to excellent education), and keep your nose out of the business of women who are making hard choices every day on how to live their lives.
“Her nightmare, her decision to end it in abortion rather than getting cut open like a fish to have the child put in the NICU with who knows what chance of surviving and with what conditions.”
Ok, so now we’re really getting to the heart of the issue. The abortion didn’t save her life, ending her pregnancy saved her life. However, as you note above, there were ways to end her pregnancy that did not require her child to be killed.
NO SM because Susan Smith’s kids weren’t living.inside.her.body. Your argument is just stupid. WE are talking about respecting the decisions people make about what takes place inside their physical BODIES. Crucial distinction.
“…to have the child put in the NICU with who knows what chance of surviving and with what conditions.”
If that statement were a picture, it’d be worth thousands and thousands of words.
I’m very sorry for Mikki’s loss. That being said, if you write an article about ANY subject and put that article in a public forum, open to comments, you need be prepared to be called on any potential inconsistencies. That’s the nature of public discourse.
If this article had been by a woman claiming that her abortionist had almost let her bleed to death, and pro-choicers called her on her inconsistencies, would they also be cold, cruel, mean, etc.?
Mike, Jill doesn’t have to be Mikki’s nurse to spot inconsistencies in her story. I recognized a few myself and I have no formal medical training. For example, the D&C vs D&E. It’s possible that Mikki just confused the terms, but Jill is absolutely right. A D&C is almost never done in the 2nd trimester (and it’s never done to either remove a dead baby or kill a live one past 20 weeks), and it’s not usually done to treat a placental abruption, either.
I am also confused because an abortion is not the standard or recommended treatment for placental abruption. I had a suspected partial abruption when I was pregnant with my son, so I’ve done some research on it in case it ever happens again. Her story simply doesn’t add up. If she’s addressed the inconsistencies elsewhere then perhaps she should modify her Salon article accordingly.
Yatima – my favorite teacher in high school was recently convicted of possessing child pornography. I considered him a close friend and he sang at my wedding. His crime didn’t change my views on abortion at all. If my best friend wanted an abortion, I would encourage her to continue the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption, and encourage her in any way I could. In fact, one of my friends is currently pregnant and facing single motherhood, and I am encouraging her in any way I can. Again, her situation has not changed my views on the evil of abortion.
Oh and as someone who has been “cut open like a fish” and had my child “put in the NICU with who knows what chance of surviving and with what conditions.” all I can say is that I find it very depressing that instead of advocating for giving a child a fighting chance at life, this woman is advocating killing other children.
After my experience, I started volunteering to help with women who were placed on bedrest following abruptia or PPROM. I helped them fight for their babies. Sorry if I find someone fighting against these same children to be a bit upsetting.
It isnt respectul of life to say to a woman “ok we are going to rip your abdomen apart and pull a fetus from you without your consent because we want to save this child’s life, youll heal somehow and then itll be your responsibility to figure out how to financially and emotionally support this child who may very likely be disabled for life.” That’s not respect that’s being extreme.
Lauren those were YOUR CHOICES. The beauty is that you got to choose them for yourself they werent imposed on you. And jeez how privileged you are to have been able to take extended bedrest. Other women arent so lucky because they might need to work to support their families or take care of other kids. What we are dealing here is with someone who has no awareness of their own privilege which is appalling and gross.
“youll heal somehow and then itll be your responsibility to figure out how to financially and emotionally support this child who may very likely be disabled for life.” That’s not respect that’s being extreme.”
A child born at that gestational age will almost surely qualify for both SSI payments, and medicaid. A world of services exist to help parents of micropreemies.
If her child, sadly, did not survive, there are even funeral homes that will perform their services for free or at a heavily discounted rate.
“What we are dealing here is with someone who has no awareness of their own privilege which is appalling and gross”
I was a freshman in college, living in a 400/month efficiency apartment. My husband worked as a temp at Cash America.
Excuse me while I finish laughing at the thought of my supposed “privilege”.
But again, let me point out that you are admitting that abortion was not necessary to save this woman’s life. She had other options. Thus her claim that “abortion saved my life!” is false. Ending her pregnancy saved her life, but that could have been done without killing her child.
“NO SM because Susan Smith’s kids weren’t living.inside.her.body. Your argument is just stupid. WE are talking about respecting the decisions people make about what takes place inside their physical BODIES. Crucial distinction.”
No, there is not a distinction. People are restricted from doing things with their bodies all the time. Men cannot use their bodies to have sex with 14-year-old girls. I cannot put LSD in my body. It is has nothing to do with not “respecting people’s decisions about their bodies”, it is about trying to maintain something that somewhat resembles a civilized society. And no, despite all the rationalizatons of the “pro-choice” movement, allowing people to rip their offspring to shreds does not count as “civilized” or “progessive”, even if said offspring resides in their body.
JoAnna: Not yet.
Yatima – not ever.
“supporting socialized medicine so everyone can have access to health care, or equalizing funding for all school districts to everyone can have access to excellent education.”
1) Socialized medicine means that women who go into very premature labor, as I did, will face the certain death of their children.
2)It has not been shown that money spent translates to an “excellent education.” There are real solutions to the education gap, but simply throwing money at the problem will not fix it.
” What we are dealing here is with someone who has no awareness of their own privilege which is appalling and gross.”
What is it with pro-aborts that anything life-affirming is privilege? And when did privilege become this horrible, monstrous thing to be avoided at all? And why do you ascribe the term ‘privileged’ to someone you know nothing about? Sheesh!!!
I think what really rubs a lot of us the wrong way, and certainly rubs me the wrong way, is the fact that Mikki is using her experience in order to support other children being killed.
As others have said, were it not for her insistence on pushing abortion, this story would be about a woman being neglected (at least in terms of caring patient care, it is unclear by her story if she was actually medically neglected). Instead, she chose to frame it as a story about how horrible some unnamed doctor was, and by extension the entire pro-life movement, because of something she has no proof he even did.
Try spending your “compassion” on, say, keeping those kids alive, or even on improving the quality of life, health, and education of the desperately poor children here in the US (by, say, supporting socialized medicine so everyone can have access to health care, or equalizing funding for all school districts to everyone can have access to excellent education), and keep your nose out of the business of women who are making hard choices every day on how to live their lives.
Here we go with the old mantra “prolifers don’t care about children after they’re born” stuff. This is simply not true! There are many people on this board and in the prolife community at large who work with children, the elderly, the disabled. I am a sorcial worker who deals with underprivileged families every day. Its stressful and tiring and often exasperating, and you sure don’t make much money, but I do it because I CARE! And so do most prolifers.
.
If this article had been by a woman claiming that her abortionist had almost let her bleed to death, and pro-choicers called her on her inconsistencies, would they also be cold, cruel, mean, etc.?
The story would be ignored or dismissed. Look at the silence from PC’ers about Gosnell.
JMS:
Whether or not that’s true, a miscarriage is a natural event. It’s sad, but it is entirely different from a woman who deliberately kills her unborn child. That’s a huge difference. You can’t choose a miscarriage – you choose abortion.
JMS, we barely made it, just so you know. I think you’d be surprised at the resiliency of people. People scrape by on nothing all the time and come out alive. It’s horrible but it’s not the end of the world. Don’t you get it? Babies in the womb are living too! They are living children that I’m defending. They only need more defense because people like you can’t see that and so these little preborn babies get wantonly murdered!
Why doe you put my compassion in quotation marks? Do you think I’m not compassionate? Have you ever even met me? Do you know my heart? (kinda doubt it)
Ah, here we go with the “poor children in Africa” ploy. Let’s stay on track, please. I feel horrible for those poor children in Africa and around the world who die. But listen – I’m one woman! I can’t do it all. Just because I want to defend the lives of unborn babies in the US does not mean I don’t have compassion for those poor mothers and babies around the world. (and besides, how do you know I don’t donate to world-wide humanitarian charities? I do, as does my fiance).
And, with all your study of third world countries and concern for them, I’m sure that you’ve noticed that even the desperately poor in the US have a better quality of life and healthcare than the desperately poor in third world countries. But of course, you are once again totally getting off track. I am fighting to defend the life of the unborn. I’m a very young female, trying to earn a living myself, and so I can only do so much. I can stand up for the unborn and I can (and do!) budget for helping those who are worse off than I am. That’s compassion, JMS. Giving up things I may want in life to help others.
I don’t want to put my nose in anyone’s business except to save the life of their unborn baby. And listen, I know women in crisis pregnancy situations have hard choices – but the answer is never murder!
Megan, will you be officially changing your moniker to Krys?
JMS –
And like phillymiss, I have volunteered countless hours with disabled children and adults and helped homeless people and various other organizations because I have the Love of Jesus and because I care about people. I love people and want to help them. I plan on adopting unwanted US babies oneday and hopefully will also be a foster parent.
Sorry I haven’t done enough in your book in my very short time here on earth. Good gracious. But honestly I couldn’t care less about what you think about my compassion – I know where I stand with my conscience and my God.
I think it’s interesting that many of you have decided that the author is cold and unfeeling, when her editorial is anything but–and especially when almost all of you have immediately responded with “BUT WHERE’S THE LAWSUIT!?” Really? Is that the first thing that would occur to you upon losing a child? You wouldn’t bother mourning the baby, no–you’d contact a lawyer because that would fix it? And you have the nerve to call someone else cold and unfeeling.
And also, one of you already commented that as far as you’re (and I mean the general and the plural “you”), abortion is never the correct procedure. If you feel that way, what’s the point in trying to dissect what Mikki wrote? The details will never matter to you, so make up your minds, folks:
You either NEVER believe an abortion is the correct choice, regardless of the consequences,
or
You acknowledge that that view is flawed, short-sighted, cruel, and anti-woman, not to mention anti-life, when not performing an abortion can lead to a woman’s death.
Carder,
That was my sarcasm earlier. The severity of the hemorrhaging she claims, paired with a four hour wait would have been fatal, hence we see Mikki communicating ‘from the other side’. So, I want Jill to ask Mikki how my grandparents are doing ‘up there’. ;-)
I don’t find Mikki’s story credible.
It’s not written by a 3rd party that has a vested interest in keeping journalistic integrity. It’s not providing full verifiable facts/nameplaces. The one who has the most to benefit from putting it out there – is Mikki.
It seems she doesn’t have a lawsuit going against the hospital or malpracticing staff – her recent move out of state precludes the whole discovery process.
She has an interest in creating a fan-base for her fiction – whether that’s negative pro-life villification, or obtaining status as a champion for the pro-abortion cause. From what I can gather, any attention is beneficial:
http://www.verbnoire.com/editors
The timing of the Salon article publication coinciding with your move – along with her own numerous admissions – all adds up to considerable doubt on my part.
And Mikki can be as pissed as she wants, she has a paid article in a major website and notoriety from the pro-life community. She’s trying to make a point, but overall, it just looks like she’s being a useful tool to Plantation Parenthood of America at the expense of her very own child. (which I can’t find any other mention of on her website.)
“when not performing an abortion can lead to a woman’s death.”
This is the key fact of the situation that we’re trying to establish. Was the abortion necessary to save her life, or could she have had another procedure that would have both saved her life and given her child a chance at life?
That’s a pretty big point of contention. All we’re asking for is something to back up that claim.
Well, it didn’t take long for the stereotypes of the “cold, bitter, callous” Black mother to crawl out of the woodwork. I cannot help but wonder how these comments might have been different had Jill not so helpfully included Mikki’s picture (how, after all, would people efficiently stalk her otherwise)?
But of course Black people can’t possibly be telling the truth about anything to do with pregnancy and birth, including their own birthplaces, and must show papers documenting every last aspect of their lives in order to be believed.
“…getting cut open like a fish.” “rip your abdomen open” ..???
You certainly don’t know much about c-sections, do you?
My daughter was born at 33 weeks by c-section, and she is not “disabled for life” in any way.
I was born with several medical conditions myself. All of which were corrected by surgery. No one knows how a child’s life will turn out just because of some condition(s) that existed when they were born(or in my case, BEFORE I was born).
What are you talking about Jezebel?
The characterization of “cold” came because Mikki used the term “some fetus” to describe her dead child.
As for the picture, Jill posts a picture of everyone she quotes for the QOTD unless the quote is from the bible. Try again.
Jezebel,
Your comments are utterly ridiculous.
No one here mentioned her race until you came along.
We use the same terms to describe white abortive mothers as well.
Take your racist comments elsewhere, please. Thanks.
Just so you guys are clear, Salon did not pay Mikki for her article. It had been published elsewhere (on her blog!), and they don’t pay for reprints. Stop making things up without knowing the truth.
The publication of Mikki’s story bothers me because she accuses the doctors and they cannot defend themselves.
We have exactly no way of knowing the truth, and the reporting indicates that no one who published it is even interested in the truth.
There is a real problem with the unsubstantiated claims.
Is skepticism dead?
Give me a break, Jez.
Facebook pictures are hardly classified information.
And you, the prochoicer, are the first one to mention race. Nary a peep from us.
JMS – I wrote this blog post for people who think as you do.
Jezebel, why play the race card? It doesn’t make any difference what race Mikki is; it doesn’t change the fact that her story has inconsistencies that cast doubt on its veracity.
JoAnna: Maybe so. But we’ll still be here for all the other kids whose favorite teachers turn out to be child pornographers, and whose ministers turn out to be rapists. For all the people who figure out that right and wrong and life and death are not easy or simple, who grow up and find out that they’re on their own and need to be able to make their own choices. And we’ll be here for you too, if you change your mind.
“people can’t possibly be telling the truth about anything to do with pregnancy and birth, including their own birthplaces, and must show papers documenting every last aspect of their lives in order to be believed.”
Not all people at all times can be believed.
Therefore, all accusers must supply substantiation for their accusations.
The media would love to do more with this story, but the NYTimes can’t touch it because of all the problems that have been cited. That is why it is in Salon.
“that right and wrong and life and death are not easy or simple”
And once again the scourge of moral relativism rears its ugly head.
Jezebel – I am black and even though I don’t know Jill personally, she hardly seems racist. I don’t think this issue has anything to do with race. Believe me, if I think anyone on this board is being racist, I will say so!
Yatima, I am truly sorry for what happened to you. It sounds like your church and people you trusted, especially your pastor betrayed you. I hope this person was arrested and punished to the full extent of the law.
I related my story of how my daughter was sexually molested when she was barely four years. She is now a lovely young woman, a college graduate and engaged to be married, but it was a nightmare for all of us.
I am sure there are people here who have been victims of sexual violence, so why do you think that prolifers don’t care about this issue?
“Name the hospital, Mikki. Name the doctor. Show me the charting.”
Ms Stanek, I assume you’d have no problem showing me your medical qualifications (Please excuse my not knowing the terminology, I’m English and don’t know exactly what you call them in America.)
Along with this, of course you’ll have no problem showing pictures of your driver’s license so we can verify that your qualifications belong to you?
Otherwise, I’m just not sure I can *believe* you’re a nurse. I don’t feel like the facts add up – I feel like you might emotionally believe you were a nurse, but you know, the things you’re saying make me doubt the veracity of your story.
Jezebel – you’re the first person to mention race. The judgments of her level of attachment came from he behavior in the story and her calling her allegedly wanted child “that fetus.” The comments would have been the same regardless of race.
Krys/Megan? (why the switch?): And her physical condition also encompasses her emotional and mental condition….also valid health-related reasons for getting a late-term abortion.
And this is why we laugh at those who pretend abortion isn’t available on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy.
I feel bad about what she went through, but she’s selling an agenda with this story. And based on the facts, it’s not one I’m buying.
I never said anti-choicers don’t care about these issues. I simply pointed out that for some of us, these kinds of betrayal drive us away from dependence on people who claim moral authority for themselves, and (if we’re lucky) bring us into a state of trusting people to make decisions for themselves.
Or, as lauren called it, “the scourge of moral relativism” :)
“She has an interest in creating a fan-base for her fiction – whether that’s negative pro-life villification, or obtaining status as a champion for the pro-abortion cause. From what I can gather, any attention is beneficial:”
Chris – you do realise that you’re the first person to link to Verb Noire? I think it’s disingenuous to link to something then accuse someone *else* of publicising it.
How many links did you click to get to that site? Was it more than one? Did you make an effort to find it? I have the Salon article open in another tab and I don’t see anywhere where Mikki promoted her fiction.
In addition to this, while you’re arguing she is gaining something, couldn’t the argument be made that she’s alienating potential pro-life readers, who seem to be a significant segment of the population? Hardly the marketing strategy of the century.
“bring us into a state of trusting people to make decisions for themselves.”
Trusting people to make decisions for themselves doesn’t mean that all decisions are moral.
Yatima – and how would abortion help in any of those situations? It wouldn’t, at all. I will never change my mind. I don’t believe that any circumstance justifies the direct murder of an innocent human being.
Jack – Jill Stanek has testified before Congress. Do you think that Congress routinely accepts testimony from those who are faking their credentials?
JoAnna – Going into what I think the government gets up to is likely to derail the thread. My point was more that if Ms Stanek believes someone she doesn’t know should put her personal details on the internet – and considering medical records are personal enough that your own mother can’t see them without your say-so – then she should be willing to put her own personal information on the internet.
And you can say “But Mikki started it by posting” – yes, she did, and Ms Stanek started her side of things by posting this. Therefore she should be subject to the same demands.
Actually, Jack, you questioned Jill’s credentials, so it’s up to you to prove why you think Congress would accept testimony from someone who allegedly faked those credentials.
I don’t recall Jill asking Mikki to post those details publicly. She just asked for further clarification, and if Mikki wanted to she could provide those to Jill privately, or she could clarify some of the inconsistencies that wouldn’t require divulging any further level of detail then she’s already provided publicly.
“Trusting people to make decisions for themselves doesn’t mean that all decisions are moral.”
Guess what. Your morality isn’t hers. Your morality isn’t anyone’s but yours. Nor is it your place to play judge. And jury. And, if you’d had your way, or the doctor had had his, executioner.
Oh, great, Ophy. That means I can go and rob a bank, given that my morality is mine alone. Who is anyone to tell me I’m wrong if I steal? My morality is mine and it is no one’s place to judge.
JoAnna – correct, that’s why we have laws. and currently, law of the land says I get to choose what happens to my body, and accept the consequences of same. Law and Morals are entirely separate and not equal.
(edited for clarification and slang usage)
Actually Ophy, morality must, by its very nature, be able to be universalized.
“Law != Morals.”
Ophy, in Ireland abortion is illegal. Does it then follow, by your logic, that abortion is immoral in Ireland? Stated differently, is a woman acting immorally if she undergoes an abortion in Ireland?
Interesting, Ophy. So, I assume that you believe slavery was moral in 1865, as the law stated that black people weren’t persons? And I assume that you fully support the Holocaust, given that Jews weren’t legally people in Hitler’s regime? If legality = morality in your world, then of course you must fully approve of the latter two examples.
Lauren, incorrect. my morals come from a different place than I suspect yours do. I believe different things than you do about the primacy of a living woman’s body vs. a collection of growing cells. (ooh, can’t wait to see the ‘bitter’ comments on that one.) BUT, that doesn’t mean I get to disbelieve in laws, or not obey them, because they conflict with my morals. I may believe (as JoAnna notes above) that’s it’s okay to rob a bank, because i’m gonna donate that money to an anti-abortion group and save a thousand babies! that’s moral! but it’s not legal, and I don’t get to pick what’s legal.
Roe v. Wade is law. What the doctor did or didn’t do in terms of care is morals. And it’s not okay for his morals to take precedence over law.
Please allow me to clarify: != is a hacker-slang construction I should not have used. it says Law DOES NOT = morals.
so yes, Ireland’s law against abortion is, I believe immoral, but I (if I were Irish) could still be prosecuted if I chose not to obey it. Slavery was immoral before 1865 as it is now, but I could still be horsewhipped or hung in the South for assisting slaves to escape.
Interesting, Ophy. So you believe that German doctors in Hitler’s regime were morally obligated to kill Jews if their employer required them to do so?
Where do your morals come from, Ophy?
edit:you addressed this above, while I was writing the comment. nvm.
Yatima – unfortunately churches and “religious” people have caused a great deal of church. It really is a disgrace. Once again, I am sorry about what happened to you.
Well folks, I am leaving this board now and getting ready to enjoy my long holiday weekend. I hope that all of you do the same.
In other words, get off the internet and HAVE SOME FUN!
Why bring up legality at all, Ophe? We all know the current state of the law. When debating the morality of a situation, the current state of the law is of little use.
JoAnna – legally obligated, for whatever sickening reason hitler dreamt up, but that’s not the same thing as morals. Law and Morals are NOT the same. They aren’t and never will be. Laws may be moral or immoral (I think RvW is moral, I’m pretty sure you’d disagree), but that doesn’t change its status as a law.
Then, Ophy, you believe that employees must do what their employers mandate, as long as the behavior is legal, even if they are morally opposed? In other words, you believe that German doctors in Hitler’s regime were indeed justified in killing Jews even if they were personally and/or morally opposed?
Where do your morals come from, Ophy?
From Jesus and Buddha and the Tao and Islam and a few other minor belief systems, most of which seem to be pretty firm on “love the divine in yourself, and be nice to other people”, ignoring the regrettable overlays of people trying to use whatever authority they can find to justify their own twisted worldviews.
You seem to have the relationship between morality and legality reversed. Is abortion immoral in Ireland or Poland? Was it immoral in America prior to 1973?
Nope, I believe firmly that a woman’s body is her own, and an abortion is a completely moral choice. Unfortunately, in the situations mentioned, it wasn’t a legal one.
The doctors were free to make a moral choice and face punishment or death. Many of them did. Many other people did. Some got killed for it, some got away with it. that doesn’t change the fact that those laws existed in Germany at that time. Why is that conceptually difficult for you?
I can make choices for me according to my morals, and accept the consequences of having done so. I can choose to kill other people, but better be able to accept that I’m going to get shot like a dog by a cop for making that choice. I can choose to rob a bank, or embezzle from my employer, but if I get caught, I’m probably going to end up in a tiny room with unpleasant housemates for a while. I can choose to abort a baby, and accept that I’m going to suffer grief, and still know that it’s the best choice for me morally.
I can choose these things because I’m an adult, and understand that there are consequences to my actions. I do not get to make choices for other adults based on my morals. Their actions, and consequences, are theirs.
(edited for paragraphs. dammit.)
“be nice to other people”
How do you square that with “abortion is a completely moral choice”?
Abortion is most certainly not “nice” to the child being torn apart limb by limb.
“I can choose to abort a baby, and accept that I’m going to suffer grief, and still know that it’s the best choice for me morally.”
Based on what moral maxim?
phillymiss-
pro-choicers do not support Gosnell. They don’t support doctors that don’t treat women well, or that violate the Hippocratic oath.
lauren- forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy is not being “nice” to other people either.
Why bring up legality at all, Ophy? We all know the current state of the law. When debating the morality of a situation, the current state of the law is of little use.
From opposite sides of the fence, we agree on this completely (and, I suspect, on more than just the issue at hand.) :) However, the law vs morals issue is an important one, because one of the great thrusts of the pro-life campaign is to turn one group’s set of morals into laws that will affect me, and a lot of other women, very personally.
also, Joanna-
L O L we have CONGRESSMEN that lie in front of congress.
Remember ol’ John Kyl? Stating that 90% of Planned Parenthood’s services are abortion?
full on, straight-up lie. Celebrities are allowed to testify in front of congress, for no real qualifications of their own, and Jill Stanek was allowed to testify in front of congress not because she is an expert in ANY way, but because she was willing to say what her special interest group wanted her to say. She was a puppet, with minimal qualifications, and a large following of simpletons.
“Be nice” is not my moral imperative, Mike. It’s Ophy’s.
“the pro-life campaign is to turn one group’s set of morals into laws that will affect me, and a lot of other women, very personally.”
We are agreed that morals do not necessarily equate to laws. I highlighted the flawed statement. It is not simply “one group’s set of morals.” it is the only logical conclusion that can follow from the facts of the situation.
You seem to be of a more sound head than a lot of the pro-choicers that come here, so I do have hope for a fruitful conversation.
What I want to do is establish what your thought process is that leads from “be nice to people” to “abortion is a moral choice.”
She was a puppet, with minimal qualifications, and a large following of simpletons.
Just out of curiosity… have you read Jill’s story?
Interesting how you continue to visit this “puppet’s” blog, full of “simpletons” you can’t seem to stop interacting with.
But I guess I’d rather be a “simpleton” who believes killing developing preborn children is wrong than an abortion supporter with a superiority complex.
Krys, this event in Mikki’s life shouldn’t have ever been about abortion at all. (Legal abortion pits a healthy mother against a healthy child, and therefore pollutes all doctor/patient/mother/child relationships). It should have been about a medical staff trying to save the life of both mother and child. If the child was lost while trying to save the mother, that is not an abortion. If the child is deliberately killed and then they tried to save the mother, that is abortion. You cannot attack the child, you must try to save the mother. If me and my twin fall overboard and we struggle toward the same small life preserver, should someone throw a brick at my twin so I have a better chance? No. Try to save both, and if you can’t succeed, well, then you can’t.
When abortion is illegal again, ALL doctors will have to do this:
Try to save the mother. Try to save the child. Do not attack the child to save the mother. Do not attack the mother to save the child. If one of them dies while doctors are trying to save them both, that is indeed a terrible tragedy.
“be nice to other people”
How do you square that with “abortion is a completely moral choice”?
Abortion is most certainly not “nice” to the child being torn apart limb by limb.
And here’s where your morals and my morals will part ways, so I’m going to make this statement and leave it. Because I know the audience I’m speaking to, and there is exactly zero point in debating it. :)
TO ME, FOR ME ONLY, AND I KNOW OTHER PEOPLE DON’T THINK THIS WAY, the fetus is a collection of cells. it’s not a living, breathing, thinking anything. It’s like asking me to be nice to my liver. (Actually, I should be nice to my liver, it’s put in yeoman work over the years.)
When I was pregnant at 19, and had my abortion at the end of what would be my first trimester, I experienced no guilt or grief. Just went on with my life, took precautions so that wouldn’t happen again, and have had no lingering emotional effects or trauma or anything else. Because it was a collection of cells that had the potential to be a baby, but it wasn’t a baby. didn’t cry, didn’t move, didn’t have a brain or a heart or anything but a bundle of nerves.
Other living breathing human beings, my friends’ babies, strangers’ kids, the cashier at the supermarket, the people behind the IDs on this board, all deserve my kindness, and my respect for their connection to the divine, and their own freedom to make choices, even if I think they’re bad ones. But a collection of cells, I can’t privilege.
But that’s MY answer to the question. You guys don’t think this way, no other pro-choicers I know think this way, this statement is in no way intended to speak for anyone except me, all legal disclaimers apply.
Lauren, since I know what I wrote above will probably shoot all hope of further rational discussion in the foot, I’d like to thank you and the others of this board also for the level of discussion and the chance to talk without immediate descent into rhetoric. It’s a good reminder that it is possible to find common ground, even between two very inflexible poles. :)
Ninek,
“When abortion is illegal again, ALL doctors will have to do this:
Try to save the mother. Try to save the child. Do not attack the child to save the mother. Do not attack the mother to save the child. If one of them dies while doctors are trying to save them both, that is indeed a terrible tragedy.”
Are you SERIOUS? Women WANT TO LIVE. We have lives, other children, families, friends, social obligations, occupations, dreams, thoughts, ideologies, etc. Women should be able to decide if they wish to give their OWN LIFE to give birth.
Ophy, I understand that it is your belief that a fetus – at the end of the first trimester – is merely a collection of cells with no brain or heart, but biological fact contradicts your belief. Therefore, though you claim you have had no trauma or emotional effects, it appears that you are in denial of the fact that an 11-12 week fetus is far, far more developed than most people realize.
I have an ultrasound of my daughter at 11 weeks gestation. It was my first pregnancy and I did not expect to see a fully formed little human, kicking, moving, and turning on her side, as well as sucking her thumb and moving her mouth, visibly, on the ultrasound. Your description of a late first trimester fetus is simply wrong. Please look at the link I placed above. I understand that telling yourself these false characteristics about the child you carried help you to go on with life without having to consider the humanity of your child. I always cringe when I see someone who has had an abortion say, “It was just a clump of cells.” That tells me the person was not fully informed before having her abortion. Many of the women on these boards have had abortions and later learned the truth. They are here for you should you ever need assistance.
Ophy, if you look at any medical textbook, you will see that your “collection of cells” at the end of the first trimester, could move, and did have a heartbeat. Here is a description of the 9 to 12 weeks of pregnancy:
http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/your-pregnancy-week-by-week-weeks-9-12
Elizabeth – I totally agree, it is really sad to read these comments…
But, you will never get anyone on this blog to actually admit that abortion helps people. You just hear about the fetuses… Oh the poor fetuses… who cares about the women they can die and if they choose to have an abortion rather than die they are sinners and are going to burn in hell….
It is like a fetus cult in here…
Being pro-life is a position I understand completely. It’s a personal choice for many women that they would never get an abortion and can’t understand how anybody else could. These women should not ever be forced to get abortions, which is why pro-choicers (and I think that having done a lot of activism for Planned Parenthood, I can speak with some authority on what pro-choicers tend to argue for) disapprove of compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. A woman whose personal convictions are strongly against abortion should never be forced to get one, because that is what informed consent is all about. That is what bodily autonomy is all about.
When it verges over into anti-choice territory, though, things start getting dodgy. When we start arguing that a pregnant woman is not morally mature enough to be trusted with the decision of whether to stay pregnant? Dodgy.
Furthermore, as far as the whole “life begins at conception” thing, that’s not a scientific or medically-founded point. How do I know this?
Obstetricians define a pregnancy as starting at implantation (which is the point when the zygote sticks to the inside wall of the uterus). They do this because this is the point at which the woman’s body acknowledges that it is pregnant and that it needs to start adjusting.
This isn’t a political stance on their part so that they can help Planned Parenthood get women their whore pills. This is a medical judgement based on when a woman’s body begins to behave “pregnant.” The pregnancy doesn’t start at fertilization, because in many cases the zygote will fail to implant and the woman won’t even know that the egg she’s flushing with this period was fertilized. Spiritual life as you define it begins at fertilization, but the pregnancy doesn’t start until implantation.
I suspect that the medical argument isn’t your primary point, though, so I’ll address the theological angle.
I am always sort of puzzled by the whole allegedly-Biblical view that life begins at conception. I’ve been giving it some thought based on what I remember from the Bible study I did in college and looked some stuff up and wanted to bring what I pulled together.
RE: Life beginning at conception. Yes, I realize that it is Catholic dogma that this is the case. The Catholic Church also only admitted about forty years ago that the Earth revolves around the sun. Are we really going to use them as a science authority? I mean, I guess you can. I won’t be. But this isn’t even a scriptural or Biblically-founded point they are making. That stuff is NOT in the Bible.
So what’s actually in the Bible? When does a human acquire a soul? Well, let’s ask when Adam was alive. When God breathed life into him.
Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
This is why, for a very long time historically, a woman’s fetus was not considered an autonomous human being until it took its first breath. It’s only when science gave us a view into what actually happens in the uterus that Christian churches had to start figuring out when this thing became a human with a soul.
At no point does any secular governing body have any call making law based on who has a soul and who doesn’t. I certainly hope that in this thread we can agree on that much. However, for those Biblical literalists who care more about getting on Santa’s Nice List than they do about what godless obstetricians say, I refer you back to Genesis. A fetus is a baby when it takes its first breath. Even Adam wasn’t human before that.
Surprise surprise, Bible-thumping anti-choicers need to lern2Bible before pulling out their half-understood regurgitated dogma. Unless you’re a Roman Catholic, your own Iron Age obstetrics manual (harr harr) points out that breath is life. Even the word “spirit” in Hebrew means “breath.”
“There is a spirit [Hebrew, ruach, breath] in man: and the inspiration [breathing in] of the Almighty gives them understanding. … The spirit [Hebrew, ruach, breath] of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life.” -Job 32:8 and 33:4.
So seriously, to the “life at conception cuz YHWH said so” regurgitating fundies: go get some formal Bible education and then come back and tell me what it says.
It’s probably obvious that the Biblical view doesn’t actually hold any water with me. I prefer to use obstetrics texts that were written after the advent of modern medicine. However, I know there are a lot of people who do care about what the Bible says about what we are, who we are, and how we should live. I also know that many such people haven’t had opportunity to actually sit down and do formal study of this book that rules their lives, and have to simply believe what church authorities and their parents tell them is true.
So yeah. If you want to decide how to live based on what the Bible says, I’m gonna think you’re a little nuts, but at least find out what’s in the book before you start making decisions and constricting the decisions of others and make sure that it’s really telling you what you’ve been TOLD it tells you.
The doctors were free to make a moral choice and face punishment or death. Many of them did. Many other people did. Some got killed for it, some got away with it. that doesn’t change the fact that those laws existed in Gernany at that time. Why is that conceptually difficult for you?
In other words, in your view the Holocaust was entirely justified because the people involved believed they were acting morally, and because it was legal to kill Jews at that time and in that place.
Okay then. Good to know. I can’t say I give too much credence to your personal moral code if it allows you to justify the Holocaust.
Mike – so all Congressional testimony is worthless, and everyone lies to Congress to further their own agenda. You must also believe that every word of testimony that Planned Parenthood has given before Congress is also a lie. Given that, how can you support them? They have told Congress that they support women and provide needed healthcare, but you’ve just said this was a lie, since it was said before Congress.
Biggz – Women deserve better than abortion. So do children.
Kel – thanks so much for the “explanation,” but Dad is a biologist, and Mom is a teacher. While not a scientist myself (stupid math dyslexia), i *love* science writing and Nova and Cosmos and Lewis Thomas essays and Richard Feynman books, and my Discover and SciAm subscriptions. I adored Thomas’s conception of the world as a single organism, and his relation of music to math and astronomy.
I was one of those kids who actually preferred public TV to cartoons. And I thought the TV shows and that photographic series on stages of pregnancy was both fascinating and aesthetically beautiful. (I also think Body Worlds, while ooky at first, is amazing art.)
It’s a clump of cells with potential. It’s more genetically interesting than a virus or a tumor. But it’s not a baby. And I’m not a poor helpless girl who was led astray by doctors. Excellent attempt at taking my agency away from me, though.
I don’t believe life begins at conception because the Bible tells me so. I believe it because scientifically, it is true. Also, read here about the zygote.
Philosophy and theology don’t even need to enter the equation. Are you aware that there are atheist and agnostic pro-lifers as well as non-Christian, religious ones?
Why is the immediate response to this story “Let’s see how we can pick it apart, discredit it, and cast the woman telling it as dishonest”? Why not, at the very least, “I’m terribly sorry that she lost her child and had such a traumatic health crisis,” or “The health professionals at that hospital treated her terribly”? Why not assume, at the very least for the sake of argument, that the story is true, and ask how we can ensure that pregnant women can get proper medical treatment while also respecting the lives of their children? If we believe that it’s really possible to do both, then we should be able to handle listening to this story and figuring out what needs to change for women like Ms. Kendall to get better care.
I just don’t understand why a woman who lost a child and nearly died has to be cast as an enemy.
No one’s taking away your “agency” here, Ophy. But the fact remains that you are dead wrong in your description of a first trimester fetus. So, maybe you should have watched more Nova growing up.
The doctors were free to make a moral choice and face punishment or death. Many of them did. Many other people did. Some got killed for it, some got away with it. that doesn’t change the fact that those laws existed in Gernany at that time. Why is that conceptually difficult for you?
In other words, in your view the Holocaust was entirely justified because the people involved believed they were acting morally, and because it was legal to kill Jews at that time and in that place.
Okay then. Good to know. I can’t say I give too much credence to your personal moral code if it allows you to justify the Holocaust.
This is so ridiculously and deliberately misconstrued that it made me LOL. Thanks for the Godwin. Bored now.
Biggz, your contempt for those of the pro-life, religious persuasion is duly noted.
Perhaps you might want to choose less inflammatory words in the future or you risk being banned from the “fetus cult.”
Ophy,
Just a general comment: You’ve handled yourself beautifully in this debate :)
I suspect that the medical argument isn’t your primary point, though, so I’ll address the theological angle.
And that’s where you’d be absolutely wrong.
But as far as the science goes, please tell me how a human life ending naturally by failing to implant/genetic disease/accident is the same as a mother making a conscious decision/choice to end the life of her child either via an abortion or Andrea Yates-style. I fail to see your point, and I’m sorry but from my perspective the “science” you’ve provided seems like just sound and fury signifying nothing.
From my own experience I can tell you that IF the pregnancy is no longer viable… as is suggested by the writer… even a Catholic Hospital will “remove the foreign tissue” in order to prevent rupture and/or hemmorage which would endanger the mother.
I had it done twice – at a Catholic hospital each time.
This is why, taking the writer at her word, a doctor that acted to sacrifice the mother’s life for a pregnancy which was no longer viable should be prosecuted and removed from practice. THIS is why I want to know WHO he is and if there is litigation or criminal prosecution pending. THERE SHOULD BE!
But that’s a lot of IFs… which I think is what the prolife contingent is getting at here…
So – If the pregnancy *was* still viable why didn’t she choose the alternative treatment? If the answer is either incovenience, discomfort or fear, THAT’S got prolifers in a twist.
OPHY: “the fetus is a collection of cells.”
Right, so you don’t care to have a discussion based on facts. You are only interested in saying what you think, even though what you think is contradictory within your own moral system.
It is easy to win a moral argument when your system is built retrospectively. Simply pick and choose stand alone beliefs, regardless of contradiction, that justify the thing you want to believe.
You want to believe that abortion is justified, so you simply come up with an arbitrary system to justify it. For example, you claim that a fetus is a collection of cells, so it is okay to harm it, yet all living beings are collection of cells and you argue that you must NOT harm them. This is a contradiction.
You also argue that a fetus is not a “living” thing, lacking a heart and brain, which is absolutely false based on demonstrable science. Even so, there are humans with no hearts (artificial hearts) that you believe deserve kindness. Again, your system contradicts itself.
Additionally, and I could go on and on, you claim that a fetus is not a “thinking” being, and THUS does not deserve to be treated well. This is something you believe despite that you (likely) believe that severely handicapped humans, who lack the ability to truly think, deserve kindness, or at least to not be ripped apart callously by his/her caretaker.
I mean, you yourself openly admit that your system is completely unlike any other system. To me, this smacks of an implicit understanding of its invalidity. I mean, if you do not believe your system is applicable to any body else, why even talk about it? I mean, abortion doesn’t involve only you, so why should a moral system applying to you alone be the arbiter of justice?
(In short, if you don’t believe in any sort of universal morality, contingent or non-contingent, then why even argue with someone? Why try to enact legislation? Why do anything other than vote your opinion if you openly admit that your arguments are only meaningful to yourself?)
Just a general comment: You’ve handled yourself beautifully in this debate
Yes. The “Nanny-nanny boo-boo, I’m not listening! *sticks fingers in ears*” form of debating tactics have always been fascinating to me, as well. 9_9
Yes. The “Nanny-nanny boo-boo, I’m not listening! *sticks fingers in ears*” form of debating tactics have always been fascinating to me, as well. 9_9
Haha!
Yeah, it’s always fun when you’re debating someone who totally ignores reality and invents their own.
Hi Oliver!
Xalisae,
Actually, I was referring to the fact that she never rose to any of the baiting tactics that you’re so fond of :)
Me: The doctors were free to make a moral choice and face punishment or death. Many of them did. Many other people did. Some got killed for it, some got away with it. that doesn’t change the fact that those laws existed in Germany at that time. Why is that conceptually difficult for you?
JoAnna: In other words, in your view the Holocaust was entirely justified because the people involved believed they were acting morally, and because it was legal to kill Jews at that time and in that place
Joanna: Okay then. Good to know. I can’t say I give too much credence to your personal moral code if it allows you to justify the Holocaust.
Me: This is so ridiculously and deliberately misconstrued that it made me LOL.
(edited to add to comment, which was eaten dammit.)
I’ve changed my mind and am going to engage, perhaps foolishly, this logical pretzel you’ve twisted in an attempt to prove me wrong.
In small words: Law and Morals are different.
Law is an attempt to codify group Morals and enforce desired behaviour with rewards or punishment. But they’re still different.
Law can make humans less human, as you have so eloquently Godwinned. That’s immoral. But it’s not illegal.
Laws can make corporations equivalent to humans. I think that’s immoral, personally. But the Supreme Court said it wasn’t illegal.
Laws can give me the right to choose whether or not to have medical procedures performed. I can refuse transfusions not only for myself, but for a child of mine, because it’s against my religion. I may have strong feelings about the morality of refusing life-saving medical treatment in favor of prayer, but it’s not (currently) illegal.
Laws do not equal Morals.
I can choose to do things about Laws. I can live under them, or work to change them, or I can defy them. I can expect consequences to occur for each of those options. But I cannot do anything about anyone’s Morals and the choices based on them, except my own. And you don’t get to do anything about the choices I make, based on your Morals, because they aren’t mine.
Are we all clear now?
(edited for html. Damn, this interface is frustrating.)
“I just don’t understand why a woman who lost a child and nearly died has to be cast as an enemy.”
She’s not cast as the enemy, but because she is using her story to support abortion on demand, we are asking for clarifications to make sure that the picture she’s painting is an accurate representation of her case.
”
Furthermore, as far as the whole “life begins at conception” thing, that’s not a scientific or medically-founded point. How do I know this?
Obstetricians define a pregnancy as starting at implantation (which is the point when the zygote sticks to the inside wall of the uterus). They do this because this is the point at which the woman’s body acknowledges that it is pregnant and that it needs to start adjusting.
This isn’t a political stance on their part so that they can help Planned Parenthood get women their whore pills. This is a medical judgement based on when a woman’s body begins to behave “pregnant.” The pregnancy doesn’t start at fertilization, because in many cases the zygote will fail to implant and the woman won’t even know that the egg she’s flushing with this period was fertilized. Spiritual life as you define it begins at fertilization, but the pregnancy doesn’t start until implantation.”
This is actually not a true statement. The medical definition of pregnancy changed in the 1960’s when hormonal contraception came into being. In order for it to classified as “contraception” instead of “abortificient” the medical definition had to be changed. This does not change the biological fact that a new, unique human life begins at conception.
Ophy, the Wikipedia article on Godwin’s Law states:
Godwin’s law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent’s argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.
You said: “Law can make humans less human, as you have so eloquently Godwinned. That’s immoral. But it’s not illegal.”
Exactly! And current US law has deemed that unborn children are less human, even though they are not. Therefore, how can you say that pro-lifers are not justified in trying to change US law to recognize that the unborn are, in fact, human beings?
Furthermore, as far as the whole “life begins at conception” thing, that’s not a scientific or medically-founded point.
*sigh* I will never understand why pro-choicers are so anti-science.
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
Oliver: Arguing that an in-utero fetus is a living separate human being is like arguing that my liver should be emancipated.
It is easy to win a moral argument when your system is built retrospectively. Simply pick and choose stand alone beliefs, regardless of contradiction, that justify the thing you want to believe.
So, your belief system was implanted pre-birth, was it? or was it the product of your education and raising? or what you read and saw later in life? Isn’t faith, by definition, believing what is contradictory or un-provable? ooh, i LOVE this argument!
You want to believe that abortion is justified, so you simply come up with an arbitrary system to justify it. For example, you claim that a fetus is a collection of cells, so it is okay to harm it, yet all living beings are collection of cells and you argue that you must NOT harm them. This is a contradiction.
I believe I stated up front that I don’t think most people think like me about this. All living beings are collections of cells. But some of those cells (like, say, a tapeworm, or a mosquito) are separate from me, and some (like my liver, or an implanted zygote) aren’t. And hey, even the Dalai Lama agreed that it’s okay to swat mosquitoes, as long as you’re mindful of what you’re doing.
Good grief Ophy! Why do you glory in sounding like an ignoramus? At the end of the first trimester the baby has a HEARTBEAT that actually started at about 3 weeks. The baby has a BRAIN with brain waves that were measurable by week 5. The baby has arms and legs that formed about week 4 and fingers and toes that formed about week 6. The baby has a face that by the end of the first trimester has discernible family features (like daddy’s big nose or mommy’s big chin or grandpa’s small forehead etc…) The baby starts moving by the end of the first month and by the end of the 3rd month is making deliberate, calculated movements and even sucking his/her thumb. But keep believing it was a bunch of cells, collections of nerves and not moving. You choose to be ignorant. You choose to sound uneducated. Congrats. This is not the middle ages. You can readily access and see information these days. There is not excuse for spewing ridiculous, untrue statements about fetal development in this day and age. We know the earth is round now too. Did you know that? Or do you still subscribe to the flat earth theory?
Cobalt, Biggaz, Mike — who is talking about religion here? You’re the ones who are bringing it up.
Also, this has been an absolutely fascinating discussion, and allowed me to clarify some of my own morals, in my own head. So thank you all for that. :) and now, I need to get on with my actual workday…
“She’s not cast as the enemy, but because she is using her story to support abortion on demand, we are asking for clarifications to make sure that the picture she’s painting is an accurate representation of her case.”
That’s not how it comes across when people are saying they don’t think she’s telling the truth, that she just didn’t want to deal with bed rest, that maybe she wasn’t really committed to having this child, etc. Suppose that the details were exactly the same, except that the article had been written by a pro-life woman who was told by doctors that she had to abort, but then later came to doubt whether that was true. Would people be making the same assumptions? Would they feel bad if they later found out that she was telling the truth and that they’d cast aspersions on someone who went through a tragedy?
JoAnna,
Just as Prolifers’ opinions vary, as do the opinions of Prochoicers. I’m not anti-science at all – I believe that life begins at conception and that it has the POTENTIAL to become a person. Is that life human? Absolutely. Is it a person? Absolutely not.
If you consult The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the very first article states:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
All people are BORN. The semantics over where life begins, etc, is rather irrelevant to the larger picture. Regardless of when life begins, we don’t allow others to use another person’s body against their will. This is why we prosecute rapists. So even if the fetus IS determined a human being or even a person, IT STILL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE WOMAN’S BODY AGAINST HER WILL.
Perhaps in a few years, science will develop a means of removing an embryo/fetus from a woman’s uterus and placing it into an artificial womb where it can fulfill its potential and become a person – but until then, women have the absolute RIGHT to ensure that their body remains their own.
Elizabeth,
So, just to be sure I’m clear on your position, your opinion is that a fetus is not a person until the moment s/he has emerged from the womb?
Also, the bodily autonomy argument doesn’t hold water. In 99% of cases, the partners freely consented to sex. Sex is the biological act meant to create babies. If people are not prepared for the natural consequence of the sex act, they should exercise their free choice not to engage in it. Otherwise, they need to accept responsibility for those natural consequences. It is not the child’s fault that the circumstances of his/her conception were not carefully thought out by his/her biological parents.
OH, dammit, one more, and you’ll like it.
JoAnna: Exactly! And current US law has deemed that unborn children are less human, even though they are not. Therefore, how can you say that pro-lifers are not justified in trying to change US law to recognize that the unborn are, in fact, human beings?
Laws do not equal Morals.
I can choose to do things about Laws. I can live under them, or work to change them, or I can defy them. I can expect consequences to occur for each of those options. But I cannot do anything about anyone’s Morals and the choices based on them, except my own. And you don’t get to do anything personally to me about the choices I make, based on your Morals, because they aren’t mine.
You go girl, work to get that law changed. I’ll work to keep it the way it is. :)
(edited for clarity of expression.)
Oh my, Oliver just joined the conversation.
Now if Bambino can come on board, we’ll have the “Logic Brigade” in full gear.
JoAnna,
My personal opinion, yes, but as stated, I believe it’s rather irrelevant to the larger issue. Regardless of whether or not we grant embryos/fetuses personhood, they still haven’t the right to utilize a woman’s body against her will.
Ophy,
So, it is your opinion that people should not work to change unjust laws?
I’m very glad that abolitionists did not share your opinion.
Elizabeth,
Interesting. So do you believe that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is an unjust law, and anyone who kills a pregnant woman should not be prosecuted for the murder of the baby, even if the woman was 38 weeks pregnant?
JoAnna,
Just because someone consents to sex -especially considering the limited amount of sexual education in America – doesn’t mean that they consent to being pregnant. Condoms break, birth control fails, and there is NO 100 % effective method of birth control aside from abstinence which isn’t realistic. Sex is used for NUMEROUS different reasons and procreation is just one.
While you may disagree, abortion, adoption, parenthood, are ALL responsible options to pregnancy.
JoAnna,
I don’t think the law is unjust but rather misguided. The person who kills a pregnant woman (if premeditated) should be convicted of murder 1, I think the bill means well – to protect women from violent offenders – but the logic is skewed.
there is NO 100 % effective method of birth control aside from abstinence
Precisely! That’s why consent to sex carries an implicit consent to the natural consequence of that act. If the sex WORKS, and creates a child as it is meant to, then the parties who consented to the act that created that child have the responsibility to care for it, just as parents who give birth to or adopt a child have the responsibility (enforced by the government) to care for it.
I’m sorry but I will never agree that the brutal dismemberment of a healthy, living child is a responsible option in response to a crisis pregnancy. It is a violation of the right of a human being (who is also a person, because one’s location alone does not establish one’s personhood).
Also, why don’t you think the law is unjust? If it stipulates charging a person with two murders when in your view only one was killed, don’t you think that is inherently unjust? If not, why not?
I believe it’s rather irrelevant to the larger issue. Regardless of whether or not we grant embryos/fetuses personhood, they still haven’t the right to utilize a woman’s body against her will.
It’s quite relevant. Once they are considered a person (as they should be), it would logically follow that that person is the pregnant woman’s biological child. A biological parent who has default custody is required to provide anything for his/her child they might require in order to sustain that child’s life. In this case it would entail nutrients/oxygen from his/her mother and the residence to remain safe and healthy.
I’m sorry but I will never agree that the brutal dismemberment of a healthy, living child is a responsible option in response to a crisis pregnancy. It is a violation of the right of a human being (who is also a person, because one’s location alone does not establish one’s personhood).
Word.
Elizabeth quote me,
“When abortion is illegal again, ALL doctors will have to do this:
Try to save the mother. Try to save the child. Do not attack the child to save the mother. Do not attack the mother to save the child. If one of them dies while doctors are trying to save them both, that is indeed a terrible tragedy.”
Then added:
Are you SERIOUS? Women WANT TO LIVE. We have lives, other children, families, friends, social obligations, occupations, dreams, thoughts, ideologies, etc. Women should be able to decide if they wish to give their OWN LIFE to give birth.
Elizabeth, you obviously did not read even what you quoted from me. Please reread what I said again. There is no reason to do violence to a child to save the mother. Both lives are valuable. If the child is removed from the mother in the process of trying to save the mother’s life, that is where we differ:
Abortion is deliberately killing that child.
Medical treatment is doing what you can for the child, who may not survive.
Can you really not see the difference? This is why abortion has got to go. It pits a mother and father against their own child, as if life is some kind of competition, some kind of death match. It’s not. ”Social obligations” are not a justification for murder. Neither are dreams, thoughts, or idealogies. If abortion had never been legalized, Mikki would be telling a story about how her privacy was invaded by students and her pain left un-addressed by doctors/nurses. Instead, her tragic story is now a political football. This is the poison that is elective abortion. It has polluted Mikki’s thoughts and yours and every other person on the planet who believes that it should be ok for a mother to decide the life or death of her child. Pro-choice idealogy is poison. It is toxic to the human race.
JoAnna, if you look more closely at my response to you above, you will see I am absolutely in support of you working to change the legal system, because those are your chosen actions, based on your morals.
That doesn’t mean I’m not going to work to keep the laws the way they are, because that is what my morals dictate to me. :)
But I privilege individual agency, informed choice, and freedom above just about everything else. I believe that you are an informed adult human, who ought to make her own choices about her own life and her own body (and sorry, I’m assuming the ‘her’, so please don’t take it amiss.)
Would you grant me the same respect, if the situation were reversed? or would you believe that you had the right to make my choices for me?
Also, Elizabeth, well done, keep calm & carry on. :D
And now, I REALLY need to get some actual work done…
Oliver: Arguing that an in-utero fetus is a living separate human being is like arguing that my liver should be emancipated.
No. It is like arguing that two surgically connected humans are still individual human beings. Easy example, conjoined twins. Physical connection is completely meaningless. A living organism is not defined as “not physically connected to another living thing.” If you fail to see the difference between two separate organisms, then you are essentially just making stuff up.
So, your belief system was implanted pre-birth, was it? or was it the product of your education and raising? or what you read and saw later in life? Isn’t faith, by definition, believing what is contradictory or un-provable? ooh, i LOVE this argument!
Well my belief system is based on rationality a priori, not empiricism a posteriori, so I supposed you could say it was “implanted pre-birth.” I discovered it by empirical evaluation, but it was always there. What does faith have to do with my moral belief system? Besides, you don’t even need a rational belief system to recognize that logical contradictions are problems. Have you never thought “A fetus is not a person because it does not think like a person! But hmm…most infants don’t think like persons either. A ha! I have a contradiction in my system! Either a fetus is a person, an infant is NOT a person, or maybe there is some other consideration outside of thinking. Etc. Etc…”
I believe I stated up front that I don’t think most people think like me about this. All living beings are collections of cells. But some of those cells (like, say, a tapeworm, or a mosquito) are separate from me, and some (like my liver, or an implanted zygote) aren’t.
How do you square that with conjoined twins? Are they not persons? Or, what if I removed your liver and attached you to my own liver as a life support system? Would you be a person then? I am pretty sure you are confusing personhood with right to use my body.
I don’t believe life begins at conception because the Bible tells me so. I believe it because scientifically, it is true. Also, read here about the zygote.
Philosophy and theology don’t even need to enter the equation. Are you aware that there are atheist and agnostic pro-lifers as well as non-Christian, religious ones?
Kel, I agree that life is there at conception, that the zygote is a “human being” – a broad use of the term but still undeniably true. (A less-inclusive and more applicable use of the term with respect to the abortion debate would be in the sense of “legal human being,” since that’s what’s really at issue – just a side note, there.)
Anyway, okay – we agree on the physical reality of the unborn, the scientific facts. Now what? Doesn’t Philosophy (which really includes religion or not) have to then come into play?
Great thread here.
stop being interesting. Oliver, I think that’s a fascinating question, and I have to think about it for a while. Will you give me leave to come back and answer you later?
Edited. There is no swearing allowed here Ophy
Just because someone consents to sex -especially considering the limited amount of sexual education in America – doesn’t mean that they consent to being pregnant
Just because a women consents to pregnancy, does not mean she consents to parenthood. So does a mother have the right to kill her child after birth? Hypothetical: If a pregnant woman, who does not consent to parenthood, has her child at home during a snow in, is she morally responsible to care for the child? If there is no possibility to feed the child other than by nursing, is she responsible to nurse the child until the snow clears up?
Would you grant me the same respect, if the situation were reversed? or would you believe that you had the right to make my choices for me?
Ophy, I absolutely believe that you have the right, both legally and morally, to make your own choices about your own life and your own body . However, I absolutely disagree that you or anyone can make the choice to kill someone else and to destroy someone else’s body, which is exactly what abortion is, hence why I and others are working to change that.
I understand you are working to change laws to conform to your own moral beliefs, and I’m glad you understand that I, and other pro-lifers, have the right to do so. That is why I’m confused about this earlier statement of yours: “Your morality isn’t hers. Your morality isn’t anyone’s but yours. Nor is it your place to play judge. And jury. And, if you’d had your way, or the doctor had had his, executioner.”
It seems to imply that pro-lifers should not be working to change laws to conform to what we believe to be both justice and morality.
By the way, I am a “her.” :) I also am the proud mother of an 11-week-old baby, whose separate and complete body is currently growing in my womb; he or she is due to be born in December 2011. I had an ultrasound a few weeks ago and I could see my beautiful child waving his/her arms. It was a lovely sight. My other three children are looking forward to their new sibling!
Doesn’t Philosophy (which really includes religion or not) have to then come into play?
Sure it does. I’ll start. All living human organisms are deserving of basic human rights out of universality or empathy. You already believe this because you believe that the most useless, and therefore most helpless, humans are deserving of the most protection. Think infants, (severely) mentally handicapped, elderly, etc etc. Why do you think this? Infants have no true rational faculties. so it must be something else. The reason, I propose, is that humans are are able to put themselves in the shoes of other humans. We extend aid and help to these other humans because if we were in their place, we would want help, regardless of whether we would know we would want this help. So, despite that a fetus is unable to rationally wish to not be killed, we know that if we were in that position, we would want to not be killed.
If it is hard to wrap your head around that, think of it like this. If a wizard were going to turn you into a fetus, but you could outline some basic necessities, wouldn’t you wish that you get food, water, shelter, and wish to not specifically to be killed? Don’t you agree that, regardless of being attached to another person, that as a fetus you would deserve those things?
Here is an alternative idea I have been bouncing around. Maybe the issue has nothing to do with personhood. Maybe the issue strictly has to do with whether all humans deserve basic amenities and protection. So, an infant ISN’T a person, but it deserves to be fed, cared for, etc. Seems to me it has to be either/or. I mean, really, how on earth is a fetus that much more different than an infant?
JoAnna said: I understand you are working to change laws to conform to your own moral beliefs, and I’m glad you understand that I, and other pro-lifers, have the right to do so. That is why I’m confused about this earlier statement of yours: “Your morality isn’t hers. Your morality isn’t anyone’s but yours. Nor is it your place to play judge. And jury. And, if you’d had your way, or the doctor had had his, executioner.”
You know, i was feeling annoyed and hyperbolic when I wrote that. To clarify: your morals are yours, and you gotta act how you’re gonna act based on those. But your right to swing your fist stops at my nose, to use another allegory. What I meant was, work to change the legal system, but don’t personally enforce your morals on my body. That doctor in Mikki’s case, by refusing treatment based on his morals, caused someone else physical agony, and could have killed her.
Congratulations to you on your wanted pregnancy. :) My friends are having rashes of babies and have been for the last year, so I’ve been getting to play ‘Auntie’ all over the place. (and I get to hand them back when they’re crying and stinky. Awesome!)
Oliver,
I have empathy for non-humans, too. That’s why I have a house full of previously-homeless, formerly hungry animals.
But no matter what, empathy is an example of human exceptionalism. If we can’t feel for our own kind, we are no better than animals.
Dammit, stop being interesting. Oliver, I think that’s a fascinating question, and I have to think about it for a while. Will you give me leave to come back and answer you later?
Sure, but only if you honestly evaluate yourself and the way you truly think of things. Don’t just try to find some sort of loophole. (Besides, plenty have tried to find loopholes before. It really doesn’t work in this case.)
As a starting point for your introspection, keep in mind that we are strictly arguing whether a fetus is a person despite that it is physically not independent. We are not arguing whether the fetus has the right to use the mother’s body, despite that it may be a person.
But your right to swing your fist stops at my nose, to use another allegory.
Just so, your right to do what you want with your own body stops where the baby’s body begins.
I don’t agree with you on Mikki’s case as of yet because of the inconsistencies in her story, as noted above. I’ve never heard of a case where abortion was necessary to treat a placental abruption, or a legitimate OB-GYN who wouldn’t treat a bleeding pregnant woman (I have, however, heard of many abortionists who refused to treat a bleeding post-abortive patient.)
We are having a rash of babies among my friends and family. My sister had a baby girl about a month ago, and my stepsister adopted a beautiful baby boy around the same time. He is such a blessing to our family and we’re all so thankful that his birthmother chose not to kill him.
“Doesn’t Philosophy (which really includes religion or not) have to then come into play?”
Sure it does. I’ll start. All living human organisms are deserving of basic human rights out of universality or empathy. You already believe this because you believe that the most useless, and therefore most helpless, humans are deserving of the most protection. Think infants, (severely) mentally handicapped, elderly, etc etc. Why do you think this? Infants have no true rational faculties. so it must be something else. The reason, I propose, is that humans are are able to put themselves in the shoes of other humans. We extend aid and help to these other humans because if we were in their place, we would want help, regardless of whether we would know we would want this help. So, despite that a fetus is unable to rationally wish to not be killed, we know that if we were in that position, we would want to not be killed.
Hey Oliver. : )
Okay, first of all – yeah – my point at first was that it’s not just “science,” but rather our philosophies that is the abortion debate.
I don’t see it as coming down to “useless” or not. I agree than infants are not rational. I do think that infants (in all but a tiny amount of cases) can suffer, though, and as such I have empathy for them. I have empathy for pregnant women. I don’t think that the unborn can suffer, to a point in gestation. I don’t think that empathy is really possible, there – empathy meaning to identify with the feelings of others. If there are no feelings there in the first place, there can’t be empathy.
What I see is many people personifying the unborn. That’s fine by me, but it doesn’t outweigh the pregnant woman, IMO, who is most definitely there with feelings.
Putting ourselves in the place of the fetus – if my mom had had an abortion, there would never have been a “me” to feel, have emotions, to know or care about anything. There would have been a “living human organism” there, sure, a “human being” under a broad use of the term, but I don’t think the “somebody” was present yet, as far as personality, cognizance, etc.
Good grief. Am I the only one who’s noticed that a new nest of “Concern Troll” eggs must have hatched? Heavens, there are lots of them in this particular swarm…
My friendly advice, y’all: pick and choose the ones to whom you reply carefully; many of these newcomers are simply here to vent, rile up people, and flame… not to have any civil exchange of ideas. Let the trolls run themselves out and leave, like a swarm of locusts that’ll move on when the food runs out. I suspect it’ll be far easier on the blood pressures and heart rates, all around, that way…
in all but a tiny amount of cases
So humans that cannot feel pain don’t count? This is a real problem. There are people born without the ability to feel pain. When they are infants, they don’t really experience emotional pain since they are not rational. So do these people not count? What about a hypothetical purely rational being? What if a person were able to void themselves of physical pain and emotional pain and simply exist as a rational mind within a human body. Would you honestly say that this person…is not a person? Do you mean to imply that pain is what makes us humans worthy of care and nurture?
That’s fine by me, but it doesn’t outweigh the pregnant woman
This is irrelevant. You are confusing whether the fetus has any rights with whether the fetus has the specific right to use its mother’s body. If it helps you, imagine the fetus is grown in a test tube in an artificial womb from the future.
Putting ourselves in the place of the fetus – if my mom had had an abortion, there would never have been a “me” to feel, have emotions
I knew this would be confusing for people. You are considering how you feel about being a fetus from your current perspective. Go to the wizard analogy to better understand. If the wizard planned to turn you into a fetus and asked which things you would like, wouldn’t ask for food/water/food and to not be killed? Empathy isn’t just trying to experience someone’s feelings. That is a very narrow definition. I mean empathy to mean imagining yourself in a different position and what you would want to happen to yourself in that position from your current perspective.
Sup Paladin.
Congratulations to you on your wanted pregnancy
Well, my son’s birthmom, obviously experienced an unwanted pregnancy. But my son is 20 now and though we’ve had some rocky times, he’s doing fine now, thank you. He and his girlfriend are expecting their own little boy (not the best situation in the world, but I won’t go there now). An unwanted pregnancy doesn’t necessarily result in an unwanted child.
The only responsible options to pregnancy are:
1) the mother raises the child, or
2) another family or person raises the child
Murder is not a “parenting option” nor should it be. I am sorry for people who’s minds have been so poisoned that they think life is a competition between children and parents. As members of the human race, we should be fighting to help each other, not fighting for the ‘choice’ to kill each other.
Greetings, Oliver! :)
“your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.”
Funny, this exact argument can be used to oppose abortion. Your right to control your body stops when another human being is involved.
Congratulations to you on your wanted pregnancy
You know what’s interesting about this statement? To be completely honest, this wasn’t really a “wanted” pregnancy. My youngest is just 14 months old, and my husband and I had been planning on postponing pregnancy for a while longer, as we’d been hoping to fly to my home state to visit my family this summer. However, we’re NFP users, and we jointly made the decision to have sex when I was potentially fertile, knowing that pregnancy could result. During my luteal phase I was hoping the test wouldn’t be positive, but it was.
Now that we have an unpaid maternity leave coming up in December, we can’t afford to go on the trips we’d planned for this summer, nor will my husband get the new computer he wanted. Plus, finances are going to get tighter with 3 in daycare.
You know what, though? Even though this pregnancy isn’t exactly what I wanted right now, I’m nonetheless very much in love with this baby and am eagerly awaiting his/her arrival. The fact that the pregnancy wasn’t exactly wanted has no bearing whatsoever on our love for our child, or his/her status as a living, growing human person.
Beth @ 2:39 said: Just so you guys are clear, Salon did not pay Mikki for her article. It had been published elsewhere (on her blog!), and they don’t pay for reprints. Stop making things up without knowing the truth.
Beth – is there something you need to share with us? I mean, do you factually know Mikki was not paid for the article? Are you on Salon’s editorial staff that dealt specifically with Mikki’s submission? Or are you Mikki’s lawyer? I hardly think authors make in-kind donations of their expressive works to publishing companies which profit from revenue generation via ads, subscriptions and the like.
If Mikki did donate her article to Salon – that simply proves my point regarding motive.
My understanding from Salon’s article submissions page was web page writings do not constitute reprints, which are generated from a particular publishing source. Generally, a publisher doesn’t like to pay for an article published elsewhere, however, an author is entitled to all rights and usage of their own content, because they own the copyright(s). Publishing rights and licenses can be sold, completely detached from full transfer of ownership of copyright.
Lastly – let’s talk about “making things up” – Salon doesn’t solicit fiction or poetry. This indicates 2 very important pieces of information: 1) they purchase articles; and 2) their editorial staff should verify the factual nature of the submission, however, their acceptance agreement very likely has an indemnification clause that guards them against their failure to do so.
We would like nothing better than full disclosure – the factual truth, about Mikki’s incident and what she believes about the “baby” she aborted. I’ve provided solid reasoning and evidence for believing what I do – your turn.
Chris- her piece was originally published at Angry Black Woman (here: http://theangryblackwoman.com/2011/05/24/abortion-saved-my-life/) and on her blog, which is why it wasn’t paid. I am not her lawyer or on their editorial staff (I wish!). I happen to know her personally and spoke to her about it before it was published, which is why I know it wasn’t paid. I believe they contacted her to ask to reprint it- reprints don’t get paid. That’s what she, personally, told me, though you’re welcome to believe whatever you want.
“in all but a tiny amount of cases”
So humans that cannot feel pain don’t count? This is a real problem. There are people born without the ability to feel pain. When they are infants, they don’t really experience emotional pain since they are not rational. So do these people not count? What about a hypothetical purely rational being? What if a person were able to void themselves of physical pain and emotional pain and simply exist as a rational mind within a human body. Would you honestly say that this person…is not a person? Do you mean to imply that pain is what makes us humans worthy of care and nurture?
Oliver, I was thinking of an anencephalic infant. The cognizant beings you mention – I would indeed see them as “people.”
____
” That’s fine by me, but it doesn’t outweigh the pregnant woman, IMO, who is most definitely there with feelings.”
This is irrelevant. You are confusing whether the fetus has any rights with whether the fetus has the specific right to use its mother’s body. If it helps you, imagine the fetus is grown in a test tube in an artificial womb from the future.
I maintain that it is our consideration of both the baby and the woman that is relevant. The test-tube baby is a good example, to isolate it for consideration, but wow does that ever change things. Personally, I don’t know about “test-tube babies.” I think this would be like cloned babies – I’m talking about before they were sentient. Or mass-produced babies from the “zygote machine” – just how would we treat them? Good question.
___
“Putting ourselves in the place of the fetus – if my mom had had an abortion, there would never have been a “me” to feel, have emotions, to know or care about anything. ”
I knew this would be confusing for people. You are considering how you feel about being a fetus from your current perspective. Go to the wizard analogy to better understand. If the wizard planned to turn you into a fetus and asked which things you would like, wouldn’t ask for food/water/food and to not be killed? Empathy isn’t just trying to experience someone’s feelings. That is a very narrow definition. I mean empathy to mean imagining yourself in a different position and what you would want to happen to yourself in that position from your current perspective.
Talk about “confusing…” ; ) First we have “You are considering how you feel about being a fetus from your current perspective.” Then later it’s “what you would want to happen to yourself in that position (being a fetus) from your current perspective.” Anyway….
If we were in that position, we would not have our current perspective, we would not have any such perceptions at all. If the wizard turned us into fetuses, would we then be born, in your example, and in-effect “re-start” learning, etc? If so, that wouldn’t be the same “us” anymore – even with the same DNA, our experiences and personalities would work out differently. It wouldn’t be the same “yourself” that resulted, aside from the genes. How would this even be different from dying and being reincarnated, for example?
If the wizard is going to make us a fetus and then we’d come back to our current existence, then the question is really just if we want to live or not, and that’s not applicable to the unborn, certainly not before they have any mental awareness. I’m saying there isn’t anything there that cares about anything. All the caring, one way or another, is on the part of we have do have the conceptions of what we’re talking about.
If a woman has a miscarriage, it can be a very sad thing for her, presuming she wanted to be pregnant. If she has a zygote that doesn’t implant, it will be much less sad for her, since she won’t even know (I’m assuming she won’t know). The same thing has occurred, and the real question is how the woman (and her family) feels. With abortion, I know that you and many others are sad about it, but hardly ever would you directly know of it, rather it is the idea of it that you’re primarily dealing with. I contrast that with the pregnant woman, who is most certainly directly involved, and whose desires are much more applicable, in my opinion.
“your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.”
Funny, this exact argument can be used to oppose abortion. Your right to control your body stops when another human being is involved.
Lauren, good discussion. However, the case is that when the other human being is inside somebody, it’s not that way. That “your right” doesn’t stop. Sure, you’d like it if we treated things differently there, but stating it as if it’s an accepted premise isn’t accurate.
This story is hot air. Sad, but I read some of her other blogs…. most her crap is angry liberal pro-abortion lies. She seems to write about propaganda that is googled on other blogs, but never matches facts. She even writes about bashing men who mourn the loss of their children, because if you are men you cannot cry if your child dies inside or outside the womb according to this nutcase. I feel sorry for her, I feel worse for the gullible people that believe her ‘stories’.
The story is made up.
The blogger who made it up needs to get a life.
That is all. :)
Now this is interesting.
Mikki had this to say on the comments thread:
Well I didn’t think I’d need to post a copy of my medical records along with my blog, but yes it is true. My case was even instrumental in changing treatment practices at that hospital.
Very interesting.
Now this is interesting.
Mikki had this to say on her comments thread from The Angry Black Woman:
Well I didn’t think I’d need to post a copy of my medical records along with my blog, but yes it is true. My case was even instrumental in changing treatment practices at that hospital.
Very interesting.
Can you provide a link to what you found, Jenni?
Elizabeth said something before that I really need to touch on: WOMEN MATTER
My sophomore year in college “I had an unconsensual incident” with a boy I had over after a party. I invited him up to my room, even took my clothes off voluntarily. But I told him I did not want to have sex, but sex we had anyway. Pregnancy occurred. I took the abortion pill.
I hear everyone talking about poor little babies being torn apart. When I had my “abortion,” nothing was torn apart BTW. You talk about how pregnancy is “only” 9 months. Could someone please just acknowledge that pregnancy is a BIG FREAKING DEAL? That having a man’s baby who doesn’t love you or like you or know you or care bout you, that you don’t know or love or like or care about either, is not something a lot of women want to do. Could someone please acknowledge that women matter that when I got pregnant, my LIFE mattered too.
My mother risked her life when she gave birth to me. I am eternally grateful that I didn’t have to risk my life for something I did not willingly create. (Unless of course you think I consented to take my clothes off which is like consenting to sex, which is like consenting to motherhood). I am GREATFUL that I didn’t have to walk around campus pregnant and be judged mercilessly. Or drop out of college and derail my life because someone decided they wanted to have sex with me. I am grateful I didn’t have to give birth as a women who had never experienced consensual sex. All you talk about is baby baby baby for the love of God WHAT ABOUT WOMEN
what if the baby is a woman… and people cry about ‘what about my life’.. uhm… it is 9 months, been there done that…. so it is worth killing your baby? Whether they be torn apart, or ‘politely poisoned’ (which made it oh so justifiable…yeah right…) .. I suppose if my child is asleep, and I sneak into their room and give then a shot, that lets them peacefully pass away in their sleep. It is justifiable, because… I don’t want to get up anymore when they cry, where is my life? (see how stupid that sounds? Yeah… I THOUGHT SO TOO!)
So pathetic. yes we care about babies who didn’t choose to be killed, it is not about who is more important, the mother and the baby are BOTH equally important, it is about who has more at stake. 40 weeks of pregnancy symptoms then you give birth, then done you raise the kid or adopt out. (in 99% of cases) OR … death. Hmmmm I wonder which one has more on the line? selfish people, good lord. Basic biology in college should of taught some of you it is no different than killing your 3 month old infant than it is one in the womb morally. The blob theory blows my mind, even in the earliest abortions I see arms, legs, etc….. hmmm. Ignorance stopped being bliss when you justified the worst kind of child abuse. Gosh that is so anti-women to hate your bodies that much. And kill your baby, who may be a woman… who is not a tumor or ‘part of your body like an organ’…. ignorance. Ignorance. So sad. Tsk Tsk. I wish I could send some people to college, if only.
http://www.herestheblood.com This shows each stage of abortion, no blobs here. I would love pro-aborts to watch this 3 minutes, that is all, 3 minutes. Actually, I would love for them to hold a baby after it is killed from their…. choice. Some people. Go smoke some more of what you are smoking, just get your tubes tied if you KNOW you are going to kill your child if you get pregnant, gezuuussss!
Lana, yes, pregnancy is a BIG FREAKING DEAL. But whether you willingly took your clothes off or didn’t, or liked the father or didn’t, or he cared about you or didn’t… DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOU KILLED A DEFENSELESS, IRREPLACEABLE HUMAN BEING. No one is saying your life didn’t matter. But we are saying that your child’s life mattered TOO.
Ever hear of Rebecca Kiessling? Her mother was raped and became pregnant with her. Rebecca would look you in the face and tell you that her life did not matter less because of the circumstances of her conception, thank you very much. And that she is very happy to be alive though people like you would have thought it better for her to be dead.
How hot or not hot or downright violent and degrading the sex was DOES NOT AFFECT THE HUMANITY of the new person conceived. How in-love or not in-love you are with the father also does not affect biology. Biology says ova + sperm = new human being. Its not ova + sperm + nice romantic date and consensual sex = new human being.
I am sorry for what you went through. But that doesn’t change what abortion is and what the unborn are!
And doing it early does not mean it is any less horrid. If my son was murdered at 4 would that be any less immoral than if he was murdered at 34 when he had a job in the community and a family? Is he of less value because he is dependent on me and contributes nothing to society? What I am getting at is that your child was not any less human because he was younger or not as developed as other babies. His murder was not any more justified because he didn’t have fingers and toes yet or because his father was a scumbag.
Oliver, I was thinking of an anencephalic infant. The cognizant beings you mention – I would indeed see them as “people.”
So what is it? Rationality or the ability to feel pain? Infants are not rational, but feel pain. People without the ability to feel pain are not able to feel pain, but are rational. Hell, infants that are born without the ability to feel pain are NEITHER rational NOR can they feel pain. What do all of these things have in common? They are all unique human organisms. Seems to me to be an obvious issue.
I maintain that it is our consideration of both the baby and the woman that is relevant.
It only matters if we are talking about the preborn’s right to use the mother’s body. We are NOT talking about that. We are talking about the innate nature of the fetus. This is TOTALLY unrelated to the mother. How is that hard to understand?
The test-tube baby is a good example, to isolate it for consideration, but wow does that ever change things.
It changes nothing, Doug. Stop for 15 seconds and think about it. We are talking about the innate nature of the preborn. How could it POSSIBLY matter anything outside of the preborn itself, i.e. the mother.
Personally, I don’t know about “test-tube babies.” I think this would be like cloned babies – I’m talking about before they were sentient. Or mass-produced babies from the “zygote machine” – just how would we treat them? Good question.
If you are unsure of the nature of test-tube babies, then you should be equally unsure of the nature of the preborn. One more time to make this as clear as possible. There is a distinction between the question “Does a preborn have rights at all?” and “Even if the preborn DOES have rights, does it have the specific right to use its mother’s body for food and shelter?” So, for this first part of the discussion, the mother is irrelevant. Please think about this critically before posting again.
If the wizard is going to make us a fetus and then we’d come back to our current existence, then the question is really just if we want to live or not, and that’s not applicable to the unborn, certainly not before they have any mental awareness. I’m saying there isn’t anything there that cares about anything. All the caring, one way or another, is on the part of we have do have the conceptions of what we’re talking about.
Unfortunately, you absolutely do not understand the question. I don’t think I can help you here. You simply do not have the cognitive ability to show empathy other than “how would I feel in that position?” When you develop a better faculty for introspection, please revisit this question. Perhaps age/experience will help you.
Maybe we can put it this way. If you knew you would be put into a coma and would temporarily have no cognitive faculty. You would basically suffer severe brain damage. However, you would have the prospect of not only recovering your faculty, but maybe even some of your memories. Because of the brain damage and the coma, you would neither possess rationality nor would you be perceptive of pain. If you knew this was coming, would you want to be treated as any other human? Would you want to be allowed to live or die by your own choice? Or would you think that you deserved no special care because you were not rational, nor could you perceive pain. Even though you wouldn’t feel anything in that state, can you not project your current wishes into that circumstance? Think carefully about it for a minute. It isn’t necessary to understand why all humans deserve protection, but it may be sufficient for you to understand.
If a woman has a miscarriage, it can be a very sad thing for her, presuming she wanted to be pregnant. If she has a zygote that doesn’t implant, it will be much less sad for her, since she won’t even know (I’m assuming she won’t know). The same thing has occurred, and the real question is how the woman (and her family) feels. With abortion, I know that you and many others are sad about it, but hardly ever would you directly know of it, rather it is the idea of it that you’re primarily dealing with. I contrast that with the pregnant woman, who is most certainly directly involved, and whose desires are much more applicable, in my opinion.
How is this meaningful? I am less sad when a total stranger dies than when a family member dies. I am less sad when a a family member who I have not yet met dies than when a close family member dies. What’s the point?
I am GREATFUL that I didn’t have to walk around campus pregnant and be judged mercilessly. Or drop out of college and derail my life because someone decided they wanted to have sex with me. I am grateful I didn’t have to give birth as a women who had never experienced consensual sex. All you talk about is baby baby baby for the love of God WHAT ABOUT WOMEN
Lana, the reason we don’t talk about those things is that those arguments are irrelevant. Put it in context. Would those statements be acceptable if you killed a 1 month old baby instead of a 6 week old preborn? (I would hope not, although I have met my fair share of pro-infanticide pro-choicers.)
It is awful what happened to you. How does that allow you to kill your own progeny? What if you kept the pregnancy and then decided you were too embarrassed by the child, or that you couldn’t go to school because of the kid, etc. Do you think anyone (outside of a few pro-choice philosophers) would be sympathetic to you killing the child?
Obviously the woman’s circumstance is relevant to understanding the context of the abortion, but so is the circumstance of any murderer. The question, then, about abortion can only really be about the rights of the involved parties. Does the preborn have any rights, and if so, does the mother have to sacrifice her autonomy to protect those rights? Keep it simple. Don’t muck it up with the context. An abortion is an abortion is an abortion. If you support abortion, you should be okay with it when it is done for fun.
Oliver you are wise. Thank you for catching b.s. ;)
Sydney 12:20 – well said.
Welcome, jc/kitty/j. The rules of this board are that you should choose one screen name here and stick with it so we can know who we’re addressing. Thanks!
Hospital records and discourse utilize the term “abortion” for any end to a pregnancy which involves the baby’s demise prior to birth. This includes natural causes, result of injury or disease, and purposely induced abortions. This is possibly what has led to the notion that a surgical abortion procedure was involved in this case.
This hospital pharmacist can attest that it is quite possible to enter an emergency room which does not have a physician present who can manage late term gestational bleeding. In that case, a physician who can handle the situation is called in. Normally a physician arriving late in the evening under emergent conditions is not accompanied by her own “cadre of students“.
Salon uses this story mainly as a means to propagandize the wonders of induced abortion to those who don’t know how late term gestational bleeding is properly managed.
I have had my blog articles reprinted on much larger sites elsewhere and, being happy to have the educational material further promulgated, I have not requested renumeration. So the claim that Kendall received no payment is plausible.
apparently Mikki is having a little temper tantrum. Aw shucks.
http://mikkikendall.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/i-have-seen-the-pro-lifers-and-im-not-impressed/#comments
Pharmer,
So what you’re saying is that the baby may have died in utero, it was decided to remove the baby, and the result was an abortion in the medical sense of the word, not necessarily the Planned Parenthood sense.
Amirite?
Jill, if you hate women so much, maybe you should stop being one.
Oh wait, your behavior isn’t that of a woman anyways.
“My sophomore year in college “I had an unconsensual incident” with a boy I had over after a party. I invited him up to my room, even took my clothes off voluntarily. But I told him I did not want to have sex, but sex we had anyway. Pregnancy occurred. I took the abortion pill.”
I’m sorry but this has to be one of the stupidest statements I’ve EVER read on here. YOU invited a boy to your room and YOU took your clothes off voluntarily and YOU expected NOT to have sex? Given the nature of men AND women, is this a reasonable expectation?
Please tell me you were joking? Because a baby died just because of your bad behaviour. :(
Dorks,
Jill doesn’t hate women. She hates seeing women kill their babies. She knows how much abortion harms women.
Boy, it’s a good thing we can remain anonymous on the internet, isn’t it?
Lana,
I don’t believe in blaming the victim. NO means NO. In any circumstances. At any time. Period.
That being said, you don’t think your situation is a cautionary tale about not putting oneself in a vulnerable position? If you had it to do over, would you invite a stranger back to your house and get naked with him? Once again, the rape is not your fault any more than forgetting to lock my house would make a burglary my fault, but if I failed to lock my house and had all my things stolen, I would be sure to tell everyone to lock their homes. Do you see what I’m saying?
And another thing about a cautionary tale- You talk about caring for women and how awful it is “having a man’s baby who doesn’t love you or like you or know you or care bout you, that you don’t know or love or like or care about either, is not something a lot of women want to do.”
I agree. I certainly wouldn’t want to do it. This is why I would never have sex and potentially make a baby with a man who doesn’t love me or like me or know me or care bout me, that I don’t know or love or like or care about either. Perhaps then they problem is not having a baby by a stranger, it’s allowing a stranger to place his penis repeatedly in your vagina? Because strangers can leave more behind than a baby. They can leave diseases as well, many of which a pill can’t alleviate like the abortion pill killed your baby.
Yes, you matter too, but we weren’t talking about your life/death vs. your baby’s life/death. It would be you feeling “judged mercilessly” and the false claim that you’d have to “drop out of college” None of these, real or imagined were worth killing a baby over no matter the circumstances of the baby’s conception. Yes, a man did a wrong thing to you, but you did a worse thing to your son/daughter. You have responsibility too, not for the rape, but for creating another victim.
Lana,
a woman who takes her clothes OFF in front of a man and then expects that man NOT to react is not being responsible nor mature about how she behaves nor is she being realistic about how that man will react. At some point women MUST take some responsibility for their actions. I can’t believe that you feel you have NO responsibility at all for what happened.
THAT is my point.
Regardless of how a woman becomes pregnant, her child does not deserve to die.
THAT is my second point.
Angel,
A man NEVER has a right to violate a woman. EVER. EVER. EVER. A woman wearing nothing but with two band-aids and a cork still retains her right not to be assaulted. Now, do I think it’s foolish to play with fire, to make oneself vulnerable, YES, absolutely. But it doesn’t make a woman in any way “responsible” for being violated. The violation was a choice made by another person. People should exercise wisdom and not put themselves in dangerous situations, but if they do, it doesn’t mean they were “asking for” someone to do something evil to them.
Responsibility is on the person that commits the evil act. The man is responsible for Lana’s rape. Unfortunately, Lana is responsible for killing her baby.
Jacqueline,
I am not saying what you are saying. I am saying that women too must be responsible for how they behave.
Part of the problem is that women keep telling everyone that they are no different than men. That we are the same as men. This is a big fat lie. Men and women behave very differently and respond differently.
A man in a room with a naked woman who herself has voluntarily removed her clothing would seem to me to be expecting something more than tea.
A great difficulty in our world today is that we are always placing the blame on someone else.
For sex. For abortion.
Angel,
I know you are not saying what I am saying and what I’m saying is what you are saying is wrong. :) I understand your point, but you are incorrect. If I leave a big neon sign on my door saying I’m going to be gone for the weekend and thieves take that as their cue to break into my house and take my things, is it my fault that OTHER PEOPLE acted in a evil way? No! Was I foolish for not exercising wisdom in leaving that sign? Yes. Does that make the robbery my fault? HELL NO. So while drinking to much, being alone with strangers, getting naked with strangers is dangerous and foolish, it does not make the rape victim responsible. The rapist is responsible and only the rapist.
I’m saying she has some responsibility for what happened in the same way that I have some responsibility for my car being broken into when I leave my purse in the car.
I am not saying the man has NO responsibility or even LESS responsibility. I am not saying what he did was not wrong. He raped her. That was wrong. But choices have consequences and we need to be mindful that sometimes those consequences can lead to great regret and great harm to ourselves and others.
Meltdown:
I’m not going to hide from you, or let you paint me as a villain. Propaganda games over terminology (Correct medical terms are hostile now? Really?) are old hat to me. I’m not a nice girl, and you’re about to see that.
Nothing we’re not used to already, Mikki.
Just make sure you don’t end up like Theodore Shulman, that’s all.
carder,
one wonders what Mikki is threatening to do…..?
Ophy: What you don’t seem to understand is that it doesn’t matter what you think a fetus is. It makes no sense to say, “I think a three-week old fetus is a bunch of cells and only a potential baby, you think whatever you like about it.” A fetus, like anything else, can’t be one thing to one person and another thing to another person. That is true of an adjective but not a noun (I can think a painting is beautiful, you can think it’s ugly — but it IS a painting). Many people want to avoid making decisions — or want to hide the fact that they have made decisions — by pretending they don’t know what a thing is or that what it is doesn’t matter. But this is silliness at best and lying at worst.
I’m sorry you had an abortion when you were young, but the truth is that you killed your baby. If you want to pretend you didn’t kill your baby because you decided to define it as something that wasn’t a baby, and to define killing it as something other than killing, that might make you feel more comfortable with your decision. But it doesn’t change reality.
The story as posted does not make any sense. She says that she laid in the hospital bleeding for hours because no doctor on call would perform an abortion. She says she was not given any treatment at all until a nurse took it upon herself to call a doctor who would perform an abortion. There is simply no indication here that an abortion is the only thing that would have saved her life. And beyond that, if no one in an entire hospital would offer a hemorrhaging woman any treatment at all, there is a lot more wrong with the hospital than its stance on performing abortions. I question the story because it is missing some pretty vital information. I can’t make any conclusion at all about it based on the sketchy information the author shared — and thus I can’t accept or reject her thesis, which is that a doctor’s refusal to perform an abortion almost caused her death.
Angel,
*shrugs* Who knows?
Jill’s handled more nefarious threats than that over the years.
She and I have been civil with Mikki.
Mikki now doesn’t want to hide, which is good. More power to her.
Angel-
Not true. Stupidity does not equal responsibility. The person who stole your purse is solely responsible for stealing your purse. You have every right to your personal belongs and no one has a right to steal them. I am not advocating foolishness, (like I said a million times) but you are blaming the victim. Lana is NOT responsible for her rape. You would not be responsible for someone stealing your belongings. The rapist and the thief are solely responsible. Now, if you want to advocate exercising prudent judgment in not showing off your goods (be they your property or your body), I am in full agreement. But blaming victims of crimes is simply wrong.
Read her article, and noticed a key inconsistency: she said “only a woman who is pregnant should have the right to say what she does with her body,” yet later in the story she divulges that her husband signed the consent form. I understand that she claims to have been nearing unconsciousness, but still…If you want your story to sound credible, don’t insert blatantly inconsistent statements.The “Salon” is a real piece of work, having read some posted articles from there before. -said by a commenter on another blog regarding this, and I thought it needed shared as well, cause I agree 110%
@kel … Jc is my sister, sorry, we are sharing taking turns posting on her computer at her house, so we just used the same email it auto-put in for us after the first time. We should sign the same name?
-kitty
“I wish there had never been a single elective abortion of any healthy child.”
Oh right, because it’s wrong to kill healthy children, but ‘tards and feebs? They totally deserve to be torn limb from limb! I mean s**t, if they didn’t wanna die, they shoulda thought about that before they went and got all disabled and crap!
Sarcasm aside, as the mother of a disabled child, people like you make me sick with rage. My child deserves her life every bit as much as your “perfect” children do, and NOT because she was “wanted.” She deserves it because IT’S HERS. What a brave new world we live in.
This story really is a total Fake..just read the actual Blog title page and the ”About the Author ” section below…The Blog headline title = ”Esoterica..Where Fiction and Non Fiction collide” also as she says below ” a loudmouth..who… enjoys committing random acts of FICTION in between ranting at people who are wrong on the internet..”
Classy Salon very Classy indeed!
”’About karnythia
A loudmouthed liberal who enjoys committing random acts of fiction in between ranting at people who are wrong on the internet. Mom, wife, and dainty little sociopath with an affection for booze, chocolate, and sarcasm..”See more
I am tempted to agree with you Ray. I think perhaps the title of her blog is instructive and that perhaps this is just the rantings of someone who wants attention.
Having tortured myself with reading more of these amazingly callous, insulting and irrational comments, allow me to clear some more things up, for those of you who believe there’s an agenda afoot.
1) Mikki didn’t do this to get pub for Verb Noire. As her former partner, I can tell you that that venture has been dead for a year. Nor did she do this to get pub for her writing career, because she’s been pretty successful on her own.
2) A Tumblr post responding to the crazy, rabid pro-lifers who have been going to great lengths to invade her privacy to get to “the truth” doesn’t fall under the “throwing a tantrum” category. Actually, it falls under the “Let me show you wtf I am” category. Yes, you, the people who are sniffing around Google for dirt, and the people responsible for throwing her picture up on this thread without her permission.
Some pro-choicers here have been more civil than necessary to the commenters on this blog. Though I admire their patience, but I don’t get down like that. And let me assure you, Jill, that if you insist on carrying on like you do, you will have a problem. I think you should fall back before you ruin what’s left of your reputation.
thewayoftheid,
Who is invading her privacy? If Mikki wanted to keep the details of her medical history private, why did she publish them online in the first place? The last time I checked, the Internet was a public venue, not a private one.
Why are you so offended by Mikki’s picture? I don’t get it. I like to be able to put a face to a name, myself, Plus, it’s a good picture of her; she’s a beautiful woman. It also was posted publicly. Why the offense?
thewayoftheid: http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/d/dc/Internet_tough_guys.jpg
Forgive me for not being frightened of someone who, self-professed by their name/title, seems to gloat about not having advanced past the impulse to fulfill every base desire like some sort of lizard.
@Ray, you hit the nail on the head, I agree 100%. No matter those she has defending her here… you are right, obvious fake, obvious rant. Sad really. I feel bad for her =\
I don’t think that, after reading these comments, anyone is going to change their opinions of pro-life/ pro-choice. And, no matter what you believe, you’re going to find something in every article on the subject that validates your belief.
This discussion has moved well past whether or not you believe Mikki’s story. And regardless on all the minute details, it is a horrible story. She went through a traumatic experience, and yes, posting it on the internet does mean that she had opened it up for discussion and criticism, but I think it’s important to remember that everyone copes with trauma differently, and as a writer, sharing her story may have been a very important part of the healing process for her. The fact that she has chosen not to address every question, in the many places this is being discussed, should not be considered proof of her story, nor should it disprove it.
I have close friends to have very passionate views on both sides of this debate. And I think that most people believe very strongly, one way or the other. While personally I am pro choice, I respect others beliefs, and am happy to have a civil discussion on the subject. One of the wonderful things about the world today is the wealth of information available, and that everyone has the opportunity to educate themselves on the topic. There are some very educated opinions on this thread alone. But, as with all beliefs, this discussion has become very personal for some people.
At the end of the day, Mikki and her husband were faced with a horrible decision. Not knowing her exact condition, and having never been in their position, none of us can truly say what we would have done. We all like to think that, when faced with that kind of scenario, we would make the choice that fits our belief structure, the choice that we could live with, but we simply don’t know.
Yes, you may have been in a similar situation, or be familiar with the medical condition that Mikki described, but that doesn’t put you in her shoes. She felt that she had no choice, and none of us will ever really know if she did.
The impression that I got from the article was not that of a cold, unfeeling woman. I felt that she has been through something horrible, and while struggling to cope with what had happened to her, she also had to cope with the perception that society appears (Note that I said appears, before anyone gets testy) to have about women who have abortions. That had to have been really, really hard to get through. Who are any of us to fault the way she handled it?
You may not agree with every detail of her story, but you’re never going to agree with every one all the time. And you may think she had other options. But it wasn’t your decision to make.
I fully support education, making sure that people are informed of the decision that they’re making. And I credit the pro-life movement for their efforts in arming people with the information they need to make a fully informed decision.
Let’s all just respect each other, and agree to disagree, rather than personally attacking each other, which is where this discussion seems to be heading.
I can’t believe some of you are saying that a woman bears responsibility for the way she acted before a rape took place. As a “date” rape victim myself, I find that highly offensive. I was vocal about not wanting sex, consented to make out with the guy and do heavy petting, but was clear about not wanting to go further. And because he was an animal that can’t control himself that makes the sex MY fault? Hey, guess what? You demean both men and women with that statement. My fiance would like me to let you misguided people that he is perfectly capable of being with a women and doing some sexual things without going further than she wishes. All good men are capable of this, by the way. A statement accusing a women who was date rape of being responsible for it treats men like animals and women like whores. I am not getting into the pro/anti-abortion thing, it’s a pointless argument since no one on either side is ever going to change their minds. I just wanted to register my shock that people who claim to care accused a woman of being complicit in her own rape.
Alice, thank you for breathing some compassion into the discussion. It is needed on both sides.
Alice- As long as this debate costs real human lives, we’re never going to “agree to disagree”. Sorry.
If what Mikki says is true, what happened to her was unforgivable. I have mixed feelings about ordinary elective abortion- but I’ve never seen a more obvious case for abortion than this one,
When the mother’s life is not just threatened but it is 100 percent certain that she will die if the pregnancy continues, abortion should be allowed without question. This is obvious.
AND when it is certain that the fetus will die anyway, abortion or no abortion, it is obvious beyond obvious. It will die anyway. Preventing an abortion only ensures that it kills the mother, too.
Even pro-life advocates should agree with this.
How about agreeing to simply respect other people’s opinions then?
It’s a lot easier than personal attacks that discredit both sides of the debate, and it doesn’t leave us all with a bitter taste in our mouths.
Alice, nope. Sorry. I will never respect an opinion that says unborn children are easily discarded pieces of meat. Thats what those who prop up abortion believe and they behave that way also. Unborn children are merely pieces of flesh and if they are not wanted can be quickly dispatched without any guilt or second thought. I will NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER respect that.
Stop trying to be the peace maker and bring together two sides that are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I can “agree to disagree” with people about a lot of things… gun control, foreign policy, gay marriage, vaccines etc… and I can respect the opinions of people who believe differently than me about those topics. But abortion is as black and white an issue as they come. Unborn people are just that… people who have not been born yet. And abortion is the willful murder of those people. I will NEVER “agree to disagree” with those who say its okay to kill unborn human people and I will NEVER respect their opinion.
And to me it’s a black and white issue. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, and no one has the right to judge her for that choice.
That doesn’t mean that I can’t respect your opinion and understand why you believe that. And, as I said, I credit the pro-live movement with a lot of good things.
I’m not trying to bring two sides together. I’m saying how about we all just keep it respectful.
EDIT: Blatantly refusing to acknowledge another side of a debate, and have civilised conversation that acknowledges other opinions is not at all constructive.
And deliberately using emotive language to justify your opinions, as an attempt to discredit your opposition and make them seem cold and unfeeling is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes this discussion get nasty and personal.
You are untitled to your beliefs and opinions. But so am I
You will not look for common ground, but you will condemn someone who gets raped, saying she was partially responsible?
I hope someone is more compassionate to you if you fall victim to a violent crime, heaven forbid. Is it also a woman’s fault if she argues with her husband and he hits her? Was she asking for it by not shutting up?
How can you claim to care for human life while condemning rape victims??? Where is the compassion and love in that?
A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, and no one has the right to judge her for that choice.
Then we have that in common. Pro-lifers do not object to women choosing what to do with THEIR bodies. It is the death of the gestating child killed in an abortion and the destruction of THEIR bodies with which we take issue.
You will not look for common ground, but you will condemn someone who gets raped, saying she was partially responsible?
Those were the comments of one person on this board, and you’ll find the majority of us disapprove of that sentiment, myself included. Being foolish doesn’t mean you deserve crimes committed against you.
I actually don’t agree with what was said about Lana’s rape. Or actually, I agree with what Jacqueline said about Lana’s rape. She was not responsible for her rape. I don’t think her inviting a guy into her room and taking off all her clothes was wise, but in no way did it give that boy/man permission to rape her. I don’t blame her at all.
One of my bridesmaids was date raped right before my wedding and it really messed her up. She was a virgin and invited a boy back to her college dorm to make out. The guy would not take no for an answer and forcibly removed her clothing and raped her. She went from being a sweet “good girl” type to being a mean, sarcastic, bitter, angry, party girl who would snort anything, drink anything, sleep with anything… It changed her personality 180. It broke my heart. I didn’t know how to help her but I could see she was hurting so deeply. She would not report the rape either. She cut all of us friends out of her life and I haven’t heard from her in almost 7 years. :-(
Also, you will find that there are a number of pro-lifers in the medical field and mothers who’ve gone through the same or similar conditions taking issue with the fact she’s going around proclaiming us as evil and wanting her to die because an abortion saved her life when they know from either firsthand experience or education that that is in fact not the case, and that abortion is NEVER the recommended treatment for such a condition (which in my opinion is probably why she had the trouble finding someone to give her the abortion in the first place…seems to me that at a point she just decided the child’s life wasn’t worth it, threw her hands up in the air and said “I just want this thing outta me.”) and she shouldn’t be saying such was the case when it is not. In most circles, that is known as what is commonly referred to as a “lie”, and frowned upon.
Xalisae, I think that’s a distinction with very little difference, in the context.
Personally, I agree with the belief that life begins at conception. I can’t imagine a scenario in which I could have an abortion, because honestly, I would feel that I had killed my child. In that way, we certainly agree.
That being said, I can understand why other women would believe differently. I have close friends who have felt that an abortion was their only option, and do not regret their decision. And I respect them and their choices.
I am not saying that anyone is wrong. And I understand everyone’s opinion. I just think that a little more understanding is required on both sides of this.
And no matter the knowledge you may have in relation to what you think her condition was, unless you were a medical professional treating her at the time, you really do not know what her options were, so to dismiss her as a liar is fairly ignorant.
Personally, I agree with the belief that it is wrong to beat children. I can’t imagine a scenario in which I could beat or starve my child, because honestly, I would feel that I had really hurt my child. In that way, we certainly agree.
That being said, I can understand why other women would believe differently. I have close friends who have felt that an beating their children was their only option, and do not regret their decision. And I respect them and their choices.
I am not saying that anyone is wrong. And I understand everyone’s opinion. I just think that a little more understanding is required on both sides of this
@Sindney M: Well, thank you for your comment. I am deeply sorry for what happened to your friend. My heart goes out to you and her. I hope for the best to come out of the situation, that she can find some hope and healing, and she is lucky to have a friend who cares for her. I did not, the people I knew told me I deserved it and I should have been “good” and it wouldn’t have happened. I was FIFTEEN! Sorry I blew up, it is a very sore point and I hate to see people condemn women when they claim to care for them. I am glad that most of the people here disagree with that user and have a consistent ethic of love and caring.
Alice, if its wrong for you then why ISN’T it wrong for everyone else? If its immoral its immoral whether you do it or Nancy, Susie, Becky and Jenny do it! Wrong is always wrong and right is always right.
I took what you wrote above and inserted child abuse into it. Can you see how your statement seems like a huge moral cop-out? Why are you so afraid to call wrong… WRONG?
Personally, I agree with the belief that it is wrong to have slaves. I can’t imagine a scenario in which I would have a slave myself, because honestly, I would feel that I had really done something wrong.. In that way, we certainly agree.
That being said, I can understand why other people would believe differently. I have close friends who have felt that having slaves was their only option, and do not regret their decision. And I respect them and their choices.
I am not saying that anyone is wrong. And I understand everyone’s opinion. I just think that a little more understanding is required on both sides of this.
Alaina, no woman deserves to be raped. EVER. I think you’ll find most people here agree with you on that.
Because what is wrong for me and my situation is not always wrong for someone else. My beliefs and opinions should not dictate the rights of someone else.
I can see the difference between beating a child and aborting a barely developing foetus. Your inability to do so is more of a reflection of you than the debate.
I believe in capital punishment in some cases. I can see why some people don’t Doesn’t make me right or wrong. And doesn’t mean that I support slavery and child abuse.
If you want me to take you seriously, have an adult conversation. Skip the petty insults.
Almost the exact same thing happened to my wife at a Baylor hospital in Grapevine, TX. The doctor took his own sweet time getting there, so much so she passed the baby before he was there. No pain killers were given. And the nursing staff repeatedly asked me to keep her quiet. In an emergency room. They didn’t check on her during her ordeal, I had to fetch her items, like puke bowls and the like.
The people doubting that doctors and nurses could be so cruel are sheltered.
I can see the difference between beating a child and aborting a barely developing foetus
I can too, Alice. One hurts the child but doesn’t end his life. The other hurts the child and then ends his life.
And I respect that you believe that. But that does not mean that people who don’t are wrong.
I am sure you’ll disagree. I’m not trying to change your mind. I just think that some supporters of pro-life on this thread should calm down a little and accept that other people have a right to their own beliefs and opinions.
I don’t respect that you believe in killing humans. It does mean that pro-aborts are wrong.
I am sure you’ll disagree. I’m trying to change your mind. I just think that some supporters of abortion on this thread should calm down a little and accept that all humans have a right to life.
Well said Praxades.
Alice. I am not going to “calm down” (which to you means “shut up”). Children are dying. I am gonna speak up. The fact that YOU can’t see how your ridiculous, non-sensical statement about “well its wrong for me but not for others blah blah blah” could be used to justify any type of wrong. Rape, murder, child abuse, slavery, genocide. HELLO. If its wrong its wrong. Saying its okay for others but not for you doesn’t mean a darn thing! WHO CARES what you would or wouldn’t do? We are talking about truth, about WHAT IS not about what you THINK.
“barely developing fetus”? Well see, I can’t have an “adult” conversation with you since you can’t grasp basics like the fact the fetus is not “barely developing” but develops very rapidly and looks very human very early. And the fact that you can’t grasp that ova + sperm = new human being which is like, I don’t know, basic biology and all! You choose to sound like an ignoramus so what can I do? You can’t even accept basic facts that all scientists agree upon. Where can we go from there? No where.
But yeah, not going to calm down or shut up. But nice try. As long as people like you are there defending killing children I will be the thorn in your side.
And I respect that you believe that. But that does not mean that people who don’t are wrong.
Belief systems have nothing to do with who/what gestating human beings are, what abortion does to them, and who is having that done to them. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. No one is entitled to their own facts.
So please, enlighten me as to how a.) the gestating human being is in fact NOT a living human being at all, b.) that “non-human being” is in fact NOT the biological child of the pregnant woman, c.) abortion does in fact NOT kill that gestating “non-human being”, and d.) abortion is not the intentional killing of that biological child of the pregnant woman who is in fact the mother of that child done at her behest.
I can see the difference between beating a child and aborting a barely developing foetus. Your inability to do so is more of a reflection of you than the debate.
I see the difference between my baby brother at 3 years old and at 14 years old. Yet I know he is the same person. He sucked his thumb in his ultrasound. He sucked his thumb for years after birth. What we “see” is irrelevant to what is. Us noting that human beings are still human beings regardless of their level of development is not a reflection on us but a scientific fact.
Alaina,
Thank you for your comments. I stopped reading for a while because the comments were making me sick
The “we are sorry for your rape” lines were disengenious and all followed by “you’re a baby killer,” no attempt to understand the importance of my life or what I was going through or empathy…its really really sick
I am glad I am past a point where I am grieving. My actions were not actually stupid there were things I was willing to do with this boy, sex was not one of them, clearly no one on this board has done sexual things and not had sex with a member of the opposite sex…unbelievable
I am also very saddened that anyone could possibly think I had an obligation to bear that child; I did not have an obligation to bear that child. NONE at all. It did not have a right to live within me and anything to the contrary is hurtful and ridiculous
“My actions were not actually stupid there were things I was willing to do with this boy, sex was not one of them, clearly no one on this board has done sexual things and not had sex with a member of the opposite sex…unbelievable”
I have. A LOT. I am still a virgin (because creating babies is out of the question) but I’ve had my share of naked sex-play. I’d like to say it was solely with long-term boyfriends, but I have fooled around with people I just met and it’s truly a miracle that one of those men didn’t rape me like you were raped, since I made myself so vulnerable. I am grateful that I happened to be lucky, because YES, WHAT I HAVE DONE WAS VERY, VERY STUPID. How you could have suffered what you went through and not see that it was stupid of you just blows my mind. I escaped and I still know I was stupid. You didn’t- proof it was stupid, and you don’t want to own up to that.
I am also very saddened that anyone could possibly think I had an obligation to bear that child; I did not have an obligation to bear that child. NONE at all. It did not have a right to live within me and anything to the contrary is hurtful and ridiculous
Your son or daughter did have a right to live. “That child” you killed was your child, regardless of the father. You can fail to see the truth all day long- it doesn’t change the truth. By the way, what did you do with the baby when you birthed her. With the pill, you had to have seen her. I can understand women who refused ultrasounds and never say their babies being in denial about it but you had to birth and see your baby and you still have no remorse?
Lana, my sympathies for your rape were not disingenuous, but the issue was greatly complicated by the addition of another victim who suffered a worse fate than you. You lived. You weren’t poisoned. So my sympathy also extends to your child that died.
@Lana,
I am sorry for what you have been through. As you can see from my posts I have been through something similar. I was lucky enough not to get pregnant though. As my fiance says, and I agree, it is ridiculous to blame a woman for a rape or non-consensual sexual activity of any time. He can control himself just fine if a woman does not want to have sex, no matter what they were doing beforehand, and the majority of men are like that too. It’s absolutely stupid to claim that people were acting foolhardy, it’s basically saying that the guy just cant control himself and women have to stop them. Should we wear mumus to make sure they dont get “the wrong idea”??? I don’t judge you for your decision to have an abortion. I have no idea what I would have done if my abuse had turned into a pregnancy. That is a personal decision for you and possibly your family (if you choose to involve them) to make, not a bunch of strangers. Wishing you happiness, health and healing!
“I am still a virgin (because creating babies is out of the question) but I’ve had my share of naked sex-play. I’d like to say it was solely with long-term boyfriends, but I have fooled around with people I just met and it’s truly a miracle that one of those men didn’t rape me like you were raped, since I made myself so vulnerable. I am grateful that I happened to be lucky, because YES, WHAT I HAVE DONE WAS VERY, VERY STUPID. How you could have suffered what you went through and not see that it was stupid of you just blows my mind. I escaped and I still know I was stupid. You didn’t- proof it was stupid, and you don’t want to own up to that.”
I have no idea how to respond to this. Sexual activity is NORMAL. Most men DO NOT RAPE unwilling women. Every male friend I have thinks having sex with an someone who doesn’t want to is horrific. Most of them wouldn’t physically be able to. You are blaming someone for their rape. I can’t believe you. Do you also think women who are raped taking the subway home from work are stupid too? What about women who wear a bikini at the beach? Do they deserve rape for dressing skimpily? What about married women who have awful husbands who force them into non-consensual sex? Is it “her fault” for marrying him? Or how about children who are sexually abused because they “foolishly” trust an adult? Why do you think that men have so little control over themselves? The great majority of men think rape is abhorrent. Rape happens because a man is mentally ill or has something deeply wrong with them, not because a woman got a little too frisky or shows a little too much skin. It is disturbing that you think so little of both genders. According to you, it was stupid of me to kiss and mess around a little with a close friend when I was a teenager, because he ended up being a disturbed individual who decided to hurt me. Shame on you. Sex and expressing yourself is not bad, thinking you have the right to sexually abuse someone is. Being sexually active is not wrong.
Show some compassion for victims of sexual crimes. It is the first step to understanding. You claim to be a caring person. I have respect for most people who are pro-life. I understand they genuinely believe that a fetus has the same rights of a human being. I myself are pro-life for the most part, which includes being anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia. My life ethic is as consistent as I can make it, being a fallible human being. Your ethics are not consistent. When you show so little compassion and understanding to a fellow human being who has been traumatized, you show your true colors of hate and bigotry. Why do people who are living mean so little, and the rights of the unborn mean so much?
Alaina,
Go back and read what I’ve written in great length. You are making a fool of yourself when you claim I said things I’ve never said. Here are some excerpts of what I have written:
A man NEVER has a right to violate a woman. EVER. EVER. EVER. A woman wearing nothing but with two band-aids and a cork still retains her right not to be assaulted. Now, do I think it’s foolish to play with fire, to make oneself vulnerable, YES, absolutely. But it doesn’t make a woman in any way “responsible” for being violated. The violation was a choice made by another person. People should exercise wisdom and not put themselves in dangerous situations, but if they do, it doesn’t mean they were “asking for” someone to do something evil to them. Responsibility is on the person that commits the evil act.
If I leave a big neon sign on my door saying I’m going to be gone for the weekend and thieves take that as their cue to break into my house and take my things, is it my fault that OTHER PEOPLE acted in a evil way? No! Was I foolish for not exercising wisdom in leaving that sign? Yes. Does that make the robbery my fault? HELL NO. So while drinking to much, being alone with strangers, getting naked with strangers is dangerous and foolish, it does not make the rape victim responsible. The rapist is responsible and only the rapist.
Stupidity does not equal responsibility. The person who stole your purse is solely responsible for stealing your purse. You have every right to your personal belongs and no one has a right to steal them. I am not advocating foolishness, (like I said a million times) but you are blaming the victim. Lana is NOT responsible for her rape. You would not be responsible for someone stealing your belongings. The rapist and the thief are solely responsible. Now, if you want to advocate exercising prudent judgment in not showing off your goods (be they your property or your body), I am in full agreement. But blaming victims of crimes is simply wrong.
I am not going to address you if you malign my comments. I went to GREAT LENGTHS to explain how rape is never a woman’s fault. I merely said that women should exercise caution in the situations in which they place themselves. Even though a majority of men would never rape a woman, is this a gamble worth taking?
Your need to mischaracterize what I said and libel me doesn’t change what I’ve said- I stand behind my statement that “No means No” in any circumstance and that rape is never a victim’s fault but that women should show savvy enough to not put themselves in unnecessary danger. If they do, they are not responsible for their rape. I made that clear in detail in several, several posts. I won’t say it again.
My ethics are completely consistent. Yours are not. When you refuse to oppose a mother killing her own child yet will take up the causes of other human beings at risk of death, the glaring exception of the innocent child makes your position completely illogical. I oppose the death penalty and euthanasia AND killing children in the womb. You support some killing and oppose others. Where is the consistency there?
I think you’ve impertinently ascended on your high horse because it’s easier to accuse other people of a lack of mercy than defend the merciless act of killing one’s own baby. It’s a diversion. You are the one that lacks compassion if a baby dismembered in the womb is of no thought to you.
This implies that my stupidity is at fault for my rape:
How you could have suffered what you went through and not see that it was stupid of you just blows my mind. I escaped and I still know I was stupid. You didn’t- proof it was stupid, and you don’t want to own up to that.
The fact that you think i should own up to it implies that i should take some responsibility for the rape.
I was about 4 weeks along so no i didn’t see a “baby’ or anything really at all, I didn’t notice anything, and I’m sure it just went down the toilet. I felt unbelievable relief and no sadness afterward. It was not my “baby” it was the product of my rape. And I did not ‘kill” it, I expelled it from my body. I took a pill that made my body unhospitable to the pregnancy and pushed the fetus out, the fact that it couldn’t survive outside is really just tough isn’t it.
I didnt kill anything I had something that had no place inside me removed, the fact that it couldn’t survive…not my fault
Edited by moderator
Very Simply put, It doesn’t matter what you try to say to these people. They will only ever want to believe what they want to believe. The fact is who cares what they think, its only THEIR opinion. However when their daughter, sister, or even themselves, is in the hospital with the same issue I’m almost certain the tables would turn.
I read her story and I believe it, and the reason I believe it is because I have had issues with Doctors and nurses as well.
I had already lost one baby at 18 weeks. Got pregnant again, it was at 20 weeks this time that I started having problems. I called the Doctors office to let them know I needed to be seen and the nurse told me I was over reacting and I was just scared because I had already lost one baby. I ended up in another hospital that day seen by another Dr who sent me straight to the hospital my doctor worked out of, because I was in labor.They had no NICU at the first hospital. It turned out I have an incompetent cervix. They tried to put a cercloge in and it cause a leak in my water. And instead of allowing me to go into labor I spent the next 4 weeks on bed rest the whole time begging them to just let me have her then. I was more mentally prepared for the baby to die at that point than I was after 4 weeks in bed with the Doctors telling me I was clear and could go home. 3 days after I went home I went into labor anyways. I asked them to take her c section if there was any chance of her surviving at all. They refused, stating that she wouldn’t make it. The Dr delivering her checked my cervix and I was “dilated to 10”, well it turned out I wasn’t dilated to 10, I was only at a 5. The Dr had me pushing when i shouldn’t have been. When my water exploded (yes thats the only way to put it) it caused my placenta to separate from my uterus, and killed her anyways. After she was delivered the weight and length of the baby showed she could have actually been saved if they had done the c section. It turned out I was further along then they thought.
My point is Doctors and nurses do make mistakes. I as well didn’t follow through on a law suit, why? What difference would it make. It wasn’t going to bring the baby back and all the money in the world wouldn’t replace her.
People have a different way of dealing with things, and just because what she did wasn’t what you would do, doesn’t make her choices wrong. It just makes them her choices. What difference does it make if she calls it an abortion? maybe it wasn’t an abortion medically speaking, but to her it was the same thing. She still had to make a choice between her and her child. Maybe she calls it a fetus because if she calls it a baby its harder for her to deal with. She made the choice initially to keep it, can’t you give her a little credit there. If any of you sat and thought about your babies (who are already here physically in this world) growing up without you because you chose to try to save a child that may not have been able to be saved I’m sure you might be able to see her side. If not it doesn’t really matter cause it’s just your opinion.
@ Joanna.
My ethics are consistent because I realize that there is no hard and fast rule to every situation. An early term abortion is not something I like, but sometimes it happens in cases of rape or incest. I don’t like it, not at all. However, blanket banning is not the answer, neither is dehumanizing young women like Lana who were put in a bad situation. Why not show her love and caring, would that not further your goal? We live in the real world, and we all share the goal of reducing abortions. Education, counseling, access to effective birth control, compassion, and support for women in these situations are a much more realistic way to achieve this goal than banning of all abortions. My ethics are consistent because they are grounded in reality. I don’t like the death penalty, but I can see there are cases of predatory offenders or those who commit horrific war crimes where it might be necessary. I don’t like war, but I can see where it might be necessary for national security. The world is not black and white. I want to find realistic reality-based solutions to the problems of abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia. etc.
I stand by my statement that saying that Lana acted “stupidly” is placing part of the blame for her rape on her shoulders, your protestations to the contrary non-withstanding. Did you know that most “date rapes” are committed by someone that the woman knows personally? A male friend, a boyfriend, etc. There isn’t much that can protect you if you are with someone you trust and they turn out to be not so trustworthy. Which of your male friends do you think is a rapist? Not such an easy question. Telling women not to act “foolishly” is putting the blame on their shoulders and distracting from the real problem.
People have a different way of dealing with things, and just because what she did wasn’t what you would do, doesn’t make her choices wrong. It just makes them her choices
All choices are not equal. When someone else has to die for your choice, that choice is usually wrong.
Alaina, which post of mine were you addressing? I don’t believe I commented on Lana’s situation.
Lana, do some studying on fetal development. The baby you killed was indeed a living, growing human being @ 4 weeks, with his/her own unique DNA.
@JoAnna,
I am sorry, I was upset and wrote “JoAnna” instead of “Jacqueline”. I am sorry, I must have seen your name on another post and wrote it down. I have no idea what your views are on the matter and I am sorry you got accused of something you didn’t do.
BTW, I don’t think anyone is denying that a first term fetus has it’s own unique DNA. Some argue that it is not conferred the right of personhood until it has reached the age of viability, when it is not a part of the mother’s body’s anymore without any chance of survival. Some argue that it is not a person to birth. But no one argues that a fetus does not develop or does not have its own DNA, unless they are very uneducated on human development (wouldn’t surprise me with the sorry state of our schools ;D). And someone so ill-informed should be gently and patiently educated. Your response was appropriate I believe.
Some argue that it is not conferred the right of personhood
“personhood” is philosophical mumbo-jumbo. A point of faith and spirituality ironically enough from the side that claims to be nearly devoid of any sort of religious coloring of the situation and rife with pure facts. At no time in pregnancy is the gestating human EVER “a part of the mother’s body”. When I was pregnant with my son, I didn’t have XY chromosomes in ANY part of MY body, and to claim the contrary is absurd.
A new human life is created at conception, and set on his/her path to their lives at implantation, and aside from them dying of natural causes (miscarriage) or being willfully killed at the behest of their parent(s) (abortion), will have their entire lifetime ahead of them, long or short, for better or worse. It’s our job has decent human beings to protect and care for these most vulnerable among us, not to use their vulnerability as an excuse for their killing.
Lana: I didnt kill anything I had something that had no place inside me removed, the fact that it couldn’t survive…not my fault
Right, and if you kick your kid off your private jet in mid air, you didn’t kill him/her! Not your fault that the kid couldn’t survive the fall right?
(Why are people so stupid? Think about the things you post.)
Speaking of stupid, whoever brought up the whole “well Missy you put yourself in the position to get raped!” is a complete, and utter, moron. Please stay focused on the issue that counts: abortion. Would it change anything if she had sex willingly and just feels stupid about it (which might have happened) or she was violently raped (which also could have happened) ? She still murdered her child. Focus on this. Focus on the philosophical/moral/legal precedent as to why abortion is wrong and should be disallowed. Sheesh.
Alaina, What about this. What if we agreed that preborns are not persons, because they do not have rational faculties. (Using this same logic, infants are not persons. Point to a significant difference.) I don’t think that a preborn has to be a person in order to have basic human rights. We would obviously agree that if a preborn were a person, that it would have basic human rights, but I am suggesting that it not necessary in order to have basic human rights. So, it could still be incumbant upon the parent to provide food/water/shelter and so forth to his/her child, not because the child is a person, but because the child has human rights.
I think that everyone already agrees with this. We believe that newborns deserve protection, despite that they are not self-aware. They are not rational beings. They are, however, human organisms, and are afforded basic human rights. This is the case of coma victims, the demented, the mentally handicapped, etc etc. So, then, a preborn also fits into this category. The mother is still obligated to protect the rights of the preborn, even if the preborn is not itself self aware.
“personhood” is philosophical mumbo-jumbo. A point of faith and spirituality ironically enough from the side that claims to be nearly devoid of any sort of religious coloring of the situation and rife with pure facts.
Bingo.
Oliver,
What I said wasn’t stupid at all actually. Your entire argument is that killing an unborn person is wrong because killing an innocent person is wrong. This philosophy is rooted in existing law against murder. When a mother has a surgical abortion the doctor doesn’t just remove the pregnancy, he often dismembers it, actively killing it.
My situation is different, and thus your argument would have to be different if you wanted it to apply. You would have to say that not only was I under an obligation not to kill but I was under an obligation to unwillingly use my body to keep someone else alive. Considering I did nothing to create said fetus, how could you argue that I was responsible for sacrificing for it? Perhaps you think it would be good will for me to sacrifice, but certainly I am not required to.
I think its sad if a man will die without receiving my kidney, but it doesn’t mandate that I give it to him. I don’t have a right to shoot him, but I certainly have a right to not give him my kidney even if I am the only match and he will die without it
The unwanted fetus is really, by definition, a parasite. It is an organism which is dependent on its host for nourishment, cannot survive without its host, and in the case of an unwanted pregnancy–and unwanted child (since it has been clarified upthread that one can have a surprise/unwanted pregnancy and still want the child), it should be up to the mother to decide if she should allow her body to be further used.
If you want this child, love this child, etc, its presence alone is a positive (since it certainly doesn’t offer any tangible or measureable gains other than of the emotive variety); you would consider the pain and exhaustion and the perils of pregnancy well worth the gain. That would make it no longer a parasite, but probably closer to a mutualism (or at the very least, commensalism).
For a mother who doesn’t want the child, that fetus is a parasite. It relies on the host for nourishment. It cannot live without the host. it is detrimental to the host; it is draining nourishment from her, the mother often has side effects from pregnancy, not to mention the emotional drain of carrying a pregnancy to term. Why should the mother continue to hold this parasite in her, give up her bodily autonomy, for something she doesn’t even want? If I went off to another country and did not heed the advice of the locals and ended up drinking contaminated water, and got myself a parasitic infection as a result, would people be trying to convince me to keep it–despite it being detrimental to my health–because I was careless? Because the parasite is ‘innocent’ and ‘just trying to survive as nature designed it to’ and it ‘has a right to live’? That would be absurd. Sex is healthy and normal and while pregnancy is a potential result of sex, it should by no means be considered the only reason one have sex. Children should not be a punishment for those who don’t want it; that’s just more misery for everyone involved.
Breaking news….in a dramatic break from hardline feminist ideology we have now been presented with the ”baby in the womb as a Parasite ” proposal.As obnoxious and incoherant as it is at least it shatters the mythologyical concept of ”its my body”.
So is it a Parasite or is it your body ? I prefer scientific reality over mythology and ideology and call it the baby in the womb.
This story is a complete Fiction..just read the original Blog headline entitled ”Esoterica..where fact and fiction collide” and so on in the ”about the author section”
Raine-
What do you say to this? A baby is almost as helpless without its mother as a fetus is. A baby, if left alone in its crib even for a day or two without outside help, would probably die. It is dependent upon the mother and the father, if he is in the picture, for nourishment, shelter, clothing, all of its essential and non essential needs.
And yet you would probably consider the killing a baby murder, despite its lack of independence and the enormous physical and emotional burden it is to the mother or other adults who care for it. Why?
oliver your absolutely brilliant!
anthing I would have said you pretty much did.
First of all, a parasite is a type of symbiont. Symbiosis, by a generally accepted definition can be of 4 types: mutualism, parasitism, amensalism and comensalism.
A fetus is not a parasite. Why? Simple. Because a parasite, by definition, brings absolutely no advantage to the host. Whereas a fetus brings the highest advantage possible to the host: it directly increases it’s fitness, by allowing the host to pass it’s genes forward.
Also, you’re wrong about the very definition of “parasite”-an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds;
“two or more kinds” = they must be of different species. Otherwise, all mammals would qualify as “parasites”.
Lana: What I said wasn’t stupid at all actually. Your entire argument is that killing an unborn person is wrong because killing an innocent person is wrong.
No, it is not. My entire argument is that neglecting a child under your sole care is wrong, so neglecting a preborn via abortion is also wrong. This is why I used my example.
You said that you should be allowed to kick the preborn out of your womb and that it was not your fault that the preborn couldn’t survive outside of your care and then died. Using that logic, any parent should be allowed to eject her child from her own private airplane. Would it also not be the parent’s fault that the kid couldn’t survive? Show me the difference if you still think it doesn’t apply to the words you chose.
My situation is different, and thus your argument would have to be different if you wanted it to apply. You would have to say that not only was I under an obligation not to kill but I was under an obligation to unwillingly use my body to keep someone else alive.
When did I say anything different? Did you not read the part where I asked you to “think before you post?” My argument has always been that abortion is wrong exactly because it is neglect. You are indeed obligated to care for your preborn child, just like any other parent is obligated to care for their born children.
Considering I did nothing to create said fetus, how could you argue that I was responsible for sacrificing for it? Perhaps you think it would be good will for me to sacrifice, but certainly I am not required to.
How does your role in creating the fetus matter? Think about it for a second. What if you didn’t have an abortion, and you passively remained pregnant and then gave birth. Wouldn’t you be responsible for that born child, even though you did nothing to actively create it? It wouldn’t be a matter of “goodness” to sacrifice for your now born child. You would be obligated to care for it. How is the relationship different? In either case the child was the creation of either rape or a bad decision. It is unwanted in either case. Why would you be responsible in the latter case, but not in the former?
I think its sad if a man will die without receiving my kidney, but it doesn’t mandate that I give it to him. I don’t have a right to shoot him, but I certainly have a right to not give him my kidney even if I am the only match and he will die without it
Of course, which is why the kidney argument is famously terrible. I am not obligated to even give one penny to this same man, yet I am obligated to pay for my children as long as they are under my primary care. The kidney example does not apply, at all.
It is simple, Lana. You are obligated to nurture your children. This means that you have to give them food, water, and shelter. You do not have to provide for specific deficiencies, but you MUST provide the basic necessities of life. This comes at the sacrifice of your autonomy. This is no different in either pregnancy or traditional parenthood. If you believe you can neglect your fetus, then you should also be fine neglecting born children. After all, why should you have to sacrifice anything at all for another human? I mean, autonomy is autonomy, right?
Oliver, you said:
it is simple, Lana. You are obligated to nurture your children. This means that you have to give them food, water, and shelter. You do not have to provide for specific deficiencies, but you MUST provide the basic necessities of life.
No you don’t actually. You can say at any point you don’t want your kids and put them into foster care or up for adoption, or if they are young enough and its legal in your state you can drop them off at a fire station or hospital.
Of course, which is why the kidney argument is famously terrible. I am not obligated to even give one penny to this same man, yet I am obligated to pay for my children as long as they are under my primary care
exactly. Your children are under your primary care voluntarily. But you can always give them away. I am saying a pregnant woman should be allowed the same freedom as regular parents, if they want to take responsibility they should. But notice if you put your 15 year old up for adoption and no one takes him you are not legally responsible, you can absolutely positively abdicate responsibility for your born child, which you should be able to do with your unborn child as well.
“How does your role in creating the fetus matter? Think about it for a second. What if you didn’t have an abortion, and you passively remained pregnant and then gave birth. Wouldn’t you be responsible for that born child, even though you did nothing to actively create it? ”
Haha no..i wouldn’t be If i had CHOSEN to take responsibility than I would have. But I could legally say ‘this rape baby ain’t my problem’ and leave it at the hospital or leave it with the state or adopt it out…women DO not have to care for their children once they give birth to them UNLESS THEY CHOOSE TOO, using your earlier claim why should it be different for pregnant women
Lana: No you don’t actually. You can say at any point you don’t want your kids and put them into foster care or up for adoption, or if they are young enough and its legal in your state you can drop them off at a fire station or hospital.
You are right, as long as there is a suitable alternative. It doesn’t change the fact that you ARE obligated until that moment comes. Say you and your children are snowed in for the winter in Alaska/Antarctica or whatever. Do you agree that you are obligated to care for those children until the time comes that you can find another person to care for them? The same goes for pregnancy. As soon as the mother can find a mostly suitable alternative, say 28 weeks or so, the mother should no longer be obligated to care for the child. Simple. However, until that point occurs, the parent, in both cases, is responsible.
exactly. Your children are under your primary care voluntarily. But you can always give them away. I am saying a pregnant woman should be allowed the same freedom as regular parents, if they want to take responsibility they should. But notice if you put your 15 year old up for adoption and no one takes him you are not legally responsible, you can absolutely positively abdicate responsibility for your born child, which you should be able to do with your unborn child as well.
Your kids are not under you primary care voluntarily. They are under your primary care by default. The difference is that you do not ever need to give consent to care for your kids in order to be responsible for them. If a mother were to give birth at home in the middle of a storm, that mother is directly responsible for that child until the point she elects to find another parent. She may then choose to volunteer for the job, but by default she is responsible for the child. Case in point, I never signed anything saying that I would take care of my kids. I never told anyone directly that I accepted the responsibility either. However, when my children were under my care, I was directly responsible for them. I couldn’t kick them out of the car on the way home from the hospital. Now I hope you aren’t suggesting that by having the kid passively, you implicitly give consent to care for the child right? That’s a dangerous road to go down, especially for a rape victim of your sort.
See, you seem to think that pro-Lifers want the mother to always have responsibility. We don’t. We want the mother to have responsibility up to the point that a suitable alternative to her care can be found. You also agree with this idea. You do not think a parent can shirk parental responsibility at any whim, say in the middle of a two-week cruise. You also think that a parent, regardless of ever volunteering initially, is responsible for the child until a suitable alternative is found. Here is another example. What if a mother has a baby and the baby cannot take formula? (This happens, but even if it didn’t, you could accept it hypothetically.) Would the mother be obligated to nurse the baby until another food source could be found? I imagine you agree that it would be neglect for the mother to allow the baby to starve simply because she did not want to nurse. (Again, if it helps, imagine the mother gave birth during a snowstorm and cannot get out of the house to find another option for a week or so.)
Lana: Haha no..i wouldn’t be If i had CHOSEN to take responsibility than I would have. But I could legally say ‘this rape baby ain’t my problem’ and leave it at the hospital or leave it with the state or adopt it out…women DO not have to care for their children once they give birth to them UNLESS THEY CHOOSE TOO, using your earlier claim why should it be different for pregnant women
You aren’t answering the question. Are you responsible? You seem to suggest yes, because you say that you are responsible until you drop the baby off someplace. If you did not think you were responsible, then you would agree that you could simply give birth and then leave the child wherever you choose. Do you agree with this?
I know it is confusing. That is why I try to use examples. I am not asking, do you have to care for the baby forever. I am asking, do you have responsibility for the baby. So, here is the example to consider for your point.
Say you did not have an abortion, out of fear and financial burden. You instead took a cruise and inexplicably gave birth in the middle of the trip, which lasts two weeks. There is no one on board able, or willing, to care for the child. Are you responsible for the child for the two week period it takes to get back to shore? If you are, would you also be responsible to nurse the baby, assuming you are physically able?
I would consider a baby that is carried to term and born to be wanted, because the option exists for the pregnancy to be terminated long beforehand. (Barring the situation that abortion is not available, in which case this entire debate is moot.) The fact that it’s been kept and carried to term means that that’s a wanted child by the mother (and perhaps others) that surround it. If I wanted to keep that fetus (and further, that child), I would be enraged at someone trying to take him/her away from me.
If I don’t want it, I have the option of removing it–an option that should exist. If I don’t want it in me, then it is taking up my nourishment and resources when I don’t want it to. I should have the bodily autonomy to remove something I dislike, don’t want, and causes detriment to me.
I suppose one could argue that furthering the gene pool is an advantage, although I find using that argument pretty comical. I don’t think people who want children generally take the gene pool into account when they make that decision, so I don’t feel that it should be involved in this argument when trying to argue against people who don’t want kids. The ‘gene pool’ and ‘human race’ are far too big picture and distant to have any value to me in my immediate day to day life.
If we could immediately leave our young after they are born, and they are born completely self sufficient, maybe then pregnancy, alone, wouldn’t be that terrible to bear. Maybe. But if the gene pool argument is the only advantage–and a questionable one at that–it is vastly outweighed by the burdens of pregnancy and caring for a child I manifestly did not want.
Then Raine, why do we hear of mothers smothering their newborns? Or throwing their newborns into a lake? Or leaving their newborns in a closet, locker or the woods to die?
Your whole theory of “if the baby is carried to term its wanted” is not true. And the problem is that “being wanted” which is subjective and can change in a moment does not affect the humanity of the unborn child. A mother’s feelings do not, never have, and never will, affect the biological reality that her child is a living human person.
Do you advocate that a mother who carries to term, delivers and upon delivery of the child decides that she does NOT WANT this baby, has the right to “abort”? and by that I mean, kill the child? Why or why not if “the mother wanting it” is the most important factor in life/death decisions?
I would consider a baby that is carried to term and born to be wanted, because the option exists for the pregnancy to be terminated long beforehand.
Whoa! Are you saying that by not having the abortion the mother implicitly consents to having the baby? I thought you guys were opposed to implicit consent. I mean, using your logic, couldn’t you say that a woman implicitly consents to parenthood when she has sex? I never fully bought that argument myself, but you are right now suggesting that very same thing.
And of course, as Sid pointed out, not all pregnancies brought to term are wanted. I even made allowance for that in my example, which you so “deftly” avoided. I said: Say you did not have an abortion, out of fear and financial burden.
(Barring the situation that abortion is not available, in which case this entire debate is moot.)
What exactly does that mean? There are plenty of places that outlaw abortion. Would the mother be responsible for the born child in those cases, or would she be able to kill the child by neglect?
The fact that it’s been kept and carried to term means that that’s a wanted child by the mother (and perhaps others) that surround it.
Again, with the implicit consent argument! Does a woman want a pregnancy because she has sex? How about this one: Does a woman want to have sex even though she did not say no? Your argument supports both of those ideas. Empirical evidence suggests that many women have children that they never wanted. You are frankly dodging the question.
If I don’t want it, I have the option of removing it–an option that should exist. If I don’t want it in me, then it is taking up my nourishment and resources when I don’t want it to. I should have the bodily autonomy to remove something I dislike, don’t want, and causes detriment to me.
Yeah, we already know how you feel on that. The question is what if you do not want the born child? Are you responsible for the born child? Heck, what if you change your mind from wanting to not wanting? Are you responsible to find an alternative for that kid, or are you allowed to immediately abandon it? Careful how you answer, because it affects your position on abortion.
I suppose one could argue that furthering the gene pool is an advantage, although I find using that argument pretty comical.
Which is why I never brought it up. What’s that called again, when you pretend that someone argued something different so that you can avoid the actual argument?
It is vastly outweighed by the burdens of pregnancy and caring for a child I manifestly did not want.
Well, in our society, no one says you have to care for the child that you give birth to. Fotunately, if you carry the pregnancy to term in a hospital, you do not have to care for the child any further. But, you bring up an interesting point. You suggest that you do not want to carry a child to term because you do not want to have to care for the child. Can a parent, who is snowed in or stuck on a cruise, use this same argument in neglecting a child? Maybe a parent only agreed to care for the child for 2 years, and that time period ended during a snow in or on a boat in the ocean. Is the mother allowed to neglect the child and not provide food/water? If not, how is this any different than in abortion, which is itself neglect?
Pregnancy is an entirely unique condition. The dependence of a newborn on its caretakers isn’t comparable to the dependence of a fetus on its mother. In the latter case, we are talking about an entity taking up residence inside a human being. When prochoicers invoke the autonomy argument, location is absolutely crucial. Arguing that abortion makes the murder of born people permissible is just spurious reasoning, or else a projection of macabre pro-life fantasies.
But alright, so you still believe that abortion will lead to the indiscriminate killing of children and adults and what have you. What about other instances where murder is justifiable? Is my “right to life” less secure with the existence of the death penalty, when a jury of men can condemn another human being to death?
Megan,
But alright, so you still believe that abortion will lead to the indiscriminate killing of children and adults and what have you. What about other instances where murder is justifiable? Is my “right to life” less secure with the existence of the death penalty, when a jury of men can condemn another human being to death?
I fully support giving unborn children due process of law prior to being executed.
And yes, when we start deciding who lives and who dies based on level of dependence, then the disabled and elderly are put at risk, among others. It’s not a “sick fantasy,” it’s a very unwelcome reality. Check out the Netherlands, where the sick and disabled — including newborns — are legally put to death every day, in increasing numbers.
Doug, to: “Oliver, I was thinking of an anencephalic infant. The cognizant beings you mention – I would indeed see them as “people.”
So what is it? Rationality or the ability to feel pain? Infants are not rational, but feel pain. People without the ability to feel pain are not able to feel pain, but are rational. Hell, infants that are born without the ability to feel pain are NEITHER rational NOR can they feel pain. What do all of these things have in common? They are all unique human organisms. Seems to me to be an obvious issue.
Oliver, you had asked,
“What if a person were able to void themselves of physical pain and emotional pain and simply exist as a rational mind within a human body. Would you honestly say that this person…is not a person?”
If a rational, cognizant mind is there, or even if it’s not all that rational, I still see personhood as being present. But if there is nothing there are far as mental awareness, no personality, no emotion, etc., then I don’t see personhood as being there.
Agreed that they are all “unique human organisms.” However, take out the brain, and even if the body is kept alive by pumping oxygenated blood and nutrients through the blood vessels, then I think the person is gone. There’s a human body there, sure, but the “they” that was formerly present, isn’t there now, in my opinion.
____
I maintain that it is our consideration of both the baby and the woman that is relevant.
It only matters if we are talking about the preborn’s right to use the mother’s body. We are NOT talking about that. We are talking about the innate nature of the fetus. This is TOTALLY unrelated to the mother. How is that hard to understand?
The test-tube baby is a good example, to isolate it for consideration, but wow does that ever change things.
It changes nothing, Doug. Stop for 15 seconds and think about it. We are talking about the innate nature of the preborn. How could it POSSIBLY matter anything outside of the preborn itself, i.e. the mother.
Well, the “innate nature” of the unborn is really not the issue. There is the biological, physical reality, and then we get to opinions about the unborn.
_____
Personally, I don’t know about “test-tube babies.” I think this would be like cloned babies – I’m talking about before they were sentient. Or mass-produced babies from the “zygote machine” – just how would we treat them? Good question.
If you are unsure of the nature of test-tube babies, then you should be equally unsure of the nature of the preborn. One more time to make this as clear as possible. There is a distinction between the question “Does a preborn have rights at all?” and “Even if the preborn DOES have rights, does it have the specific right to use its mother’s body for food and shelter?” So, for this first part of the discussion, the mother is irrelevant. Please think about this critically before posting again.
Again, it’s not the nature that is being debated. Okay, considerations of the woman aside, both the above questions depend on what the answerer believes. And it depends on what entity would feel the rights were there or not there, i.e. the restrictions on later-term abortions we have now constitute a limited form of rights being granted. It’s not absolute, but it’s also not “nothing” – society is considering something to be there with respect to the later-term fetus. The individual may agree or disagree that that is the way it should be.
As to “does it have the specific right to use its mother’s body for food and shelter,” I see that as less of a question than “does it have the right to life?” As long as it’s living, it simply *does* use the woman’s body for food and shelter. Again, not at argument. The debate is over when we can interfere with that, if at all. Not trying to avoid your question – my personal feeling is that no, it does not have that specific right, at least to a point in gestation.
_____
Maybe we can put it this way. If you knew you would be put into a coma and would temporarily have no cognitive faculty. You would basically suffer severe brain damage. However, you would have the prospect of not only recovering your faculty, but maybe even some of your memories. Because of the brain damage and the coma, you would neither possess rationality nor would you be perceptive of pain. If you knew this was coming, would you want to be treated as any other human? Would you want to be allowed to live or die by your own choice? Or would you think that you deserved no special care because you were not rational, nor could you perceive pain. Even though you wouldn’t feel anything in that state, can you not project your current wishes into that circumstance? Think carefully about it for a minute. It isn’t necessary to understand why all humans deserve protection, but it may be sufficient for you to understand.
Presuming I wanted to continue living – which I do now – then as long as there was a worthwhile chance that I’d recover as you say, I would want to be kept alive. The point about empathy remains, however. Above, it is me, cognizant, with emotions, etc., speaking.
You said: You simply do not have the cognitive ability to show empathy other than “how would I feel in that position?”
That’s not true. Sure, we may think about how we’d feel in that position, but there is also empathy for situations in which emotional pain, for example, is felt by others when we ourselves have no chance to be in said situation. My point all along is that there has to be “somebody” there in the first place, some mind with emotions, etc., before true empathy *with them* is possible. Otherwise we are just personifying or projecting our own emotions to where there are none.
_____
“If a woman has a miscarriage, it can be a very sad thing for her, presuming she wanted to be pregnant. If she has a zygote that doesn’t implant, it will be much less sad for her, since she won’t even know (I’m assuming she won’t know). The same thing has occurred, and the real question is how the woman (and her family) feels. With abortion, I know that you and many others are sad about it, but hardly ever would you directly know of it, rather it is the idea of it that you’re primarily dealing with. I contrast that with the pregnant woman, who is most certainly directly involved, and whose desires are much more applicable, in my opinion.”
How is this meaningful? I am less sad when a total stranger dies than when a family member dies. I am less sad when a a family member who I have not yet met dies than when a close family member dies. What’s the point?
You had mentioned the wizard making me into a fetus. Either I would stay “myself” and not be changed, in which the question is really just if I want to keep going or not, or – the fetus would go through life differently, not having my memories, learning, experiencing in at least slightly different ways, and a different person would result. If so, then once the wizard did his thing, I’d be gone, never to return, whether or not that one given fetus existed or not.
My point then is that it wouldn’t really be different than dying. “I” would be gone. And there are births and miscarriages and abortions all the time, and in the grand scheme of things the presence or the absence of one fetus is not a big deal – unless we look at situations like where the woman or family really wants to have a baby.
Gail F: Ophy: What you don’t seem to understand is that it doesn’t matter what you think a fetus is. It makes no sense to say, “I think a three-week old fetus is a bunch of cells and only a potential baby, you think whatever you like about it.” A fetus, like anything else, can’t be one thing to one person and another thing to another person. That is true of an adjective but not a noun (I can think a painting is beautiful, you can think it’s ugly — but it IS a painting). Many people want to avoid making decisions — or want to hide the fact that they have made decisions — by pretending they don’t know what a thing is or that what it is doesn’t matter. But this is silliness at best and lying at worst. I’m sorry you had an abortion when you were young, but the truth is that you killed your baby.
Gail, you too are mixing up the subjective with the objective. You are correct that many people are mistaken about the development of the unborn. There is a time when it indeed is just “a mass of cells” without much apparent form, but this changes pretty quickly. Although – at 3 weeks it’s an embryo, not a fetus. There are specifically correct medical terms – that in the main cannot be argued, and there is the biological, physical reality of the unborn.
You toss that all out the window when you say, “the truth is that you killed your baby.” No, it depends on when the people in involved think that “baby” applies. You might think it’s there from conception, but in no way will another given person necessarily think that. Same with “child” and other subjective terms.
Doug: Again, it’s not the nature that is being debated.
Of course it is the nature that is being debated. The very start of this argument was simply “does a preborn have any rights?” This is a question of the nature of the preborn. It is also, in fact, one of the main issues within the abortion debate. If you are willing to grant that a preborn has rights, we can then move on the question about the use of its mother’s body, but that has yet to happen. The whole point of all of my examples is to demonstrate how a preborn is a person. I am actually kind of floored that you have not been debating this with me the whole time, since you have responded to all of my posts.
Oh, an angry rant. I see. I’ve been angry at times about perceived injustices but when calmed down can see better that it was emotions and not facts. It appears that Salon took the anti-life agenda and ran with it. Now Mikki gets to rant to a wider audience but doesn’t like that there is opposition to the baby being ripped apart which brings to mind The Silent Scream. We live in a very selfish society. Sacrificying for others, especially our own is just not politically correct to the pro-aborts, it’s my body(as well as someone else’s) crowd. I see the little frog singing me me me me, me me me me. The baby I had after having a partial abruption just turned 12 and is doing just fine, thank you.
Jill, as someone that knows the author of the article personally, I am horrified that anyone who claims to be pro-life would suggest that it is better to let the mother die simply because they disagree with her opinions/experiences. Please delete Robot Sam’s comments. That is beyond the pale, and while I’ve avoided stepping in (even though there have been a lot of comments I personally find deeply troubling), this one is truly horrible.
I agree with Beth. His comment is atrocious and not pro-life in the slightest. We believe in saving BOTH mother and child, not one over the other.
I am horrified that anyone who claims to be pro-life would suggest that it is better to let the mother die simply because they disagree with her opinions/experiences.
Please attempt to keep in mind it isn’t the pro-life qualm that the mother lived. It’s our qualm that her life was chosen OVER the life of her child, and every effort wasn’t made to save her baby. If abortion was involved, every effort was NOT made to save her AND her baby.
You may have missed the original comment (thankfully, Jill deleted it, which I appreciate), but honestly, how on *earth* can you defend someone who said “In any case, in hindsight, saving the kid and letting the mother die would actually been prudent in this case.”
Seriously, did you just defend someone who said that? That is a disgusting thing to say, and I am not at all interested in the abortion semantics arguments. No matter what, saying that letting the mother die would be wise/good/okay/preferable is *not* pro-life. And it is not okay.
I am a Christian, and Mikki is my friend. You can’t call yourself pro-life or a Christian and say that that statement is ever, *ever* justified. Good grief. You people have effectively converted me to being pro-choice. If one of your friends had this happen, and you saw all these people you didn’t know maligning her and saying she “embellished” her story and saying that it would have been better to let her die. I just don’t know where you get off. How on earth can you even think of justifying something like that? Defending someone who says that? I am appalled. There are a lot of people who have said a lot of terrible things throughout this comment thread, but I think defending someone wishing for your friend to *die* is about the worst.
Well shame on you then Beth. If you are a CHRISTIAN you follow what Christ says not what someone on some thread on the internet says. And Christ said don’t hurt children because their angels do behold the face of the Father in heaven. So maybe you ought to base your views on abortion based on what the Bible says about the origins of human life and how God feels about each human life, not about what anyone else says. We follow CHRIST not other people.
Btw, Xalisae is not a Christian and she “gets it” better than you. No one is saying we wished Mikki had died or that the baby’s life had MORE value than Mikki’s. Did you not just hear us say that several times?
Remember when you give an account of your life to God some day it will be such a good excuse to say “Well Lord, I allowed the slaughter of innocent children to go on around me because some jerk said some really mean things about my friend Mikki on a thread on the internet!”
Be like Daniel, Beth. Daniel of the Bible did what was RIGHT even when EVERYONE around him did wrong. If you choose to do evil then please don’t even claim the name of Christ because you would be a liar.
Beth,
Perhaps you could address the specific commenter that changed you from prolife to prochoice?
Must we state emphatically after every troll deletion “I didn’t agree with that??!!”
Beth,
I’m not quite sure I understand your thinking here. You were presumably pro-life because you were convinced that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life. Now you believe that perhaps some pro-lifers are hypocrites or cowards or whatever. How does it follow that the existence of a pro-life hypocrite shows that abortion is NOT the unjust taking of an innocent human life? God love you.
She made the whole thing up and Salon.com was dumb enough to post it. Why? Because this fantasy fits the narrative of the leftists at Salon. She should be fired immediately for this bs.
As a Christian, I am called to love others the way Christ loved them. I love Mikki. I love her boys. I love her husband and his family. Mikki was there for me when I was in the thick of infertility, struggling with multiple miscarriages, even *after* her own traumas. You can malign me the same way you maligned her- I don’t expect much less in coming to her defense, but she is a child of God, she wanted that baby, she grieved for that baby, and you guys- a bunch of “pro-life” folks, some of whom claim to be Christian- accuse her of lying. One of your number said she would have been better off dead and *another* came to defend that statement. Only one of you rightly condemned the man who said that.
If you want to change my opinion, it would be nice to see you behaving in ways that support and encourage life instead of supporting and encouraging or standing silently by and letting trolls wish people dead. Wish my friends dead. I was on the fence about abortion beforehand, because of my own struggles with infertility and the fact that I’m adopted. Having seen how the pro-life camp treats women who’ve had a medically necessary abortion, well… yes, pro-life hypocrites, and those that support them, are enough to get me off the fence. At least pro-choicers are consistent, and seem to show my friend more Christlike love and support than most of you.
I can’t tell you how disappointed I am by so many of you. I won’t be responding further- it’s too upsetting for me to see the kinds of hurtful comments you’re making about the mother of my godsons. What hard hearts you have.
Beth – do you believe it is possible to love someone yet not agree with all of their actions?
Also, it’s not true that only one of the commenters condemned the earlier statement – Carla said, “Must we state emphatically after every troll deletion ‘I didn’t agree with that??!!'”
First off Beth, I didn’t condemn what that guy wrote because I never read it. It never showed up in my email or somehow I skimmed over it. I didn’t read it so how would I know to condemn it? But I am condemning it now (based on what you say he wrote) okay?
If Mikki is a Christian then why is she writing to defend killing other children? Thats WRONG! Plain wrong. Why didn’t she write an article to bring God glory for grace during the midst of trials? Why would she write to defend something so heinous as abortion? She may be a Christian, I don’t know her heart. God knows. But if she is I am horrified that a child of Christ would defend something so clearly straight from the pits of hell. Humans are made in the image of God and Satan loves nothing more than to see innocent babies created in God’s image torn limb from limb and the souls of their mothers, for whom Christ died, being lost to years of bitterness and regret.
And you say you’re a Christian but because you are offended by a couple people you’re suddenly pro-choice? Gimme a break Beth. Ground your principles in the Word of God not in your fickleness.
Doug: “Again, it’s not the nature that is being debated.”
Of course it is the nature that is being debated. The very start of this argument was simply “does a preborn have any rights?” This is a question of the nature of the preborn. It is also, in fact, one of the main issues within the abortion debate. If you are willing to grant that a preborn has rights, we can then move on the question about the use of its mother’s body, but that has yet to happen. The whole point of all of my examples is to demonstrate how a preborn is a person. I am actually kind of floored that you have not been debating this with me the whole time, since you have responded to all of my posts.
Oliver, my point is that it’s not the nature of the unborn that is being debated. There is physical, biological reality, there, and it’s not the issue. What is at argument is how we treat the unborn. It is the status we give them, or do not give them. What you want is for society to treat them differently than what the case is now.
And one more thing Beth… if you want to love the way Christ loves then don’t stand there and condone sin. Loving someone does not mean you condone their decision based outside the Word of God. No one has peace who isn’t living in the center of God’s will and if you are a Christian you know this. So why would you hasten Mikki and other women like her down the path of destruction? What a foolish friend you are! I’d rather someone speak the truth to me than be loving to my face while I march down a bitter path to my own hurt. Christ was loving but He said “Go and SIN NO MORE”. He didn’t say “Well, I know why you had 5 husbands and why you were committing adultery and you made the best decisions you could at the time…” No. He told her to SIN NO MORE which would be a condemnation of SIN.
You’re really a little confused about what is right and wrong Beth. Time to get back into the Word. Lean not unto your own understanding!
Sydney, et. al- I never said Mikki was a Christian. I said I was. I also said she was a child of God.
You guys sure do like to take things you read and jump to conclusions without completely reading what was said.
As I said, I will stop commenting, because it’s not just a “couple” of you that are being offensive- from Jill Stanek accusing my friend of lying on down to this troll saying that he wished she were dead, many of you are showing by your comments and lack of comments that you are incredibly callous. Given that, and the misreading of pretty much everything from the article to the comments I’ve made, this conversation is not edifying or loving for anyone, and it would be best to just let it go.
You can malign me the same way you maligned her- I don’t expect much less in coming to her defense, but she is a child of God
You said she was a child of God Beth. Isn’t a child of God a Christian? A child of God would follow God’s Son, right? But you don’t want to converse… well then buh-bye. I really get angry at those who are so lukewarm they refuse to call sin SIN. If that offends you so be it. Be offended. Sin offends a Holy God. Remember that.
We’re all children of God, Sydney. Sadly, not all children of God choose to follow Him.
Beth, do you think it is possible to love someone but not approve of or support their choices?
JoAnna- Absolutely. But I don’t think very many of the people writing here, from Jill Stanek on down, are at all interested in loving or caring for my friend. It seems like a lot of them are more interested in tearing her to pieces over a very painful part of her history. And that’s not even getting into how unloving the earlier discussion involving the girl who had been date-raped was. I really need to disengage here, though, because so many of your fellow commenters are not even close to caring. Thank you for your kindness and compassion, JoAnna. You’re the only one that’s even come close to being decent to Mikki.
Thank you, Beth, but respectfully I disagree. I think many (not all, certainly, but many) commenters here have been kind and respectful to Mikki while pointing out several inaccuracies and confusing points in her story.
I agree that Mikki deserves love and respect even if we profoundly disagree with her attitude to abortion (at the moment) and even if the story is very likely embellished with a degree of artistic flair and licence as Mikki says herself on her blog ”Esoterica where non-fiction and fiction collide”.There is no excuse for rudeness or disrespect.The Prolife community has to walk the walk regarding the Gospel admonition to ”love your opponents” just as we ask abortion supporters to think about loving the baby in the womb. Mikki deserves respect however the attempt by the abortion industry to hijack tragic stories and unfortunate individual cases to leverage the obliteration of the right to conscientious objection is disgraceful.Unfortunately ever since poor Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe was used and then thrown on the scrapheap of history by the abortion industry that is what we have come to expect from the people who promote death and destruction on an industrial scale.
“yes, pro-life hypocrites, and those that support them, are enough to get me off the fence.”
So do you think this is a logical position to take? That if a certain group is hypocritical, then the view they espouse is incorrect?
JoAnna, the Bible says we are not all children of God. Do not confuse being created BY God, FOR God and in the IMAGE OF God with being “children of God”. St. Paul clearly states that those who are not followers of Christ follow “their father the devil”.
when we accept Christ as our Savior and choose to follow Him then we are adopted into God’s family and become “children of God”.
Wishy washy “feel good” statements that we are all God’s children are NOT based on Scripture! Because unfortunately, though God would desire all of mankind to come to Him through His Son and be a part of His family… many people choose to follow their sin instead. And they have “friends” like Beth cheerleading them straight into heartache and estrangement from God.
I meant “children of God” in the sense that Mikki is equally loved by God and was created by Him, even if she doesn’t return His love.
I believe what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 1:
“God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.”
Well I agree with you on that JoAnna. Mikki was created by God and is equally loved by Him. No argument on that.
lauren says:
May 27, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Oh and as someone who has been “cut open like a fish” and had my child “put in the NICU with who knows what chance of surviving and with what conditions.” all I can say is that I find it very depressing that instead of advocating for giving a child a fighting chance at life, this woman is advocating killing other children.
After my experience, I started volunteering to help with women who were placed on bedrest following abruptia or PPROM. I helped them fight for their babies. Sorry if I find someone fighting against these same children to be a bit upsetting.
~~~~~
Lauren, yes, thank you! My third child had a tear in his placenta just shy of 10 weeks. I went to the hospital devastated, believing I was losing him. With lots of bed rest and prayer, the tear eventually healed, but his water ruptured (I say “his” as it technically belonged to his body) at 27 weeks 1 day. He was born later that day because, long story short, they were concerned about a possible infection and they said both he and I stood a better chance if he were delivered and he was–via c-section. He’ll be 2 in 3 months and is perfectly healthy with no issues from being so premature. The doctors and other medical staff were always concerned with both of us, not just me and not just him. Also, as Lauren mentioned in another post, due to his size he was automatically covered by medicaid (as a secondary since we had insurance) and SSI. We never had to pay for any of his medical bills while he was in the hospital and for several months after he came home. I thank God every day for his life because mine is so much richer for it! There is ZERO excuse for killing a child that has a chance to survive!
Julie, it’s great hearing that your little man is doing so well! PPROM is so scary, but it sounds like you guys got great care.
“supporting socialized medicine so everyone can have access to health care, or equalizing funding for all school districts to everyone can have access to excellent education.”
1) Socialized medicine means that women who go into very premature labor, as I did, will face the certain death of their children.
***
Speaking as someone who is British, and a lucky recipient of socialised healthcare… how dare you lie about a system you know nothing about, outside hysterical fearmongering? What ignorant, US-centric rubbish. Our health system is far more effective for far more people than yours, according to every independent body measuring such things. I know plenty of people whose preemies have done very, very well and continue to do so. Your bigoted, ignorant assumptions are just wrong – I suggest you google Professor Kypros Nicolaides who is a world leading expert on fetal medical care, and is London based. My own niece owes her (happy, neurotypical, active) life to him. I may also add that some ridiculous US politician started insisting that Professor Stephen Hawking would be dead, were he British… until the Professor pointed out that he was in fact British, owed his life to the NHS, relied upon it still and was hugely grateful he wasn’t American, as he’d probably be dead, without the funds for his level of care. My mother has survived ten years with non-Hodgekins without accepting a marrow transplant, and she continues to receive exemplary care – and money never crosses anyone’s mind. How in the world you can object to that, when your tax burden for healthcare is higher and then you pay insane insurance costs on top, I don’t know. You could take out insurance in this country on top of the NHS provision, you know, but hardly anyone bothers. Which speaks, I think, volumes. Your comments are mistaken and offensive.
As to more money not equalling a better education – sure. That’s why Harvard and Yale cost the same as community colleges – right? Or is it different, when the institution isn’t funded by tax dollars? Magical morphing money?
The facile arguments on Susan Smith/men raping children are absurd. A man has the right to masturbate. He does not have the right to rape someone. There is no dependance of the victim upon him to make that okay in any way and it’s just a ridiculous comment. To compare a woman who can’t face a pregnancy, for whatever reason, to a rapist says more about you than it does her. In an ideal world, a fetus could be removed from the womb and grown in another woman, or in an incubator, but it can’t. There is no alternative other than forcing the woman to continue – which to me is a form of slavery we have no right to mandate.
Nobody has the right to force another human being to go through the extreme experience of carrying and birthing a child. Nobody. And I say that as someone who is a happy and adoring stay at home mom. I wish people could concentrate their zeal and energy on providing homes, baby equipment, childcare and support for women in crisis pregnancies, because it’s undeniable that some women who desperately want their babies abort on economic grounds. But hate and rage and anger won’t stop abortions. Nothing can or will, because women who are desperate to end pregnancies will do it. Demonising them is about validating yourself – not the cause, or you’d try harder to understand, to help, and to support, which is the only way to reduce abortions, in truth. It’s blindingly obvious to any outsider that the fetus is not your concern, and this thread is one of the most depressingly nasty things I’ve read in a long time.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but here’s what a consultant for your precious NHS has to say about the matter:
A prominent British health care official associated with the country’s socialized medicine agency NHS is set to make a disturbing admission in an upcoming documentary: she thinks premature babies born at 23 weeks gestation should be left to die. Why? Cost concerns.
“If it was my child, from all the evidence and information that I know, I would not resuscitate,” Dr. Daphne Austin says in the BBC program 23 Week Babies: The Price of Life, reports London’s Daily Mail.
She continues: “We are doing more harm than good by resuscitating 23-weekers. I can’t think of very many interventions that have such poor outcomes. For me the big issue is that we’re spending an awful lot of money on treatments that have very marginal benefit. I would prefer to free up that money to spend on providing support to people who have much more lifelong chronic conditions.” [Emphasis added]
In even more stunning comments, Austin says that while parents should get a say, in reality they don’t speak for the baby: “There’s a lot of emphasis on the parents’ views and what they want. But somewhere in there, there needs to be an advocate for the baby.” The assumption seems to be the baby would rather die.
The Mail says NHS spends about 10 million BPS, or over $16 million US, on treating babies born around 23 weeks, many of which either die or end up with birth defects.*
“Guidelines state that doctors should not try to resuscitate babies born under 22 weeks,” the paper says, “as they are too underdeveloped, but those born between 22 and 25 weeks should routinely be given intensive care.”
So I guess your niece just got REALLY lucky having been born past the 23 week cut-off date. She owes her life more to THAT fact than socialized healthcare, I would say. And I suppose she also got very lucky (as we all have since legalized abortion) to have been born to someone who “wanted” her rather than someone who otherwise would’ve been “forced to go through the extreme experience of carrying and birthing a child” since you think that women should have the legal option to kill their own undesired children in utero. If you don’t think protecting human lives-ALL human lives-is our concern, then you’re sadly misguided.
I know exactly what she said, and why. It was part of a very moving and sad documentary on very premature babies. It is disappointing, but not at all surprising, that it’s been jumped on by some over there to manipulate gullible hysterics. Just as the Daily Mail is a paper with a huge vested interest in undermining the NHS online, because most of its advertising revenue comes from right-wing American web-surfers (there’s a reason, you know, that that paper features a bunch of US celebrities nobody over here has ever heard of). The print version has a very different approach to reporting the NHS, because the NHS is very much loved by the people of this country, as all politicians are very aware. They squabble over who will protect, improve and develop it best, and they all guarantee increased funding.
That doctor did not say she reached that view purely on financial grounds – if you troubled to read what you cut and pasted you’ll see she said she’d reach that conclusion about her own baby. (Just as a friend who is a specal care nurse for babies has told me she would, too. She thinks too many little ones are kept going when their own best interests are not served, and they can’t survive with any quality of life despite very painful treatment, because their parents very understandably can’t bear to let them go.) 23 weeks is simply too early for survival to be possible in almost all cases, and no country has infinite resources – it is simply facile to pretend that they do. No insurance company does either. Money is indeed an issue in all healthcare choices, which is why in this country every single person is entitled to excellent care and their income level doesn’t come into it at all. We think it is immoral that people in the US have to worry about money, when they’ve been unlucky enough to be sick, too. 23 weeks is a troubling one, because you have to weigh up the suffering, the possibility of a good outcome – and yes, the costs, because what is the point in inflicting great suffering, before almost certain death, at phenomenal cost? That makes no sense at all. You can posture and grandstand all you like, but that’s the reality of it. When do you reach a cut-off point? Or in your mind, is there never one? Does a child deserve to suffer terribly in an inevitably vanishingly brief life, so you can feel morally vindicated? I beg to differ.
At 23 weeks, only 1 in 100 will survive. If you’ve ever seen the inside of a NICU and witnessed how terribly those tiny children suffer when exceedingly prem, how horrible the treatments – how horrible just the feeding process – how deprived they are of touch that is pleasant, which is so vital to a developing little mind – then yes, a gentle death in their mother’s arms at birth can sometimes be a kinder, saner outcome than weeks or months of pain and suffering, only to die then. If you think life at all costs is worth it, then I absolutely disagree. Life has to have some quality to be worth living – and to be free of immense pain is surely a good baseline point at which to start. My mother declined a bone marrow transplant because she knew it would be so horrendous, she’d rather take her chances with chemo. Same thinking. A mother whose little boy was in agony, while his mind was unimpaired, went to court to get his life support turned off recently (and I do separate that from Terri Schiavo, who was not suffering – there was no benefit to her, in withdrawing life support). And there are also financial elements in your system of healthcare. I know people who have not sought treatment when they needed it, because they weren’t insured. That horrified me beyond words – I couldn’t begin to imagine how that must feel. It’s terribly wrong. Many insurance policies will not cover “experimental” treatment, I’m told, too. Over here, it’s available free of charge if benefit has been shown. You can believe skewed, biased reporting, which is thus skewed and biased because private healthcare is a hugely profitable industry. Or you could accept the very logical point that in this country, every single person is entitled to free and effective healthcare, costing the taxpayer many times less than your care does, while serving the whole community. And that if people choose to purchase additional private insurance, as they can here or in the USA, then that option is available to them.
Incidentally, our Conservative (Republican equivalent) Prime Minister has just publicly pledged that he will never, ever allow the NHS to become a system such as the American, because it appals people here that income level should dictate healthcare. It’s seen as wickedly wrong. If my little boy is sick at 4 am, too sick to visit the 24 hour care, bu not sick enough to need the ER (and yes, it has happened) a family doctor comes over to the house to check on him. For nothing. When you have a baby, your doctor will come over the day you get home to see you all – and that’s not including the free, home visiting antenatal care, nor the Health Visitor nurse who comes to see every mother for the first two years of her child’s life to offer advice, help, support… and packs of baby picture books, to encourage Mom to read to her little one. And our local NICU employs an infant psychologist, to support the parents in limiting the emotional damage done to prem babies by the suffering they endure, so they can be sung to, talked to, loved and held even with skin so fragile it chafes away. They also run a human milk bank – I should know, I supplied it for months on end. All of this is free, all of it is available to every child nd every family on the basis of need. All prescribed drugs and medical equipment are free to children under 18, too. So don’t lecture me in your brainwashed ignorance on how terrible socialised medical care is, because you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Children are looked after very, very well here, and no parent need worry about money in accessing healthcare. From where I’m standing you care terribly about ickle babies in the womb, but when they’re born at term? EVIL SOCIALISED HEALTHCARE! What, exactly, is so wrong with wanting every single child in a country to have access to quality healthcare and an education, no matter what income bracket their parents happen to belong in? You’ve not answered that point. You’ve just cut and pasted a tabloid article on hyper-prem babies and hurled insults. In case your educational level didn’t cover it – that does not constitute a decent, cogent, or even existing argument at all.
You’re trying to lecture me on a healthcare system I use and have used all my life, based on an online article from a tabloid intentionally pandering to the prejudices of people like you? Seriously? That’s the best you can do, in seeking to attack the proposition that good quality healthcare, just like a good quality education, should be available to everyone? How can you find that statement controversial? Your government spends triple the tax dollars on your system, but we get free care at the point of use, universally, and you don’t. And we can take out insurance if we want, just as you can. But we don’t, for the most part. Because we’re very satisfied with what we have under the state-provided system. We don’t have to pay for the excessive admin of a two-tier approach, or for insurance company overheads and profits, or for inflated marketing budgets and smear campaigns whenever anyone tries to do something about an insanely injust and overpriced system. We just pay for care. But hey, if you want to make insurance company shareholders rich instead, that’s your call. You’ll have to forgive me for thinking it a pretty stupid and gullible one, that’s all.
Finally please don’t tell me “protecting human lives – ALL HUMAN LIVES” is your concern. It very, very apparently is not. You don’t give a damn about children once the abortion issue is out of the way – and certainly not once they’re grown up, and leading tough and complex lives. You just care about how good you feel while waving your big banner. Funny – you none of you seem to know that presuming to know the mind of God is generally regarded as a fairly major sin. It isn’t for you to judge. That’s His path. And I don’t see a whole heap of supporting going on here – when you start attacking healthcare designed to care for every single person on an equal footing, rich or poor, and you simultaneously try to claim you walk with Jesus, it makes me wonder if you’ve ever even bothered to read the Bible.
Oh, and incidentally, my niece was indeed prem. But Professor Nicolaides treated her in the womb. He isn’t a professor of neo-natal medicine (though she was treated by one of those, too). He’s a professor of FETAL medicine, as I clearly stated. You know – that evil socialised healthcare system, that doesn’t care about babies in utero, funding a research chair at an NHS hospital, into ways to operate on babies in the womb so they can stay there for longer and be born later, and have a far greater chance of survival.
Yep, this socialised medical system sure is callous. Looking after babies in the womb, and then out of the womb, and all for nothing. Shocking stuff. Man the barricades – it must be stopped!
Olivia, You say,
“You just care about how good you feel while waving your big banner. ”
And then immediately after that you say,
“Funny – you none of you seem to know that presuming to know the mind of God is generally regarded as a fairly major sin. It isn’t for you to judge. That’s His path.”
A bit later you say,
“You don’t give a damn about children once the abortion issue is out of the way – and certainly not once they’re grown up, and leading tough and complex lives. ”
Lastly, you state,
“you simultaneously try to claim you walk with Jesus, it makes me wonder if you’ve ever even bothered to read the Bible.”
I recall something in the Bible about a plank vs. an eye. But I could be wrong because I’m sure I don’t read the Bible as much as you do.
I note that you wholly ignore every single substantive point made, in favour of trying to discredit me as a speaker. I think that says it all, frankly.
I ask again: in what way does your society provide the healthcare for the most vulnerable – young children – that I have explained ours does? And do you disagree with your system of socialised education, as well as healthcare? If not, why not? What is the difference? And why is a very prem fetus worth more than anyone else, if their care is Medicaid-covered regardless of income or insurance, when an older child or adult’s is not? Why is that your concern, when you show none for older children and adults?
I am appalled that you attack and pour venom upon vulnerable people, and use God to do it, yes. That’s Biblically condemned on numerous occasions, and is very, very evidently about self-vindication and self-satisfaction rather than any real desire to help anyone. Abortion is a heartbreaking thing and I applaud people who try to afford women in crisis pregnancies support and genuine alternatives. That’s admirable. But attacks and flagwaving have nothing to do with that. That won’t prevent a single abortion, or do anything but cause hurt. What is there to be proud of in that? I’m truly sorry you’re so unhappy, I’m truly sorry this is how you need to find some kind of peace of mind. But your chosen outlet is purely destructive. It’s no better than an adolescent high-school clique, frankly, operating online. No better on any level – moral or intellectual.
Finally, I don’t claim to know the mind of God – just the minds of the people here, and based upon very clear evidence – their own first-hand statements. If you confuse your own mind with God’s, then your very apparent confusion on various other fronts is more understandable.
Now if you’ll forgive me, I have better things to do than reason with the wholly unreasonable. I have toddlers to contend with. ;)
But your chosen outlet is purely destructive. It’s no better than an adolescent high-school clique, frankly, operating online. No better on any level – moral or intellectual.
and
I have better things to do than reason with the wholly unreasonable.
Wow Olivia.
Olivia, you seem to be quite ignorant of Christian doctrine. Not only is it acceptable to judge; we are CALLED to judge. The Bible is quite explicit about it.
What we CANNOT do is judge anyone’s eternal destination; that is, the state of their soul. THAT is what God alone can do. But as Christians we can and should judge another’s behavior as well as their acts, and call them to repentance if they are sinning.
ok all – as a 50+ aged woman, born at 24 weeks – may I weigh in here?
Should we save the children? Absolutely. Do some children do better than others? Yes. Can it cost money? of course. But we have the obligation to try. Why? because these kids are at the beginning of their lives. (and we should help people at every stage of the age continuum, of course, too).
Mistakes? Yes – touch was not allowed at that time from the parents, but the staff could touch the children. Feeding – I was fed from a tube until I was able to take nourishment from a bottle.
Before we cast off a chunk of humanity, based on a cost-benefit analysis, let’s be reminded that this is human life we are talking about, and humans are precious – priceless in fact.
Also – the medical systems of both countries have good and bad points. The good is that the British system covers most (or all peoples), but the down side is measuring the cost and the governing body may decide that you are not worth the cost of care. As a real case recently, a man who is suffering from a degenerative disease has made his wishes known that when the time comes where he can not eat through his mouth, we wants a feeding tube. He is making his medical wishes known. What did the medical people say? “we’ll deal with you as we wish at the time.” thereby ignoring his wishes not to be treated as Terri Shiavo. So we have coverage by a bureaucracy that has it’s human heart at a distance, which is a difficulty.
The medical system here – very adept and medically competent. The best procedures etc. but not coverage for everyone at every situation. Costly to individuals and companies. But for sure, I would rather be fighting an insurance company than the government or other government-sponsored governing body for my health care.
Again – as a woman who was born at 24 weeks, many years before many medical innovations to help preemies, life is worth living, and we should extend care to as many as possible. After all – human life is at stake.
We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs. What is a known truth for me may not be a known truth for you. Sharing is part of life, and that is what Mikki did. We shouldn’t tear each other apart for events that have passed. We cannot presume to know her life; as it is hers and not ours to judge. This has been a commentary of people who call themselves pro-life and others pro-choice. In our being we have been given both life and choice to do with as we please. I cannot set out to please everyone with my choices in life, as they are mine. I cannot judge how others define life, or death; I can just accept that we all have these choices IN life.
We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs.
Sure, but it doesn’t follow that everyone is right. Some people believe that the world is flat, while others believe that it’s spherical. It does not follow that nobody is right, or that the world is flat and spherical at the same time. This would violate the law of non-contradiction.
What is a known truth for me may not be a known truth for you.
Is that a true statement?
Sharing is part of life, and that is what Mikki did. We shouldn’t tear each other apart for events that have passed. We cannot presume to know her life; as it is hers and not ours to judge.
Why is it wrong for rational people with an understanding of logic and moral reasoning to make moral judgments and evaluate the plausibility of a story published by a prominent online magazine? And isn’t it judgmental to criticize others for making moral judgments?
This has been a commentary of people who call themselves pro-life and others pro-choice. In our being we have been given both life and choice to do with as we please. I cannot set out to please everyone with my choices in life, as they are mine. I cannot judge how others define life, or death; I can just accept that we all have these choices IN life.
Not all choices are equal. Infanticide, rape, and slavery are also choices. Can you judge the morality of these actions, or would that be out of line too?
What’s with all the reopening of old threads lately? I guess people find them and discover they just have such brilliant insights.