Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 15, 2013, 02:28 PM   #151
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsNotMe View Post
Rule 1: Always wrap up.
Rule 2: If a girl isn't on the pill or has an IUD she wants to get pregnant.

The pill is only ~85% effective in real world use.
So, every guy who doesn't want to wear a condom wants to be a daddy?
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2013, 02:43 PM   #152
ThisIsNotMe
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
22 week abortions aren't in any way typical... 90% of abortions are before 13 weeks of pregnancy and only 1% of them are after 21 weeks (source).
And? What difference does it make if it is just a lump of cells?
Like I said, politicians should put their money where their mouth is if they don't view it as taking a life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Except that in the real world everyone hates using condoms so if they are in a committed relationship they won't use them as well.
I hate wearing a seatbelt but I still do because it mitigates my risk of dying in a car accident.

I don't think I could live with myself if I put a female in the position to consider an abortion if I didn't do everything in my power to mitigate the risk.
ThisIsNotMe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2013, 03:10 PM   #153
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsNotMe View Post
And? What difference does it make if it is just a lump of cells?
So why show them a 22 week abortion that is utterly non-typical?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsNotMe View Post
I hate wearing a seatbelt but I still do because it mitigates my risk of dying in a car accident.
Given you have to sit in the seat anyway you may as well have the seatbelt off - I'm sure though that basically everyone takes their seatbelt off if they want to change their clothes in a car.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 12:32 AM   #154
ThisIsNotMe
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
So why show them a 22 week abortion that is utterly non-typical?
Again, what difference should it make if it isn't a human?
You should be able to sit there with a smile as the 22 week old clump of cells gets sucked out of the womb.....oh wait......
ThisIsNotMe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 01:41 AM   #155
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsNotMe View Post
Again, what difference should it make if it isn't a human?
Well, it because it would be dishonest. A blastocyst at three weeks is very different from an embryo at eight weeks much less 22 weeks.

I know other people have argued variations on whether an embryo or fetus is human, but the attempt to create some hard-line between non-human and human is a mistake. Instead, it's a gradation where the timeline really does matter.

About 15 percent of pregnancies end by spontaneous abortion before the 20th week, but we wouldn't argue that 15 of people die before they were born because that's a difficult way to consider pregnancy.


Quote:
...You should be able to sit there with a smile as the 22 week old clump of cells gets sucked out of the womb.....oh wait......
No, because I think by 22 weeks significant development has happened to create a new person. By that point the die has been cast.

I've said it many time before, but I think it bears repeating, anti-abortion advocates are trying to win the wrong battle. People will still have abortions even if it's completely illegal.

Instead, there appears to be one single solution: the wide availability of family planning and contraception.

Anti-abortion advocates can solve this problem by pushing hard for universally available contraception and wide-spread use. And, yes this includes advocating for personal responsibility for such methods for men and women. Men should bring the condom and women should be on the pill or have an IUD. It's a fundamental concept that, as you said, sex was designed for baby making and couples should acknowledge that reality and risk.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 06:13 AM   #156
DesertEagle
macrumors 6502a
 
DesertEagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: /home @ 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsNotMe View Post
Again, what difference should it make if it isn't a human?
You should be able to sit there with a smile as the 22 week old clump of cells gets sucked out of the womb.....oh wait......
If the fetus is non-viable, i.e. totally unable to stay alive outside its mother's womb, then it's natural to see it as an extension of the mother's body. The fetus is not just "a clump of cells" when all the organs are developed. This is normally after 12 weeks, from which point only the growing remains. Therefore, the 12-week limit is probably not as arbitrary as it may seem.
DesertEagle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 07:33 AM   #157
zin
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
Instead, there appears to be one single solution: the wide availability of family planning and contraception.
Ah, but remember, anti-abortionists generally want it both ways. They want to criminalise abortion whilst at the same time refuse to contribute their taxes for more widely available contraception and other planning initiatives.
zin is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 09:15 AM   #158
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertEagle View Post
If the fetus is non-viable, i.e. totally unable to stay alive outside its mother's womb, then it's natural to see it as an extension of the mother's body. The fetus is not just "a clump of cells" when all the organs are developed. This is normally after 12 weeks, from which point only the growing remains. Therefore, the 12-week limit is probably not as arbitrary as it may seem.
But babies never have survived from 12 weeks outside the womb AFAIK.
Eraserhead is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 10:12 AM   #159
DesertEagle
macrumors 6502a
 
DesertEagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: /home @ 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
But babies never have survived from 12 weeks outside the womb AFAIK.
Which is why it should be safe to set the limit at 12 weeks.

My mother's second cousin was born during the 5th month (between weeks 16 and 20) and survived. He grew big and strong.
DesertEagle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 10:52 AM   #160
balamw
Moderator
 
balamw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertEagle View Post
My mother's second cousin was born during the 5th month (between weeks 16 and 20) and survived. He grew big and strong.
That would be most surprising since most sources I can find for of the youngest preterm births to survive put the boundary somewhere just shy of week 22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_v...t_of_viability

Quote:
As of 2006, the two youngest children to survive premature birth are thought to be James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada, at 21 weeks and 5 days gestational age),[15][16] and Amillia Taylor (born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age).[17][18] Both children were born just under 22 weeks from fertilization, or a few days past the midpoint of an average full-term pregnancy.
B
__________________
MBA (13" 1.7 GHz 128GB), UMBP (15" SD 2.8 GHz), UMB (13" 2.4 GHz), iMac (17" Yonah), 32GB iPad 3 WiFi+LTE, 64 GB iPad WiFi, 32 GB iPhone 5, Airport Extreme
balamw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 11:04 AM   #161
DesertEagle
macrumors 6502a
 
DesertEagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: /home @ 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by balamw View Post
That would be most surprising since most sources I can find for of the youngest preterm births to survive put the boundary somewhere just shy of week 22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_v...t_of_viability

B
I know. It surprised me too. But he was 5 inches long at birth, so it does make sense. His mother kept him in a tiny box lined with cotton, and fed him by dripping sugar-water into his mouth with a pipettor during the first weeks.
DesertEagle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 11:12 AM   #162
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertEagle View Post
I know. It surprised me too. But he was 5 inches long at birth, so it does make sense. His mother kept him in a tiny box lined with cotton, and fed him by dripping sugar-water into his mouth with a pipettor during the first weeks.
Are you sure it was a human baby?

Because preemies aren't normally kept in boxes lined with cotton. They're normally in hospital NICUs. With ventilators and other such things that help them survive. Lungs aren't fully developed that early.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 11:18 AM   #163
DesertEagle
macrumors 6502a
 
DesertEagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: /home @ 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
Are you sure it was a human baby?

Because preemies aren't normally kept in boxes lined with cotton. They're normally in hospital NICUs. With ventilators and other such things that help them survive. Lungs aren't fully developed that early.
I'm sure it was human, yes. It might seem strange to keep it that way, but you have to look at the setting. It happened in a rural area, sometime during the first half of the 20th century.
DesertEagle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 12:12 PM   #164
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertEagle View Post
My mother's second cousin was born during the 5th month (between weeks 16 and 20) and survived. He grew big and strong.
It seems much more likely that there was a miscount on how many months of pregnancy had passed...

It seems a more than a little far fetched that a baby would do significantly better in the rural US in just a normal crib than premature babies do at high-tech hospitals.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2013, 12:27 PM   #165
DesertEagle
macrumors 6502a
 
DesertEagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: /home @ 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
It seems much more likely that there was a miscount on how many months of pregnancy had passed...

It seems a more than a little far fetched that a baby would do significantly better in the rural US in just a normal crib than premature babies do at high-tech hospitals.
I have thought of the miscount-possibility too, until I was told that he was 5 inches long.

Btw, he was not born in the United States, but in a developing (at that time) country somewhere in Europe. That probably makes it even less likely, and I have wondered many times how it could be possible at all.

Last edited by DesertEagle; May 16, 2013 at 12:36 PM.
DesertEagle is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2013, 05:48 AM   #166
hafr
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
He most likely became younger and shorter for each time the story was told, but even so a preemie surviving back then is a miracle in itself.

Not calling your family liars, just saying it's a story so unbelievable I believe it has been exaggerated (or just indadvertedly badly remembered), like so many stories from "the old country" often are.
hafr is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2013, 10:55 AM   #167
the8thark
macrumors 68030
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Here is my opinion on this.

1. Men should have 100% say in this as should the woman. As both are legally responsible for the child when it is born. All these women saying "ah but men don't birth the child", what crap. Men are loving and devoted parents just as much as women can be. Gender equality here people. Children need a mother and father. Can survive without one of the two but it's not ideal.

2. Population control. Saying "oh no abortion is bad" that's just wrong. I do agree that it should be done humanely and not after a certain foetus age. There is a lot of cases where it is a good idea to abort the foetus. But it should be both parents choice. As it does take both to create the baby.

I would actually make it law that you need both parents consent. Or at least a decent search to track down the father to get his consent.

I am aware this debate will get ugly with all sides saying "it's my choice and no no else's". People just need to wake up and see, both parents bay the child's bills so both parents should have to agree to have the say. End of story. Don't like it, get a lawyer. And then get screwed over by the legal system, but that's another issue entirely.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2013, 03:52 PM   #168
Cox Orange
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Interesting how people react under the article. They first massively blame political parties (and women who may not have had another choice in a particular moment).
Is it that the extremist right is more active on newspaper online sites? I didn't see CNS as a media seen/read by right people.

What also comes to mind, in Europe you choose to go to the former USSR states, if you want illegal surgery. I wonder, if there are cases in states like France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavian Countries and they are just not known. But I would guess that in societies, were abortion is not frowned upon and young girls get actively helped by state offices and know where they can go to talk about it and discuss the thing with a trained person (not influencing the girl in one direction or the other) helps preventing doctors doing it illegally and when it is too late.
It might also help that girls do not need money for this, because their state's medical insurance pays for it. (You can argue, that this encourages people to even have more sex without thinking about the consequences, because they think "oh, if I get pregnant I let it cut away and everything's fine". I don't think that young people think that way...).
It is also interesting that you have more "unwanted" pregnancies in the catholic Poland and in England, but not in the "depraved socialist haven" in the rest of Europe.

Interesting that when I read who they described the scene (a cat walking through the rooms -> no hygiene, "slaughtering" sensitive beings, without caring for avoiding suffering) I thought of a Ukrainian butcher or horse doctor performing the "surgery". Why do Americans first think of Democrats and Nazis and not of the former USSR, since they were told to hate them so many years and were taught what makes them unsensitive, uncultivated farmers and steel workers or at least to think of them as this. Maybe they do not want to compare their country with medical standards of poorer countries in the world. Even, if one can excuse it with the fact, that these late abortions and the way it was done is illegal (like in this case).

Interesting too, the comments on the side do not focus (outrage) on the wrong medical circumstances, that the clinic was performing the abortion, but on abortion and "nasty" women.

Last edited by Cox Orange; May 17, 2013 at 04:00 PM.
Cox Orange is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2013, 05:16 PM   #169
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
Here is my opinion on this.

1. Men should have 100% say in this as should the woman. As both are legally responsible for the child when it is born. All these women saying "ah but men don't birth the child", what crap. Men are loving and devoted parents just as much as women can be. Gender equality here people. Children need a mother and father. Can survive without one of the two but it's not ideal.

2. Population control. Saying "oh no abortion is bad" that's just wrong. I do agree that it should be done humanely and not after a certain foetus age. There is a lot of cases where it is a good idea to abort the foetus. But it should be both parents choice. As it does take both to create the baby.

I would actually make it law that you need both parents consent. Or at least a decent search to track down the father to get his consent.

I am aware this debate will get ugly with all sides saying "it's my choice and no no else's". People just need to wake up and see, both parents bay the child's bills so both parents should have to agree to have the say. End of story. Don't like it, get a lawyer. And then get screwed over by the legal system, but that's another issue entirely.
And in this requirement of the father's choice, would you also make it an absolute legal requirement (wage garnishment or whatever was required) that the father paid into the hospital bills and towards every future dollar that child might require? I'm not talking about the weak-ass child support laws we have now.

Because I'd find it awfully bad if some guy said he would not let the abortion follow through, but then refused financial support.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2013, 12:08 AM   #170
the8thark
macrumors 68030
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
And in this requirement of the father's choice, would you also make it an absolute legal requirement (wage garnishment or whatever was required) that the father paid into the hospital bills and towards every future dollar that child might require? I'm not talking about the weak-ass child support laws we have now.

Because I'd find it awfully bad if some guy said he would not let the abortion follow through, but then refused financial support.
I agree with this. If the father and or mother does not want abortion, then they have chosen to pay for the child's expenses. In your example the mother and father would both pay for the child's expenses.

If it was a fare system both parties would be paying an equal share. But in many cases it's not equal or fair and the father or mother (whatever the case many be) pays too much. The child support laws need an overhaul I agree.

Where this does get troublesome is when the father is for abortion but the mother refuses. She wants the child. But then the mother expects every dollar (almost) the father earns for child support payments. In this case I'd get both parents to sign a document saying only one party wanted to keep the child and not abort. Hence only that one party would pay for the child's expenses. But yeah real legal grey area.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC