It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
DP
Let me be clear -- regardless of your politics, if your argument is that little girl and boy babies are important, then they should be just as important after they are born. If you leave them to their own fates after the birth, then it's not them themselves you really care about. If you use the argument. then be consistent. Or admit it's about policing sexual behavior, not really about what that produces. |
Anonymous
|
So it takes more money and years of schooling to become a tatoo artist compared with a doctor?
Who knew? |
Anonymous
Yes, because you're unwilling to consider the ethical nuances. You claim to have a value of "protect life and prevent suffering!!" but it only applies in this ONE scenario, and completely ignores the other suffering (the woman, the fetus in cases of fetal anomoly.) So, until you advance an intellectual and morally coherent viewpoint about how the law should operate to "prevent suffering," you need to STFU about abortion. Protip: If you favor universal access to LTBC, single-payer health care, living wages, and unions, then you may start to have grounds to stand on. Until then, STFU. |
Anonymous
This is obviously a horrific quote. However, so is being forced to have 12 kids because marital rape is legal and birth control is banned. |
Anonymous
I think you need to look at the time period when she stated this. As a nurse during the early 20th century, she was probably seeing a lot infants being neglected, abused, dying of starvation, particularly those from large families because they couldn't take care of the child. Back then, there were no social safety nets. Such a child's life would've been hell growing up, and odds are, the child would've died early, a slow and painful death. Back then, people weren't as willing to adopt children, and homes for orphans were only a little bit better than 3rd world prisons. So it would have been more merciful for that child to have never been born. There are many verses in the Bible that if you read it today, you'd think it was horrible and inhumane... like the verse where God tells his people to kill every man, woman and child in a village. Context matters. Going back to the thread topic... I think the only solution is forced vasectomies. You'd have no need for abortions then, or very very little need. |
Anonymous
Exactly. I am thinking you all did not see the post from the prior page, clarifying some of the context.
Read it in context. Remember that this was written in 1920, eight years before we had penicillin G. Strep throat, pneumonia, even ear infections often proved fatal in the first year of life. She wrote about a study that showed the 11th and 12th child in a family were more likely to die in the first year than survive. And that's just the ones who died -- life was suffering for those that survived with morbidity of various causes, even if not mortality. She cited the likelihood of children born in very large families spending much of their lives in debtors' prison or almshouses -- and recall these prisons were closer to Dickens' setup than our own. This was also written almost two decades before the first US child labor laws. Child labor was horrific at that time. You can disagree with her, but she was not arguing from a place of triviality. It was very much a text of the times, when life was nasty and brutish, as well as being short. https://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html
|
Anonymous
The poor woman who had to wait 4 days for her partially born child to die because it would be illegal for the hospital to induce labor at 20 weeks. |
Anonymous
+10000 |
Anonymous
| Actually, there was no such thing as rape within marriage, according to law at the time. |
Anonymous
"marital rape was legal" sounds pretty accurate then. |
Anonymous
Babies don't stay stuck being "partially born" for four days, you creep. |
Anonymous
Please acquaint yourself with Savita Halappanavar. Her fetus's gestational sac dropped out of her cervix into her vagina and the hospital she went to refused to do anything about it because they said they had to wait until the baby died first because of the law. She developed sepsis and died. All because the life of the doomed fetus was valued more than her own life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar |
Anonymous
Did you feel wanted or unwanted? Where you "Planned"? |
Anonymous
Oh, I am not disagreeing with you. I am noting that it is extraordinarily difficult to criticize a practice or advocate for change if you literally do not have the language to describe it. That's a peculiarly systems-level version of toxic control. |
Anonymous
DP Oh, for heaven's sake. The old medical term for this is "failure to progress," a.k.a. "prolonged labor." There are newer terms for the same thing. It's a real diagnosis that physicians use. If you don't understand the most basic facts of what can (and does) happen, then it's no wonder you hold untenable beliefs that you can't defend. Go educate yourself, for god's sake, instead of just spouting off. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/307462.php https://evidencebasedbirth.com/friedmans-curve-and-failure-to-progress-a-leading-cause-of-unplanned-c-sections/ |