Mother sues hospital over testing failure

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/10/2009 10:12:18 AM · #226

Originally posted by Nullix:

So if we're all just skin scrapes, why do we have laws against killing other skin scrapes?

Your own stem cells have the potential to develop into an independent human under the right conditions, yet I doubt you're gripped with anguish every time you get a cut. If you argue for potential, then each of your stem cells should have rights, too. If you argue for natural course, then intervening with preemies or medical conditions that might otherwise result in miscarriage should be wrong. If you just want to argue, then you'll have to accept that not everyone agrees with you.

On the topic of when life begins, I'm curious... when an amoeba divides, at what point would you say there are two amoebas?

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

08/10/2009 01:31:31 PM · #227

Originally posted by scalvert:

Your own stem cells have the potential to develop into an independent human under the right conditions, yet I doubt you're gripped with anguish every time you get a cut. If you argue for potential, then each of your stem cells should have rights, too. If you argue for natural course, then intervening with preemies or medical conditions that might otherwise result in miscarriage should be wrong. If you just want to argue, then you'll have to accept that not everyone agrees with you.
On the topic of when life begins, I'm curious...when an amoeba divides, at what point would you say there are two amoebas?

Sorry, there are differences between zygotes, stem cells, and amoeba. They're not in the same category. If you can't see that, we have no base.

I'm tired of answering all the questions (except for NikonJeb's, I'm just ignoring him). When does a human receive constitutional rights?

After they pass through the birth canal or cesarean section?
If so, what's the difference between being inside the womb or outside?
If it's viability, then those without viability don't have rights?
If not having viability means I don't have rights, then what do we do with all the unviable people?
Who gets to define this unviability?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

08/10/2009 02:44:38 PM · #228

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Your own stem cells have the potential to develop into an independent human under the right conditions, yet I doubt you're gripped with anguish every time you get a cut. If you argue for potential, then each of your stem cells should have rights, too. If you argue for natural course, then intervening with preemies or medical conditions that might otherwise result in miscarriage should be wrong. If you just want to argue, then you'll have to accept that not everyone agrees with you.
On the topic of when life begins, I'm curious...when an amoeba divides, at what point would you say there are two amoebas?

Sorry, there are differences between zygotes, stem cells, and amoeba. They're not in the same category. If you can't see that, we have no base.

I'm tired of answering all the questions (except for NikonJeb's, I'm just ignoring him). When does a human receive constitutional rights?

After they pass through the birth canal or cesarean section?
If so, what's the difference between being inside the womb or outside?
If it's viability, then those without viability don't have rights?
If not having viability means I don't have rights, then what do we do with all the unviable people?
Who gets to define this unviability?

Meaning, what do we do with a fetus that the body has rejected, say at three months (miscarriage)?

08/10/2009 05:25:53 PM · #229

Originally posted by Nullix:

When does a human receive constitutional rights?

After they pass through the birth canal or cesarean section?
If so, what's the difference between being inside the womb or outside?
If it's viability, then those without viability don't have rights?
If not having viability means I don't have rights, then what do we do with all the unviable people?
Who gets to define this unviability?

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Meaning, what do we do with a fetus that the body has rejected, say at three months (miscarriage)?

Oh, let's see if he'll answer if YOU ask!!!!

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

08/10/2009 05:31:44 PM · #230

Originally posted by Nullix:

(except for NikonJeb's, I'm just ignoring him).

The thing is though, it doesn't mean that the blatant ignoring of the questions go unnoticed.

Personally, I could care less if you don't answer, you've been pretty nasty when reasonable, yet difficult questions have been asked, or you've sidestepped them entirely.

You have yet to come up with any justification for your views, instead you want to cast aspersions on anyone who doesn't agree with you.

You show no interest in what or why anyone thinks the way they do, you merely want to tell us that we're all wrong.

What's particularly wrong about that is that you obviously care not one whit about the rights of any woman.

I wonder if your wife knows that......

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/10/2009 05:33:48 PM · #231

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Nullix:
(except for NikonJeb's, I'm just ignoring him).

The thing is though, it doesn't mean that the blatant ignoring of the questions go unnoticed.

Personally, I could care less if you don't answer, you've been pretty nasty when reasonable, yet difficult questions have been asked, or you've sidestepped them entirely.

You have yet to come up with any justification for your views, instead you want to cast aspersions on anyone who doesn't agree with you.

You show no interest in what or why anyone thinks the way they do, you merely want to tell us that we're all wrong.

What's particularly wrong about that is that you obviously care not one whit about the rights of any woman.

I wonder if your wife knows that......

Oh, Jeb, for goodness sake... That's so over the top. Has it occurred to you that YOU are casting aspersions, in this quoted post, on someone who doesn't agree with you?

R.

shamrock

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

08/10/2009 05:36:31 PM · #232

Originally posted by Nullix:

I'm tired of answering all the questions (except for NikonJeb's, I'm just ignoring him). When does a human receive constitutional rights?

After they pass through the birth canal or cesarean section?
If so, what's the difference between being inside the womb or outside?
If it's viability, then those without viability don't have rights?
If not having viability means I don't have rights, then what do we do with all the unviable people?
Who gets to define this unviability?

Viability, to me, means when the being is able to support its own life functions without dependency on another life form. Parasites, which is what an unborn infant is, cannot survive on their own. They must have a host. I would also rule out heroic measures, which would put the age of viability, again in my opinion, somewhere between 28 and 30 weeks gestation in most cases. I do not believe that anyone has the right to force a woman to conceive or carry a child for which she has no desire, or which threatens her mental or physical health, and i cannot conceive of any argument which will convince me otherwise.

And for the record, i'm a woman who carried a pregnancy, the result of a rape as a young teenager, to term and placed the child for adoption. A child that i have been contacted by now that she is an adult, and who has serious issues.
I am also a woman who chose to abort a pregnancy conceived with my best friend, a man i loved very much. It was not the time for us to have a child. Ironically, while he could not consider adoption, he had no problem with abortion. I almost had a nervous breakdown over the issue, and had a sterilization procedure to ensure it wouldn't EVER happen again.
In addition, i am a woman who voluntarily became pregnant on 3 separate occasions with an emplanted embryo, a gift for a dear friend and her husband, when she was medically unable to carry a pregnancy to term herself.

So i think i am uniquely qualified to offer an opinion here.

As for who will ultimately establish what is viable and what is not, well, in our society it will be the judicial system. We already state that brain death means you are not viable, as the Terri Shiavo case demonstrated. In that sort of case, your "rights" (desires) may or may not be considered. I'm sure as our medical expertise expands, the issue will become more and more complicated. But ultimately, nature determines the course.

Message edited by author 2009-08-10 21:38:48.

08/10/2009 05:39:41 PM · #233

Originally posted by Nullix:

I'm tired of answering all the questions

I was going to leave this alone, but that whole tone, ya know.....8>)

I don't think it'd be presumptuous in saying that others would love to revisit that question I asked earlier when you were going to tell us how and why you were critical in the gestation of your child during your wife's pregnancy.

All you did was to support my stance that the only thing a woman needs during her pregnancy are things that any loving friend or a health care worker could provide.

From a factual & necessity standpoint, you were irrelevant.

I don't dispute that one's mate is important to the psychological comfort of the pregnant woman, but certainly not critical to the process.

What say you?

08/10/2009 05:45:34 PM · #234

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Oh, Jeb, for goodness sake... That's so over the top. Has it occurred to you that YOU are casting aspersions, in this quoted post, on someone who doesn't agree with you?

R.

Excuse me, I've listened to this man call those of us who are pro-choice killers with no regard for human life......how is it, when he goes there when we ask him to clarify points, a reasoned response?

Various posters have tried to point out that pro-choice is simply that......the belief that a woman has the right to choose the course of what transpires in her body, and he categorically dismisses it.

I just want to know how he arrives at justification for any person or governing body to tell any woman what she can or cannot do under these circumstances.

On a personal level, I find his stance on preventing a woman who's been raped the option completely reprehensible. How dare anyone propose such a heinous thing!

08/10/2009 05:50:52 PM · #235

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by shamrock:

Thank you for that reasoned, and personal insight.

I think any man should read this and ponder the implications of what any woman who has to make ANY decision concerning bringing a child into this world, or not, has to live with for the rest of her life.

This is something that as men we simply will not ever have to face.

That's why it puzzles me on so many levels why there isn't more understanding and acceptance of this fact.....and once again, why I fail tio understand what makes men think they have as much right merely by being the sperm donor. That they may be a life mate is decidedly important, but on no level does everything about us change upon pregnancy.

08/12/2009 07:11:38 AM · #236

Originally posted by shamrock:

...a beautiful testomony of her life (see a few posts above - on page 10)...

That was an amazing life story. To go through the trama of rape and choose to let your child live. Then the agony of choosing what's right for your child and give her up for adoption.

Then to choose to give up your body on 3 seperate occasions for 9 months to carry a child and help out a friend.

Then to actually have an abortion and go throw that struggle and have a nervous breakdown and make yourself steril.

This life story helps to show that life isn't a small issue nor is abortion.

You brought up the Terry Shiavo case on what is viability. The Shiavo case wasn't about viability, it was about gardian rights. Michael Shiavo (her husband and gardian), wanted to pull her feeding tube and move on with his life. Terry Shiavo's parents did want her to die. Courts ruled in favor of Michael gardianship and her feeding tube was removed. It took her 13 days to die of dehydration. Those wedding vows, "...in sickness and health until death do us part...," Mr Shiavo was able to move on with his girlfriend.

I don't agree with your 28-30 weeks to define a human. That's 7 and 1/2 months of gestation.

Let me give you another definition. Death is defined when there's no heart beat, not brainwave activity, and no fluid movement. The baby's heart starts beating with fluid movement by the 3rd week. A baby has brainwave activity begins at the 6th week. By the definition of death, the baby can be called alive by the 6th week.

I do agree with you when you say nobody should have to carry a child if their physical or mental health will be effected. That would be a emotionally difficult choice to make, but you should be able to protect yourself from death.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

08/12/2009 10:02:48 AM · #237

Originally posted by Nullix:

I do agree with you when you say nobody should have to carry a child if their physical or mental health will be effected. That would be a emotionally difficult choice to make, but you should be able to protect yourself from death.

There have been quite a few cases where women have chosen their child's lives over their own and perished to bring a new life into the world.....they had the choice, the child does not.

Where do your beliefs slot into that as far as the woman's right to choose to live or die herself?

shamrock

Nikon D300

08/12/2009 01:01:01 PM · #238

Originally posted by Nullix:

edited for brevity
You brought up the Terry Shiavo case on what is viability. The Shiavo case wasn't about viability, it was about gardian rights. Michael Shiavo (her husband and gardian), wanted to pull her feeding tube and move on with his life. Terry Shiavo's parents did want her to die. Courts ruled in favor of Michael gardianship and her feeding tube was removed. It took her 13 days to die of dehydration. Those wedding vows, "...in sickness and health until death do us part...," Mr Shiavo was able to move on with his girlfriend.

Yes, the actual court case was to determine who actually had the custodial rights to Terri. However, the case was very similar to an abortion decision, in that the physical body was not able to survive on its own, without outside intervention. SHE WAS NOT VIABLE. Basically, they were deciding who the "mother" would be, and then that mother got to decide whether to abort or not. That's really what it boils down to, as an analogy.

The lesson from my life story is that i support the right to choose. Choose to have a child, choose not to. But ultimately, it's up to the woman who is pregnant, and no one else has any say. Had i chosen to abort the child i carried for someone else, that would have been my choice.

Had there been any reason to consider terminating the pregnancy in that situation, i'm sure that the three of us would have discussed the options, and made the decision in conjunction with our doctor. But the bottom line was that genetics didn't come into play, economics didn't come into play, simple biology was all that existed. Neither the father, the mother, or the doctor that oversaw our care could have decided to abort or continue the pregnancy; only me, because my body was the one that was required to support the pregnancy.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. This is one of those topics that folks RARELY change their opinion on, and no logic seems to be able to affect that.

Message edited by author 2009-08-12 20:06:56.

scalvert

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/12/2009 01:26:29 PM · #239

Originally posted by Nullix:

Sorry, there are differences between zygotes, stem cells, and amoeba. They're not in the same category.

Sorry, you can't dodge the question that easily. At an early stage, a zygote can function exactly like an amoeba: a single, living cells splits into two... resulting in identical twins. Sometimes the separation is incomplete and you get conjoined twins, which may share a single heart or other organs. So when does the single life become two independent lives?

08/12/2009 05:55:02 PM · #240

Originally posted by shamrock:

But the bottom line was that genetics didn't come into play, economics didn't come into play, simple biology was all that existed. Neither the father, the mother, or the doctor that oversaw our care could have decided to abort or continue the pregnancy; only me, because my body was the one that was required to support the pregnancy.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. This is one of those topics that folks RARELY change their opinion on, and no logic seems to be able to affect that.

Thanks for this post.

To me, this just seems so fundamental.

I really don't understand how it could be seen any other way.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

08/12/2009 05:57:32 PM · #241

Originally posted by Nullix:

Sorry, there are differences between zygotes, stem cells, and amoeba. They're not in the same category.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sorry, you can't dodge the question that easily.

Obviously, you haven't been following along.....8>)

He can, and he *will* dodge any question that confronts his viewpoint, and/or any that make him uncomfortable.

David Ey

Nikon D80

08/12/2009 06:03:29 PM · #242

What does this mean? 8>)

08/13/2009 07:48:46 AM · #243

Originally posted by scalvert:

At an early stage, a zygote can function exactly like an amoeba: a single, living cells splits into two... resulting in identical twins. Sometimes the separation is incomplete and you get conjoined twins, which may share a single heart or other organs. So when does the single life become two independent lives?

I'm stumped on the conjoined twins. Are they 2 seperate people or just one? What about people who are born with a twin inside them (parasitic twins? These seem to be the exceptions to the rules.

I do know an amoeba isn't a person. I think I've killed many amoebas in my life and I had no compassion for their deaths. I have compassion for people (persons) not amoebas.

When does a person receive all their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Apparently it's when they become viable. Viable being when they can support their own life functions without dependency on another life form.

Let me list people who aren't viable and not exceptions to the rule:
1. Infants, they are dependent on another until about age 1 to 2.
2. People on life support.
3. People in nursing homes.

I'm sure there's more.

Also, for the record, I'm only ignoring NikonJeb (if you want to know why, just read his responses). I'll try to get some responses in, but I do have a day job. I can only post every-so-often.

08/13/2009 09:00:12 AM · #244

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Wow......you really just have to try and make someone on the other side of the discussion look bad, don't you?

You know perfectly well that your examples have nothing to do with the discussion but you have to try and cloud the issue rather than answer.

You still haven't answered the question posed by others about a potentially viable miscarriage, the question about how you ascertain whether there was an abortion in the case of a claimed miscarriage without an investigation, or how it is that your role is critical in your wife's pregnancy.

Originally posted by Nullix:

Also, for the record, I'm only ignoring NikonJeb (if you want to know why, just read his responses). I'll try to get some responses in, but I do have a day job. I can only post every-so-often.

You're more than welcome to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Nyaah! Nyaah! I'm not listening to you!" or pout because you don't like it when someone lashes out at you when you tell them they're soulless killers with no regard for human life, but I for one won't sit still for it.

Your blatant disregard for, lack of consideration for, compassion for, and obviously complete ignorance of, women's feelings is a disgrace.

You really ought to read the post from

shamrock over and over again until it sinks in exactly what the whole situation is all about.

But the bottom line was that genetics didn't come into play, economics didn't come into play, simple biology was all that existed. Neither the father, the mother, or the doctor that oversaw our care could have decided to abort or continue the pregnancy; only me, because my body was the one that was required to support the pregnancy.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. This is one of those topics that folks RARELY change their opinion on, and no logic seems to be able to affect that.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/13/2009 10:04:50 AM · #245

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You still haven't answered the question posed by others about a potentially viable miscarriage, the question about how you ascertain whether there was an abortion in the case of a claimed miscarriage without an investigation

Originally posted by Back on page 8:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Wouldn't it require an investigation to prove it was a "natural" miscarriage and not self-induced abortion?

I'm going under the assumption that we still live in a state where people are innocent until proven guilty. It's natural unless proven otherwise.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

or how it is that your role is critical in your wife's pregnancy

You rejected my answer on page 6, I don't intend to rehash.

Now, please go away, you're not playing nice.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/14/2009 04:15:37 PM · #246

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I really don't understand how it could be seen any other way.

Repeatedly asserting that there is only one truth does not make for a convincing argument. You need to understand the alternative views, their strengths and weaknesses in order to build a persuasive argument - you can do this without necessarily agreeing with them.

Nullix's arguments are based on a weaker belief than yours in the importance of women's rights and a stronger belief in the sanctity of human life.

Strong points in his argument include highlighting the importance of protecting the vulnerable and the risks that there will be undesireable side effects in society.

Weak points include the lack of logic (especially around the first 6 weeks), a lack of compassion for women, and lack of pragmatism.

You need to acknowedge some of these huge tensions in the abortion debate to be taken seriously.

scalvert

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/14/2009 07:22:54 PM · #247

Originally posted by Nullix:

When does a person receive all their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Apparently it's when they become viable. Viable being when they can support their own life functions without dependency on another life form.

Let me list people who aren't viable and not exceptions to the rule:
1. Infants, they are dependent on another until about age 1 to 2.
2. People on life support.
3. People in nursing homes.

Those aren't "exceptions to the rule" because it's not the same thing.
1. Infants are only dependent for external needs (food shelter, etc.), not basic life (unassisted breathing, immune system function, and so on).
2 & 3. Both are incapacities â�� a matter of when you lose rights, not gain them (and you DO forfeit certain rights in those situations).

08/15/2009 02:16:08 AM · #248

Originally posted by Matthew:

Nullix's arguments are based on a weaker belief than yours in the importance of women's rights and a stronger belief in the sanctity of human life.

You need to acknowedge some of these huge tensions in the abortion debate to be taken seriously.

I have NEVER stated that these aren't good and valid points in the arguments against abortion.

On top of that you need to add the emotional distress of the partner, regardless of how minor the input is from him.

HOWEVER.......none of these factors are remotely justifiable in forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy.

It *IS* her choice, because whatever she decides is what will happen.

She is the host, the home, and the sentient entity that *will* make the choice.

Nobody can change that, making it legal or illegal merely makes a societal statemnet.