Mother sues hospital over testing failure

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

07/26/2009 10:53:07 AM · #76

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

your insistence that 'deadbeat dads' are the reason that no male has ANY say in what a person should do about an unborn child.

That's not what I said.

Again, your insistence on twisting what I say and coming up with ridiculous conclusions is just plain annoying.

I should take your advice and when some idiot makes ridiculous and erroneous statements purely for the sake of argument, just ignore him.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

07/26/2009 11:04:04 AM · #77

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Unfortunately, this is the norm, not the exception. And this is exactly why the woman should have sole right to make the determination. Until it's made a felony for the sperm donor to ditch responsibility, it's going to happen every time some stupid boy changes his mind and just skips town.

Yah, it's time for us to ignore each other for sure. sets thread to such.

07/26/2009 11:32:12 AM · #78

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

So.....you didn't actually read this, I take it....

If, as you state: there's a proliferation of wrong-doing on one side, and since it's NOT the man who carries the child, how can you not at least understand the reasoning for there being just cause for the woman having sole determination on the life growing in *HER* body?

The proliferation of wrong-doing on one side *IS* the case for it.

And surely, if you see this on a regular basis, and know what a sad state of affairs it is, how can you not be in favor of anything and everything that should help curtail the activity in the first place?

I really think it should be a felony to ditch a kid.....after all, it's an 18 year sentence for whomever has to raise the child, now isn't it?

You say that it's a two way street, yet how can that be when the dad just up and ditches the mom? It's not like he's going to bear the child.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/26/2009 12:12:36 PM · #79

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

But part of the very core of my belief system is that a person ought to have the freedom to succeed, or screw up of his/her own volition, and that nobody else ought to interfere unless the actions endanger another.

If I've understood you correctly, what you say here seems to only apply to abortion. Why doesn't this also apply to someone who wants to end their own life? or take drugs if they choose to? It is after all their own body. Granted, I now have some understanding as to why you feel the way you do in regards to these things but that's not really what I asked. I asked if you support legislation that takes these personal choices away. If your belief system is what you say it is then it seems like you should be finding any restrictions on personal choices involving the body equally reprehensible. It is after all getting in someone else's business. No?

Message edited by author 2009-07-26 16:14:03.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

07/26/2009 12:16:43 PM · #80

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But part of the very core of my belief system is that a person ought to have the freedom to succeed, or screw up of his/her own volition, and that nobody else ought to interfere unless the actions endanger another.

If I've understood you correctly, what you say here seems to only apply to abortion. Why doesn't this also apply to someone who wants to end their own life? or take drugs if they choose to? It is after all their own body. Granted, I now have some understanding as to why you feel the way you do in regards to these things but that's not really what I asked. I asked if you support legislation that takes these personal choices away. If your belief system is what you say it is then it seems like you should be finding any restrictions on personal choices involving the body equally reprehensible. It is after all getting in someone else's business. No?

He already stated that he believes you should be allowed to take your own life if so inclined. And that drugs should be legal to the point that they only impact yourself. I feel the same way.

07/26/2009 12:22:43 PM · #81

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But part of the very core of my belief system is that a person ought to have the freedom to succeed, or screw up of his/her own volition, and that nobody else ought to interfere unless the actions endanger another.

If I've understood you correctly, what you say here seems to only apply to abortion. Why doesn't this also apply to someone who wants to end their own life? or take drugs if they choose to? It is after all their own body. Granted, I now have some understanding as to why you feel the way you do in regards to these things but that's not really what I asked. I asked if you support legislation that takes these personal choices away. If your belief system is what you say it is then it seems like you should be finding any restrictions on personal choices involving the body equally reprehensible. It is after all getting in someone else's business. No?

He already stated that he believes you should be allowed to take your own life if so inclined. And that drugs should be legal to the point that they only impact yourself. I feel the same way.

It sounded like he was against all three of my examples or at the very least didn't find any value in them being legal choices but if what you say is true (i.e. he supports those rights) then I stand corrected.

Edited for clarity.

Message edited by author 2009-07-26 16:23:32.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/26/2009 12:46:09 PM · #82

Originally posted by yanko:

I am pretty much a freedom of choice across the board kind of person. When your choices negatively impact those around you, especially in the form of physical danger, i.e, drunk drivers, then I swing to the other side of the spectrum.

Personally, I feel that if you maim or kill someone behind the wheel, you should never be able to have a license again. You screwed up their life permanently, so should yours be.....

I understand in Britain, they are much stricter about taking your license away for drunk driving and as I understand it, they have much less of a problem there because of it.

You want to drink and fall down, find, but you shouldn't be able to get behind the wheel of a car, maim or kill someone, and be behind the wheel in a couple of years.

The whole problem with legislation to take away personal choice is that it ends up being a compromise because there are too many variables for anyone to agree upon.

What seems like common sense and respect for another to me, like pregnancy and its issues, to others seems to be a list of dos and don'ts as they see fit.

Subjectively, I cannot fathom how someone telling any woman under any circumstance what she can or cannot do while HER body is pregnant is anything but invasive and downright wrong.

And the whole suicide being illegal thing escapes me, too. If you succeed, what're ya gonna do? Try a corpse?

If you don't succeeed, because let's face it, a failed suicide attempt is a cry for help, then how is a jail term helpful?

As far as drug use goes, it's illegal, you get caught, you suffer the consequences. Most of the time as it gets more serious, you get into consequential crimes that are already provided for, i.e., robbery, assault, etc., so I'm not sure where the problem is with that. Everybody knows that drugs *will* ruin your life sooner or later if you've got the propensity for it. I'm not really sure what the question on that issue is......are you asking if I think drug usage should be legalized?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/26/2009 01:10:17 PM · #83

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

.....are you asking if I think drug usage should be legalized?

I will: give me a rational explanation for alcohol and tobacco being legal (with restrictions and taxes) but opioids and marijuana being (currently) illegal. The former are notably more "harmful" to the body than the latter. And did we learn nothing from Prohibition ... ?

Originally posted by Wikipedia:

Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. Mafia groups limited their activities to gambling and thievery until 1920, when organized bootlegging manifested in response to the effect of Prohibition.[12] A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to Racketeering. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle.

The cost of enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers.

When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption) because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores.

Why shouldn't people be free to consume any "drug," in known quanities and potencies, and knowing the risks inherent, as long as they don't endanger others?

Message edited by author 2009-07-26 17:12:26.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/26/2009 01:17:23 PM · #84

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

And the whole suicide being illegal thing escapes me, too. If you succeed, what're ya gonna do? Try a corpse?

If you don't succeeed, because let's face it, a failed suicide attempt is a cry for help, then how is a jail term helpful?

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about having the right to end your life. Currently, if that is your wish there are legal restrictions that can prevent you from doing this. I'm not talking about charging someone with a crime after the fact but preventing someone from choosing suicide.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

As far as drug use goes, it's illegal, you get caught, you suffer the consequences. Most of the time as it gets more serious, you get into consequential crimes that are already provided for, i.e., robbery, assault, etc., so I'm not sure where the problem is with that. Everybody knows that drugs *will* ruin your life sooner or later if you've got the propensity for it. I'm not really sure what the question on that issue is......are you asking if I think drug usage should be legalized?

Yes.

Message edited by author 2009-07-26 17:18:29.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/26/2009 01:23:30 PM · #85

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

.....are you asking if I think drug usage should be legalized?

Yes.

Hey, I think I've just been yanko'd by

yanko!

07/26/2009 01:25:30 PM · #86

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

.....are you asking if I think drug usage should be legalized?

Yes.

Hey, I think I've just been yanko'd by yanko!

I'm exempt! :P

07/26/2009 01:44:36 PM · #87

Originally posted by yanko:

Oh! yeah....duh, Jeb....

Kevorkian-ized....

Yes, I do believe self-euthanasia and/or assisted suicide for people who really don't want to face what's to come, be it real or imagined should be a choice thing.

The only downside I see is with kids.

Too many tragic teenagers take their lives without realizing that it may be a really foolish choice.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

.are you asking if I think drug usage should be legalized?

Originally posted by yanko:

Yes.

I don't know....

I'm really biased towards keeping it the way it is. It's not like you can't get hold of drugs easily enough, and the thought of being able to walk into a store and buying crack or PCP just scares the living daylights out of me......for all too many reasons, not the least of which, if I never see the damn stuff again, it'll be too soon.

I've also watched too many people struggle with the demon, and lose, to think it's a good idea to have it readily available.

I'm probably not a good person to ask that because I really don't think I could give a reasoned answer. I wish to Hell nobody'd ever figured them out.

07/26/2009 06:25:47 PM · #88

Gosh. Leave the internet and DPC for a while and this what i get back to. I don't know where, or if, to start really. The discussion has got very intense and convoluted since i left it, and everyone involved has made lots of very good points. Highly charged, emotive subject that it is. I've got a lot out of reading peoples posts. Not sure if i can pick out individual posts to reply to though. It's 3am now and i'm in the middle of moving house. So tired.

I will say, though, that i am mostly agreeing with Jeb in lots of ways. I'm not sure of my feelings towards the mother in question with regards sueing the hospital. Some very good posts concerning health care and the aim of hospitals are making me think about that a lot. I am very against the whole lawsuit culture that has evolved.

I am, of course, still in favour of the right of a woman to have an abortion, for whatever reason, but i realise that this is always going to come down to the base argument about exactly when 'a life' or 'a child' can be seen to 'be born'. Such is the crux of the matter.

As to other matters such as suicide, drugs, euthanasia, etc I am of the opinion, still, that that is a matter of the individual. Nobody has the right to dictate what you should, or shouldn't, do with your own body. And as such, i'm in favour of euthanasia, leagalisation of all drugs, and acceptance of suicide.

I'm also willing to admit that all these subjects are far more complicated and tricky than the black and white arguments.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/26/2009 06:31:27 PM · #89

Hey, i also realise that with my last post haven't engaged with the discussion much. For that i apologise. It's late, i've had a drink. I'm sure i'll get back with more reasonable comments soon.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/26/2009 06:36:29 PM · #90

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I've also watched too many people struggle with the demon, and lose, to think it's a good idea to have it readily available.

Yes, but this is true of the proven killers tobacco and alcohol ... you're always in favor of equal treatment under the law -- why not in this case also? How is putting people in prison preferable to letting them choose to mellow out with a prescription joint instead of, say, a Jack Daniels?

07/26/2009 07:56:07 PM · #91

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I've also watched too many people struggle with the demon, and lose, to think it's a good idea to have it readily available.

Yes, but this is true of the proven killers tobacco and alcohol ... you're always in favor of equal treatment under the law -- why not in this case also? How is putting people in prison preferable to letting them choose to mellow out with a prescription joint instead of, say, a Jack Daniels?

Very good point. And no answer to it really, i feel.

It's a sad idea, i guess, but i do think that much of western culture is just, well, insane. Totally nuts.

I've had a drink tonight of course.

07/27/2009 01:54:49 AM · #92

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I've also watched too many people struggle with the demon, and lose, to think it's a good idea to have it readily available.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Tobacco and alcohol are much more of a time release killer......and who said I'm in favor of either of them? I also said I didn't know in direct response to the question as I thought my judgement is biased.

So let me flip this back onto you.....at one time, everything was legal, or more specifically NOT illegal. You said yourself that Prohibition didn't work, yet cocaine, heroin, marijuana, hashish, and all of the drugs that are now illegal at one point in our history were legal. Why them and not tobacco and alcohol? I'm not the one who instituted that. As I said, I'm certainly not sure what the answer to that one is....

I know I sure as Hell have enough on my plate wondering if my 14 year old daughter learned enough from my mistakes to not go down the same path I did without the shit being legal to make it that much easier, and more tempting.....after all, if it's legal, it must be okay, right?

When I drive into the middle school at 2:40 on a Tuesday afternoon to pick her up, and there's a state police car there hauling away a 13 year old dealer, I *do* have enough to worry about.

Oh......and at least here in Pennsylvania, they don't put you in prison for smoking a joint......it's misdemeanor possesion, and you pays your fine, and then gets to deal with your consequences when your name shows up in the newspaper and that nosy person at work has it around the office by 8:30 A.M.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

07/27/2009 01:55:39 AM · #93

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

I am very against the whole lawsuit culture that has evolved.

Hear, hear!

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/27/2009 06:56:59 AM · #94

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

...I realise that this is always going to come down to the base argument about exactly when 'a life' or 'a child' can be seen to 'be born'. Such is the crux of the matter.

If that's the only thing then:

Originally posted by The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998):

There is no longer any doubt that individual human life begins at conception. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ...

Originally posted by Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968):

It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.

Originally posted by Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed. E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975):

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.

Originally posted by Horton (Horton hears a Who 1954):

...a person's a person no matter how small...

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

07/27/2009 07:04:58 AM · #95

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Cases of rape, etc, are obviously not covered under this.

Rape is a very heinous crime. However, abortion does not un-rape a woman.

Itâ��s actually more harmful for a woman psychologically to have an abortion then to be raped! All things equal, it takes a woman 5 years on average to recover from rape. It takes 7-14 years to recover from abortion.

Originally posted by Dr. Sandra Makhorn (noted author and rape counselor):

The primary problem facing the rape victim is not pregnancy, but the attitudes projected by others: â��The belief that pregnancy following rape will emotionally devastate the victim reflects the common misconception that women are helpless creatures who must be protected from the harsh realities of the world. This study illustrates that pregnancy need not impede the victims resolution of the trauma; rather, with loving support, non-judgmental attitudes, and emphatic communication, healthy emotional and psychological responses are possible despite the added burden of pregnancy.â��

merchillio

Nikon D80

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/27/2009 07:19:22 AM · #96

The sad thing about a discussion on abortion, is taht it's always implied that the woman wants to keep the child and not the man, rarely the other way around (but I saw some comments pointing that way in this thread).

When the two partners disagree about keeping the child or not, most likely it will be the end of the couple.

What about the father that wanted to have the child. Of course, I would NEVER suggested that he has the right to force the woman to keep the child, but does anyone ever care about his feeling. He will feel like his child has been killed, how can he live with that?

Most of the times, when a man express some feelings about the issue, people will say "toughen up chief! you're a man!"

I'm NOT saying that a man should have the right to decide over his partner's choice, but it's not true that he doesn't have the right to an opinion. The woman will always be the one who makes the decision, but she should at least discuss it with the father. It's not true that abortion is "women only business", biology simply stated that the have the last word on it.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/27/2009 07:30:16 AM · #97

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Cases of rape, etc, are obviously not covered under this.

Rape is a very heinous crime. However, abortion does not un-rape a woman.

Itâ��s actually more harmful for a woman psychologically to have an abortion then to be raped! All things equal, it takes a woman 5 years on average to recover from rape. It takes 7-14 years to recover from abortion.

Originally posted by Dr. Sandra Makhorn (noted author and rape counselor):
The primary problem facing the rape victim is not pregnancy, but the attitudes projected by others: â��The belief that pregnancy following rape will emotionally devastate the victim reflects the common misconception that women are helpless creatures who must be protected from the harsh realities of the world. This study illustrates that pregnancy need not impede the victims resolution of the trauma; rather, with loving support, non-judgmental attitudes, and emphatic communication, healthy emotional and psychological responses are possible despite the added burden of pregnancy.â��

Nope, not buying it. That's one man's opinion. A child conceived in violence and hate will not be loved as it should be. And I know people that have had abortions. Trust me, that time table is far, far removed from accurate. I know people that have never had a second thought about it. And I also know people that have been raped. They never "recover" as you put it.