Friday, March 29, 2013

Statement Analysis of Planned Parenthood Lobbyist

Planned Parenthood On Babies who survive abortion:

Note the language:  use of "we" in rendering an opinion, and "I" when not having data.  Note "baby", "child", and avoidance of using the terms.  

Q. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
A.  "We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.
Q.  "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”
A.  "I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
Q, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”
A.   “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
Note now that the questioner uses internal, subjective, personal dictionary for clarification: 

Q,  “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” 
Using "think" allows for the lobbyist to disagree, which is asked. 
A.  "That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that," Snow said. "I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”
Note that the word "that" shows distance.
"really" qualifies what she doesn't know how to answer. 
Note future/conditional tense of "I would" is a weak commitment.  Note this with the phrase of being "glad", along with the rest of the sentence. 
Note that the question itself is avoided here, but "some more" conversation would come.
Note the word "with" when between people indicates distance.  
She avoided answering the question, making the question itself, sensitive to her.  
The subject does not want to answer the question. 
The subject knows the answer will be unacceptable. 
The subject would be glad to avoid answering the question so that it can be a private conversation instead, even as she distances herself from the person asking the question. 
Q.   “What objection could you possibly have to obligate a doctor to transport a child born alive to a hospital where it seems to me they would be most likely to be able to survive?”
Snow said Planned Parenthood was concerned about "those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that’s the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there’s just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about.”
You can watch the full exchange at the 39-minute mark of this video.
Note the lobbyist avoids using "baby" or "child", even though this discussion was about a child who has outside the mother's womb.  


dadgum said...

Woman signing papers: What's the ambulance parked outside for?

Worker: Oh that..uhh..for your safety.

Woman climbing onto procedure table: What's that, in the corner, covered by a drape?

Worker: Oh's life saving equipment.

Woman: I thought you said this is safe??

Worker: Oh, it is. For you. The baby usually always dies. If it doesn't, we have to save it's life....

Woman getting off table: What baby? Life? No one said anything about a baby or a life! You said 'tissue' and 'products of conception'. I need to think this over..

I can see why PP is against this prospect.

Anonymous said...

I'm pro choice. But I can't see the need to end a pregnancy late enough for a baby to survive on its own. I had my oldest at 27 weeks, and he needed very little assistance (amazingly) to breathe on his own. 1 lb 11 oz. 12" long. Definitely able to feel pain. My life was in danger, as in last rites and my organs shut down. I was told I had moments to live.
24 weekers, I understand, can feel pain, too.
I don't know of a time when there would be a need, outside of choice, to cause that kind of pain to a baby at that gestation. I'm sure someone could do open adoption in that case, just to give the "mother" a chance to change her mind.
While I'm pro choice, an abortion is not the kind of choice you can re- do later. You can't decide later that you're ready to be a mother to that pregnancy.
The wrenching heartache and regret will last a lifetime. I really do wish open adoptions or fostering were pushed a little harder at the clinics.

dadgum said...

me too
(Mom, foster Mom, adoptive Mom)

Anonymous said...

If you actually listened to the entire video instead of spouting off like an ignorant partisan hack you would learn that she flat out said that she was not aware how often that the situation that the committee members put forth even occurred.
hen she made that comment they kept demanding an answer even though she said at least three times that she did not feel she had enough info to give a good answer. The committee members kept rewording the question so that she was cornered into giving an ill advised comment.

She said that the decisions were between the woman and the doctor which is a fair answer.

At no point did she ever say that she or PPA supported killing a baby that was actually born.

(The term botched abortion was an invalid one that the committee member made and was obviously made for political points and not legal validity).

And even at the end her objection was to the overly sweeping language that the bill had in it.

The transportation aspect is actually that in a rural long distance setting, the bill as proposed could be read to say the doctor themselves has to do the transport while PPA wanted it changed to allow for calling a medevac trauma unit or similar equipment which would actually be better for the child.

The way the issue was being reported by the Weekly Standard (which is not an objective journalistic endeavour) is to make PPA look bad and not to actually report the facts.

Tania Cadogan said...

I am pro choice, there are many reasons for a woman to have a termination, some good, if it can be called good and some bad, if it can be called bad.

There are cases when a termination is the kindest gift a mother can give her unborn baby, when a child is so profoundly disabled that should it survive pregnancy and birth, it's life will be short and agonising at best and long and agonising at worst.

Imagine a child so profoundly disabled that the only thing keeping it alive is a ventilator. Blind deaf,dumb, unable to do anything for itself except exist. If it is lucky it is too brain damaged to understand it's situation, if it is unlucky it has enough consciousness to realise it is trapped and in agony yet cannot say or do anything to indicate such.

I do not agree with abortion simply as a form of birth control because the mother refused to use contraception or a condom failed and she didn't use emergency contraception as is often the case with teenage moms. In such cases mom should be given a contraceptive implant.

Abortion should be allowed for medical reasons if it results in harm to the mother, in cases of rape and incest, where the mother is herself a child or if the birth will result in undue hardship ( in families with multiple children and little to no income ) where the whole family will suffer.

It is often said mothers should be forced to carry to term and then the child adopted out, This will never work, There are millions of children needing to be adopted as it is, what will happen when millions more arrive, who will pay to keep them?

Those who say every child must be given a chance of life regardless have never had to bring up a disabled child profound or mild. They do not realise the work involved, the expense, the suffereing to the family especially siblings as the parents life revolves around the disabled child.

Abortion is a tough issue to discuss because a life is involved.

I have talked with anti abortionists who are rabid in the extreme as to their belief i have also talked to pro choice who are also rabid in the extreme, there is no real way to compromise.

I have often wondered how an anti would feel if she got pregnant straight after birth, would she feel the same after 15 kids and more? would she feel the same if every child she had was profoundly disabled and she had to care for them all rather than as often happens placing them in a home.

The anti's assume there will someone willing to care for every child, that there is funding for every disabled child should the parents place them in home for the taxpayer to keep till they die.
How many anti's would adopt multiple disabled children bcause their own parents couldn't or wouldn't support them.

Focus is always placed on the child as a baby, what happens when it grows up and becomes an adult?

We have cases now where a disabled girl and her parents are faced with puberty, with a profoundly disabled girl do you let her have periods and all that entails or do you decide sterilisation is best for her health and the well being of her parents who have to deal with it and try and explain what is happening to her.
What happens if she becomes pregnant(and it does happen) is she forced to have the pregnancy to full term or is termination the best thing for her?

There is no black and white just a multitude of shades of grey, abortion is one of the few issues where neither side will listen to the other and instead hurl threats and insults.

A woman deciding on a termination does not do so lightly, sometimes living a lie so no one knows what they have done perhaps through fear of god, fear of family sometimes both.
Some have a supportive family who are there for them regardless, some don't and are ostracised. Some have a loving partner some don't, some are the victims of crime, some are victims of bad timing, accident or failed contraception.

Tania Cadogan said...

No one has the right to force their ideals and beliefs on any pregnant woman faced with such a life changing decision and termination is life changing for the mother.
What everyone should be doing is advising her of the options available depending on her reason for abortion (crime, disability, maternal health etc) and supporting her in whatever choice she makes rather than condemning her.

How long will it be before women are threatened and even prosecuted bcause they had a miscarriage as this is the way things are going when an enbryo or foetus is said to be alive at the moment a heartbeat is detected (6 or 12 weeks depending on manner of detection) or from the moment of conception.
Will the extremist anti's demand prosecution because a woman miscarried a pregnancy at whatever stage, or had a still born? Will every woman who has a period be prosecuted because the egg didn't implant and it might have been fertilized?

Where do we draw the line?

It should always be the woman's choice even if we disagree with her decision, it is she who has to carry and deliver the baby, raise it, love and care for it, not some stranger and their beliefs and principals.

Until you have been in the same situation you have no right to force your choices on any woman, it is she who has to live the rest of her life with the consequences.

I may not always agree with the reason a woman chooses termination, i will however always be there to support her whatever she decides.
It is not my place to cast judgement on her, i will not always have the whole story, i am not her, i don't have to live with my (her) decisions.

personally i decided at a very young age i never wanted children, i made sure of this by being sterilized aged 26 (funnily enough they changed the rules after me as i was single no kids and didn't want a reversible one. I said if i wanted a reversible one we wouldn't be having this discussion) and aged 32 for medical reasons i had a hysterectomy, i pointed out since i was sterilized a hysterectomy suited me fine. :)

Vita said...

I like your Icon Dadgum.

This is logistics, in speak. This is a bunch of suits at a table in platform with lobbyists. These people are not physician's, and they cannot speak as a physician, nor represent themselves as a physician.

This is where the line is crossed the Bureaucrats with their red tape bullshit being involved where they are not needed. They have what to gain or lose within the topics of women's sexual health, women's obstetrics?

" Power" is their game. Who are they representing the people? hell no. Unless you are of investing, which Pharma company, which Lobbyist for what birth control? Which hired Marketing Consulting firm (is seated in) to fire off the next grand commercial that it's the perfect form of birth control.. It's all about MONEY and Profiteering. Corporations investing in human lives, failure of human health is big business.

I worked in a spa, Esthetician. A group of physicians came into Metro Detroit for a conference. All were female, doctors of women's health. The full gambit spectrum of OB/GYN's, specialists what have you. They came to Metro Detroit for one reason: Birth Control

My client from California, she a OB/GYN. At the time there was BC Pill that had been out, and I asked her, her opinion on it. As I had many women ask me questions, of this BC Pill. That I could not answer their questions. The BC pill was marketed ( maybe some readers here will recall) to make ACNE a no longer, hardcore Acne - to go away. She to actually stop me from working on her, she to sit up and look at me. She to say straight up - It's Marketing.

That BC pill has no different ingredients than any other mainstay BC pill. She to say in disgust, that's what they do, they develop a new form of Birth Control and they Market it to a key audience. With Women, BC pills are not a necessity but if you market the pill with a " Brand" it becomes the hottest latest greatest, and they come to me and demand it. Not because it's a form of BC, but for them, they believe by taking it, it will get rid of ACNE.

She to say the bigger issue is that they do tweak the inert ingredients to make it a " Sole" pharmaceutical copyright, and yet they do not test it on women. It's approved and made mainstream, with none of us (Physicians) having any knowledge on the actual side affects upon Women. The demand already there, and we to be the providers of and not able to tell them WHY they should not take it. Because it's approved and it's available, she truly tiffed, doesn't mean it's meant for women to consume within it's prescribed and or marketed branding.

All the Commercials with the small talk of women, OH I take blah and it changed my life, my skin has never been more beautiful. It's what it is Marketing. It stimulates commerce. The BC pill that came out after the " Anti-Acne" BC pill.. was directed at Teen girls, Yasmin. Now it's on recall for you name it, side affects including death.

It though was marketed as the first ever made BC pill for teens who chose responsibility over risking pregnancy. The topic of Abortion will forever be as it is controversial. The topic of Birth Control to be in most states of the USA - Taboo for our kids. OH it may give them idea's or a free license to go out and have sex. You can't have it both ways.

BC knowledge is necessity in our society today - not only for kids/teens but for Adults as well. If it's not a condom, and it's implanted or ingested - shouldn't all be educated? side affects may vary. It's though then, who do you trust? as Doc's get kick backs on every script they write, if it's hot and in demand newly released script. 10-$15 per script written. Yes they do. These Suits who spoke are not beneficial to anyone but themselves - living vicariously via the Guinea pigs, yes that be You and I.

Anonymous said...

you have to be quite far along in pregnancy that your baby could survive outside of you. the question is a hypothetical that would only realistically apply to late term abortions. the person is struggling to answer because the question has little real word application. The question is emotionally charged but also medically misleading because abortions that planned parenthood provides are not late term. Or even close to late term.

Fern said...

Hobnob...I have great respect for you and the posts you dare put out here on this hot-button issue. Agree 100% with your "analysis".

Vita said...

Anon @ 7:39 - your comment provokes the need for an answer. That I do not believe comes within PP itself.

I do not believe all PP offices are alike. When it comes to abortion each state mandates different laws.

My state, PP, I do know and can speak for only one PP office, as I have been a patient at. When you have zero health insurance, are in need, Women's health, your options are few. This office to have rotations of Docs from the two best Hospitals known statewide if not nationally. I know that this office itself holds high standards. They to have a rally of people on the side of their parking lot - people holding picket signs of dead fetus's, chanting, screaming at you as you walked to the door. They to paint a square for them to stand in, that they could not cross.

I recall in my youth (20's) going to other women care facilities with two of my girlfriends, two different non PP clinic's. My once was with my best friend who was married, pg with her 2nd child and her husband had lost his insurance. They then forced to be on state aid, we were attacked going into this office clinic.

People to be with picket signs, they to bum rush us, they screaming at my best friend you are a murderer - she going in to pick up her needed prescription for her prenatal vitamins, as she needed prescription vitamins.. The other was a girlfriend that went in for a blood test to find out if she was pregnant, same thing. We were attacked, both my gf's to be scared witless. It's such a shame.

When I was pregnant with my daughter I was 24, as I looked much younger than my age. It did not stop the cruel insensitive remarks from women, why? I chose to keep my baby. They at random no matter where I was, shopping, in public, I was accosted by WOMEN. HARSH Comments, they to feel I was not a human being? I needed a scolding, a lecture? The worst was them to come up to me and touch me. Touch my belly without even asking.

They to make snide remarks, oh may I ask what does your husband do? Or may I ask are you married? they demanding an answer, not kidding. As they saw me as ? an object? my baby their property as they felt the need to come up and put their hands on me, which I felt as a personal insult, if not even assault upon my body. Me not to disclose my status, yet they felt it was their business to judge me. Why because I was going to personally bill them for my Baby? to live? These the same ppl who stand with picket signs outside of PP or women's clinic's screaming: Murderer~! God will punish you~
Because you're female of child bearing age - not because of any other reason, you are at this clinic,.. therefore..I can call you a Murderer!

The worst ever when my daughter was 6,7 yrs of age. We driving down a road, we had traveled countless times. A church was on the corner. They had put up a billboard of a fetus * full color* " ripped apart what would be post term" bigger than life, and then they put into the ground 1000's of PVC white pipe in the shape of Crosses on the grass hill- As we were driving, the car in front of me saw it first, he/she went off the road and hit the gravel, they swerving, I came upon the driver in front of us..and I had to come to a abrupt stop. 55 MPH this Roadway.

My daughter staring at the billboard, the white crosses.. and I had to bodily shield her, within seconds of we almost died, hitting the car in front of us.
The Church was sited and they said we are not taking it down. It was in all the local papers, they took it to court, they lost.

What if someone would have died by driving that road, by the shock of the visual - No meaning to the church. None.

Layla said...

My son was born at 28 weeks. He had the strength and spirit in him to yank the nasal canula out of his nose bc he did not like how it felt when they put it in. He had a personality at 28 weeks. You could see he was stubborn--he made a face and yanked the darn thing out.
Anyone who supports abortion past 3 or 4 mos gestation is as heartless as they come in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

There are conservatives who say, abortion is wrong, you must carry the child to term. Ok, so the parents do that. Now, let's say the kid has severe disabilities. Even with insurance, if the family has limited income, the child gets SSI. Even if the family makes plenty of money, they cannot afford the therapies. The government funds disability programs in school. The taxpayers have to pay a lot for these kids.
This is a serious question. How do most conservatives feel about this? Do they feel they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's disabled kid or do they agree wholeheartedly to help care for a child created by their God? This is a serious question, and I value the opinions here, which is I ask.

Hobs, as always, you have guts and I love your posts.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Anonymous said...
the question is a hypothetical
March 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM
It seems like Planned Parenthood should be working more closely with hospitals and mental healthcare pros.

Layla said...

A month before my son should have been born (he was still in the NICU) the baby in a crib next to my son was 6 mos old and was there for severe stomach disorders and he was there next to my son for a month. So, this baby would "babble" all the time as baby's who are 6 mos. will do. Well guess what? My son, a month before he should have been born started "babbling" also. My son's nurse said she had never heard a baby so young, who shouldn't have even been born yet "babble. But it was because he would hear this older baby babble all day. My heart is wrenched apart when I hear the ease with which some pro-choice people support aborting near-viable or viable babies. I have no words.

dadgum said...

You will find many conservatives caring for, and raising as their own, children in need, without parents to care for them.

You will find conservatives quietly offering to assist, or to adopt a baby or child considered by some to be 'unwanted'.

I begged one young mother not to abort her baby. She told me no one wanted a baby of mixed heritage. She was wrong..we would have helped, raised the child, or even shared him or her.

We beheld a young baby, born with Down's, the young parents considering giving him up. Seeing that we valued him for who he is, and held him as tenderly as our own..he is today their firstborn son, some 18 years old, an an amazing young man.

There are no guarantees in life. There are surprises both pleasant and unpleasant, there are consequences, and there are miracles.

dadgum said...

Rick Flair's son found dead in a Charlotte hotel..

One of my kids knew them both..

JenC said...

Anon @ 6:03, you are the one who sounds like you are spouting off like an ignorant partisan hack... This goes way beyond this one question in this one video and whether some PPs perform late-term abortions (they do, depending on state law). SA indicated that she was avoiding the question, because answering it - with either a "yes" or a "no" could be problematic politically. If she says, "save the baby," then it opens the door to attack abortions performed at that period in gestation. If she says, "no, don't save it - it's an abortion," people would cry "murder." Whatever your views on the subject, try to look at the statement objectively. It's a bad business decision to give a definite answer at all, so it's in PP's best interest to be vague.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
The name of the organization suggests that they advise a planned pregnancy and education on parenting.

dadgum said...

suggest taking a look at their founder, Margaret Sanger. PP began during the Eugenics Movement, with hopes to eradicate births among the poor, ethnic, and 'undesirable' populations.

Lemon said...

You offer a thoughtful and sensitive perspective that is appreciated.

Anonymous said...

The original abortion-rights slogans from the early '70s - they remain virtual articles of faith and rallying cries of the "pro-choice" movement to this day - were "Freedom of choice" and "Women must have control over their own bodies."

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

dadgum said...

dadgum said...

interesting..but so many cigarette commercials!!

1957 interview with Sanger by Wallace

Lis said...

I read a great article many years ago entitled "politics makes liars of us all." The author outlined how ideology forces a person to support positions that are untenable because they won't allow themselves to face any reality that appears at odds with their cause. I think of that article often as I read things like this.

Imagine if we were speaking of an adult who needed medical care here and these words were used-

"those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that’s the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there’s just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about.”

"those situations" distancing. How many of the situations fall into this group anyways? Where are these clinics that it is an impossible and dangerous journey to get to a hospital?

"You know" No, I don't know. 45 minutes to an hour doesn't seem too extreme to me.

"there's just some logistical issues" "just" minimizing. "logistical issues" a meaningless, vague reference.

"we" have some concerns about.

They do not want these babies to survive because they do not want the evidence of what they really do to be known.

Lis said...

Dadgum, it's funny, it seems like those are the exact demographics where the birth rate is the highest.

dadgum said...

I about fell over when Sanger shows pics of her 2 sons and 8 grandchildren.

I guess they are good enough, disease free, law abiding, non-mental defective, upper class etc etc to procreate..

dadgum said...

Very interesting the background on her father and the Catholic Church, and her issues with the church..I never read or heard that before.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Lis said:ideology forces a person to support positions that are untenable because they won't allow themselves to face any reality
"Amartya Sen, the nobel prize winning economist, has developed a gauge of gender inequality,,, 'More than 100 million women are missing""
Selective sex abortion is a reality. Female genocide is happening.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Quotes from "Half the Sky" Nicholas D. kristof and Sheryl WuDunn

Tania Cadogan said...

Something to ponder

One problem which has arisen is a cut off date for termination.

Depending on where you live you can have a termination up to 24 weeks (it also depends on the reason)The problem that arises and causes conflict and distress is that with modern technology and advances in medicine we are now saving premature babies at 24 weeks.

This is fuel for the anti's who demand the limit be lowered as such children can survive with help.

What is often avoided, the elephant in the room is that yes extremely premature babies have survived yet are often profoundly disabled.
Little mention is made of this.
The statistics stay the same regardless of how far technology has come.
There will be the odd child who pulls through with little to no disabilty, these are the children held up to the spotlight as examples of why abortion should be banned.
No mention is made of all the children, the vast majority in fact who have disabilities and a lifetime of health problems.
No thought is given to the notion that just because we can do something, we should.

It seems it is all about the parents needs and desires, the natural human instinct to keep their child alive at all costs, everything is the here and now, tommorow we will look at the long term prospects.

Losing a child for any reason will always be agonising even when it is done out of love and compassion, taking the decision to turn off the life support when your child has fought is something no parent should ever have to go through.

In all the decades since technology advanced enough to keep extremely premature babies alive, the survival statistics have not changed, nor has the long term prospects of health and disability.

We have a gerstation of 40 weeks or so for a reason, it allows the baby to develop fully, the more premature the baby the more things that are undeveloped which can in the long term lead to all sorts of health problems and shortened lifespans.

It is only now that doctors are learning the effects of IVF on children who are now having children, this is the first generation of children born from IVF i it's various forms and it seems to be that there are problems in the genes which will be passed on, what will happen when premature babies grow and perhaps become parents themselves?

When we start interfering with mother nature there will always be consequences, some forseen, many unforseen and by then it's too late, the genie is out the bottle.

For the first time in history it is no longer survival of the fittest, with only the strongest and healthiest having children in a resulting is a healthy population and gene pool, now the weakest and sickest are having children weakening the gene pool.

Is it a coincidence that since we started IVF, saving extremely premature babies and so on the incidence of disabilities of all kinds, the prevalence of asthma, behavioal disorders and suchlike are skyrocketing?

Are we now reaping what we have sown?

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Who knows what it will be like in even the next decade, let alone the next 30 years.

Nic said...

A. "That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that," Snow said "I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

If I were the interviewer I would take this as a signal that the coversation was over.

The word "that" is distancing the interviewee from the question and it's repeated making it sensitive.

The word "really" weakens "how" they would answer the question (could be that they have an answer but it would be too controversial if answered directly and with their honest opinion).

"I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this." to me is like saying "let's do lunch" (not). The conditional future tense "would be" is not specific and "glad" is extra wording. IMO, it's like saying "very" with the same statement weakening effect.

"some more conversations" isn't the same as saying "another conversation" which would require a specific time and place. "Conversations" is plural and I liken it to the lobbiest using extra wording, like someone would use "very, very happy". Except that the lobbiest is using the plural to make herself look open to discussion when infact they are slamming the door on any more controversial public "conversation" (debate) about live birth as a result of abortion.

Tania Cadogan said...

I wonder how all those countries with female infanticide will cope when they are stuck with a population of all males with little to no females.

Will they do a 180 and everyone want a daughter?

You see, man needs woman to procreate, you cannot have a child without a woman, man isn't designed to carry and deliver a baby, if they could they would only ever have 1 :)
Woman however don't need a man, a woman can always have a child especially now with IVF, cloning and so on.

Pretty much males are useless, we only need a few to provide the sperm to fertilize all the women, it's how farms work, a couple of males can impregnate thousands of females at little cost.

If you have a society of males and few females you go bust/extinct real fast.

You would think that society would treasure and protect it's females as without them there is no society.

If certain countries carry on as they are, in a few generations they will die out either because there is no one to carry a child or because of inbreeding decimating the gene pool.

Will we see a swing the other way then with sons being culled and everyone wanting a daughter to carry on the family line?

Mankind will face extinction, will it be at the hand of mother nature and a natural catastrophe or will it be at it's own hand?

Nic said...

Hobs, Asia is facing the dilemma you speak about right now. I can't be positive but I'm thinking gov'ts are now allowing couples to have two children instead of just one because there are no woman to carry on the family line.

Additionally, you (generally speaking) have to careful about limiting the gene pool. Three degrees of separation isn't exactly a joke in the IVF field. They are are discovering "problems" with women in the same city using limited sperm specimen. My neighbour is a dairy farmer and we had a fantastic conversation about this very subject. Aside from the people side of things, he has to watch where he purchases his sperm from and he has to document the lineage of his cows because if he goes to sell any, the purchaser needs to know "who they are" and "where they come from". Especially in the case of a mad cow outbreak.

It's a fascinating subject.


Anonymous said...

Nic, it sounds like the limited gene pool in Hollywood. With all the partner swapping and having babies with parters within that limited celebrity environment, incest has to be a real concern.

Anonymous said...

Incest when the children grow up and couple off that is.

Skip said...

Hobs, usually I love your posts, but respectfully, letting a 24 weeker die just because it's expensive or due to survival of the fittest is beneath us as humans. I have a 27 week child, as well, and the only disability he has is autism. He cost nearly half a million to deliver and bring home, and I paid a chunk of that out of pocket. I'd willingly spend my life paying back the rest to the insurance company out of pocket if I had to.
Allowing the weaker of us to die will not push humankind forward. We don't allow people who can survive severe injury or disease die just because they aren't as strong or it costs a lot.

Anonymous said...

Keep abortion safe and legal. Analyze that.

ME said...

I'm a hobnob fan!

Layla said...

Just disguating--who needs to abort a 24 weeker? Yes, they feel pain. That makes it wrong.
People who abort Downs babies--why? They're probably a lot kinder and smarter than they are. Yes I saod smarter.
This lady is talking idiotic gibberish saying a baby shouldnt be saved bc it's too long of a ride to a hospital!
Talk about cowardice! Why dont they pick on someone their own size. It takes a lot of guts to attack the most helpess. And deny the most helpless an ambulance ride.
I wonder what it feels like to be that empty. To have no conscience.
Every person is flawed and handicapped in their own way. What gives someone the right to deem someone else more flawed than they are?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Even pro abortion people are disgusted at this.

Layla said...

Not all of them, unfortunately.

Fern said...

I'm pro-choice.

But I do agree with you, Layla. Third trimester abortions should only be considered when the mother's life is on the line, the baby has died in the womb, or the baby is so severely deformed that death is more merciful than an abbreviated, agonizing life.

Adoption is an option. So is dropping the baby off at a hospital, firehouse, or other safe questions asked. I'm a big fan of the Safe Haven programs.

I recognize this is a hot-button issue. I respect your position. But babies don't ask to come into this world.

Ideally, every child is a wanted child.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Hobs said: especially now with IVF, cloning and so on.
Eugenics is credited to a relative of Darwin; they had common interests. Now that genes are fully understood, I wonder if the constant deliberate manipulation of the gene pool is preventing necessary evolutionary change?

~ABC said...

Layla said....
"Every person is flawed and handicapped in their own way. What gives someone the right to deem someone else more flawed than they are?"

I Agree 100%! Some people are more concerned about money than they are people. It's really that simple. They attempt to hide their obsession with all things money under a self-righteous cloak of concern.

TrishapatK said...

Since this has become a conversation about peoples opinions regarding womens rights and abortion I'm going to share my thoughts too.

Of course women should have choices – all sorts of choices ... but should murder really be one of them?

I realize that most women who have an abortion are just trying to find their way out of a problematic situation.

But abortion is not just a way to end a problematic situation, sadly it's killing the womans very own child. Women who have had abortions are often very sad for many, many years and regret the decision. I think it is important to let women know that they truly have other options.

There are many organizations that are willing to help women who find themselves in that situation. There are also many people who very much want to adopt babies.
It may not be convenient or easy but a woman can still carry full term. I don't think that is unreasonable. If abortions weren't so easy to come by women might be more inclined to take advantage of the many choices we have to avoid pregnancy.

I already know that the rare occasion exists where a pregnancy comes about because of rape ... it's rare. It's still a baby. It's a tragedy for a woman to be raped but it doesn't help to murder the baby conceived and it isn't punishment for the woman, it's a biological consequence of the sexual act and it can be considered unfair for her to carry a baby. Crimes aren't usually fair, nor are the consequences. But murdering the baby doesn't help.

My heart goes out to women who find themselves in that situation. I hope that more and more of them find loving help to deal with it that honors the lives of both mother and child.

Please forgive me for the blatant "off-topic-ness" here ... I was joining the party and I care about this topic, just as everyone else does. I recognize the concern that everyone has and even though our approach might be different we are all voicing our opinions because we do care about the people involved. It is good to see.