User Profile
I made a little discovery i thought you would all find rather interesting. I was reading through some medical reports tha other day. one was a D&C for fetal demise. It described the evacuated contents as "products of conception". So i looked at my own op report from my c-section. it stated "the uterus was inspected following the procedure and no products of concepteion were found to remain within the uterus". I thought it was interesting that the medical terms are the same for aborted fetus, fetal demise, or live birth. We just love to debate semantics, so I thought it was interesting that the medical profession regards all of it the same way.
Did you find this post helpful?
|

User Profile
replied August 24th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Hmmm.... that is interesting.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied August 24th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Yeah, people tend to think that those terms are used to soften the meaning of a real abortion, but OB/GYNs use those terms no matter what.

It's like people think a D & C can kill women and give them scarring all the time blah blah blah....women with endometriosis, miscarriage, and other sorts of reproductive problems get them, sometimes on a regular basis.

And they still get pregnant!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied August 31st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Just for historical perspective, medical terms were here first in the abortion debate. Pro-life people began using words like baby and unborn child to misdirect the public and to try to make women feel guilty about aborting inanimate, non-sentient embryos.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied August 31st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
futureshock wrote:
Just for historical perspective, medical terms were here first in the abortion debate. Pro-life people began using words like baby and unborn child to misdirect the public and to try to make women feel guilty about aborting inanimate, non-sentient embryos.


Inanimate? Confused
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied August 31st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
I don't mean as in "dead", I mean as in "lacking consciousness or power of motion".
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied August 31st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
futureshock wrote:
I don't mean as in "dead", I mean as in "lacking consciousness or power of motion".


I took it as meaning unmoving - which embryos/foetuses aren't if they are still alive.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied August 31st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Ooh mind you, if you were being really literal you could take the word at its Latin roots and say 'without a soul'. That's interesting. Does an embryo have a soul?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied August 31st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Some people believe the child obtains his or her soul with the first breath. It enters the body and it is so overwhelming the child screams. I think the child has a soul inside there at some point. My oldest daughter used to tell me all the time about what it was like for her before she was conceived and what she was thinking before she was born. She doesn't say much about that anymore. It's kinda creepy, but interesting.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied August 31st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
sillyakchick wrote:
Some people believe the child obtains his or her soul with the first breath. It enters the body and it is so overwhelming the child screams. I think the child has a soul inside there at some point. My oldest daughter used to tell me all the time about what it was like for her before she was conceived and what she was thinking before she was born. She doesn't say much about that anymore. It's kinda creepy, but interesting.


Huh...that reminds me of something I read about...oh, what is it called...coming back...multiple times...why on Earth can't I think of the word... (Guiness) ... anyfreakinway, kids are supposed to have better recollection of their past lives

REINCARNATION.

Whew.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
futureshock wrote:
Just for historical perspective, medical terms were here first in the abortion debate. Pro-life people began using words like baby and unborn child to misdirect the public and to try to make women feel guilty about aborting inanimate, non-sentient embryos.



Not pro-life, everybody in our society use the term babies when refering to fetuses, woman has always been pregnant with babies not fetuses. If it makes you feel guilty then you have to deal with it because you know clearly that's how always have been. See I don't have a problem with semantics because I don't feel guilty.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
futureshock wrote:
I don't mean as in "dead", I mean as in "lacking consciousness or power of motion".


same does born people in vegetative state.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
nightangel73 wrote:
futureshock wrote:
Just for historical perspective, medical terms were here first in the abortion debate. Pro-life people began using words like baby and unborn child to misdirect the public and to try to make women feel guilty about aborting inanimate, non-sentient embryos.



Not pro-life, everybody in our society use the term babies when refering to fetuses, woman has always been pregnant with babies not fetuses. If it makes you feel guilty then you have to deal with it because you know clearly that's how always have been. See I don't have a problem with semantics because I don't feel guilty.


Should I feel guilty because I washed my face and killed skin cells? Those skin cells were babies, according to some of you.

An egg plus sperm = zygote, which is a single cell with 46 chromosomes of human dna from 2 parents, which, given the right environment, would produce an entire human being.

skin cell= is a single cell with 46 chromosomes of human dna from 2 parents, which, given the right environment, would produce an entire human being.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
futureshock wrote:
nightangel73 wrote:
futureshock wrote:
Just for historical perspective, medical terms were here first in the abortion debate. Pro-life people began using words like baby and unborn child to misdirect the public and to try to make women feel guilty about aborting inanimate, non-sentient embryos.



Not pro-life, everybody in our society use the term babies when refering to fetuses, woman has always been pregnant with babies not fetuses. If it makes you feel guilty then you have to deal with it because you know clearly that's how always have been. See I don't have a problem with semantics because I don't feel guilty.


Should I feel guilty because I washed my face and killed skin cells? Those skin cells were babies, according to some of you.

An egg plus sperm = zygote, which is a single cell with 46 chromosomes of human dna from 2 parents, which, given the right environment, would produce an entire human being.

skin cell= is a single cell with 46 chromosomes of human dna from 2 parents, which, given the right environment, would produce an entire human being.


futureshock when you speak of abortion, the most commons ones are 5-9 weeks..it's not like skin cells you know. You got a heart beat by then you know?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
nightangel, that is true. Do you make a distinction, then, between a fertilized egg and a 5-9 week embryo? Would it be ok to abort a fertilized egg, in your opinion?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
futureshock wrote:
nightangel, that is true. Do you make a distinction, then, between a fertilized egg and a 5-9 week embryo? Would it be ok to abort a fertilized egg, in your opinion?


sure, as long as it has not being implanted succesfully.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
"sure, as long as it has not being implanted succesfully"

Thanks for your answer If you meant, before it has implanted, then my skin cell analogy would not apply to your views. I was addressing some pro-lifers who agree with the statement:

egg plus sperm = baby.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
nightangel73 wrote:
futureshock wrote:
nightangel, that is true. Do you make a distinction, then, between a fertilized egg and a 5-9 week embryo? Would it be ok to abort a fertilized egg, in your opinion?


sure, as long as it has not being implanted succesfully.


Does this mean you are 'ok' with the morning after pill, IUS, other contraceptives that can prevent implantation as opposed to fertilisation?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Moo wrote:
nightangel73 wrote:
futureshock wrote:
nightangel, that is true. Do you make a distinction, then, between a fertilized egg and a 5-9 week embryo? Would it be ok to abort a fertilized egg, in your opinion?


sure, as long as it has not being implanted succesfully.


Does this mean you are 'ok' with the morning after pill, IUS, other contraceptives that can prevent implantation as opposed to fertilisation?


Yup, I'm ok with all those. Just don't let the fertilized egg implant because when it implants then there you are preggy. Of course the more you can prevent the fertilization the merrier that's one reason I like pills since their primary mechanism is to prevent fertilization.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Nightangle-

That is one of things that I have always admired about you, that you FULLY support birth control measures and condoms usage..etc..

So many PL people do not like BC, but they do not understand that PROPER use of BC is very effective.

One of the biggest things I have a problem with is BC costs, even some middle class women cannot afford their monthly RX costs.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
12