quote:my Hatrack friends, including Dag, Frisco, ScottR, pooka, zgator, [Sopwith, of course!] and the whole lot of you who go out of your way to dice down through the nitty-gritty without resorting to name-calling and silly soundbites. I love the whole lot of you.
Oh, an we love you, too. Until you understand someone, you can't hope to change their minds on something so important. But if you seek to understand them only to change their minds, you will fail to understand them at all. SO understanding must be sought for its own sake.
posted
Actually I need to get back to work, so no thanks to the distraction, but cheering is always nice.
If you're worried about the never mind, I was pointing out something confusing in your post that you ended up editing while I was posting.
When I went to school 2 hours away instead of local to Eve's job, I promised I'd only look in the DC area for a job after law school as long as she wanted to stay at her current job. So unless you have a campus in need of technology transfer expertise for biomedical research, relocating's probably not on the table.
posted
I have honestly become too conflicted about this issue to take any stance on it.
I imagine the problem of abortion will never be solved by any human society. We'll just have to wait for peace until flawless birth control is invented.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
So, thinking about this whole abortion thing – does life begin at conception? When does life begin anyway? And I'm wondering, if you can take any cell from a zygote and have it integrate into any tissue in any human, can it be said to be unique? It could be said that it has the potential for humanity, but *any* humanity, given the right conditions. This is unique in that there is no other stage of human life where you can pick any cell from the organism and put it into any tissue from any member of the species and have it integrate.
Note: I realize that I'm extrapolating from the knowledge we have about mice stem cells and superimposing it on humans. To date there's nothing that indicates human stem cells are different from mice in this regard, but we haven't been working with them for long enough to know. For the sake of argument, pretend that human stem cells = mice stem cells in terms of versatility.
What about adult stem cells? Does the fact that you can do something similar with them discredit the argument? They are different in that they're one specialized line of the organism and they don't seem to be pluripotent. Even if the theory of stem cell plasticity that has been forward is accepted they're a far cry from pluripotency. But even if they *were* pluripotent, would that make a difference? How important is the difference between select cells and every cell?
For the record, the stage where this is true for every cell is very brief. Even by the time the blastocyte forms (about 7 days) the cells are split between trophoblasts and the inner cell mass. While all the cells of the inner cell mass are pluripotent those of the trophoblast are not. So, really, even should everyone say "Ok, abortions before blastocytes are a-Ok" that really only impacts birth control and morning after pills as well as stem cell research.
posted
I think there is no such thing as "the poverty card" with the abortion issue. They go hand in hand. The population of people most effected by criminalizing abortion will be women in poverty. How do you separate those issues so cavalierly? And yes, while infant adoptions are too difficult to make happen, infants grow up and become toddlers and then older and as noted repeatedly on here, they don't get adopted. A young woman has a baby and tries to take care of that baby as best she can. She finds herself unable to do so and begins to make mistakes or bad choices. Those choices could lead to neglect, abuse, or both and then those kids are taken from that unprepared mother and where do they go? Foster home to foster home if they are older than 5 or so and then where? The assumption is that pregnant mothers with no choice for abortion are automatically going to choose adoption at birth. Many won't initially and when they realize they are truly in over their head, it is usually too late for them or their child and thus we have thousands upon thousands of children without people to call parents or a place to call home.
I think THAT is where the energy should be placed...either supporting young parents if they choose to keep their child (assuming the government programs in place will do it is asking for trouble) or doing more to help them when they stumble.
But to say that this is just "a poverty card" is missing the issue, I think. We aren't talking about teens from well-off families wanting access to free abortions. Sure, there are folks in that boat but I don't see that being the population most effected by this.
posted
Pregnant women who are suffering a miscarriage are told by their doctors that there is nothing they can do about it. That it is just 'one of those things'. The authority of the doctor, and the faith of people in that doctor and in science, goes a long way to discourage further inquiry as to why the pregnancy failed.
I don't think it would take very much to form a group that would support research into miscarriages and why they happen. The research is not overwhelming, but it is not exactly sparse. This is in great part due to the increasing number of women trying to concieve in later years. They invest a lot into getting and staying pregnant.
From my own, admittedly anectodal experience, the spread of miscarriages is not even through all women. Many women never experience a miscarriage through several pregnancies, while other women seem to experience them repeatedly.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The population of people most effected by criminalizing abortion will be women in poverty.
Begin mindless rant:
This just made me wonder. If were talking about a much higher population of poor women getting abortions over wealthier women, then who pays for the abortion? I'm sure it's better for the government to pay a few hundred (or thousand) dollars to perform the abortion than it is for them to continue to support the woman and her child as they spend the rest of their lives in poverty. I mean, every cent that goes into the mouth of the hungry child is one less cent in a politician's pocket.
But it makes me so angry that I am paying the taxes that go to kill that child, and they won't even give me a vote. Talk about taxation without representation. It's not like I can expect my congressmen to accurately represent me, if the idiocy that goes on in Congress is a fair clue. Don't even get me started on McCain, our "conservative" Senator.
And what about checks and balances? Why aren't the judges of America being checked when they take on so much responsibility and exercise so much power? Why are so many important decisions being made in the courts rather than by the people?
If you consider the fact that the executive members of the government are chosen by the white-boy lawyer club, and then they in turn choose the judges, it stands to reason that you and I have absolutely no say in what's going on in the government. I mean, YAY for us that we get to chose between Kerry and Bush. The differences in their stances are almost indistiguishable. We should be asking, "Who picked Kerry? Who picked Bush?" And beyond that, "Who picked the Democratic nominees this year?" They give us these pointless nominees, and then pretend that we have a say in how the government is run, by letting us choose which pointless nominee we want to sit in office and pick his nose for four years.
Bread and circuses, my friends.
And who wants to wager a bet on Arnold running for President in four years, or eight? Who WOULDN'T be surprised that the lowest common denominator would jump all over the chance to have the last action hero in the Oval Office?
Well, to hell with all of it, because that's where it's going. If they think I'm going to participate in this game one more year, they're kidding themselves.
posted
I know, AJ. That's what makes me laugh and cry at the same time. Maybe the Supreme Court can decide that Arnold can run. They can even say it's unconstitutional (even though it's in the Constitution) to keep foreigners from running...after all, most of the people in America came as a foreigner or a descendent of one.
I realize how ridiculous it sounds. But that's the painful part. It's ridiculous, and yet TOTALLY possible. Possible, because we have no way of stopping them from doing whatever they want to do. What are you going to do? Call your local Congressman?
posted
PSI, I think that the foreign-born-as-president issue is not as likely to change as you think. Contrary to popular belief, by and large courts are NOT taking knives to laws to effect social change.
<Bok Rant> Like the whole "activist judges canard" with MA legalizing same-sex marriage: The issue had been percolating here for YEARS, with lobbies on both sides working to try to create legislation one way or another. Neither side can feign surprise on this issue in this state. No one had the guts to do anything about it, which is why it came to the MA SJC to begin with. They (the representatives, and by extension, the people) didn't want to deal with it at all; quite a few people, on both sides, probably WANTED the courts to deal with it, not legislatures. Now, the court could have decided the case before them many ways, and you can critique their particular judicial opinions. But the fact no one likes to bring up is that the MA Constitution had in it words that could definitely, and I would say reasonably, be construed to mean that marriage LAWS, in MA, ought to be applied to same-sex relationships. The MA SJC is not concerned with it's repurcussions for the greater USA. That's never been a concern of any state legislature/governor/court. They deal with their sphere of influence. The people had nothing "taken away" from them. There was ample time for interested parties on both sides to come up with compromise legislation, or whatever. They couldn't do it, and so to come late to the party and ask why the heck the 2 guys who came on time ate all the veggie dip is inane.
posted
No problem! I'll admit that the Mass. thing has been in my brain, but it's not just them. There seems to be very little being decided by voters nowadays, other than whether or not to build a trolley system (who cares?). Half the time, I feel like they give us things to vote on just to keep us feeling like we're involved. But the issues are so unimportant it doesn't matter which way it goes.
quote:King of Men: ------------------------------------------ As for selective abortion, why would you force anyone to raise a handicapped child? ------------------------------------------ Would you care to elaborate?
Certainly, comrade. Briefly, raising a child is a lot of dashed work, but has its rewards in seeing the child grow up, become an adult, raise grandchildren. A strongly handicapped child gives you twice the work and fewer rewards. Now, some people do take that on, and some of them don't even regret it. But this must be an individual choice. How can you argue that it's moral to force someone to raise a child they did not want?
As for adoption, I suspect it is a touch difficult to find a foster home for a handicapped child, no?
[ July 15, 2004, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If abortion isn't the taking of a human person's life and is left up to individual discretion, then we can't question someone's right to have an abortion for a particular reason (child's sex, disability, whatever). So the handicap argument would be irrelevant to the morality of abortion.
If abortion is prohibited on the basis that it's the taking of a human person's life, or potential life, then you are advocating weighing the moral fitness of a decision to abort based on the perceived worth of the child. Doing so relies on two assumptions:
1.) That a child's purpose is for the benefit to be provided to the parent. 2.) That a person with a disability is somehow worth less to the average parent than a "normal" child.
I find both morally reprehensible; together they're atrocious.
posted
Your first point is well taken, and indeed describes my stance precisely : A fetus is not yet human.
Your second point is not well taken, but I can see where my post laid the groundwork for it. I don't think a child has a purpose; but I do think an adult has the right to decide for herself whether or not she wants to take on the monumental task of bringing a child into the world. And she has the right to make that decision with all relevant information, including disabilities and what satisfaction she's going to get out of it. You may disagree with an individual's choice, that is your right. But you cannot take it away. That is the 'right' of a dictator to choose for all people.
And finally, you may find it as repugnant as you like. But I do think that the parent of handicapped children are less happy, more stressed, and more likely to regret their decision than the parents of normal children.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is your stance, than the burden of handicapped children on their parents neither supports nor detracts from it, since no justification for the decision to abort is needed. The fact that you brought it up is troubling, and doesn't bode well for a world where humans are equally valued.
quote:but I do think an adult has the right to decide for herself whether or not she wants to take on the monumental task of bringing a child into the world.
She made that decision when she decided to have sex. Children are a by-product of this decision.
KOM, do you have any thoughts on limitations to abortion? The time at which most handicaps can be determined I believe is past the halfway point in a pregnancy.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: How can you argue that it's moral to force someone to raise a child they did not want?
In the United States, can anybody legally abandon their children to an orphanege? If you give birth to a child, are you legally obligated to raise that child unless you can find somebody else to adopt it?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think that the coverage of oral contraceptives is consistent from state-to-state, although Medicaid usually does cover many forms of IUD and the insertion of Norplant (but not the removal). I believe that most Medicaid programs also cover (at least partially, if not all) some contraceptive injections
They only pay for contraceptives for females, not males. Not vasectomies (even if requested), etc. [ /sidenote ]
I also had the same question that PSI raised above (that I don't see answered yet) regarding how poverty-level women pay for abortions. How much does an abortion cost? If these people are only the poor, how do they afford the procedure? (I really don't know -- I'm not being sarcastic).
quote: She made that decision when she decided to have sex. Children are a by-product of this decision.
KOM, do you have any thoughts on limitations to abortion? The time at which most handicaps can be determined I believe is past the halfway point in a pregnancy.
How many teenagers really think about what's going to happen nine months from now? How many adults, for that matter? And contraception does fail occasionally. Are you seriously advocating abstention as birth control? That is not going to happen, and didn't even in Victorian times.
Limitations on abortion : The ones in place today (not that I'm an expert on what they are) seem fairly reasonable - not perfect, but an acceptable compromise.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that is your stance, than the burden of handicapped children on their parents neither supports nor detracts from it, since no justification for the decision to abort is needed. The fact that you brought it up is troubling, and doesn't bode well for a world where humans are equally valued.
A flaw of mine, arguing from the premises of my opponent, rather than my own. My basic thought here is that we're never going to agree on axioms, but it might be possible to reason from your axioms to my conclusions, which is what I'm trying to do. That is, no argument of mine can convince you that a two-week fetus is not human, but I might be able to bring you around to accepting abortion as necessary in some cases.
As for all humans being equally valued, all I can say is, they ain't. Suppose you had the choice of killing Saddam Hussein and comrade Bush. Which gets the bullet?
Incidentally, how do you feel about the death penalty?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're arguing from two very different viewpoints. I see it as a life.
The fact that a teenager or an adult didn't examine the possible consequences 9 months down the road shouldn't matter in my opinion. That's no excuse to end a life for convenience sake.
Obviously abstinence would be the most effective choice, but I do realize that it's not going to happen. Done correctly, birth control is very effective. Are you seriously advocating abortion as a means of birth control?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a last-ditch option, used when all else fails and the pregnant woman cannot face the thought of having this baby - yes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: How many teenagers really think about what's going to happen nine months from now? How many adults, for that matter?
This is what worries me; that the POV of pro-choice allows people to continue in ignorance.
I didn't know condoms weren't 100% effective! I didn't think that I might get pregnant! I didn't care at the time!
The solution to this isn't to give them a back door to slip out of. It's to hold them responsible so that they can stand as a statement to the world, and pass on their experience to other people their age, and to future generations. That's how social growth works. By repeatedly giving people a way out of their problems, you discourage growth, and that brings the country down to the level of animals.
How many of your friends would have to get pregnant before you'd start using birth control effectively? At that age, what happens to your peers is more of a statement to you than what happened to your parents, because that's ancient history. And if a teen girl gets an abortion, what's to keep her from getting another, and another? Surely she didn't learn the first time. All she learned is "I can have sex all I want! I don't need contraception!" Meanwhile she gets HIV, and passes that on to her other partners that "don't know any better".
The most important lesson for SOCIETY to learn is SEXUAL RESPONSIBILITY. That includes abstinence (when appropriate) and effective use of birth control or protection from STD's (when appropriate). It does NOT include all the "Get out of Jail Free" passes you could want, paid for by your helpful fellow citizens. What keeps you out of jail when you have all the passes? Why avoid it in the first place?
Let me go on the record of saying that my stance on abortion has less to do with the responsibility issue, although I will argue it if it comes up.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So essentially, you're punishing thoughtless teenagers pour encourage les autres? In order to set an example, you are going to inflict an unwanted child on them, not to mention embittered parents on the child?
Further, I think you have a horribly paternal attitude to how non-religious people think. It doesn't occur to you that an abortion is not a pleasant jaunt to the seaside? That many people feel terrible about an abortion, they just don't see any other option? There may be idiots in the world who think of abortion as an alternative to condoms. But I have yet to meet any.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM- Then you don't know many people. Off-hand I can name 8 or 10 women close to me who made quick decisions to have abortions rather than raise a child they didn't want, and many of them have had two or three. It's possible that, because I'm a woman, I'm privy to the more intimate choices that close friends or family members made. But that's just my personal experience.
I'm not making these numbers up, people. This is the shocking truth around here. It's scary.
I should also point out that the mental stability of some of them is not so good since having it done. I'm very sad to say this, but my mother is one of them.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, our experiences aren't that dissimilar. None of the women was happy or carefree about the situation. But, offhand, my mother, next-door neighbor, and best friend have all have at least three abortions, and all three of them have severe social problems that didn't exist beforehand.
I know that it's anecdotal. But in the courtroom, witness testimony counts as evidence, too.
And as far as ignorance goes, it depends on the person. Obviously some people will strive to never have the experience of an abortion again. But for society, it's a lesson that isn't learned unless they SEE the results. And more important than simply saving a child's life is to create a stable community for him to be raised in. A stable community is one that takes responsibility for their actions, rather than hiding from them.
edit: I hereby take repsosiblity for my poor spelling.
quote: KOM- Then you don't know many people. Off-hand I can name 8 or 10 women close to me who made quick decisions to have abortions rather than raise a child they didn't want, and many of them have had two or three. It's possible that, because I'm a woman, I'm privy to the more intimate choices that close friends or family members made. But that's just my personal experience.
Well then, I'm sorry to hear you are surrounded by idiots. Which is it, by the way, eight or ten? Nine? Perhaps it's five? Make up your mind, comrade.
How do you know the decisions were quick? Are these such good friends of yours that you would expect to be privy to every last minute of soul searching, every doubt and fear, every night thought? All eight of them? (Or ten, or whatever.) If you are indeed a good friend of these people, then I would assume that the peer pressure, at least, was in the opposite direction.
Also, suppose one of these women had brought her child to term. Would she have been the happier for it? Would your other friends have followed her example? Or might they have seen how terrible a dysfunctional family dynamic can be, and been even swifter in their own choices? Would you really bring a child into the world merely as an example for others? Isn't that assigning a purpose to children beyond their simple existence, which was called 'morally atrocious' when I did it?
I'm sorry to hear about your mother. But post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't valid reasoning.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of them did bring a child into the world, and she's here right now to tell you what kind of hell it was like being raised by a woman who was mentally DEFORMED by her decisions to abort children.
posted
Locally, abortions cost between $400-$600 or so. Most patients pay cash, some use insurance. None are paid by the government directly, afaik. A few are paid through funds by private donors.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
"she's here right now to tell you what kind of hell it was like being raised by a woman who was mentally DEFORMED by her decisions to abort children."
Can you demonstrate causation, here? Or, for that matter, demonstrate that it was worse than being raised by someone who was mentally deformed by being required to bear and raise fourteen children?
quote:One of them did bring a child into the world, and she's here right now to tell you what kind of hell it was like being raised by a woman who was mental DEFORMED by her decisions to abort children.
Well, there you go, then. Clearly, you'd have been better off not existing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW I'm a strong supporter of continued sex-education and thorough sex education. I'd like to point out that it is not the pro-choice camp that is pushing Abstinence-Only education.
Education is the most important method of helping people out. Please don't accuse all pro-choice people of ignoring this.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow, you argue against yourself pretty well.
Well, since you apparently don't intend to respond to my arguments, one of us has to keep the debate alive. Would you care to elaborate on that remark, by the way?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you just told her that it would clearly be a better world without her being alive, do you really think she's going to be all that interested in responding? If it was a joke I suggest apologizing for it, if it wasn't then I really don't think this debate will go much of anywhere.
quote: A part of me wonders if a person who (obviously) is making a series of bad choices wouldn't also be likely to make other bad decisions. That is, maybe something in their way of responding to the world or in their environment predisposed them to make a whole bunch of bad choices, among which would be getting pregnant unintentionally three or more times.
I promise, it's not like I didn't think of that. In some of my experiences, that's possible.
Oh, and I saw your post before you edited out the comment at the end, CT. I was cracking up.
posted
I am glad that despite a rocky beginning, this discussion has become pretty civil and reasonable. I know that it's late, but I'd like to share an idea of mine that I haven't ever seen. Maybe it's because it's severely flawed. If so, I'm sure you'll let me know. But maybe I have something worthwhile to share.
So many of the abortion arguments follow along the lines "Abortion bad for baby!" vs. "Abortion good for mommy!" [use Phil Hartman's Frankenstein voice for those arguments] These arguments hinge on where and when human-hood is achieved, and when the fetus should have any rights.
I personally don't know when I think a fetus becomes a person, and it doesn't matter for this argument. I do think that almost everybody can agree that a fetus is "somewhat" a person, and generally becomes "more" of a person as time goes on. This means that at some stage before birth, a fetus becomes more of a human being than the cells I lose brushing my teeth, combing my hair, or taking a shower. I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with this.
Soooooo, suppose that there were a company out there that got people to experience "virtual" murder. My idea is very similar the movie "The Game", if you've ever seen that. Let's say that you want your friend to experience the thrill of murduring somebody. So this company goes out and arranges a situation where your friend would have motive and opportunity to kill sombody, and he goes through with it. But things were arranged so that it was a fake death. For example, they put blanks instead of bullets in the gun he used.
In this situation, no human life was lost, nobody was physically harmed, but something horrible still happened. The "murderer" tried to take someone's life. He was brought or he brought himself to the point where he was able to value some else's life as less valuable than his own desires. This is an evil thing, and something that we don't want happening.
Similarly, if someone aborts a person or a "somewhat" person, then to some degree, they have brough themselves to the point where that life ("somewhat" life?) has less value than their own needs and wants. It seems to me that this would be evil for the same reason virtual murder would be evil. So instead of "Abortion bad for baby!", this argument is "Abortion bad for mommy!"
Most of the anti-abortion arguments are based on the idea "Thou shalt not kill." This argument of mine more comes from the idea "Thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it."
Thanks for listening.
edit: the comments about this conversation being so civil were composed before mud started to fly, even though they were posted after.
quote: Well, since you apparently don't intend to respond to my arguments, one of us has to keep the debate alive. Would you care to elaborate on that remark, by the way?
On second thought, yes I would.
You start throwing crap like that around, and you lose every argument you make.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM, you just told her that it would clearly be a better world without her being alive, do you really think she's going to be all that interested in responding? If it was a joke I suggest apologizing for it, if it wasn't then I really don't think this debate will go much of anywhere.
No, those were comrade PsiTeleport's words. I merely restated them in a slightly more direct form. And neither of us said anything about the world, we were both talking about her own life.
On the other hand, I did not mean my words to hurt, and if they did, I apologise for that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between having a tough childhood and prefering not to live through it, if it was the latter she wouldn't be here right now.
And even if we aren't talking about the world, you can rest assured that the world is significantly better with PSI in it.
posted
KOM: See, you seem to think that a bad life is worse than no life, and I don't agree. Also, you forget that a bad life still has good moments, and can lead to a happy life. Yes, even for people forced to raise the child they conceived. Even for children born to rape victims.
Well, Hobbes beat me to it. KOM, I think you need to hand over your screen name to the man that deserves it.
quote: A strongly handicapped child gives you twice the work and fewer rewards.
I don't know that you can say that. My brother and his wife choose the keep their daughter with Down's Syndrome. Her being alive has been consistently regarded by the medical community as a failure in care. "Didn't you have an ultrasound? Weren't you encouraged to abort?" My brother says 90% of feti with Down's Syndrome are aborted.
But she is a happy, affectionate child. She may never cheat to get a better grade or deliberately shoplift or do the other things normal kids do. She did have a thyroid problem that had to be operated on, but I know a couple of college graduates that had the same problem. I know of a child with DS who has had to have one painful surgery after another. That can happen as well. But again, it can happen in the able.
I remember now why my older sister mentioned abortion to my 7 year old. She was discussing an autism genetics study their child hadn't been accepted for, and it was just as well since if they find the gene they will probably used it to pre-diagnose and abort. (At which point my child asks "what's abort?" and we got a bit sidetracked.) I still don't know if she understands it. We left it at "The baby doesn't get born" which may leave her with the impression that it's just stored in the woman's body. I don't know how to tell her that doctors essentially cut it out even though it can't survive.
CT- the reason I used the analogy of whales beaching themselves is because it is part of nature, but it's also a tragedy. I'm not sure what the stats are on baby sea turtles, but when they hatch most of them are eaten by seagulls and crabs. It is part of nature, and the fact that it's a huge waste is hard to take. I can understand why you feel confused about why we would want to believe that. (Note, I'm not saying a zygote is like a baby sea turtle, I'm just comparing the degree of waste that occurs in that life event.)
Having said that, I don't know where they get those statistics. It used to be 30, then 50, and Suneun said 70% on the front page. I know infertility is getting more prevalent but I don't see how they get these numbers. Does anyone know, or are they educated guesses?
Just because a woman is not outwardly distraught doesn't mean a thing about her mental state. I learned a long time ago that mentioning the death of my first child usually ends in me consoling the person I told. So I avoid it if I don't expect to deal with that person much in the future. With medical people I'm just very matter of fact about it. They may have some follow up questions, but it's not it will help me to have a melt down. So like I said, you can't tell one way or another.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think that, I was trying to point out to you that you are in fact alive, and that your whining was not particularly relevant to the topic at hand.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
