R
Rau
Guest
Mink could readily have been referring to early delivery, or to abortion.
- Status
S
steve93
Guest
C-sections are unnatural, harmful to the mother, and reduce the birth rate. They are supposed to be for emergencies, not the normal way of giving birth. If we make this the “standard” way of giving birth, then we risk allowing bad genes and slight builds to become the human norm.
R
Rau
Guest
Not sure I understand how you connect these thoughts to what I posted. What course of action do you believe “acting humanely” requires in case of ectopic pregnancy??
R
Russell_SA
Guest
C-section is becoming more necessary due to larger baby head growth and an unchanged birth canal. Doctors are suggesting it more to reduce the risk of the child suffocating during labor. There are less risks to the survival of both parties through this process now than through natural child birth. That’s my current understanding of it. Are you attempting to argue a point is better just because it’s the natural way?
M
MaryT777
Guest
I am sure both my baby and /or I would be dead if there was not the option to deliver by C-section. Some women are disappointed I know that have delivered this way because they do indeed feel it’s no the optional way. I had no emotional issues with the birth in that regard because I was grateful to God for a procedure that allowed me to have a healthy and safe birth for both me and both of my daughters.
I pray for all pregnant women to have safe, uncomplicated deliveries but if that is not possible the “normal” way realize this procedure may have bee life saving for either you and/or the baby.
Mary.
R
Rau
Guest
Haven’t heard that one before. Any medical data to support it? The great rise in C-section is elective choice by women often encouraged by doctor. Suits busy people preferring a more planned timetable.
Y
YADA
Guest
THIS ^A couple who engage in sexual activity are providing consent for the fetus to attach
They are consenting to the use of their bodies for whatever reason - pleasure, procreation control of the lives of each other and themselves - with full knowledge that conception is a real possibility. That Russell SA is who gives the initial consent that results in a baby becoming attached to the mother’s body [as noted by other posters - this of course excludes rape cases] …
What happens is the mother [or other interested persons through coercion] decides they do not want this child they created - by their consent and full knowledge … and they take physical steps to murder the child - to end its life…
Here is a factoid for you - babies once they are born are far more intrusive to the autonomy of the mother’s body … they deprive mothers of sleep, if they are nursing they depend on the mothers body for milk - but even bottle fed babies depend on the mothers [fathers and perhaps other people] to get up their sleep to fed and change them … they are in need of constant attention … their demands cause sleep deprivation … a mother cannot go out with friends and leave the baby alone … its difficult to find time for a restroom break or a shower … it cries and coughs and poops and pees … the laundry is immense … that is loss of autonomy … neglect the baby and you could go to jail …
Do we allow the mother to kill off the little one who is so demanding? Why not?
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
That “fetus” didn’t create herself. That “fetus” didn’t “choose” to “use” her mother’s body. If anything, the mother had more control over that “fetus” growing there than the “fetus” herself did. Is this honestly the way some people talk? Actually blaming the baby? Using terms such as “without consent” and “using another body to sustain life”? Crazy is all I have to say on it. Women have been mothers since Eve. It isn’t some crazy, weird thing that needs to be so technically analyzed in the craziest, cold, clinical language I’ve ever heard of. Who honestly even thinks such a way?
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
Because she is now outside of the womb, safe to be called a “real” person now, and no longer “using” her mother’s body “without her consent.” That seems to make all the difference.
Y
YADA
Guest
Well … my point would be that the child is still using the mothers body … the child cannot change itself - the mothers hands, arms and feet do all of that work… The mother cannot sleep as her body might demand because the baby demands feeding every couple of hours - perhaps even attached to the mothers breast …
The bodily autonomy is not a real argument - we all know that children demand the parents “body” for survival for years after being birthed … and in fact the 9 months of gestation are probably some of the easiest months of ‘parenting’ … as a parent - I know this to be a fact …
Until the child gets a drivers license the demands on body, time and resources changes with each stage but is a constant function … and of course - on some level never ends - even when your children are adults with children of their own [as a grandparent I know this as well
]You cannot parent a child without bodily demands - sleepless nights with a sick or hospitalized child are just one example of ‘bodily demands’ …
We are human - we have physical bodies and spiritual souls - every thing we do involves the use of our body - everything … we are also meant to live in community - we are not solo beings … it took two individuals to consent to to sexual intercourse that created that baby in the womb - not individual autonomy …
AND babies are not born and immediately independent … we are meant to live together to use our bodies to support each other throughout our earthly life …
There is no real bodily autonomy - that is a fleeting occurrence - that does not last long in our humanity - even when we are at our prime of life … we still seek out and desire to join our body with another [which of course can lead to that baby in the womb]
R
Russell_SA
Guest
I found this information: Seems the “arrest of dilation” and the balance between having the child develop as much as it can before being too large to deliver, is one of the larger factors for doctors suggesting C-sectional delivery. I still don’t see why C-sectional delivery is an issue though and natural delivery is an argument here. I feel like this is getting off the point of the discussion. It’s not about how the child is delivered, but whether or not someone has a right to use someone else’s body to save their life, even if the person responsible for the situation took a risky action to create it. Such as the drunk driver example I give: A guy takes the risk of driving home drunk, plows over people, and is sentenced to prison for man-slaughter. However, if his body could be used to save the victims, such as blood and organ donation, but not at the expense of the driver’s life, he is still not legally required to offer up his body against his will to save the victims of his bad choices. However, if this person is female, she looses her bodily autonomy if the person is pre-born. Post-born, the mother has to give consent of her body to be used to save the child’s life. This stinks of male special privileged. To make it fair, all parents, regardless if their child is pre- or post-born have to give up their bodily rights to save their child’s life. The parents are legally required to give up a kidney, liver lobe, blood, marrow, etc.
This goes back to the original post where I mentioned the Atheist Experience commentators gave the argument: Everyone has a right to life, just no one should have a right to life at the expense of someone else’s right to bodily autonomy. So a mother, exercising her right, to bodily autonomy, to end a pregnancy (where her body is being used to sustain another person’s life) in a late stage pregnancy is just called a C-section and the child get’s to live. And a mother, exercising her right to bodily autonomy to end a pregnancy early stage, but the result would result in the natural death of someone, is an abortion. The child would die naturally by ending the pregnancy in early stage, so the doctors end the child’s life in the most humane way they are medically trained to do. If you have an issue with how the doctors medically end the child’s life is not the point here though. This is the same as someone offering up their body for bone marrow transplant and then deciding not to and the patient needing the marrow dies as a result of not receiving the support from that donor’s body. Or do you see this analogy differently or unfair?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3751192/
METHODS
We analyzed rates of primary and repeat cesarean delivery, including indications for the procedure, among 32,443 live births at a major academic hospital between 2003–2009. Time trends for each indication were modeled to estimate the absolute and cumulative annualized relative risk of cesarean by indication over time and the relative contribution of each indication to the overall increase in primary cesarean delivery rate.
RESULTS
The cesarean delivery rate increased from 26% to 36.5% between 2003 and 2009; 50.0% of the increase was attributable to an increase in primary cesarean delivery. Among the documented indications, nonreassuring fetal status, arrest of dilation, multiple gestation, pre-eclampsia, suspected macrosomia, and maternal request increased over time, while arrest of descent, malpresentation, maternal-fetal indications, and other obstetric indications (eg, cord prolapse, placenta previa) did not increase. The relative contributions of each indication to the total increase in primary cesarean rate were: Non-reassuring fetal status (32%), labor arrest disorders (18%), multiple gestation (16%), suspected macrosomia (10%), pre-eclampsia (10%), maternal request (8%), maternal-fetal conditions (5%), and other obstetric conditions (1%).
CONCLUSION
Primary cesarean births accounted for 50% of the increasing cesarean rate. Among primary cesareans, more subjective indications (nonreassuring fetal status and arrest of dilation) contributed larger proportions than more objective indications (malpresentation, maternal-fetal, and obstetric conditions).
R
Russell_SA
Guest
So you would be fine with state mandated control over how your body is used to save the life of someone else? There is no more volunteering to donate your organs after you die, but it is mandatory by the state that they harvest your body to save someone else. That if you cause an accident where your body could save the life of the victims, you have to give up your body to save theirs as long as you don’t die from the procedure? So if your father’s drunk driving causes someone he hit to require a kidney transplant, then he would be state mandated to give up his kidney to save the victim’s life? That is the legal equivalent of what you are asking women to do for the pre-born, so why do the post-born loose this? This is the implication you are implying it seems and it stinks of special privilege for men not to be held medically responsible to save the life of their child the way women are. To make it more ethically fair, all parents should have to give up their bodily autonomy to save the life of their child regardless of pre- or post-born. The choice to donate a liver, kidney, blood, marrow, etc is removed from the parent and it becomes a state mandated requirement. Or do you think this conclusion is out of line from what you presented?Well … my point would be that the child is still using the mothers body … the child cannot change itself - the mothers hands, arms and feet do all of that work… The mother cannot sleep as her body might demand because the baby demands feeding every couple of hours - perhaps even attached to the mothers breast …
The bodily autonomy is not a real argument - we all know that children demand the parents “body” for survival for years after being birthed … and in fact the 9 months of gestation are probably some of the easiest months of ‘parenting’ … as a parent - I know this to be a fact …
Until the child gets a drivers license the demands on body, time and resources changes with each stage but is a constant function … and of course - on some level never ends - even when your children are adults with children of their own [as a grandparent I know this as well
You cannot parent a child without bodily demands - sleepless nights with a sick or hospitalized child are just one example of ‘bodily demands’ …
We are human - we have physical bodies and spiritual souls - every thing we do involves the use of our body - everything … we are also meant to live in community - we are not solo beings … it took two individuals to consent to to sexual intercourse that created that baby in the womb - not individual autonomy …
AND babies are not born and immediately independent … we are meant to live together to use our bodies to support each other throughout our earthly life …
There is no real bodily autonomy - that is a fleeting occurrence - that does not last long in our humanity - even when we are at our prime of life … we still seek out and desire to join our body with another [which of course can lead to that baby in the womb]
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Victims of a drunk driver didn’t want to be in an accident and require a kidney transplant to survive. So, you would be okay with the state mandating that all drunk drivers have to give up their body, as long as it does not kill the driver, to save the victims’ life? That is the implication here. To make it fair on what you are asking women to do, all parents, regardless of pre- or post-born should be, state mandated, to have to give up their body to save the life of their child. But since men don’t want this responsibility, it’s not an issue.
BTW - women are not created for men. They are independent of man’s situation and get to choose whether or not to help this moron grow up. @your tag line.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
You get to choose to not donate bone marrow to patients dying of their illness, so the state should force you to stop “killing them off”.
We don’t harvest the organs of the dead to stop the dead from “killing off” all those people that need an organ to live.
The drunk driver gets to sit in a cell under a manslaughter charge, but the law can not force the use of the driver’s body to save the life of the victim. Such as blood, marrow, liver lobe, kidney donation to the victims, but women with the pre-born loose their bodily autonomy in their situation. Men don’t have to do this for their children once their children are born, how convenient they can’t live up to the same legal requirement they are forcing on the women in their lives.
Seem’s like you agree with a law that grants special privilege to the pre-born to have a right to life over the rights of someone’s bodily autonomy, but once they are born, they loose this right. That’s the problem that the hosts of the Atheist Experience were pointing out. Or do you see this as unfair from what you presented?
M
minkymurph
Guest
Do you know where the Atheist Experience stands on opt out organ donation policies?
Several European countries have opt out policies.
At law there is a distinct difference between act and omission. We are legally permitted to omit to do lots of things. What we can lawfully do to another is considerably more restricted.
The drunk driver is not legally permitted to cause their victim any further harm and would be prevented from doing so. If they did find themselves attached to a victim they can request to be detached, but I would say if this scenario did in fact arise not in manner that would in addition involve direct fatal administration of a chemical or fatal wounding.
A parent cannot omit to care their born child as they have a duty of care. That duty of care involves feeding them. They cannot lawfully starve them to death. The only manner in which the fetus can derive nutrients is via the umbilical chord. Thus, it could be argued severing this chord is synonymous with starving a live child. If their child is drowning they have a legal duty of care to try and save them. They have no duty of care to save a child that is not there’s notwithstanding a ‘Good Samaritan’ law. The UK doesn’t have a ‘Good Samaritan’ law.
A parent cannot lawfully cause physical harm to their child short of fatal wounding.
Abortion involves administering a chemical substance that will prove fatal to the fetus, or fatal wounding. Thus, under current law they may carry out an act not permitted by law once the child is born. Pregnant women do not owe the unborn the same duty of care. We don’t prosecute pregnant women who drink in excess, take drugs, or smoke when pregnant among other things. Where the parent of a born child to administer alcohol or drugs to born child they could be prosecuted. To my knowledge it is not unlawful to smoke in your car if a young child is a passenger. It could be argued
The point of this line of reasoning is pregnant women can carry out acts parents of born children cannot, and it can be argued this offsets the perceived imbalance in terms of using a body.
I take your point men get off light when it comes to unplanned pregnancies. They have to pay maintenance but not much other than that and many don’t, yet because they pay maintenance they have rights. That said, we are still talking omission and not act.
M
minkymurph
Guest
In the course of our discussion I thought of this case.
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10680897/Widow-wins-High-Court-battle-over-dead-husbands-sperm.html
Where would are your thoughts on this?
R
Rau
Guest
Though this does not make your case for why C-sections have grown so much.
I have already identified your analogy as flawed. I pointed you to another thread which is quite short and demonstrates the difference between murdering a child and declining to donate oneself to the preservation of an imperiled life. It deals with precisely your argument and explains the what actions are and are not moral and why. I also asked you what legal impediments there are to legislation or a court requiring such measures as transfusion? You’ve not addressed any of this.
The C-section diversion is rather irrelevant as you note.
- Status