Let me ask a hypothetical question ?
After having 2 healthy children, the doctor told her to never get pregnant again, as the likelyhood of her ever having a normal child again was very low. To that end, she took the usual surgury (tubes tied) to prevent becoming pregnant again.
However, some 15 or so years, later, she is told that she has become pregnant, and that the fetus shows all the signs of severe problems.
Now, this middle age woman and her husband, face having a child which will require a lot of time and money. When they are dead, the care of this child will be left to the healthy children.
Do you think this woman and her husband should have no choice, but to live the rest of their life in constant care of this child. That is what choice is about! There are some who would take that choice away from the parents, and declare that abortion is sin, wrong, or whatever, but I'll bet they would not volunteer to sit one night /week with that child to let the parents have a night off. Do you think they would help with the enormous medical cost? After the parents are dead, would they foot the expense of care for this child, so as to not have it fall on the healthy siblings?
Think about these things before you dismiss choice as simply some kind of birth control for loose women.
Excelman, this is another argument that leaves someone out of the equation. I am my son's mother & until he is able to make choices for himself, I make them for him, but NOT the choice to end his life. Do you see where this argument falls short?
With all the garbage in the world, do you know what percentage of Americans take their own lives? Less than 1 percent! That tells me that the will to live, the fight to survive, is strong in humans. The chances that that child, if it could speak to you, would say "kill me; I'm no good to anybody" are EXTREMELY slim.
With all the garbage in the world, do you know what percentage of Americans take their own lives? Less than 1 percent! That tells me that the will to live, the fight to survive, is strong in humans. The chances that that child, if it could speak to you, would say "kill me; I'm no good to anybody" are EXTREMELY slim.
quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:
Excelman, this is another argument that leaves someone out of the equation. I am my son's mother & until he is able to make choices for himself, I make them for him, but NOT the choice to end his life. Do you see where this argument falls short?
With all the garbage in the world, do you know what percentage of Americans take their own lives? Less than 1 percent! That tells me that the will to live, the fight to survive, is strong in humans. The chances that that child, if it could speak to you, would say "kill me; I'm no good to anybody" are EXTREMELY slim.
does this mean that you would volunteer to do the sitting and help contribute some dollars?
My mother gave birth to four children: two boys and two girls. She and my father decided that would be all the children they should have and she had her tubes tied. Not only for financial reasons did she have this done, but because she was a free bleeder (Von Willebrand disease). Twenty months after she had her tubes tied, she gave birth to me. I didn’t have a voice that could be heard, but thankfully they chose to have me.
quote:Originally posted by excelman:quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:
Excelman, this is another argument that leaves someone out of the equation. I am my son's mother & until he is able to make choices for himself, I make them for him, but NOT the choice to end his life. Do you see where this argument falls short?
With all the garbage in the world, do you know what percentage of Americans take their own lives? Less than 1 percent! That tells me that the will to live, the fight to survive, is strong in humans. The chances that that child, if it could speak to you, would say "kill me; I'm no good to anybody" are EXTREMELY slim.
does this mean that you would volunteer to do the sitting and help contribute some dollars?
See, that's the thing, isn't it? A person too selfish to be responsible for the life they brought into the world would be the same person who expects everyone one else with the audacity to have a non-handicapped child to be equally responsible. YOU KNOW the risks when you CHOOSE to get pregnant & in your particular example, it was a choice.
Now, do I think that these parents should receive much more help than the average parent? Absolutely! Instead of handing out welfare checks to the undeserving (those able to work & having no intention of looking for work), those funds would be better used to help parents like those in your example.
Back to the child involved, again, the chances that he or she would be agreeable to ending his or her own life are extremely slim. Does that fact matter? Is it even a brief consideration? Would it have ANY bearing on the decision to end his or her life?
Put the ball in your court. Let's say the baby is in your womb (yeah, you too, men). Do you even care what the baby would want? Or do you think that your own personal needs and wants cancel out those of the baby's? I really do not understand how anyone could logically come to this conclusion.
This is not a religious or belief based question, guys. I'm talking about what laws do we stand behind, those that protect a life or those that end a life. This is deciding if one person's rights outweigh another's to the point that ending one's life is okay, is even legal.
Put the ball in your court. Let's say the baby is in your womb (yeah, you too, men). Do you even care what the baby would want? Or do you think that your own personal needs and wants cancel out those of the baby's? I really do not understand how anyone could logically come to this conclusion.
This is not a religious or belief based question, guys. I'm talking about what laws do we stand behind, those that protect a life or those that end a life. This is deciding if one person's rights outweigh another's to the point that ending one's life is okay, is even legal.
I had to reply after reading all of the posts. Like so many have said--I don't agree with abortion but I also do not agree with telling someone else what they can/can't do with their bodies!! It is up to the woman. I want abortion to remain legal because I don't ever want to think of a woman having to go back in the day and have a back alley abortion. The ones who want to make abortion illegal and let the parents take care of them--where will your opinion stand on welfare and other programs to help single moms or other social programs to help moms and kids get out of abusive relationships,etc... Aren't these the same programs that are constantly being done away with and financial assistance cut back drastically!!!!
Joy,
As I understand your last couple of post, I must assume the answer to the question I origionally ask is NO.
Therefore, since you are not willing to help either financally or physically, you should have no say whatsoever in what that woman does.
You say that person is not willing to take responsability- well , isn't that what choice is about? One more option to have to choose from, even if you personally don't approve of one of them.
You must go back and understand my former viewpoint, I am not for abortion at all, I just believe that one does not have any right to try to assert control overs by forcing their particular beliefs upon them without their will.
In other works, if it ain't you, you need to keep your nose out of it.
That scenario I gave, was part real and part not, but I can tell you for sure, that if my daughter was pregnant, and the Dr. came out and said it was her life or the baby's, 1st term, 2nd or even partial birth abortion, and the decision was mine, my daughter would win every time. If you don't like that, you can just #$^%$/. , and if I had to enfource that with weapons, that's how it would be. I would go to jail to protect my daughter.
BTW, that was the partial abortion bill that the congress under Frist, and Tom DeLay passed that was struck down by the Supreme Court.
As I understand your last couple of post, I must assume the answer to the question I origionally ask is NO.
Therefore, since you are not willing to help either financally or physically, you should have no say whatsoever in what that woman does.
You say that person is not willing to take responsability- well , isn't that what choice is about? One more option to have to choose from, even if you personally don't approve of one of them.
You must go back and understand my former viewpoint, I am not for abortion at all, I just believe that one does not have any right to try to assert control overs by forcing their particular beliefs upon them without their will.
In other works, if it ain't you, you need to keep your nose out of it.
That scenario I gave, was part real and part not, but I can tell you for sure, that if my daughter was pregnant, and the Dr. came out and said it was her life or the baby's, 1st term, 2nd or even partial birth abortion, and the decision was mine, my daughter would win every time. If you don't like that, you can just #$^%$/. , and if I had to enfource that with weapons, that's how it would be. I would go to jail to protect my daughter.
BTW, that was the partial abortion bill that the congress under Frist, and Tom DeLay passed that was struck down by the Supreme Court.
Good lord, can you just for a second visualize the BODY OF THE BABY not just the body of the woman? Uhg! Please answer the questions I expressed in my last post or just be honest and say "The baby doesn't vote...the baby can't speak to me which makes it much more easy to ignore...basically, I just don't really care & as long as nobody ends my life, kill whoever you like...it's all good." Sorry, it's just frustrating to keep hearing about the woman involved as if she's all that matters. Yeesh!
Thank you, Excelman. I'd rather you just lay it out there. Thank you. You at least acknowledged there is a baby.
Unfortunately, what I'm hearing is that in your opinion the rights of the woman outweighs & denies the rights of the baby. To be honest, that scares me. Maybe you think this is true only if the life of the mother is in danger?
Also, whether or not I would help someone in that situation has no bearing on the laws that we will support. The question is do we feel that it is okay to end a life based on the wants and needs of another life?
Just so you know, I could never look at someone in that situation and walk away. But, again, that's not the issue.
Unfortunately, what I'm hearing is that in your opinion the rights of the woman outweighs & denies the rights of the baby. To be honest, that scares me. Maybe you think this is true only if the life of the mother is in danger?
Also, whether or not I would help someone in that situation has no bearing on the laws that we will support. The question is do we feel that it is okay to end a life based on the wants and needs of another life?
Just so you know, I could never look at someone in that situation and walk away. But, again, that's not the issue.
Joy wrote "Unfortunately, what I'm hearing is that in your opinion the rights of the woman outweighs & denies the rights of the baby. To be honest, that scares me."
What scares me is that you have so little regard for the rights of a living female citizen. It's obvious to me, and to the Supreme Court and others, that the rights of a living, breathing woman certainly outweigh those of an unviable fetus.
DF
What scares me is that you have so little regard for the rights of a living female citizen. It's obvious to me, and to the Supreme Court and others, that the rights of a living, breathing woman certainly outweigh those of an unviable fetus.
DF
DeepFat (love that name)...Even if the fetus, if given the "choice", would choose to live? We take away a life's choice to finish the life that has begun. As I said earlier, because less than 1 percent of Americans take their own lives, we can decuce just from this (although there is plenty of other ways to find proof of this) the desire to live, to survive, is strong in humans. We can also then say that given the choice, the fetus would want to survive. Logically, we CAN say what the life growing inside the woman would choose. Therefore, we deny that choice based on the needs and wants of the person who carries this life.
As I started out asking, I can't help but wonder that if the baby could grow somewhere besides a woman's womb, would we feel the same way? Would we then protect this life and be appalled at someone willing to end it?
As I started out asking, I can't help but wonder that if the baby could grow somewhere besides a woman's womb, would we feel the same way? Would we then protect this life and be appalled at someone willing to end it?
Joy--I think that's an interesting question. I don't think we would care if a fetus was growing somewhere else beside a woman's womb. As an example: aren't there people out there right now doing just this? Often, some of those people are referred to as "treehuggers", "vegans", etc...
Exactly, Bamagurl. Given that the baby grew somewhere else besides a woman's womb, it would be ironic if extreme liberals, who I think(?) are the strongest supporters of legalized abortion as well as the "save the environment, the whales, etc." causes, then fought for the rights of the fetus.
I'm just thinking that if this changes your viewpoint at all, are you not giving value to this life? And if you give value to this life when it is not in a woman's body, does it not have value period?
I'm just thinking that if this changes your viewpoint at all, are you not giving value to this life? And if you give value to this life when it is not in a woman's body, does it not have value period?
[Also smurph,
You are assuming that every unplanned child that is not aborted is raised in an abusive, neglected home. This is simply not true. When i became pregnant at 20, I was forced to choose to grow up or abort my baby. Many people told me to abort. I knew it was wrong.
What about all the children (who weren't unplanned teenage pregnancies) who are abused and neglected? Because their lives are less than ideal would you have aborted them, too? What about all the other children and adults, who were once children, in third world countries who live in poverty and war. Would you tell them they have no right to live because their lives do not fit into the "American Dream"?]
Where in any of my posts did I say ALL of them were abused,PLUZZE point me to that. You cannot because i never said ALL of them. So PLEZZZE do not attempt to put words where they were not said by me in the future.
But for the subject i did throw in of the abused children,do a little bit of research on the subject and you will find children from UNWANTED pregnancies suffer a high rate of abuse.
As for your situation ,you made a choice, it was yours against the opnions of others. Women who are preganant and do not want the pregnancy deserve that same right. I am not their judge and NIETHER are you! God will deal with those people not me,not you. AND I still say this is a subject that has absolutly no business in the political arena.
Now please explain to me how legalities of aboution in this country had a diddle thing to do with children of third world countries? I think we already spend too much thought on other places and not enough about our own home land. Kinda like meddling neighbors
You are assuming that every unplanned child that is not aborted is raised in an abusive, neglected home. This is simply not true. When i became pregnant at 20, I was forced to choose to grow up or abort my baby. Many people told me to abort. I knew it was wrong.
What about all the children (who weren't unplanned teenage pregnancies) who are abused and neglected? Because their lives are less than ideal would you have aborted them, too? What about all the other children and adults, who were once children, in third world countries who live in poverty and war. Would you tell them they have no right to live because their lives do not fit into the "American Dream"?]
Where in any of my posts did I say ALL of them were abused,PLUZZE point me to that. You cannot because i never said ALL of them. So PLEZZZE do not attempt to put words where they were not said by me in the future.
But for the subject i did throw in of the abused children,do a little bit of research on the subject and you will find children from UNWANTED pregnancies suffer a high rate of abuse.
As for your situation ,you made a choice, it was yours against the opnions of others. Women who are preganant and do not want the pregnancy deserve that same right. I am not their judge and NIETHER are you! God will deal with those people not me,not you. AND I still say this is a subject that has absolutly no business in the political arena.
Now please explain to me how legalities of aboution in this country had a diddle thing to do with children of third world countries? I think we already spend too much thought on other places and not enough about our own home land. Kinda like meddling neighbors
Joy,
One of these days, I'll tell y'all where I got the idea for this handle.
Anyway, you wrote "Even if the fetus, if given the "choice", would choose to live?". That's precisely the point, tho, don't you see? It's not the fetus' choice, it's the woman's. At least until such time as the fetus would naturally have a chance to live on its own. That is where the Supreme Court made a rare wise decision so long ago.
We have to make certain arbitrary lines above and below which certain things are legal. We don't let kids drive until they're 16. Some are prefectly capable at 13, others should wait until they're 32. Drinking at 21, guns at 21, voting at 18. All arbitrary but unambiguous.
Same with abortion. I have no problem with the concept that a woman gives birth at her discretion. It's her body. But at some time, about when the fetus would be viable outside her, it's no longer her choice. That time is the end of the second trimester, according to the Supremes, and it strikes me as a reasonable line.
DF
One of these days, I'll tell y'all where I got the idea for this handle.
Anyway, you wrote "Even if the fetus, if given the "choice", would choose to live?". That's precisely the point, tho, don't you see? It's not the fetus' choice, it's the woman's. At least until such time as the fetus would naturally have a chance to live on its own. That is where the Supreme Court made a rare wise decision so long ago.
We have to make certain arbitrary lines above and below which certain things are legal. We don't let kids drive until they're 16. Some are prefectly capable at 13, others should wait until they're 32. Drinking at 21, guns at 21, voting at 18. All arbitrary but unambiguous.
Same with abortion. I have no problem with the concept that a woman gives birth at her discretion. It's her body. But at some time, about when the fetus would be viable outside her, it's no longer her choice. That time is the end of the second trimester, according to the Supremes, and it strikes me as a reasonable line.
DF
When I was 22, unmarried, and my parents had already both passed away, I found out I was going to have a baby. Now the thought did cross my mind to have a abortion, I even went so far as to call and check into it. BUT I could not do it. I do not believe in it, but it was MY decision and mine alone if I wanted to have it or abort it. This child was the best thing to happen to me in my life!! I did not get any help at all before or after having my son, I had people tell me to sign up for food stamps, ect. but, my thought on that was "I had got myself into it, I would get myself out". I worked right up until I had him, and while I was off work, my brother who was 3 years younger than me, and that I had raised since he was 16, supported us till I went back to work. I worked nights and I would have never made it if I had not had a wonderful sister in law who kept him for me while I worked. He was also a very good baby and I got the rest I needed during the day. Didn't mean to go on and on, but there are people out there who opt to have their baby's and don't drain the system dry. I agree so much with you excelman, I would hate to be faced with the decision, but if it came to my daughter or daughter in law's life or the baby, and it was my call, I would have to end the baby's life as much as it would hurt me. I do believe life begins at conception, but then there would be the life of my child at stake.
I will not argue this issue on the basis of my own personal beliefs with anyone who is not a Christian because that serves no purpose.
However, Smurph, since you and I are both believers, I am both confused and intrigued by your views on this issue. You said God will deal with 'those people'. If we don't speak out against what we know to be wrong, will God not deal with us as well? Although laws are no longer based on religious beliefs & therefore we would most likely not argue their merit based on our religious beliefs, we would still support laws that agree with our beliefs & would argue for them, right?
I absolutely mean no disrespect, but I'm not sure where you stand exactly. How can we avoid being held accountable to God for supporting laws that end lives that He began? "You knit me together in my mother's womb" Psalms 139:13
However, Smurph, since you and I are both believers, I am both confused and intrigued by your views on this issue. You said God will deal with 'those people'. If we don't speak out against what we know to be wrong, will God not deal with us as well? Although laws are no longer based on religious beliefs & therefore we would most likely not argue their merit based on our religious beliefs, we would still support laws that agree with our beliefs & would argue for them, right?
I absolutely mean no disrespect, but I'm not sure where you stand exactly. How can we avoid being held accountable to God for supporting laws that end lives that He began? "You knit me together in my mother's womb" Psalms 139:13
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
Joy,
One of these days, I'll tell y'all where I got the idea for this handle.
Anyway, you wrote "Even if the fetus, if given the "choice", would choose to live?". That's precisely the point, tho, don't you see? It's not the fetus' choice, it's the woman's. At least until such time as the fetus would naturally have a chance to live on its own. That is where the Supreme Court made a rare wise decision so long ago.
We have to make certain arbitrary lines above and below which certain things are legal. We don't let kids drive until they're 16. Some are prefectly capable at 13, others should wait until they're 32. Drinking at 21, guns at 21, voting at 18. All arbitrary but unambiguous.
Same with abortion. I have no problem with the concept that a woman gives birth at her discretion. It's her body. But at some time, about when the fetus would be viable outside her, it's no longer her choice. That time is the end of the second trimester, according to the Supremes, and it strikes me as a reasonable line.
DF
Okay, I can respect that.
Third trimester starts at 28 weeks. Read this story from Feb. 22, 2007, a few days ago.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4571271.html
MIAMI — Parents of one of the world's smallest premature babies got to take her home Wednesday for the first time since she was delivered last fall.
Amillia Sonja Taylor has known only an incubator for a bed at Baptist Children's Hospital since she was delivered in October after less than 22 weeks in the womb.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4571271.html
MIAMI — Parents of one of the world's smallest premature babies got to take her home Wednesday for the first time since she was delivered last fall.
Amillia Sonja Taylor has known only an incubator for a bed at Baptist Children's Hospital since she was delivered in October after less than 22 weeks in the womb.
quote:Originally posted by just saying:
Third trimester starts at 28 weeks. Read this story from Feb. 22, 2007, a few days ago.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4571271.html
MIAMI — Parents of one of the world's smallest premature babies got to take her home Wednesday for the first time since she was delivered last fall.
Amillia Sonja Taylor has known only an incubator for a bed at Baptist Children's Hospital since she was delivered in October after less than 22 weeks in the womb.
Then they should change the law accordingly and immediately.
I of course would prefer it be against the law period, but if you base this law on what DF just cited, it should be changed immediately to reflect, as DF said, "when the fetus would be viable outside her".
joy I DO speak out against abortion, where it counts,to young people BEFORE they could possibly be faced with this decision.I have counceled with numerous young women, 2 I remember were already married but the pregnancy was unplanned. I do not believe it should be involved in the legal system to be voted on ,made an illegal act. This is where I have a problem, the legal issues, the fact that the government is involving itself in something which should remain in the moral apsects of peoples lives. Trust me there were probably MORE being done in local drs offices BEFORE the legalization than there are now, they now refer patients to abortion clinics.
I also do not believe in birth control,and i am not a Catholic, to me THAT too is just as bad as abortion, it is preventing Gods plan of procreation to happen, Women take hormone pills to stop the most natural event in her life,ovulation and ultimatly child bearing. But that is just my personal beliefs. So i am one of those that sopunds outdated, oldfashioned and behind the times for i beat the ears off an elephant to the tune of abstaining from sex, until marriage.
I also do not believe in birth control,and i am not a Catholic, to me THAT too is just as bad as abortion, it is preventing Gods plan of procreation to happen, Women take hormone pills to stop the most natural event in her life,ovulation and ultimatly child bearing. But that is just my personal beliefs. So i am one of those that sopunds outdated, oldfashioned and behind the times for i beat the ears off an elephant to the tune of abstaining from sex, until marriage.
LOL, Smurph. Okay, I get where you are coming from. That's a lot to think on. I've never thought about it like that before.
NO BIRTH CONTROL?! Get thee behind me, Satan.
Just kidding, of course.
NO BIRTH CONTROL?! Get thee behind me, Satan.
Just kidding, of course.
quote:Originally posted by smurph:
I also do not believe in birth control,and i am not a Catholic, to me THAT too is just as bad as abortion, it is preventing Gods plan of procreation to happen, Women take hormone pills to stop the most natural event in her life,ovulation and ultimatly child bearing.
I disagree completely. I am a woman, yet I hardly believe that ovulation is "the most natural event" in my life. I think breathing and other such bodily endeavors come first for humans, me included.
Furthermore, I find birth control to be a pleasant oasis in a society where pregnant women are often reduced to "the female body" with (perhaps not so) surprisingly little autonomy. Quite honestly, I use it to impede an unwanted pregnancy about as often as I use aspirin to impede the unwanted headaches I get from some of the posts I see here.
see, we all have beliefs which we live by and it doesn't require "laws" to govern.
ALSO,I am truly AFRAID of allowing the government to become TOO involved in what should be governed by moral teachings. We might just see the day where women are only allowed "x" number of births.
ALSO,I am truly AFRAID of allowing the government to become TOO involved in what should be governed by moral teachings. We might just see the day where women are only allowed "x" number of births.
Just Saying and Joy,
Now the lines get fuzzier. Who is to say what the life of a preemie is worth? It's incalculable, but those societies with government medicine have to make such decisions all the time. They would not have spent the money and resources on the 22-week fetus that we did. Maybe they're right? How much good could those millions of dollars have done elsewhere in the medical world?
Viability is a subtle term. The 22-week baby was an intercepted spontaneous abortion; they happen every day. The baby is likely to suffer respiratory and skeletal difficulties forever.
I guess what I'm saying is that preemies less than two trimesters old are low-percentage risks. It's far from natural that they should live. As health care becomes more and more expensive, hard choices will have to be made about old people (one of which I am becoming quickly), very premature babies, self-induced diseases, low-percentage therapies, etc. Heroic efforts are staggeringly expensive, and we're almost at a crisis point in health care expense.
This is really a topic for another thread, I suppose: What happens when medical technology advances past the point we can support expensive therapies? Everyone wants them, when we get cancer, but can we spend $2,000,000 on everybody who needs it? Obviously not.
DF
Now the lines get fuzzier. Who is to say what the life of a preemie is worth? It's incalculable, but those societies with government medicine have to make such decisions all the time. They would not have spent the money and resources on the 22-week fetus that we did. Maybe they're right? How much good could those millions of dollars have done elsewhere in the medical world?
Viability is a subtle term. The 22-week baby was an intercepted spontaneous abortion; they happen every day. The baby is likely to suffer respiratory and skeletal difficulties forever.
I guess what I'm saying is that preemies less than two trimesters old are low-percentage risks. It's far from natural that they should live. As health care becomes more and more expensive, hard choices will have to be made about old people (one of which I am becoming quickly), very premature babies, self-induced diseases, low-percentage therapies, etc. Heroic efforts are staggeringly expensive, and we're almost at a crisis point in health care expense.
This is really a topic for another thread, I suppose: What happens when medical technology advances past the point we can support expensive therapies? Everyone wants them, when we get cancer, but can we spend $2,000,000 on everybody who needs it? Obviously not.
DF
DeepFat,
It’s unusually weird how this thread had hit so many tones with my life. First, my mom had her tubes tied and still got impregnated with me. She chose to have me. Secondly, which I didn’t want to bring up because it’s personal, I gave birth to a little boy when I was 21 weeks along. He was the last baby I had and lived 10 minutes in my husband’s hands. He was beautiful and the only thing I have is the tiny footprints that I keep in our fire safe. I couldn’t watch him after he was born because I couldn’t handle it, but he lived, he worked to live but couldn’t. I know it’s clinical to call it spontaneous abortion, but I abhor that term in my situation. It was literally breathtaking to see the amazing detail and beauty of this child and he completely resembled his older brother. As far as viability is concerned, true there are studies shown about learning disabilities. But learning disabilities aside, it’s a human life! My second son was born premature and was flown to Huntsville Hospital until his lungs were fully developed. He’s an honor student today and extremely athletic. I carried our oldest son for 42 weeks! He was 9lbs 6oz., life has many questions that way. My husband was born during the six month of my mother in law’s pregnancy with him. He spent two months in Cincinnati Children’s Hospital in an incubator. He’s a very brilliant man w/advanced diplomas. Bottom line in my opinion, there’s no price on life. Had our little boy been well enough to benefit from the same care as the care the child did in the news link I made, then yes, I’d do or pay anything for him to be here.
Again, with my personal life and healthcare: Our daughter was almost two years old when she was diagnosed with leukemia. Probably over $250,000 was spent on her treatment. It cost over a million dollars a DAY to operate the hospital she was treated at. Apart from her treatment cost, the cost that went into research should be considered as well. She received Cyclophosphamide, which is basically mustard gas. She received Vincristine which comes from a periwinkle flower. It’s mind boggling to me how researchers/scientist find these treatments. The protocol she was on has a 94% survival rate.
Finally, last year I was diagnosed with cancer and had 33 head and neck radiation treatments (IMRT). Thankfully, we have BCBS and only had to pay a fraction of that cost.
In my opinion, you cannot put a price on health or life.
You ask:
What happens when medical technology advances past the point we can support expensive therapies? Everyone wants them, when we get cancer, but can we spend $2,000,000 on everybody who needs it?
Look at ALSAC. It can be done for adult capacities as well. The ball just needs to be rolled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Lebanese_Syrian_Associated_Charities
It’s unusually weird how this thread had hit so many tones with my life. First, my mom had her tubes tied and still got impregnated with me. She chose to have me. Secondly, which I didn’t want to bring up because it’s personal, I gave birth to a little boy when I was 21 weeks along. He was the last baby I had and lived 10 minutes in my husband’s hands. He was beautiful and the only thing I have is the tiny footprints that I keep in our fire safe. I couldn’t watch him after he was born because I couldn’t handle it, but he lived, he worked to live but couldn’t. I know it’s clinical to call it spontaneous abortion, but I abhor that term in my situation. It was literally breathtaking to see the amazing detail and beauty of this child and he completely resembled his older brother. As far as viability is concerned, true there are studies shown about learning disabilities. But learning disabilities aside, it’s a human life! My second son was born premature and was flown to Huntsville Hospital until his lungs were fully developed. He’s an honor student today and extremely athletic. I carried our oldest son for 42 weeks! He was 9lbs 6oz., life has many questions that way. My husband was born during the six month of my mother in law’s pregnancy with him. He spent two months in Cincinnati Children’s Hospital in an incubator. He’s a very brilliant man w/advanced diplomas. Bottom line in my opinion, there’s no price on life. Had our little boy been well enough to benefit from the same care as the care the child did in the news link I made, then yes, I’d do or pay anything for him to be here.
Again, with my personal life and healthcare: Our daughter was almost two years old when she was diagnosed with leukemia. Probably over $250,000 was spent on her treatment. It cost over a million dollars a DAY to operate the hospital she was treated at. Apart from her treatment cost, the cost that went into research should be considered as well. She received Cyclophosphamide, which is basically mustard gas. She received Vincristine which comes from a periwinkle flower. It’s mind boggling to me how researchers/scientist find these treatments. The protocol she was on has a 94% survival rate.
Finally, last year I was diagnosed with cancer and had 33 head and neck radiation treatments (IMRT). Thankfully, we have BCBS and only had to pay a fraction of that cost.
In my opinion, you cannot put a price on health or life.
You ask:
What happens when medical technology advances past the point we can support expensive therapies? Everyone wants them, when we get cancer, but can we spend $2,000,000 on everybody who needs it?
Look at ALSAC. It can be done for adult capacities as well. The ball just needs to be rolled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Lebanese_Syrian_Associated_Charities
quote:Originally posted by just saying:
Bottom line in my opinion, there’s no price on life.
In my opinion, you cannot put a price on health or life.
I agree. I love the idea regarding ALSAC. I had NO idea this group is the exclusive fund-raising organization of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital since 1957 & that ASLAC stands for American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. Wow! So, yeah, they're awesome.
DeepFat, I would hate to be the one that makes those decisions, but you're right. Unless someone steps up like ALSAC (perhaps they already are?), as suggested by just saying, this is a very real & present dilemma. I would think decisions akin to this are made now by health care professionals. Someone has to allocate funds, right? If you really like gray hair, this would be the field for you. I cannot imagine.
Not trying to change the focus of this thread, but I can't let a mention of St Jude go by without saying how wonderful that organization is. This is the only charity I support, because I know for a fact the good work it does in actually directly helping people.
I learned at a dinner a few weeks ago, that Target is a supporter, and has built living quarters for families of children in St. Jude.
Target gets a lot of bad press from my right wingnut friends for some Christmas stuff, but I now try to shop at Target.
I learned at a dinner a few weeks ago, that Target is a supporter, and has built living quarters for families of children in St. Jude.
Target gets a lot of bad press from my right wingnut friends for some Christmas stuff, but I now try to shop at Target.
Good news, just saying. It looks like someone's already on the case, at least in this area anyway.
http://www.whnt.com/Global/category.asp?C=73217
http://www.whnt.com/Global/category.asp?C=73217
quote:Originally posted by excelman:
... but I now try to shop at Target.
That's so cool Excelman!
Other places who give their support are listed here: http://www.tg.stjude.org/Our_Partners.htm
quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:It looks like someone's already on the case...
The George family are awesome for doing this!!
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
A couple of years ago we had a prophetic speaker at my church make a statement that we will never have dominion in Iraq or over terrorists for that matter until America puts an end to abortion. Why would God allow us to be successful when we are basically doing the same thing the terrorists are doing. Millions of innocent lives are being taken out of convienence.
Don't misconstrue this to be that I do not support the military. I was once one of them and have and will continue to support these great men and women 100%.
Best arguement yet for not outlawing Abortion. It Makes God Mad at us so we cannot win a "victory" in Iraq over God's people.
I'm having a hard time grasping that one, EdEKit. Say what? Of course, I don't get Hooberbloob's comment either. I'm thinking the 'prophet' might not have a direct link to the mind of God.
Of course, I don't get Hooberbloob's comment either. I'm thinking the 'prophet' might not have a direct link to the mind of God.
This is for BB2. We argued, at least starting on page 2, not based on religious beliefs.
As sad as it is, there is NOTHING that any of us can do about abortion. Unless we can find the woman, take her into our homes and adopt the baby after it is delivered.
If we had a National Vote AGAINST abortion, and it passed, it would NOT stop abortion at all... it would just go back to the old way, dirty kitchen tables, coat hangers, and over half the time the woman didn't even survive.
We can be against it all we want to, but nothing is going to change, women will still be doing it, just illegally.
I already said my stance earlier in this post, so I won't repeat it, but will only say this is one issue that we are powerless over.
If we had a National Vote AGAINST abortion, and it passed, it would NOT stop abortion at all... it would just go back to the old way, dirty kitchen tables, coat hangers, and over half the time the woman didn't even survive.
We can be against it all we want to, but nothing is going to change, women will still be doing it, just illegally.
I already said my stance earlier in this post, so I won't repeat it, but will only say this is one issue that we are powerless over.
Thanks, Joy. I'll look at the posts you're referring to.
See, when I hear someone say "we are powerless" (sorry KS), them's fighting words. Time to strap on my big girl boots & come out swinging.
Never are we powerless. As I said on this thread, we have entered the information age...girls will be very much aware of what would happen in a back alley & the risks, just like they know the risks now when they have sex.
Never are we powerless. As I said on this thread, we have entered the information age...girls will be very much aware of what would happen in a back alley & the risks, just like they know the risks now when they have sex.
Joy,
We are also in the Misinformation Age, a time where sourceless, baseless information is as readily available (and is typically easier to digest than facts). The Internet empowers bloggers and netizens, giving them just as much access as experts have. We see misinformation every day on this board, and we are but a simple forum for a small city's newspaper.
We are also in the Misinformation Age, a time where sourceless, baseless information is as readily available (and is typically easier to digest than facts). The Internet empowers bloggers and netizens, giving them just as much access as experts have. We see misinformation every day on this board, and we are but a simple forum for a small city's newspaper.
quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:
See, when I hear someone say "we are powerless" (sorry KS), them's fighting words. Time to strap on my big girl boots & come out swinging.
Never are we powerless. As I said on this thread, we have entered the information age...girls will be very much aware of what would happen in a back alley & the risks, just like they know the risks now when they have sex.
Joy,
Do you think that all of the women that sought out abortions, say in the 40's, didn't know the risks they were taking? I believe they did and still chose to have one, because they were desparate.Desparate people do many stupid things.