The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2012, 06:50 PM   #46
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
On a non-Santorum-specific tangent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_labor





It also lists fetal death (and I know I've heard of people inducing labor for dead fetuses), so there are at least two possible reasons to induce labor on a non-viable fetus.
Yeah, I get that, although I think it's very rare for parents to elect to go through a labour in the case of a dead fetus, and I doubt doctors would generally recommend labour as an option for a fetus with no chance of survival. I would think it would only be for theological reasons in general, and those cases would be rare.

So I guess I admit to being wrong about it not being a fact, but I don't think it's a highly common procedure.

I just don't think the term is applicable to the santorum situation either, simply for the fact that he's misusing the term.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 06:57 PM   #47
Ibby
. . .
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha View Post
I just don't think the term is applicable to the santorum situation either, simply for the fact that he's misusing the term.
Who's misusing which term? At the moment I'm, at least, not sure that Santorum's 2-hour-old baby is the same pregnancy that was EITHER naturally miscarried OR was given an induced miscarriage.

So right now we have three explanations for what happened:

1.) as per the article I linked, the pregnancy was terminated by an induced miscarriage
2.) as per Klein's article, the Santorums decided not to terminate pregnancy, and later, Karen miscarried
3.) the baby was EITHER induced or naturally-born, lived for two hours, and then died - and was thus not a miscarriage at all.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 06:58 PM   #48
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
This is the problem with charts.

According to this one, if a fetus is born alive at 23 weeks, but then dies afterwards, it's considered a miscarriage.

Because there's no time limit shown, does that mean if the fetus lives to the ripe old age of 96 it's still considered a miscarriage?
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:03 PM   #49
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
Who's misusing which term? At the moment I'm, at least, not sure that Santorum's 2-hour-old baby is the same pregnancy that was EITHER naturally miscarried OR was given an induced miscarriage.

So right now we have three explanations for what happened:

1.) as per the article I linked, the pregnancy was terminated by an induced miscarriage
2.) as per Klein's article, the Santorums decided not to terminate pregnancy, and later, Karen miscarried
3.) the baby was EITHER induced or naturally-born, lived for two hours, and then died - and was thus not a miscarriage at all.
It is my understanding that for a birth to be considered medically induced, the mother has to be induced with drugs which specifically encourage the onset of labour.

A baby can be induced and still be classed as a natural birth. It is my understanding that the term natural birth simply means born through the birth canal.

You'll need to check up on what's considered a live birth. I don't believe HM's chart is definitive. My understanding is that a live birth means the fetus or baby has a heart beat when it's born.

eta: I think Santorum is misusing the term which is why there is such debate about it.

eta also: No one but the doctors and the Santorum family are ever going to know exactly what happened.

My feeling is they made a choice which goes against what their voters expect of them, and they're trying to cover their arses by using weird terms to confuse the voters and make it seem ok. I doubt anyone will ever know the real truth, and in my opinion, it's no one else's business anyway, even if they are hypocrites.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:07 PM   #50
Ibby
. . .
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha View Post
It is my understanding that for a birth to be considered medically induced, the mother has to be induced with drugs which specifically encourage the onset of labour.

A baby can be induced and still be classed as a natural birth. It is my understanding that the term natural birth simply means born through the birth canal.

You'll need to check up on what's considered a live birth. I don't believe HM's chart is definitive. My understanding is that a live birth means the fetus or baby has a heart beat when it's born.

eta: I think Santorum is misusing the term which is why there is such debate about it.
yeah, sorry, i meant natural as opposed to induced, not natural as in "a natural birth". My sloppy language, there. replace "natural" with "non-induced" where I said it back there.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:11 PM   #51
Ibby
. . .
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha View Post
[...]and in my opinion, it's no one else's business anyway, even if they are hypocrites.
But see, I think that when a candidate wants to use the office of the President of the United States to enforce their theocratic principles, but doesn't even live by the principles they intend to use the power of the Government to make other people live by - that disqualifies you, right there. You can't make me live by the moral codes of your religion, especially if you don't even live by them yourself.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:22 PM   #52
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,477
I think the people who would vote for him in the first place would probably believe whatever lies he told anyway, so I don't think it matters. That's just what I think. I don't have to worry about voting for him, and thankfully these sorts of issues don't really come into it over here much. Peripherally maybe, but certainly not much.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:29 PM   #53
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
classic is loudly denying it without explaining the difference,
I bluntly explained the difference. Don't like the answer, fine, but please don't blame me.
Quote:
If the Santorums decided to save Karen's life at the expense of her unborn child, there is hypocrisy here.
Karen is not running and it was CLEARLY her decision in each article. There is NO hypocrisy here. Just partisan bullshit from those who want to make a big deal out of it.
You need to read more than the partisan stuff. I know you like dailykos and MM because they tell you what you want to hear, but they slant most everything, just like AM thinker, fox, breitbart and so on.

Rhianne is correct.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:33 PM   #54
Ibby
. . .
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,029
If you explained it, classic, I either didn't understand your explanation or missed your explanation. What is the difference between a medically induced miscarriage and an abortion?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:34 PM   #55
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,396
HM, nothing personal, but that wiki article is beyond terrible.
I listed more reasons for inducing labor than they had.
I went through this twice and did enough research to know.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:40 PM   #56
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
What is the difference between a medically induced miscarriage and an abortion?
The eventual outcome is the same in that there is a dead child.
Nothing else matters and I'll not post any more on it. It brings up terrible memories for me. I'm out.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMO, Santorum is not a viable candidate for many many reasons.
This is NOT one of them.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:42 PM   #57
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
If you explained it, classic, I either didn't understand your explanation or missed your explanation. What is the difference between a medically induced miscarriage and an abortion?
One makes you feel warm and fuzzy and the other makes you feel like a murderer?
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:46 PM   #58
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
It's all a vigorous discussion, and supports my political point,
in that Rick Santorum espouses a religious position that no woman should have any pregnancy terminated
... no how, no way ... no matter if she be pregnant via rape, incest or a loving husband.

I suspect there is rarely, if ever, a definitive, objective, medical basis for choosing
the "life of the mother versus life of the fetus".
It's my understanding the teachings of Santorum's church is to always try to save the life of both.

But Santorum's actions with regards to Terri Shiavo demonstrate that he is quite willing
to use the power of governmental office to impose his own religious beliefs on others.
.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:46 PM   #59
Ibby
. . .
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
Karen is not running and it was CLEARLY her decision in each article. There is NO hypocrisy here. Just partisan bullshit from those who want to make a big deal out of it.
Does Rick think (if the procedure was option 1 that I listed) that his wife's doctor should be arrested? Does Rick think that the choice was up to his wife and his wife alone? Does Rick think that his wife should have been allowed to decide to have that procedure to save her life, with or without his consent?
When Rick Santorum staked out the position that a fertilized egg is a Person - and should be legally considered a person, and this that the government should be in the business of regulating the reproductive systems of women, having a double standard when it's his own family is important.
If he was making his opposition to drugs an important campaign issue, but his daughter had a medical Mary Jane prescription, I would have a huge problem with the idea that it's okay for him and his but unacceptable to the general public.
It's not the decision on the pregnancy I question. It's his double-standard, that the government should ban something that he believes is acceptable when his loved ones do it.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2012, 07:48 PM   #60
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,396
Quote:
I'll not post any more on it. It brings up terrible memories for me.
I'm out.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.