Welcome to Gaia! ::

Do you really think that someone in the hospital is going to be so heartless as to say 'Get over it, it's not even a person'? No, I don't think so. Stop exaggerating.

They're not saying 'No birth certificates because it might make other women feel bad'. Maybe you phrased this incorrectly, but to me that means that women other than the mother would feel bad. Other women aren't an issue here.

They are suggesting this because it might ease the grieving process for some people - some people being the mothers of the dead children. Not so they won't feel 'guilty'. If I was pregnant, and miscarried, I wouldn't want someone pressuring me to help fill in soem birth certificate straight away (although I don't quite know how that all works).

Giving it a birth certificate means giving it a name. Giving it a name means identifying it more as a person. This makes it all the more clear what you've lost. If I had to name it straight away, I would feel worse, because I would dwell even more on 'What would John have been like? I'll never see John grow up.' I would think of this in any case, but having to give the baby a name would just make it all the more painful.

I've never experienced losing a child (I've never even had a child), but as I stand now, I would prefer to get on with my life and hope for the best next time. If my child were grown, and knew how I was suffering, I'm sure they'd want me to get on with life and not dwell on them as much.

I hope I don't come across as heartless in saying that, but that's just how I feel. All that said, I'd probably still get a birth certificate for the child, but I can understand why some people wouldn't.

Look scribblemouse, I have been there. I've gone into labor at 22 weeks, I've felt my water break and my child flounder. Thankfully medicine was able to delay his birth significantly, but I've been there.

Telling me that "well, I know you held your living son, and watched him die in your arms, but Patient X down the hall just aborted her 22 week old son and I really don't think it's fair to her that I give your little one a birth certificate" would make me beyond livid.

These children lived and died and deserve recognition. It is abusrd to define life in terms of killing. It is not "overly dramatic" to be deeply offended that your child would never "exist" simply because women choose to kill their own children and doctors don't want to be hit with a murder charge.

It's bullshit.

You seem to think this is a college like Harvard or something like that.

It's a recommendation from a Royal College, yes. And people LISTEN to them.

I've said it once and I'll say it again:



That is EXACTLY what they are saying. They are recommending that birth certificates not be given for children 22 weeks and under because that'd cause "unnecessary suffering to mothers who wanted an abortion." They aren't doing it because it'd cause "unnecessary suffering" to women who just lost their children to a premature birth. That's not what it says, and if it's what they meant, they really screwed up on the wording, considering it mentions abortion and not premature birth. I'd understand if they said, "We suggest to make it optional because then women might have an easier time dealing with the premature birth," but that's not what it's about.

Scribblemouse, the murder charge was in allusion to cases where an abortionist kills a living child after a blotched abortion. A case of that nature is being investigated in Flordia currently.

As far as personhood being debatable, the only time personhood has ever come into question is in an attempt to deny rights. Do we really want to go down that road?

If the woman feels that she didn't have a baby, and they tell her that she did, isn't that pretty much the same thing? Disregarding the woman's feelings*, I mean.


* Whether or not we agree with her feelings.

Agreed. It's absurd. Who the hell cares that the abortionists think? Maybe this will have people think twice about aborting their children. It isn't a mother's fault if her baby is born premature. Whether it's born at 22 weeks, or 25 or if it's able to make it to term, it's still a baby. It was still a living being, and deserves a birth certificate just like any other being. It's wrong to deny a woman something like that. :/

Question scribble? Why make it that way? It would be redundent. It already is that way. If the mother does not wish to register the birth of a premie that dies moments later, she's not obligated to.

Scribble, I don't think you're reading the article right. These people feel it wrong to give birth cirtificates to premies of 22 weeks and before, thus giving them person hood, because they see it as pointless since most premies at that age die minutes, hours, or some times days later.



If this colloges suggestions were taken serious and put to practice, no premie born before 23 weeks would be given a birth cirtificate, regardless if they were wanted ot not. That is exactly what this paper is saying scribble. They will deny the birth cirtificate to a woman if she wanted it, sayiong "Whats the point?" That is exactly what this article has said: "Whats the point of giving them a birth cirtificate and calling them people if they're just going to die moments later?"

The option to hasve a birth cirtificate drawn up for a premie already exists. You can deny it if you want. What this will do is take away that option, so mothers who feel thier premature sons and doughters deserve to be counted as alive and as persons will no longer be able to. YOu talk about how much pain it must cause a woman to have to register a birth cirtificate for a child that died in her arms moments after birth? Did you think about how much pain it would cause if she wasn't able to?