|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:29 am
lymelady I'm interested by the idea of the soul entering at the time of the quickening. I'd never considered it from that angle because it's not really a significant moment for the fetus. It's not the first time it kicks, it's not the first time it experiences things. It's surely significant for the mother. It's an interesting thing to think about for me, our souls being tied in to what our mothers experience, almost as if our mothers can feel exactly when our essences enter their bodies. But now I'm starting to think about what the feelings before that are, the little tiny not kicks but definite movement that can be felt. (emphasis mine) I think that the connection felt at the quickening, this amazing surety the mother feels when her child can be felt moving, that her child is alive, is so important and almost magical. I think it must really cement that bond (started with hormones in the first trimester) between mother and child. To me, that really seems like the point where the soul would enter the body in the womb, just because of how amazing that connection is. It isn't significant to the unborn human in terms of development, no. But I think that something must pass between the mother and unborn child then that I feel must be significant for both parties.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:06 pm
I'm not child-free because I love all children, especially babies. Every baby has a right to be born.
I have always wanted to become a wife and mother when I grow up, so I do not want to be sterilzed by some doctor anytime soon.
I think people who want to be sterilized should think long and hard before they undergo something so life-changing. What if they marry someone and by then they want kids? Then what?
Then again, they could always adopt, but because so many women are aborting their babies instead of giving them to a sterile couple, adoption is kinda hard these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:31 pm
(Sorry, I don't usually post in the sub-forums. I should really change that...)
Its an interesting thing being discussed here and I actually kinda see the idea.
I knew this girl (we were friends for a while) named Mary Jane since high school (so, going on 14 years now) and she had her first child at 15. She never took responsibility for her first daughter and never "grew up" so to speak. She was always horribly promiscuous, never careful or responsible. After she had her second child (which she gave up for adoption, the first one she left with her mother) she tried to get her tubes tied but the doctor refused and said she had to at least be 25 in order to do so.
From then on, she continued with her lifestyle until she had her third daughter (this one she's actually taking care of herself) and because she was "of age" she was finally able to have the surgery.
She didn't have an abortion, but she thought about it when she was pregnant the second time. I'm glad she was able to bring herself to the adoption decision, but I also wish that she never would have put herself in that position. Then again, what the heck was up with the doctor refusing to give her the procedure she wanted?
Talking to people around here, it doesn't seem like that doctor was alone. I've heard that the rule is "2 kids or over 25" She had her two but that doctor must've thought she was going to develop a motherly instinct later in life. (which she hasn't)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:43 am
I definitely agree with a right to sterilization after 18. Doctors refuse them for those reasons, I believe, because there have been instances in the past where women complained that they didn't understand that they would regret it so much and sued their doctors. But with a sufficiently worded release form, there really shouldn't be any reason that doctors would refuse to sterilize a woman for 7 years after she reached adulthood, that's just ridiculous.
Now, I do think that, typically, it's a bad idea to get yourself sterilized at that age, because it is also true that a lot of women change their minds later on in life. But I'm all about liberties; If you want to risk that, it's your business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:54 am
That is why doctors won't do it at 18 as many do change their minds when they are older (of coruse not many 18 year olds want or can care for a kid). Some don't change their minds but doctors don't want to take that risk.
I think it's something they should think long and hard about and go over all the possiblities first then when they are sure, sign a written contract saying that they won't sue if they happened to change their minds later on (they can always adopt if they want kids later in life, many do need homes).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:04 am
Exactly. I totally understand why doctors wouldn't suggest it, but at 18, you should be able to decide what to do with your body, even if you later regret it.
So long as it doesn't hurt another person, anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:15 am
I'd be interested in seeing if my friend, who never has wanted children, could get sterilised. We're 19 now, and this is England, so you never know. People aren't quite so sue-happy over here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
