Welcome to Gaia! ::

Scribbles, you'll learn the same way every one else here has that I don't care if what I say may annoy you. So long as neither of us are flaming each other is really dosn't matter to me who is annoyed.

I like calling them premies because thats what they are, prematurely born human beings: Premies for short. I honostly don't like how contradicting you are of almost every thing every one says here and how you some times sound quite pro-choice, I don't dislike it though. Deal with it, I guess.

Routinley would not suggest they would have it as an option. (not to me atleast) It means they would submit them if it seemed like they would live long enough.

I forgot where I read that, but a quick look up on google has turned out that most certificates are compulsery in normal cercomstances. Perhaps I'm wrong, I can't find the information. If I remember straight though, here in the US you don't register for a certificate, one is made up the day of the birth and both parents sighn the document. I'm fairley sure though the parents are alloud to deny sighining if they have a valed enough reason, such as the child is premature and is expected to die, or already has died.

Scribblemouse, I call my son a premiee. Or maybe even a runt if I'm feeling nutty. I don't think most parents of premature children object to the term.

They would object,however, to being told that thier premature child would not be issued a birth certificate. Ignoring the life of their child is deeply hurtful, even if the life outside the womb was mere minutes.

Don't think we aren't trying to understand the woman's point of view and we're dismissing it. Quite from it. If you go through the forum, you'll find tons of posts from the people who are regularly posting now where they look at things from the mother's point of view. A lot of people in here put the woman as high a priority as the baby.

But I agree with Pyro. I think you're misreading the article. As I've pointed out, the article SPECIFICALLY says it's to protect women in connection with abortion, not in connection with natural miscarriage. If it said, "In order to protect women who lost their children from miscarriage, they recommend the option be there," then I wouldn't be so bothered by this. But that isn't what they're saying.

This isn't to protect the psychological health of women. This is political at its very core. This is a way to stop women from feeling bad about aborting at 22 weeks. If they're going to be upset that someone else is issued a birth certificate for a baby of the same age, though...then they shouldn't have had an abortion purely for the selfish but very good reason that the abortion won't sit well with them unless they repress their feelings, and that comes out in other unhealthy ways. There are other options available they should have taken. This is independant of whether abortion is moral or immoral, this isn't about women who feel perfectly comfortable with having abortions, it isn't a statement about blocking their access to abortions.

This is a statement about women who suffer grief from abortions because they believe that "lump of tissue" is a baby, repress those feelings, go through with it, and later on in life have trouble because of it. In order to gain support for keeping abortion legal, there are those that want these women to have abortions anyway even though it can hurt them. Some are convinced these women won't be hurt because abortion really doesn't kill babies and these women will learn that, there are some that know that these women might get hurt but try to make it as easy as possible without ever once saying, if you think this is a baby, then this might hurt you deeply. You know why they won't say that? Do you know why they won't warn women about that? Because they don't give a damn about other women. They care about themselves.

Again, this is not about people who are pro-choice in general. It is about the handful of individuals who do it. There are pro-life individuals who hurt women too. But that's what this boils down to.

The article did not say, to spare the mothers of miscarried babies. It said it was to spare the mothers who aborted.

If they need something like a lack of birth certificates issued to other women in order to feel comfortable, then they are not secure enough in their view that their fetus is not a baby and it is riskier to get an abortion, and the fact that no one TELLS them, "If you're having doubts now, you may have problems later on," and instead assure them that their doubts are silly, THAT is what angers me about those individuals, THAT is how abortionists have been known to exploit women, THAT is what makes me FURIOUS with them.

I started out my journey into abortion politics sounding a lot like you. I always wanted to think the best of everyone, and there was never a time when I would make a direct accusation because I never wanted to think that people could treat women with such total disregard. Maybe I've grown too cynical, maybe I've met too many people over the past few years, I don't know. But it makes me mad when people don't take care of the people they claim to be taking care of and that is exactly what goes on when people pull junk like this.

I've talked to plenty of women who have had abortions or gone to clinics looking for help with other options.

I didn't believe them so I called pretending to be pregnant.

I was told over and over again that abortion was the only option I could really use unless I wanted to throw my life away. Not by just one clinic, either.

I wouldn't say these things lightly. I wouldn't make these claims unless it's happened to people before. It DOES happen, and it happens quite frequently.

Don't take my word for it, search on sites. There are tons of accounts online from women who were told by clinics that abortion was the only way. Unless thousands of women are lying, I'm not making this stuff up.

This is ALL about politics. It is about making sure women don't think of the child they aborted or want to abort as a baby, because that means less business. You can listen ot former abortionists who quit because of this stuff, and they'll tell you what I am: It's about getting women to have abortions, not about advising women to do what's best for them.

If a woman is not stable enough in her view that the thing she is aborting is a baby that a "piece of paper" (as you put it) will cause her suffering, then she is most likely going to have emotional suffering from the abortion and SHOULDN'T BE GETTING ONE. This is completely separate of the issue of whether the baby deserves to die or not, this is about the mother's view and how badly an abortion will affect her. If these jerks would rather encourage her to do something that they know will most likely hurt her...how can they claim to be pro-woman? This is political. It is not about saving a woman from suffering. It is about trying to convince women they have no baby, even when a woman believes she does have one.

by the way, I read those pages. It never calls it a baby, only a "pregnancy." They avoid the word baby for a reason. I got snapped at on the phone for saying, "But I don't want to kill my baby..."
"It's not a baby! Who told you it is? It's just tissue now!"

If a baby is born alive, it is born alive, and saying it wasn't isn't reducing suffering, it's lying, and it isn't lying to reduce suffering. If women are emotionally upset by having birth certificates handed to them, or handed to other women, then you know what? They should never have had an abortion because they don't believe they just expelled a lump of tissue. They believe they had a baby. Living with the pain of knowing you had your child killed and feeling that it was wrong to do so is a horrible experience that I hope to God you will never experience, as I hope no one I love will experience, but a lot of people I love DO experience it and that is exactly why I stopped coming online for a long time, because I'm a coward and I don't want to meet any more women who read something I write and email me to say, that's what happened to me, what was that link again? I'm sick of sending hope after abortion and project rachel to women, because I'm so mad that people have made it so they need places like that. I'm so mad that people have mistreated them. I'm so mad that now they need to deal with this pain while the people who convinced them to have the abortions feel NONE of that guilt. Those JERKS don't give a damn about women or they wouldn't call these women "bitches" for feeling remorse.

Being born alive is not a belief, it is a fact.

Whether you believe a fetus was born alive or a baby was born alive, there is no denying that a human was born alive.

What is subject to belief is whether or not a human being was born alive.

It should cause no suffering to a woman that her aborted fetus was born alive at 22 weeks. She went in to have a 22 week fetus killed, if it dies outside of the womb rather than inside, there is no difference if it is a fetus to her. The problem is taken care of, and additional paperwork shouldn't be upsetting, unless she DOES think somewhere inside of her that it is a baby. If that's the case, why wasn't she presented with better options at that stage in pregnancy? Issueing a paper stating that the human was born isn't going against her beliefs, it's stating a fact.

If the UK is like the US, however, privacy becomes another issue. Birth certificates are a matter of public record (I believe) whereas abortions are not. If a woman has to file a birth certificate, it's on record that she gave birth to a live human. On the other hand, that's clearly marked as a risk of having an abortion (a live birth, I mean), and it shouldn't change the routine issuance of birth certificates. The stats are 250:50 (unaborted:aborted) which means that they're talking about invalidating the existance longed for by the majority in order to appease the minority, who shouldn't need that appeasement in the first place because they should be comfortable before getting the abortion or they'll have trouble in life from it.

Ok Scribblemouse, we seem to have gotten way off track of why this"suggestion" is offensive to begin with.

If put into practice, this "bill" would serve only to dehumanize someone we now concider a person. We will roll back their rights, the rights of the smallest and weakest minority, because of the will of the stronger individual.

This is an abomination of ethics. We are actually seeing inalieanable rights stripped away, simply because it causes the mother too much diress to fill out some paper work.

Let's make an analogy.

Let's say that oh I don't know, society decides as it has, that people with Down Syndrome are an unnecessary burdon on society. Women who then abort (and 90%) of them do, decide that they feel icky that those other 10% of living Down Syndrome individuals are considered people. So they petition congress(for someone must have said something) to strip personhood from any member of society with Down's.

Can you imagine the horror of having your basic humanity stripped from you because you happened to make someone else uncomfortable?

We are talking about something much bigger than birth certificates, we are talking about revoking humanity. Do you really think it will stop with premiees?

I didn't say deny her the abortion. I said give her better options.

If she's aborting because she's in financial trouble or she'll get kicked out or lose her job if she keeps it, she doesn't want to be aborting. She should not have to be aborting. If you've read my arguments before, you KNOW what I think about the adoption system, so don't try that, "I know better than you and you're just an ignorant b***h who doesn't care about the mother!" bullshit on me. You seem to have a fixed viewpoint of all pro-lifers that you're applying to people in here. Slow down, lose your prejudice, and listen to what we say instead of hearing what you think we're going to say.

A human. Was born. Alive.

There are people out there that think girls aren't people. They're subhuman. People think that minorities are subhuman. So when minorities are born, when women are born, should the parents be told, "We're not going to issue you a birth certificate because we respect your beliefs and England won't register them as existing unless you want them to."

No. They should register a human's existance regardless of that human's status of personhood, because if personhood is as subjective as you seem to think it is, then nobody is a person and everybody is a person.

But you know what? Legal personhood is not subjective. It can't be or there is no equality. To take away the personhood status of one premie under a certain age would take away the personhood status of ALL premies under that age, or else, there is no equality and there is legal precident to make personhood subjective.

It is not going against her beliefs to say, "The law considers this to be a person," any more than it is going against a male supremist's beliefs when you say, "The law considers your wife to be a person."

It is not telling her, you have to call it a baby. It is not telling her, you need to consider it a baby. It is telling her, the law considers this human a person. The paper states that the human was born. A Human. Was. Born. Alive. Denying that is a lie.

If the law does NOT say, that's a person, then the law also says that any child of the same age is not a person because the law is not subjective. If you take away the legal personhood from one baby born alive who then died, you also take away the legal personhood of the baby born alive who's still alive even though the odds are against it. What will that do to women who want their babies? What will that do to women who lose their babies at week 21?

And yes, there is a slippery slope that comes along with it. If you start taking away personhood of one group, there's legal precident to start taking it away from others. Instead of just ignoring Broorel, why don't you answer her concerns?

The thing that puzzles me is that if you're pro-life, you're against abortion on-demand, right? There must be some reason for it. Whether you see that fetus as a person or you think abortion is bad for women, you think it shouldn't happen, especially (or at least) at 22 weeks, when there's a small chance of survival outside the womb.

If you see a fetus as a person, why aren't you upset that its status of personhood is taken away? If you think abortion hurts women, why aren't you upset that they'd rather put effort into this than into helping women afford to keep their children when they want them but feel the need to abort due to financial reasons? Why doesn't this article upset you in some way, because it obviously doesn't since you're telling other people that they shouldn't be upset that people are having their personhood stripped from them?