|
Grex > Agora47 > #52: House passes ban on "partial birth" abortions | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 142 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 95 of 142:
| 
Oct 9 08:09 UTC 2003 |
waaaayyyb back there ... 6 month without a pregnancy clue is not belivable.
smarmy denial, perhaps. that we have yo here and now is a benefit.
ignorance can reap benefits, but rarely. your case is teh exception.
|
polygon
|
|
response 96 of 142:
|
Oct 9 15:07 UTC 2003 |
No. It's not uncommon for a woman who was unaware she was pregnant show
up in an emergency room with labor pains -- ask anyone who works in
obstetrics. Perhaps they are not well educated, and not very petite to
begin with, but there is plenty of ignorance to go around.
|
lynne
|
|
response 97 of 142:
|
Oct 9 16:38 UTC 2003 |
96 is true. Every day you come aross more evidence of the power of the
human mind to flat-out ignore what's in front of the corresponding face;
why should this be any different?
FWIW, irregular periods are not uncommon at all. Last time I was at the
doctor's office, they had a supply of brochures on them. Some forms of
birth control suppress periods. One of my friends had normal periods one
half of the year and none at all the other half. I went a year between
my first period and my second, and am still irregular enough that I could
easily get up to 5 months without noticing anything--and then it would be
more likely weight gain that would tip me off.
I find it interesting that there are no laws in place on what a woman can
do while pregnant. F'rinstance, smoking and drinking are not legally
proscribed; neither are horseback riding, playing hockey, boxing, or
working in a lab with toxic, teratogenic or carcinogenic chemicals.
Any of these things can lead to miscarriages, birth defects, or other
problems. Not that I'm advocating such laws, but their absence suggests
a deeper conviction that the freedom of the woman is more important than
the life or health of the fetus.
|
klg
|
|
response 98 of 142:
|
Oct 9 16:45 UTC 2003 |
(Are you aware of the relatively famous labor law case in which women
sued to be able to work, I believe, in a battery manufacturing area?
The employer had refused to place women there due to the likelihood of
causing fetal abnormalities. Naturally, the women won in our upside
down courts. Now, the employer is probably liable for any fetal
damages that result from that insanity.)
|
tod
|
|
response 99 of 142:
|
Oct 9 16:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 100 of 142:
|
Oct 9 16:55 UTC 2003 |
what's THAT suppose to mean?
/takes a gigantic swaller of pete's wild irish rose
|
tod
|
|
response 101 of 142:
|
Oct 9 17:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 102 of 142:
|
Oct 9 18:32 UTC 2003 |
#99 is just not true. There are things you, as an adult, can do that will
only be mildly harmful that would cause major and permanent harm to an
infant or fetus. Alcohol is a simple and obvious example, or, do you
remember thalamide babies in the 50's?
|
tod
|
|
response 103 of 142:
|
Oct 9 18:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 104 of 142:
|
Oct 9 19:07 UTC 2003 |
Actually, I was just noticing that #99 was a blanket assertion with no
qualifiers, and #98 is not necessarily specific (one never knows with
the klg's); #97 is specifically non-specific. Obviously you meant #99
much more specifically than you indicated, but I suspect even there it's
still wrong -- you did say "just as", indicating it's equally harmful to
both. However, perhaps #103 is true with #99 being false, if lead
poisoning were harmful to both, but more harmful to children. I believe
this is in fact the case, though I couldn't quite you any legal casework
or medical research to prove that (although given the scopes trial, I
cannot consider legal casework to be the final word on human biology.)
|
lynne
|
|
response 105 of 142:
|
Oct 9 19:23 UTC 2003 |
What's harmful for the 50+ adult's brain is generally more harmful to a
fetus, often by orders of magnitude. Besides which, if you're over 50
and female, you're likely past the inclination and/or ability to be
carrying a fetus.
When I started at Uni-Tuebingen I had to sign a form absolving the university
of any responsibility for potential prenatal damage--SOP for women of
childbearing age. Can't quite recall, but I'm sure I signed one at MIT
as well and that such agreements are standard where applicable. I
therefore reject klg's whiny final sentence in 98. In general, chemical
companies will give you a desk job for the duration of your pregnancy
anyway because they don't need the adverse publicity that might occur.
|
keesan
|
|
response 106 of 142:
|
Oct 9 19:45 UTC 2003 |
Jim (jdeigert) is the 6th surviving child of 7. The 6th child was born
severely defective but survived a few months - long enough for his mother to
have a nervous breakdown and be hospitalized for it.
|
klg
|
|
response 107 of 142:
|
Oct 10 13:24 UTC 2003 |
Ms. lynne,
We are not being "whiny." Perhaps you are out of touch with reality.
It actually is a catch-22 situation for employers:
"But protecting a fetus from occupational hazards isn't as easy as
removing pregnant women from specific jobs. Companies that have taken
that approach have been hit with discrimination lawsuits and lost.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that battery maker Johnson
Controls' practice of restricting women from certain jobs on the basis
that lead exposure could harm the fetus amounted to sex discrimination."
. . .
"'If the employer warns the mother, and if she goes in and says she has
a right to do this job, and the fetus is exposed, is the employer
responsible?' asks Eugene Brodsky, a San Francisco lawyer who
represented a child who sued over birth defects. 'The fetus didn't
agree to be at risk. These are questions that will have to be
addressed.'"
For the complete article . . .
http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/26/usatcov-birth-
defects.htm
|
scott
|
|
response 108 of 142:
|
Oct 10 13:53 UTC 2003 |
Ah, so klg is in favor of children suing their parents?
|
klg
|
|
response 109 of 142:
|
Oct 10 14:10 UTC 2003 |
(How one could draw that conclusion is truly remarkable - but hardly
beyond Mr. scott's abilities.)
|
lynne
|
|
response 110 of 142:
|
Oct 10 14:49 UTC 2003 |
heh heh. The fetus by definition has no rights as yet, and the mother has
already signed an agreement that the employer is not responsible. Since
parents have the right to make decisions for the child until it is 18,
the agreement the mother signed is binding. Indeed, scott is right: the
only logical approach for this maligned child is to sue its mother.
|
klg
|
|
response 111 of 142:
|
Oct 10 15:06 UTC 2003 |
(Are you truly prepared to bet that the government will take a logical
approach? Based upon past performance, one ought to expect otherwise.
In this particular instance, please note that attorney Brodsky is from
the loony left coast.)
|
lynne
|
|
response 112 of 142:
|
Oct 10 21:48 UTC 2003 |
We are not discussing the government, but rather the legal system. Please
be more precise. Unless and until the agreement between employer and
mother is ruled illegal or immaterial, the employer is not to blame.
Judges are required to adhere to the letter of the law; in the case that
they do not do so, any decision is subject to appeal.
|
slynne
|
|
response 113 of 142:
|
Oct 11 03:29 UTC 2003 |
Maybe the answer for those companies would be to give pregnant women
the option of being reassigned to a less hazardous job but at their
same pay rate. Of course, then some man will probably sue the company
claiming that women are getting better treatment. Ok. Maybe the real
answer is for these companies to clean up their act and create safer
workplaces.
|
tsty
|
|
response 114 of 142:
|
Oct 11 04:07 UTC 2003 |
all the responoses to #95 - sorry, but they don't pass teh smell test.
what they do, however , is promote teh 1:1000 probability upto
sometihg like 10:1 probability. hope against hope. *P L E A S E*
get real!
with 6 billion humns on the face of the earth at the moment,
.. adn growing .. what is the probability that sex does NOT result
in pregnacy?
throw every 1:1,000,000 probability into the wind and *pray?*
gimme a fscking break! check your damn file system!
<prayer might be worthwile .. although futile ..errr, fertile>
|
happyboy
|
|
response 115 of 142:
|
Oct 11 08:40 UTC 2003 |
you are a drunkard.
|
lynne
|
|
response 116 of 142:
|
Oct 11 17:28 UTC 2003 |
re 113: "Maybe the answer for those companies would be to give pregnant
women the option of being reassigned to a less hazardous job but at their
same pay rate."
This is standard operating procedure for most companies--in fact, I think
it may be mandatory for pregnant women to be reassigned until after they
give birth.
re114: It's not a common occurrance by any means, but it does in fact
happen. <shrug>
|
klg
|
|
response 117 of 142:
|
Oct 11 22:05 UTC 2003 |
re: "This is standard operating procedure for most companies--in fact,
I think it may be mandatory for pregnant women to be reassigned until
after they give birth."
It is??? We have never seen it in a union agreement. (You may wish to
reread response #107 for what is actually happening in the workplace.)
Please provide some examples to support what you are saying. Thank you.
|
lynne
|
|
response 118 of 142:
|
Oct 12 14:28 UTC 2003 |
re 116, 117: I was referring specifically to chemical/pharmaceutical
companies, as they are the only ones of interest to me. I'm not sure that
there is a union for chemists. However, I am sure that this is company
policy at Merck. Be warned that I am now adding Mr klg to my twit filter,
since I find their writing style more irritating than their content justifies.
|
slynne
|
|
response 119 of 142:
|
Oct 12 14:53 UTC 2003 |
How come folks often seem unable to add anyone to their twit filter
without announcing it to everyone else.
|