:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

:: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 ::

"Ley, however, argues such studies aren’t credible because they were produced by 'hired guns' funded by the multi-billion-dollar game industry.

'We’re not trying to sell [parents] anything,' he says. 'We don’t have a product. The video game industry does.'”

Let's take this common sense concept and apply it to abortion:

If you choose abortion who makes money off of that choice? "Pro-lifers" or "pro-choicers?"

If you DON'T choose abortion who makes money? "Pro-lifers" or "pro-choicers?"

Which is the most objective source of information?

Use your frontal lobes, people.

:: ashli 1:28 PM # ::
...

I got reprimanded by the prof for that last post. Was warned not to abuse the class discussion boards. My post wasn't deleted, because it's relevant to the text material thus far; this was a preliminary warning. The prof was under the impression that I was going to take "anti-abortion" and run with it ever after, which I might have done were I an immature, out-of-touch moron, with no cognition of appropriate social interaction. The insinuation is a little insulting, and I wish she had withheld the stern warning until I'd actually scored such an offense.

Sigh.

:: ashli 10:28 PM # ::
...

Comments re: Human Development, from a discussion board at a college class I am taking:

"Pg. 64: Is there *really* any such thing as a fertilized ovum? Think about that.

Pg. 76: "Genetic testing itself involves such ethical and political issues as privacy and fair use of genetic information." And it's so not cut and dry. Genetic testing is hindered by fear. For example, I'm enrolled in a genetic study to try and find the gene for my disease. Each participant was asked to find her own control. I found several controls, and all but one were afraid to contribute a teaspoon of spit, no matter who it would help or how, because they were afraid of misuse of their genetic material.

Pg. 77: "A panel of experts has recommended against genetic testing for diseases for which there is no known cure." I strongly disagree for reasons of prevention and planning.

Pg. 77: "Particularly chilling is the prospect that genetic testing could be misused to justify...abortion of a normal fetus with the 'wrong' genetic makeup."
1) How offensive do you think that statement is to people living with functional limitations? Wonder what the folks at Disaboom.com would have to say.
2) It's called sex-selection, and it's already a reality.
3) What makes it "chilling" when a "normal" child is aborted for the 'wrong' genetic makeup and not chilling when >3,000 "normal" American children are aborted every day for reasons having nothing to do with genetic makeup? I don't understand that. It reminds me of a mom who declared her staunch support of abortion yet found it detestable when used to eliminate children affected by Down syndrome (DS). She said the practice was discrimination against DS-affected persons and should be illegal. However, if a child was "normal" and a woman was just making a personal choice then that was OK--it wasn't based on discrimination. (This mom has a child with Down syndrome of course.)
4) What is "normal?"

Pg. 93: Re: Drug Info:
I would have appreciated more discussion on the risk-benefit ratio as well as an FDA chart of categorizations for drugs for use in pregnancy. It would have been nice if the authors had included a little balance on the beneficial properties of drugs necessary in some pregnancies. I get somewhat discouraged when women who need drugs during pregnancy are terrified to take them because of misperceptions of teratogenicity.

Pg. 93 "Furthermore, more than half of women of childbearing age who do not use birth control (and therefore could become pregnant) report alcohol use."
My SIL would have a problem with this statement, as she conceived twice while using condoms. Another friend of mine got pregnant after a tubal ligation, and yet another got pregnant when, a decade later, her husband's vasectomy apparently self-healed. So, birth control does not equate certain safety from the teratogenic effects of alcohol.

pg. 99: "However, due to widespread screening for fetal defects among older expectant mothers, fewer malformed babies are born nowadays."
This is stated as though it's a real accomplishment. Look deeper. The authors say fewer "malformed" babies are BORN. Meaning more children with functional limitations are ABORTED, including children with repairable "malformations" such as cleft lip/palate. Around 80-90% of children identified as DS-affected are aborted.* Pg. 74 of our text very clearly states that DS-affected people can live in cluster homes and support themselves via successful structured job situations. DS-affected people take part in the arts, read, and even write books, which is more than some of my "23-paired" friends seem to be able to do. LOL! IMHO, the fact that we are "preventing birth defects" by eliminating the people affected by them isn't really all that triumphant.

Pg. 100: "Radiation can cause genetic mutations. Prenatal radiation exposure (for example, through X-rays of a mother's abdomen) can lead to stunted growth, birth defects, abnormal brain function, or cancer later in life. The impact depends on the dose and the timing; risks are greatest before the 15th week of gestation. Women who have routine dental X-rays during pregnancy triple their risk of having low birthweight babies"
I like this book; don't get me wrong. And I appreciate the clarification of the abdoment X-ray above. but even so, there's something a tad alarmist or intellectually dishonest about the last statement in particular. For it to be really meaningful, we would have to know what the normal risk of having a low birthweight baby is. The tripled risk could be less than 1% for all we know. Shock statistics are interesting, but they're the thing people remember. I know I'm really touchy about all these issues, but I have my reasons. For example, I know a woman who was so terrified to get an X-ray in pregnancy that she delayed, and nearly refused, a very necessary peripherally inserted central catheter. By delaying hyperalimentation she exacerbated her condition, which, by that point, could have had significant deleterious effects. Not cool. I had 6 X-rays in my last pregnancy, starting at 5 weeks pregnant. They were all chest X-rays, and my abdomen was shielded, but everyone knows the rays scatter. I'm glad I wasn't so afraid that I refused necessary treatment that saved my and my daughter's life. To learn more about X-rays in pregnancy, read ACOG, Committee on Obstetrics Practice: Guidelines for Diagnostic Imaging During Pregnancy; ACOG Committee Opinion (Sep 1995)n158p32-5."

:: ashli 4:59 AM # ::
...

I just wrote this for a Human Development class I'm taking:

"As of May 2007, there are 35 states that recognize unborn children in the context of violence committed against their pregnant mothers.

You may go here to view a photo of Zach Marciniak, who was killed in the 9th month of pregnancy, five days before his due date, when his dad physically abused his mother by repeatedly punching her in the stomach with the premeditated intent to kill their growing child. Zach died from blood loss due to blunt-force trauma.

Zach's dad was not charged with his murder however, because at that time in Wisconsin Zachary was not legally recognized as a human being. As Tracy, Zach's mom, cradled her full-term son in her arms at his funeral, the state contended no one died. Therefore Tracy was disenfranchised and secondarily victimized by the state, because of the impact of federal law (Roe v. Wade*).

All one need do is see Zach's picture and read Tracy's testimony to understand the motivation of those who support Unborn Victims of Violence laws. While this type of issue is obviously going to interest those who do not support abortion, one need not be anti-abortion to support such a law. In fact, many middle-of-the-road abortion supporters do; after all, in such a case the mother is not choosing to end the life of her child. That choice is made for her by an outside party.

Die-hard abortion supporters who would not allow any gestating person any rights whatsoever are merely being consistent in maintaining the national status quo of abortion on demand as a legal right. They understand that Recognizing Zach Marciniak and people like him as human beings presents a problem: It contradicts the right to abortion.

While this type of abortion advocate compromises by supporting harsher consequences for those who victimize pregnant women, she is obviously aware of the complication of charging one person (who kills an unborn child outside of abortion) with murder and not charging another (who kills an unborn child in an abortion). For example, how could a national law charge Zach's dad with murder when Zach's mom, at the same point of pregnancy, could have aborted him legally, no anomaly necessary, in Wichita, Kansas? That would be irrational. Either a growing child is a child or he's not.

Obviously, the circumstance of being wanted or not wanted by one's mother is not what defines a human being. (If it was, I could not be classified as a human being even now!) Surprisingly, Roe v. Wade only contends that it isn't clear to the supreme court whether an unborn child is a child or not, and America is not erring on the side of caution. Abortion supporters therefore really must contend that unborn children are NEVER children, since some can't be children some of the time while others are not children all of the time. (Don't ask me why abortions can only be performed up to 13 weeks in Tallahassee, up to 24 weeks in Orlando, and up to labor in Wichita, KS!)

Abortion supporters fight legislation such as Unborn Victims of Violence laws not because they hate women (on the contrary, most of them are 'feminists') but because, quite frankly, they are trying to prevent abortion from falling prey to the logic that would lead to its downfall.

At this juncture I would like to point out that our own textbook contends that human development begins at conception. See page 54 which reads:
'The planned 21-year National Children's Study (2004) under auspices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other government agencies aims to follow some 100,000 U.S. children across the country from conception to adulthood.'

On page 12, our book refers to conception as a period of 'child' development. In our text, children are repeatedly described as children from the point of conception. The authors therefore take the position (advertently or not) that human development is ongoing--continuous, even in stages. You read that right. A toddler is not an adolescent anymore than a young adult is a senior citizen. However, at each stage of development the organism is entirely human and endowed with what Thomas Jefferson, in our Declaration of Independence, described as 'certain inalienable rights.' Among those rights is life. Except our country currently excludes the prenatal stage of human development from that endowment.

To reiterate, either a gestating person is a person or he's not. To ascribe the legal term murder to the destruction of one unborn person and not another, based on personal choice, is the worst kind of federal duplicity and egregious illogic.

*Norma McCorvey aka Roe does not support abortion, and tried, unsuccessfully, to have her case overturned."

Obviously I'm going to be the most popular girl in class now.

:: ashli 1:16 AM # ::
...