Abortion

I can prove to you that this is not the correct definition: Life support.

If someone is in a nearly fatal car crash and loses the use of 80% of their lungs and must live on a respirator, they are suddenly not a human being? They cannot live or breathe on their own....by your definition, they're no longer a human being.

No, the definition of a human being is to have the genetic makeup of a human being: as a fetus (that's the word in english) certainly does.


I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post, because I've said countless times that 'when' you terminate a life is irrelevant...you're still terminating a life.

I will point out though, that your attitude (in regards to a mentally ill child) is pro-eugenics...many people would call you a monster for that.

 

let them call me what they want, I don't care one bit. I know what's best in my mind, and that's not a human being. (by the way, i meant live being. that's the defenition to live being: to be able to live in his own, i stated that I didn't know i that was the right defenition)

people say: "oh, the heart beats, so it's alive": NO! it's not alive!

and i still keep my statement, YES! that man, whose lungs wouldn't work: to me, because I want to be a doctor, of cource, I would try my best to save him. but he's an adult, he would know very well what that meant for his life, and for many people, I'd doubt they would want to live trapped with a machine so that when it went down they wouldn't live any longer. Of cource, there are people who think otherwise, and want to stay alive till the very end, even if it means suffering.

but that's not my choice. we obviously don't agree with eachother in this topic, but ok, I understand, so many times I participated in these debates, and I know what I'm talking about: I'm tottally WITH abortion. I'm sure that if i was going to born with physical problems, i wouldn't want to live, as much as living with machines on and wheel chairs. Not me.

 

I'm sorry, but you didn't actually pose an argument?

The only thing I can really respond to, is that you're defining 'live being'...and as far as it seems to me, arbitrarily so. It doesn't really pose an argument...the most widely accepted definition of life involves 7 criteria:

Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not going to say that this is the correct definition...far be it from me to claim it is. However, your definition (being able to survive on their own) implies that someone on life support is not a human being. (I think you misunderstood: someone on life support isn't someone that you're trying to save, as in someone brought into the trauma unit after a car crash. This is generally after medical intervention, when some irreparable damage is done).

What about comatose patients as well?


These cannot be 'exceptions' to the definition...because if they are, then your definition isn't rigorous enough.


But from the sounds of it, you're pro-euthanasia anyway. So you probably wouldn't claim they're exceptions. I then pose the question, where does life begin? Where does it end? In your mind, you must have a pretty cut-and-dry definition.

I would think a heartbeat is a pretty good indication a human being is alive. I've never encountered anyone who boldly said even if it has one it's not alive...so I'm curious what your thoughts are on the subject.

 

comatose patients... that's a part i've never thought about. they usually recover after a few days or weeks. there are exceptions, of cource, but to keep that person there, with the machine.... i don't know if it would be worth it if it's one of those abnormal comas, but in those cases, if it's a live being or not... that's a good question.

for my previous post, i'd say no.... they're not alive.... but then they wake up (ressurection is seriously a topic i don't believe) and can be free... so i guess you got me there, i dunno. BUT, if they need a machine and a bed to really be alive and so on for the rest of their lives, they are as good as dead (i also say beds, because i don't think pacemakers actually fit in there, i know they are an auxiliary item of help to live, but it's different, as people will be able to be there on their own, they won't need help all the time). I guess I can say that there are excpetion, it depends on the occasion.

there are always exceptions for everything, you can't change that that's the universal defenition: alright! and then, there are the people who get their own point of view of that definition. that's me. EDIT: I'm sure there are many defenitions out there you don't agree with.

well, you're right on that one, i am pro-euthanasia. If someone wants to die, if s/he think his/her life is ending and s/he's in pain, i am for it. I'm only against it if, for example, it's a kid with depression saying that wants to die, or someone who will recover after that, and be a completely normal person but doesn't want to go through the healing process. I'm pro-euthanasia, but liek above, only for certain cases.

abortion is a different story. For your question, I think life really begins when you are born and cry/scream, and stuff. sure, they'll need their mother/father at the beggining, of cource, but they are alive.

ok: 3 months: the heart is beating for some time, now. There's something wrong, the baby must go out. It won't survive, the diferenciation phase is not complete. but the heart was beating... hmmm...why didn't it survive, then? it's true the heartbeat stops, obviously, but the fetus wouldn't be able to live like that. even if the heart kept beating: because other structures weren't formed yet, he couldn't live. only a heartbeat, but no oxygen to give the cells, as lungs weren't yet completely done.

the energy he needs to live comes from the mother, he would be separated from the mother, and no stomach was formed and ready to any kinds of food. that's why i say the heartbeat isn't enough. he's not ready to survive. he will live, sure, but isn't alive at the moment he's inside. that's why i always said i'm with the abortion process. not just for rape victims, or deseased fetus, but for anyone who thinks it's child wouldn't be able to be happy, would starve, would die on it's arms. And I prefer to see people safely making an abortion before it's out and completely formed, and then get the baby and put it to adoption, where he might spend his next 18 years alone without parents. or grab the baby, kill it and throw it into the trash (as it's seen so many times in the world)


and for many poeple: life ends when the heart stops beating. not me: life ends when you are trully uncapable of doing anything in your own. breath with a machine, always in a bed, or always with 3 or 4 people around you because you can't move: i don't call that living. i call that slowly and sadly dying.

 

What I fail to see though, from your argument is:

What magically changes at the moment a baby is born and screaming? Does its genetic makeup change? Does it morph into a human from some kind of bacteria?

What magically changes at the moment an adult enters a coma? (longterm or otherwise)

You're interested in medicine, but you're defining death in a completely nonconventional way (I'm unsure if the definition is different in your country to be honest, but logically I would think it wasn't) that would probably result in confiscation (taking away) of your medical license...at least in the Western World.

This is the medical definition of when something is no longer living:

Brain death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Sorry to make you read so much, but this way it's not just my opinion)

 

If fetus' are alive, and people...

1. Where's their inclusion in the national census?
2. How come when they die, we don't hold funerals for them?
3. Why, after 2 years of the baby being alive, all the sudden it is totally disregarded by everyone except the associations it belongs to? (i.e., school, parents, religion, etc).

And what makes a dead baby so important, anyway? What about Chickens? Chickens are pretty decent people too, you know.

 

don't worry, this is always about opinions

as i said: i will save those lifes. if their families want to: sure. ok, i'll let them kids/husbands/wives suffer all the time they want. And, as doctor, i'll say: they are suffering. they are in pain. they can't feel, they can't hear anything you say. after all: if they survive, and they are happy with the state they're into: good. I'm just saying i wouldn't be. I'd rather die, than know that I was going to be stuck in a wheelchair for life.

and about the baby thing: even if it borns completely perfect, if his lungs don't work, he dies. End. That's it. that's why they need to make their lungs work, and sometimes even slap them hard to make it happen. it's the only way for them to live. the way i see it, if they get out, but dies in the process: it's just like an abortion. and he is apperently a human. just isn't considered by science a live being. and with that, i agree.

in a coma, that's different. it can either go back to life, and it can die. it usually just takes a few days or weeks for them to wake up, it continues to be a human being, but i don't know if it means that he's alive or not.

"The chief concern of medical science has been to postpone and avert death. A precise medical definition of death, however, becomes more problematic, paradoxically, as scientific knowledge and technology advance."

no one knows what death really is. it's actually another topic, just like abortion, if you ask me.

doctors swear to save lifes. and i will do that, i'd try my best to do it. but as you said other post above, i can only help at my best until he's living with a machine next to him. what i think of death, and i want to do with my life: i don't think they can confiscate my license for that. i swear to save other people's life, sure.

but when it comes to abortion and turning machines off, and things like that: it's the patiente, or a familiar that declares that yes: we can make an abortion considering what the law says (in portugal, it's in cases of rape, desease or if the person doesn't want the baby until he's 10 weeks in the uterus) or yes: we can turn off the machine, because s(he won't make up, or because there's someone else who might live a normal life if s/he receives the machine now.

and, of cource, we always give time, and we have to tell them clear all the consequences, all statistics, what can happen, what will happen, answer all their question, give them a week, and then they'll make the decision. it's not for doctors to decide if they want to take the life of that man/woman to help another.

EDIT: and to the post above (sorry) it's not like a baby isn't important, but i can't actually answer your questions there as i'm not from where you are, i don't know the rules, but some families here do make funerals to newborn babies who died.

 

1) Because the national census is an all-powerful being that controls life, right? No, it's an attempt at measuring how many people are walking around in a given area (if it's national, you probably mean the U.S. population). People arbitrarily chose rules and methods for extrapolating data, which hold sufficient for the purpose of information. There's nothing profound about it. It's like me counting two people in North America and concluding there are only two people in North America. Just because they haven't been counted, does not say anything about what they are.
(I'm also pretty sure there are extrapolation techniques to account for babies being born and conceived).

2) Speak for yourself. It's not uncommon for some religious institutions to hold small funerals for miscarried fetuses, depending on their beliefs (Often times, a funeral is a religious gesture anyway). Since a fetus is very difficult to locate in a miscarriage at times, they are given the same 'burial' or ceremony as someone who was lost at sea.
-Furthermore, many people with no religious beliefs choose to have no funeral, and instead simply have their corpses disposed of. (There are countless historical people who went 'ape-shit' on the church, and then refused to have any sort of funeral...such as Victor Hugo). Are we to say these are not human beings?

3) I'm not sure what you're trying to say...

But a chicken is not a person...that's one of the first things you would learn in like, pre-kindergarten. The question is moreso, is a baby chicken not a chicken? Is a chick that is about to hatch a chicken? Or is it some kind of bacteria? Same rules apply to humans...this is not meant as an argument, but it is another way to think about it.

@Default_User:

The doctor part of me is going to respond to a few things...I appreciate some of the things you mentioned about Portugal, including the abortion laws. I've learned from them...unfortunately for everything else, it's gotten to the point where we're not even listening to each other anymore since our opinions are so different, so it hasn't been going anywhere for a few posts now...but there are just some things you should know, about the medicine involved in your arguments.

If they can't feel, they aren't in pain...That's how nerves work. There are cases of comatose patients who are in pain, however these patients can feel external stimuli. Some not directly, but they show changes in brain activity when a loved one is in the room. They can feel their presence in some form we may not be able to understand.

I think this is a bit of a cowardly perspective on life, no offense. Being handicapped is just one of life's many challenges...and to choose death over a challenge is the coward's way out. What if you had some money problems? Would you choose death over that? (These awkward questions I ask are because I like precise definitions. I like 'drawing the line' so to speak)

Not to mention, that could be taken as offensive by handicapped people...who are living this challenge every day. You're basically calling them all stupid for willing to live like that.

This would never happen, simply because a life support machine is not a magic machine that heals people. It's a machine with a specific function: designed to prolong life in those who are unable to do so...so if you kicked one person off the machine in hopes of using it on another person, the person would have the same condition as the previous one: they would be comatose...and you'd have the same question to ask yourself, about whether or not they were 'living beings.'

Exactly what I was saying earlier in this post.

EDIT: To summarize, my closing remarks with my discussion with Default_User seem to have produced the following (tell me Default_User if I misunderstood something):

Default_User believes that there are infact two definitions we need to be concerned with. One is 'alive' in the sense of cellular life...which we can show, a fetus is in fact alive in this sense.

The other, is whether or not something is viable (which is a fancy word meaning, can survive on its own...usually a word used to define the fetus during late term pregnancy). A fetus may not be viable, and as such is not a 'living being' in this sense.**

Default_User is saying that it is ok to kill something that is not viable, such as Euthanasia and Abortion. This is her opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that...but this is where I disagree. I don't think it's right to kill something that is not viable...and unfortunately for the two of us, we can't bring ourselves to experience the others' views as these are polar opposites...but it's always nice to hear someone else's opinions.

**Note: I do have to disagree with Default_User on one additional point here (Do you mind if I call you DU? Or did you have a first name I may call you by?). Some fetuses have survived outside the womb as early as I believe 4 months into the pregnancy. They are put on a machine similar to a life support machine, and 'raised' until they are full term (ie. as if they were full 9 month pregnancies). Some newborns must be slapped by the doctor to ensure their lungs are working, if they don't start screaming...however I think you may be slightly confused, this act of slapping them does not MAKE their lungs work...it merely makes them cry if they aren't already, and if they can cry their lungs are working perfectly fine. It's an indication of good health, and the doctor merely uses 'the slap' as a diagnostic tool. But the point is, more likely than not, a baby is already screaming when it comes out...it's a relatively rare occurance that the doctor has to slap the baby.

 

about the part of the wheelchair: i've got nothing against the handicapped. they chose that way of life, i'm just saying i wouldn't. my grandparents all died with AVC. my grandpa was stuck into the same stupid bed for 8 years, and it's ok: he didn't want to die. BUT what about my mother? what about me and my brother? if you knew the problems we had to bath him, feed him, get him on the wheelchair to go to a place, take him down the stairs: it was hell hard! and there aren't many people who are willing to take care of them for us, while we go to work/school.
but don't get me wrong: i didn't want my grandpa to go. i didn't want any of them to die. me and my mother have back problems because of that. it's THAT part i think when i say i dont wanna be in a wheelchair.

its not like i dont wanna live... its more like i dont wanna live to trouble others! i think of the troubles my children might have, my boyfriend might have, my parents/brother might have... it's all very troubling, because some people get through and can actually do something by themselves, and can be alone safely, others: not really. and at the beggining, they can't do anything without gaining more strenght on their arms. it's those kinds of things that make me thing i dont wanna live that way.

about the machines: i think there are speceific machines for both conditions. i was talking about the lung problems: doctors usually give more priority to people who are in great condition of health. a doctor actually told me this:

" There is only one oxygen machine in the hospital left. A man with 36 years old, got into the hospital with an heart-attack, you saw his medical condition: he drinks, he smokes, his other family members all had heart deseases. At the same time, a woman with 98 years old enters the hospital with the same problem: an heart-attack. we go see her medical condition: wow. didn't have big problems in all her life, just a flu or two... her health was in top condition, too. no ancestors with heart problems... but there's only one machine.
Who would you give priority and who would you send to another hospital, decreasing his/her chances to live? "

I ask you now exactly the same question. doctors sometimes have to make these kind of decisions.it's the same with comatose: if a pacient has been there for weeks now, and if it doesn't show any signs of neural activity, we may ask the family permission to turn off the machine. of cource, if another person goes there, and the patiente using the machine has neural activity: we won't take him out. we'll just have to send the others to another hospital. it's always needed to ask the families permission, it's not a decision any doctor can make on his own.

By the way you can call me DU, yes, no problem.
there are cases like that. babies who are born very premature and finish the growth while they are out. with 4 months, the diferentiation of most organs are complete all they need now is to grow. if the organs are not diferentiated, it's very hard for them to make it in the exterior without the mother's support. growth of organs is another story cause it continues to happen even after they are born.

and the slap is needed when the baby is not breathing, it makes them work. to cry, they need their lungs to work. it's the slap that gives the urge to inspirate air when they haven't done it yet, so lungs can distend to their fullest to make sure the "alveols" work. when the baby is born crying, it doesn't need anything else. if the lungs dont work, they wont survive, and there are born cases when the "alveols" are colapsed. no matter how many slaps the doctor gives: they wont work.

 

about the part of the wheelchair: i've got nothing against the handicapped. they chose that way of life, i'm just saying i wouldn't. my grandparents all died with AVC. my grandpa was stuck into the same stupid bed for 8 years, and it's ok: he didn't want to die. BUT what about my mother? what about me and my brother? if you knew the problems we had to bath him, feed him, get him on the wheelchair to go to a place, take him down the stairs: it was hell hard! and there aren't many people who are willing to take care of them for us, while we go to work/school.
but don't get me wrong: i didn't want my grandpa to go. i didn't want any of them to die. me and my mother have back problems because of that. it's THAT part i think when i say i dont wanna be in a wheelchair.

its not like i dont wanna live... its more like i dont wanna live to trouble others! i think of the troubles my children might have, my boyfriend might have, my parents/brother might have... it's all very troubling, because some people get through and can actually do something by themselves, and can be alone safely, others: not really. and at the beggining, they can't do anything without gaining more strenght on their arms. it's those kinds of things that make me thing i dont wanna live that way.

about the machines: i think there are speceific machines for both conditions. i was talking about the lung problems: doctors usually give more priority to people who are in great condition of health. a doctor actually told me this:

" There is only one oxygen machine in the hospital left. A man with 36 years old, got into the hospital with an heart-attack, you saw his medical condition: he drinks, he smokes, his other family members all had heart deseases. At the same time, a woman with 98 years old enters the hospital with the same problem: an heart-attack. we go see her medical condition: wow. didn't have big problems in all her life, just a flu or two... her health was in top condition, too. no ancestors with heart problems... but there's only one machine.
Who would you give priority and who would you send to another hospital, decreasing his/her chances to live? "

I ask you now exactly the same question. doctors sometimes have to make these kind of decisions.it's the same with comatose: if a pacient has been there for weeks now, and if it doesn't show any signs of neural activity, we may ask the family permission to turn off the machine. of cource, if another person goes there, and the patiente using the machine has neural activity: we won't take him out. we'll just have to send the others to another hospital. it's always needed to ask the families permission, it's not a decision any doctor can make on his own.

By the way you can call me DU, yes, no problem.
there are cases like that. babies who are born very premature and finish the growth while they are out. with 4 months, the diferentiation of most organs are complete all they need now is to grow. if the organs are not diferentiated, it's very hard for them to make it in the exterior without the mother's support. growth of organs is another story cause it continues to happen even after they are born.

and the slap is needed when the baby is not breathing, it makes them work. to cry, they need their lungs to work. it's the slap that gives the urge to inspirate air when they haven't done it yet, so lungs can distend to their fullest to make sure the "alveols" work. when the baby is born crying, it doesn't need anything else. if the lungs dont work, they wont survive, and there are born cases when the "alveols" are colapsed. no matter how many slaps the doctor gives: they wont work.

 

Yes, this is known as "Triage" in english. You give priority to those who have the greatest benefit:survivability ratio.

But this isn't what I said, or what you said. You said if someone is on life support (which is what the entire discussion was centred around), you wouldn't be opposed to taking them off the machine, if someone who had a better chance of survival needed it. But I'm saying a life support machine is meant for that one specialized function. It's not the lung machine you're thinking of, 'aiding' respiration.

In the scenario you mentioned, both are low priority in a triage situation. The woman, being 98 years old, has low survivability...whereas the other, in that poor condition, also has low survivability.

I'm not quite sure what question you're asking....but do you mean no neural activity in response to stimulus? (Because no neural activity at all means a person is 'brain dead' and stops receiving medical attention) I wouldn't pull the plug, no. In a perfect world, there would be sufficient medical equipment so as not to pull the plug and end their life. Why now, do the imperfections, make it ok?
(By the way, these ethical questions are the reasons I did not finish becoming a doctor...haha. I have strong morals, and they would be compromised no matter how hard I tried to stick to them.)

Yes, but what I'm saying is, the slap gives the urge to inspirate air...so we can see if their lungs are working properly. It doesn't 'fix' their lungs if they're not working properly...it's only a diagnostic test. The baby can be inspirating without screaming, as does happen on occasion.

The ones who don't cry when the doctor slaps them, require other medical attention because their lungs aren't working properly.

Everything you said is true...but it's like this: if the doctor slaps the baby and they start screaming, they didn't need to slap the baby...the lungs are working fine.


It's like when the doctor does the patellar reflex test (hammer on the knee test). It's just a test, it doesn't actually fix anything.

 

lol, i dunno the words in english for those kinda things, only on portuguese. that's why i tried to keep it as easy as possible, but somehow trying to make it understandable at the same time XP
and im not in medical school, yet. for more than 10 years, i wanted to go to veterinary. extreme makeover made me wanna change that. too bad i only saw that for the first time last summer, when i chose to go to veterinary school... oh well, i still have time. (yes, if i go into the medicine, i would like to try plastic cirurgy, not being a regular doctor, cause for new doctors to get a job in Portugal: it's a PAIN!! things are really bad here, on that part.

actually, for what the doctor said, even the woman being very old, she would be the one chosen, as her medical status were the best. let's just say: the one who would have best chances to wake up. (i didn't think any of them would survive. this was her answer when i told her what you said)

sorry, i separated the question, it was the question above about triage, or so. and this world isn't perfect for anyone. that's why we search for it, as a perfect to me is probably not the same as your perfect. those kinda things will always lack. unless they made a whole country/continent an hospital. i'd say in some cases, because of the imperfections, some people should receive more priority than others. those cases are very rare, (especially if we're still talking about comatose patients), as they either will wake up or die, only a few percentage of people will stay in that status for a long period, those are the cases im talking about.

loool, i got what you meant now. they are done, yes, but not working. that's all. but on a statement there

they needed to slap the baby. sure, the lungs were fine,after all he's screaming, but they do that to assure (at least it's what i think) that the baby is really fine. (i don't remember if my teacher said that it was important for the lungs to immediatly start to work as they were born as the umbilical cord would be cut off, that's what the slap is for, or if it can actually be ok. I'm on veterinary, but our embriology is human XP there aren't many book of animal embriology in the world)

 

Just as a personal suggestion, try to see veterinary school through a bit longer. Many people in North America want to become forensic scientists because of the TV Show CSI...and it just leads to incompetency, and heartbreak.

I'm not saying you'd be incompetent or you'd fail as a doctor (infact, I would have guessed you were in pre-med, not veterinary ), but I just mean the motivations may someday die down, if they were based off of a TV show. Just something I've learned. I started out set on medicine, did a complete 180, because enjoyment really is what's important in a career. So if medicine's what you want, go for it, but if you love animals (you probably had a reason for choosing vet in the first place), maybe consider staying...besides, for some reason veterinary school is harder to get into in Canada than Medical school...haha.

(BTW, I've been trying to use easier words as well, I hope I wasn't being insensitive in this way)

Yes, in a triage situation the one with a clean bill of health would be the one given priority...I only meant that someone who is 98 would not be in as good physical condition as you're proposing, haha. They'd have to be some kind of super Mrs. Doubtfire Grandma (; But yes, you're right, if they were that healthy.

Actually, one of the things that upset me was when I did my first 'standard first-aid' certification and first learned about Triage...even people who know CPR/Basic first aid must follow Triage rules (they're just more simplified). According to triage rules, if someone has an obstructed airway, they are to be ignored if the object (let's say) does not become dislodged almost immediately...as they will likely die. This makes sense if the choice is between someone with an obstructed airway and say, someone having a seizure as they may injure themselves further during the seizure, but technically you're supposed to help anyone else first, even someone with minor scratches or a broken leg. I didn't feel this was right, so if I ever got into that situation, I'd probably still try to dislodge the airway if everyone else was out of harm's way. My instructor called me a 'rebel' haha.


The only thing about the baby being slapped, is I think you're just confused on the one point still...everything you're saying is correct, but it's hiding one small misconception! I still think there's one point you're misinterpreting.

If we go back to when we initially started talking about the baby, you're saying until something is born, it's not 'alive' because of the slapping phenomenon, where they may still die and must be slapped. (This is true, newborn babies are still at risk)

However, I think you're starting to pick up on the fact that the slapping is only a 'test' to check that the lungs are ok. They're not a form of medical intervention, like a needle or a respirator (breathing machine), it's just to check.

But I don't want you to get confused by the last point you made, which is also correct! You said:

"(i don't remember if my teacher said that it was important for the lungs to immediatly start to work as they were born as the umbilical cord would be cut off, that's what the slap is for,"

Yes, this is true...during pregnancy, as you may imagine, the mother breathes for the baby (It's surrounded in fluid, which serves as a protective cushion...so if it tried to breathe with its own lungs, they would fill with fluid and it would drown). So this means, after birth is the first time the baby breathes on its own...and they're no exception, human beings need oxygen so they must continue to breathe the rest of their lives.

It's essentially divided into three cases:

1) Baby is already screaming - Slap is not necessary - Lungs were fine
2) Baby is not screaming - Slapped, begins screaming - Lungs were fine, the slap didn't actually 'do' anything, besides reassure the doctor and parents.
3) Baby is not screaming - Slapped, does not begin screaming - Lungs are not fine, the slap let them know it wasn't ok, so the can do other things to help.

So although it is very very important (I would use the word 'imperative' which is like a stronger form of important) for a baby to start breathing on its own, the slap doesn't actually 'make' the baby breathe...it just says whether it's case 2 or case 3.


When I was taking a course called "Growth, Maturation and Physical Activity" we dealt with embryology a bit more, with emphasis on muscular behaviour/growth. Breathing was a hot-topic, at various ages (since it's so important) and I actually asked him a question after class one day about the slapping thing. He told me something like:

"Since it's so vital for babies to be breathing after birth, doctors don't have time to take more polite measures such as 'look listen feel' (a diagnostic technique used in first aid) or using a stethoscope. So we just slap them abruptly [on the butt] because it's fast, and it makes them cry, which is what we need to hear."

He was refering to what happens when the baby does not breathe...you might already know this stuff, like how the skin turns blue (called 'Cyanosis'), and then eventually will cause permanent brain damage, etc? Every second counts with this sort of thing, so they use the slap because it works quickly.

 

loool, really? just because they see CSI? sure, i've seen CSI many times, i do like the series, but it's not like i wanna be just like them.... but i do see your point, there. i might stick in there for a while, though. one more year to see if i really like it or not. but i do love animals, any kind, cats, cows, horses, snakes, i just love them all.

its harder to get into veterinary than into medical?? seriously?? here it's the complete opposite... last year the last candidate entered with 18.71/20 in medicine ... Veterinary was 16.4/20... man, how i wish it could be simple to get in university... XP

and now, its not insensitive at all... ok it's a bit, but it would be much harder for me to make a post or answer anything if i didn't understand half of the last one

about the triage: i know, that's what i thought. like, she's 98 years old, she won't be able to do very much even if she lives... XP
and then she goes like: if you guys (it was to the whole class) ever get into medicine in Portugal, it will always be about priorities...
and we were like: oh...
i guess it's a bit about choices/priorities everywhere, huh?

about the slapping:

i guess it came to conclusions now: it's important, when he's not breathing, because there's no time to do all the normal things that are usually done.

Yes, I am aware of this, it's on the book.

and i guess i can say: back to topic, again:
abortion? yes, i agree with it.
but i actually like our rule: only in cases of rape, serious desease or until 10 weeks of pregnancy.

 

Well an abortion is really the choice of the girl having the baby who is to say it is bad or not. Maybe she isn't in the mental state to have a baby or she doesn't want it, there are other circumstances that could justify it but why should the girl having the baby have to give a excuse for an abortion.

Yes i admit in itself you aren't even giving a human life a chance and it is murder in itself but i myself just say it is down to the choices of the individual.

 

My view

I have to say that I'm one of the people who would be considered "pro-life". Human life starts at conception, is sacred, and should be treated as such. Many people are open to other options, but in my opinion, you are either pro-choice or pro-life, there is no third way. If people made it so that there were "extenuating circumstances", there would be no way to draw the line. People would try and try to change the law, and eventually would prevail. There just isn't a way to draw a definite line unless you say it's simply ILLEGAL or LEGAL. Part of the reason I am pro-life is not simply religous, it also has to do with the fact that I enjoy infants, not in a sick way, but in a motherly way. Someday I want to be a mother, but being only seventeen, I am responsible on how I express my love, and have decided to remain celibate until marriage..not only because I believe it's right morally, but also because a baby would be overwhelming to me in my present circumstance. However, I'd be a hypocrite if I said teenage pregnancy is wrong, as my mother was a teenage mother. If she would have chosen abortion, I wouldn't be here. I'm living proof that teenage parenting can work, but it's hard. I haven't had the easiest life, but I make the best of things, and I'm not a coward. Everything I've been through has only made me a stronger person. There's so much more I could write, but for now I'll just leave it at this. Any questions? Reply.

 

Accidents happen big guy. So in reality, if you say don't get knocked up, what happens when there is a tiny microscopic hole in a condom you are wearing? Tough luck? Besides, its such a choice issue. If she wants it than have it.

 

First off, Hope is a girl.

Second, somebody picking abortion over having the kid is taking the easy way out. Life is full of struggles, and raising a kid is one of them. Taking the easy way out is cowardly and for those people who are too damn selfish to take some actuall responsibility.

 

>gasping< To...Many...WORDS!!!!!
The thing is that abortion should be done if having a baby ruins your life. Like being forced to drop out of school, now that sucks. Also becoming pregnant by rapist. Now that WOULD suck.