Re: OT religion and me/meg

January 19, 2006

I agree that prenatal testing is a great benefit to prepare help in case the

baby is afflicted with something. Its good for the mother and baby to know

what they will be dealing with and with appropriate care, the infant can be

helped, if not saved, from some disease.

I asked my mom about when she was pregnant with my brother. She saw how

hard life was for me, and how much pain the scoliosis, surgery, SMA, and

society caused me. I asked my mom if she considered abortion, since she

knew he would be born with SMA. She said it did cross her mind. But she

said she would never be able to do that. Each baby is a miracle, a gift

from God, whether sick or not.

Yet, this is an impossible decision. Some babies can be so afflicted that

their quality of life would be very poor. As a mother, it would kill me to

get rid of my baby, but on the other hand, it would kill me to see my baby

being born into a life full of suffering and pain. It's a no win situation

and there are so many women faced with such a choice every day.

I also think its not just the decision of the mother. If you have a loving

husband, both partners need to decide and agree on the choice being made.

Its not fair in such a horrible situation to tell the woman, its your body,

your choice.

These moral questions are impossible to answer. We can theorize over the

pros and cons of each scenario, yet its all in the abstract. Lets hope we

will never be faced with such a choice.

And please lets not start arguing over this. Please.

Eternal Blessings,

Meg.

(My Blog: http://360./pink-tulipameritech (DOT) net)

Re: OT religion and me/meg

> >

> > > >

> > > > This is the second time I've broken a promise

> > not

> > > to comment further,

> > > > for which I apologize, but Jay's remark about

> > the

> > > burden of proof

> > > > being on those who do not believe made me

> > chuckle.

> > > Forgive me for

> > > > being blunt, but that's nonsense. There are an

> > > infinite number of

> > > > hypotheses that cannot be disproved. I could

> > make

> > > up a few on the spot

> > > > if you want, but here's one the philosopher

> > > Bertrand used to

> > > > illustrate the same point:

> > > >

> > > > What if I believed there was a china teapot

> > > orbiting the sun between

> > > > Earth and Mars? A teapot is too small to be seen

> > > by even the most

> > > > powerful telescope, so no-one could disprove its

> > > existence. What if I

> > > > said that since the teapot's existence cannot be

> > > disproved, it is

> > > > rude/stupid/arrogant for anyone to question its

> > > existence? Everyone

> > > > would think I was crazy. If, however, the

> > > existence of such a teapot

> > > > was affirmed in ancient books, taught as the

> > > sacred truth every

> > > > Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children

> > > at school, NOT

> > > > believing in its existence would be regarded as

> > > eccentric or mad.

> > > > " Teapot heretics " might even be persecuted and

> > > tortured for daring to

> > > > question the existence of the teapot.

> > > >

> > > > We are all teapot atheists (I think!). In fact,

> > we

> > > are all atheists

> > > > when it comes to most supernatural myths. Who

> > here

> > > believes in Thor?

> > > > Zeus? Ra? Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec sun god?

> > Each

> > > of these has their

> > > > own suppporting " evidence " in the form of

> > ancient

> > > writings, so why not

> > > > believe in them? There are literally millions of

> > > gods that none of us

> > > > believe in. Some of us just go one god further.

> > > >

> > > > And sorry, Jay, but while the Bible does contain

> > > some historical

> > > > information that is backed up by other sources,

> > > giving those passages

> > > > some historical credence, there is no evidence

> > > whatsoever for things

> > > > like the Earth being created in 6 days. On the

> > > other hand, there are

> > > > mountains of evidence (and I mean that both

> > > figuratively and literally

> > > > - just look at Mt. Everest) that the Earth is

> > > several billion years

> > > > old. If you choose to believe otherwise, then

> > that

> > > is your choice. You

> > > > are even free to believe in the teapot if you

> > > want. Indeed, I

> > > > fervently support your right to do so. But it is

> > > ridiculous to claim

> > > > that the burden of proof is on those who do not

> > > believe in a given

> > > > myth. Science has better things to do with its

> > > time than that. Curing

> > > > SMA, for one.

> > > >

> > > > I expect I'll be accused of arrogance for saying

> > > this. Oh well, I've

> > > > been called worse. I would simply reply that if

> > > there is anything

> > > > arrogant in the world, surely it is religion,

> > > which claims to have all

> > > > the answers - absolute truth - and actively

> > > discourages doubt.

> > > > Science, on the other hand, is humble. It says:

> > > " We know nothing. But

> > > > let's look at the evidence and see what it tells

> > > us. "

> > > >

> > > > Not so long ago, the purveyors of " absolute

> > truth "

> > > would have looked

> > > > at my daughter with her floppy arms and legs and

> > > told me that she was

> > > > inhabited by an evil spirit, or by Satan, or

> > even

> > > that she was a

> > > > witch. They would have recommended " curing " her

> > by

> > > exorcism or

> > > > drowning her in a ducking stool. Science has

> > shown

> > > that there is

> > > > nothing more sinister about her than a missing

> > > gene. What's more, it

> > > > is beginning to find ways that her missing gene

> > > could be replaced or

> > > > circumvented. As if that were not enough, it has

> > > also shown that

> > > > everyone has missing genes - providing cast-iron

> > > evidence against

> > > > discrimination and in favor of equality.

> > > >

> > > > Jay mentioned Carl Sagan's figure of 1 in

> > 20000...

> > > (there were lots of

> > > > zeroes, I don't remember how many) of life

> > > existing on Earth, which

> > > > Nick rightly countered with the point that there

> > > are so many planets

> > > > in the universe that it's not so improbable for

> > it

> > > to have happened

> > > > somewhere, and maybe not just on Earth. To

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

> __________________________________________________

>

January 19, 2006

no, in china your only allowed a certain number of children per your income and

rank in society. So if you are only allowed 1 child, you need a male to carry

the family name.

jondus@... wrote: But, then we're letting everyone play God.

Everyone can decide what an

acceptable life is based upon their own " feelings " . " Feelings " are

emotions which aren't only different from person to person, but also

vary within each individual. You can't trust emotions. It needs to be

based upon moral principles. Our self centered society tells us it's

about " me " . However, this situation is not about " me " , it's about

another person...the baby.

You see, the trouble with your theory is that it all becomes

relative...and the question then becomes " where do you draw the line " .

What is considered fine to one person may be considered " misery " to

someone else. The line keeps moving, and the reasoning/excuses keep

growing and the next thing you know you have the situation in China:

It's OK to abort perfectly fine female babies because it would be a

public disgrace (i.e. misery) for me if I don't have a male baby.

When you crack the door open even slightly, the flood gates eventually

open too.

Jay

Re: Re: OT religion and me/meg

Some children though are carried to term with a zero chance of life.

Theres is always exceptions abortion theories. Theres no reason to give

birth to a brain dead child unless your giving him/her for organ

donation, because otherwise its just undue stress on the mothers body.

Everyone is entitled to their own view. Some people would rather see

the no pain or trama than to put the child into a life of misery. Not

saying all disablity is misery, but we all know many child never are

able to function to any degree.

Doug

<mongomustgolf@...> wrote: The reason for

prenatal testing will be, at some point

in the near future, for the pregnant Mommy to start

taking 'supplements' for her baby - so that SMA never

is allowed to attack her child's survival motor

neurons. Also, once the precious child is born,

immediate supplementation of flSMN upregulating

medication.

Regardless one's view on religion, politics, etc. -

once you've had your own child - or witnessed the

birth of your own child, there is absolutely no

question that abortion is wrong. Perhaps those who

think they're Pro-choice just haven't experienced the

true magic - miracle - of birth - and just don't know.

Prior to the birth of my beautiful children, I suppose

I simply had no position on abortion. I was just a

dumb guy who worked a lot - tried to play as much golf

as possible - and somehow seemingly enjoyed being a

Cleveland, Ohio professional sports team fan (which in

case you're wondering, is NOT a pretty thing - last

major championship was in 1964). After getting

married - a year or so later and being part of the

birth of my son, I knew. Without a doubt. I knew.

Anything that is contrary to the birth of a child

(regardless all of the nonsensical definitions of when

the fetus becomes a child, etc.) - is plain Wrong.

That said, I am 100% for pre-natal testing - it will

only help to address SMA in young babies at the very

possible moment. Mitch

--- ChrisN1220@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 1/18/2006 8:24:27 PM Eastern

> Standard Time,

> pink-tulip@... writes:

>

> What if your gf or wife was pregnant and the fetus

> was tested positive for

> some serious disease, like SMA, or something worse.

> Would you choose to

> abort it?

>

> The reasons for testing go far beyond THIS choice.

> It's important to

> know. If your baby has a heart defect, you need

> to deliver in a Hospital that

> is equipped, rather than airlift the poor newborn

> to a major city......

> So many people say " I don't want a pre-natal test

> b/c I would NEVER abort " .

> Well, there's so much more to it, like saving the

> life of your baby!

> ~

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

__________________________________________________

January 19, 2006

I understand your meaning now, but you should say it differently i thinking. I

would hope you wish they didnt have this, but they are your kids and you love

them no matter what.

Doug

<mongomustgolf@...> wrote: Even had I known that

my kids would be born with SMA -

my son Bryce has SMA and my daughter is asymptomatic

(though she has the homozygous SMN1 deletion) - and

all that went with it - I would want no other children

than my children.

Had we known, via pre-natal testing for example, and,

coupled with the fact that my wife's first cousin lost

her son Devon Caron to SMA Type 1 in 2003 shortly

after his 1st birthday - would you presuppose we

would've considered aborting our children!? Based on

the set of knowledge available at the time that seems

to be whats could be suggested. I'd just assume not

be alive myself without my children.

I repeat - my children are 100% perfect. SMA can FUCK

off!

Apologies to the language used - but to be perfectly

honest - that's exactly how I feel.

The fact a child has (or will be born with) a

neurodegenerative disease does not affect who he/she

is, what their potential in life is, his/her 'value'

to society now and the future, or whether or not the

would-be parents should consider abortion as an

option.

Contrary to your comment that some people may not want

to 'put the child into a life of misery' or their

child endure 'pain or trama' - what is more miserable

- being alive or dead? I choose being alive - and I

think all of the babies with SMA that fought - Yes -

fought with all they had - fought to live and still

died tragically young would completely disagree with

you. The beauty of these young lives lost just cannot

be captured with pictures or stories - it supercedes

anything I know of...

Yes, people do have their own ideas and opinions - and

they're certainly entitled to them. I'm not God - or

some convergance of Truth in Science (or whatever) -

in thinking that I can tell another person you must

believe the way that I do, etc. - I don't, won't, but

will comment based on my own experience. I'd be

willing to bet that well over 90% of folks claiming to

be Pro-Choice - have not had a child of their own, or

witnessed the birth of their own child.

Me - I'd have my children no other way. Mitch

--- Doug Blackman <never_wins_any@...> wrote:

> I dont follow what you are saying though. Do your

> kids have sma and

> you dont mind or do you and they dont? Sma can fuck

> off doesnt explain

> anything srry.

>

> Doug

>

> > > > >

> > > > > ,

> > > > >

> > > > > All I can say is that your Evolutionary

> theory

> > > > requires faith in

> > > > > numerous assumptions to make sense of only 1

> > > thing

> > > > - how it all started.

> > > > > I'll continue to have faith in 1 assumption

> -

> > > that

> > > > God started it, and

> > > > > then everything else makes sense.

> > > > >

> > > > > Which takes more faith?

> > > > >

> > > > > We can go back and forth, and 'round an

> 'round

> > > on

> > > > this topic, but we're

> > > > > all on the same page with SMA. Find a way

> to

> > > help

> > > > our kids stay

> > > > > healthy, find a treatment to make them

> stronger,

> > > > and find a cure so we

> > > > > can eliminate the disease and shout for joy

> > > > together!

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks for an interesting discussion on the

> off

> > > > topic subject!

> > > > >

> > > > > Jay

> > > > >

> > > > > Re: OT religion and

> me/meg

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > This is the second time I've broken a

> promise

> > > not

> > > > to comment further,

> > > > > for which I apologize, but Jay's remark

> about

> > > the

> > > > burden of proof

> > > > > being on those who do not believe made me

> > > chuckle.

> > > > Forgive me for

> > > > > being blunt, but that's nonsense. There are

> an

> > > > infinite number of

> > > > > hypotheses that cannot be disproved. I could

> > > make

> > > > up a few on the spot

> > > > > if you want, but here's one the philosopher

> > > > Bertrand used to

> > > > > illustrate the same point:

> > > > >

> > > > > What if I believed there was a china teapot

> > > > orbiting the sun between

> > > > > Earth and Mars? A teapot is too small to be

> seen

> > > > by even the most

> > > > > powerful telescope, so no-one could disprove

> its

> > > > existence. What if I

> > > > > said that since the teapot's existence

> cannot be

> > > > disproved, it is

> > > > > rude/stupid/arrogant for anyone to question

> its

> > > > existence? Everyone

> > > > > would think I was crazy. If, however, the

> > > > existence of such a teapot

> > > > > was affirmed in ancient books, taught as the

> > > > sacred truth every

> > > > > Sunday, and instilled into the minds of

> children

> > > > at school, NOT

> > > > > believing in its existence would be regarded

> as

> > > > eccentric or mad.

> > > > > " Teapot heretics " might even be persecuted

> and

> > > > tortured for daring to

> > > > > question the existence of the teapot.

> > > > >

> > > > > We are all teapot atheists (I think!). In

> fact,

> > > we

> > > > are all atheists

> > > > > when it comes to most supernatural myths.

> Who

> > > here

> > > > believes in Thor?

> > > > > Zeus? Ra? Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec sun

> god?

> > > Each

> > > > of these has their

> > > > > own suppporting " evidence " in the form of

> > > ancient

> > > > writings, so why not

> > > > > believe in them? There are literally

> millions of

> > > > gods that none of us

> > > > > believe in. Some of us just go one god

> further.

> > > > >

> > > > > And sorry, Jay, but while the Bible does

> contain

> > > > some historical

> > > > > information that is backed up by other

> sources,

> > > > giving those passages

> > > > > some historical credence, there is no

> evidence

> > > > whatsoever for things

> > > > > like the Earth being created in 6 days. On

> the

> > > > other hand, there are

> > > > > mountains of evidence (and I mean that both

> > > > figuratively and literally

> > > > > - just look at Mt. Everest) that the Earth

> is

> > > > several billion years

> > > > > old. If you choose to believe otherwise,

> then

> > > that

> > > > is your choice. You

> > > > > are even free to believe in the teapot if

> you

> > > > want. Indeed, I

> > > > > fervently support your right to do so. But

> it is

> > > > ridiculous to claim

> > > > > that the burden of proof is on those who do

> not

>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________

January 19, 2006

I didnt mean to say it all falls onto a women, I menting that she has final say

in it. that she should not be force by the husband ors father to have an

abortion.

I agree all children are great, but since most women produce 12 possible

children a year, why arent those times special also? I am not saying they need

funerals each month, it is just like chicken eggs in the store, everyone was a

potential animal, all it needed was a sperm to give it life. considering how

freely most men are, thats not a shortage.

i am sorry for the extreme view, am not try to upsets people.

Doug

" Meg W. " <pink-tulip@...> wrote: I agree that prenatal

testing is a great benefit to prepare help in case the