Thinking seriously...

[semiotic_pirate]

So here I am reading my friend's posts and I run across this on infojunkies... Which was discussing this article.

You could scroll down to my response, but I will save you the trouble:

Alright, I have to agree that he is very conservative, that he is very religious... That he seems to be a bit rabid and orthodox/traditional in his views.

On two parts I feel that he is right:

Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.

He was right that they shouldn't have tried to put fetus on the death certificate, because the infant was severely premature, and LIVED outside of the womb - even if it was only for a few hours. Technology improves a little and a case like that comes up again, the infant might survive longer. I think it is a little weird that he wanted to show the (at this point dead) infant to his other children, but, I can understand the impulse - he was in an acute state of grief.

When a pregnancy is "wanted" people immediately (both parents and assorted relatives in the know) begin to consider this fetus a CHILD, regardless of what stage of pregnancy the woman is in. As long as there is an awareness of that pre-infant mass, there are hopes and dreams that are formulated and the fetus becomes a child of the mind.

Second:
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality," Santorum said.

This also happens to be true. Marriage for the longest time was only (at least among the upper classes) to cement ties between families, between businesses (okay, it was the case in the lower classes too, just on a different scale). The purpose of those unions was for PROCREATIONAL reasons. Assorted societies encouraged differing forms of homosexuality, but, as in the case of taking "lovers" it was something for the heart and so forth rather than a binding between clans/families/dynasties/etc - these relationships were not created/initiated to result in children.

I believe that it would be better to redefine completely our concept of marriage - there have been many different theories proposed in various science fiction novels over the last half-century. Some of them abolish it outright in favor of short & long term bonding contracts (for child rearing purposes) and otherwise you can love whomever you want (including cohabitation).

The problem with our current definition of marriage is that we have so many specific rewards and benefits attached to the status (lower tax, health benefits, survivorship rights, many legal situations, etc). Again, we would have to change this. And it wouldn't be simple.


~fini


There were a lot of people who were just bashing the guy (admittedly he seems quite freakish) but you can bash anything. What about thoughtful discussion, the revealing of possible solutions to problems? I feel like we really need to stop reacting instantaneously and emotionally (in an extreme sense) to what we read and THINK about it and produce a REASONED response. This doen't mean I don't appreciate humor, but even though for the longest time I wanted to be the most sarcastic, sardonic witty person... I would prefer now to just be witty.

Talk to me people.

Comments

[surelle.livejournal.com]

I find it difficult to find real discussion in LJ fora. In personal journals, yes, but in communities... it's like they are a breeding ground for snarky comments. At least, in much of my experience.

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

On both issues you discuss, I think you present some interesting points.

In terms of abortion, I'd say you're quite correct in that the way the parent(s) view the pregnancy makes a great deal of difference in how the fetus is perceived. Having had both a pregnancy I chose to terminate, and several chosen pregnancies (which ended, alas, in miscarriages), I can attest to the fact that if you want to continue the pregnancy, your hopes and anticipation infuse your perspective on the fetus with the expectation of bearing a child ... but if you don't want to continue the pregnancy, you know that there is a fetus that could become a child, but it doesn't feel the same at all.

Actually, I've often thought that instead of laws that appear to grant legal status to the fetus (by permitting charges or civil suits of assault, murder, etc, against someone who causes damage or causes the termination of a pregnancy other than through an abortion consented to by the pregnant woman, the charge should be connected to the harm done to the woman's expectation of bearing a wanted child. I'm not suggesting that such charges should be any less serious in law than defining these acts as assault or murder, simply that the injured party should be the living person who was damaged - the woman who had chosen to continue a pregnancy with the full expectation of eventually bearing a child.

AS for marriage, I'm all for abolishing marriage and letting people of any faith who want to celebrate any kind of union they please while people register as domestic partners (short-term or long-term) for purposes of next-of-kin, adoption/parenting situations, and other issues where the nature of the relationship between two people is relevant to society. But you're right in that a lot of other issues would have to be addressed for this to work, from gender equity in pay to reasonable parental leave to universal medical care, etc, etc, etc.

[bigbrotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

He was right that they shouldn't have tried to put fetus on the death certificate, because the infant was severely premature, and LIVED outside of the womb - even if it was only for a few hours. Technology improves a little and a case like that comes up again, the infant might survive longer.

What's the objective difference here between a fetus (or even earlier stage embryo) that "lives" outside the womb for a few moments (i.e. dies immediately) and a fetus which survives a few hours, and is evidently not viable? Also, what ever the correct description should have been, "20-week old baby" was not it. We're not talking about a three month old child. We're talking about an extreme premie born too soon 35 years ago when children born 12-14 weeks later in pregnancy (as I was) were premature enough to require nontrivial care and intervention. Even today a birth at that point in gestation will rarely have even a mediocre outcome, let alone a good one.

[semiotic-pirate.livejournal.com]

Also, what ever the correct description should have been,
"20-week old baby" was not it.

I didn't say that they should've put that down either... However, they should have had a little consideration. Nothing would've been wrong with "1-day old infant" or "two-hour old infant." If the new born (however premature, I was born extremely premature myself) is seen by the parents, and they believe that the child might live - through hope, faith, whatever... The hospital should be considerate enough to provide the family with both a birth and death certificate - to acknowledge it. The child didn't die in uetero, it was alive outside of the womb, it was born, premature. Could it have survived? Obviously it didn't, however with current technology, it might've. ::shrug:: It is a very touchy subject for most.

[bigbrotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

If the new born (however premature, I was born extremely premature myself) is seen by the parents, and they believe that the child might live - through hope, faith, whatever... The hospital should be considerate enough to provide the family with both a birth and death certificate - to acknowledge it.

Ah, but what part of that would be a reasoned response rather than an emotional reaction to the question at hand? Clinically, I don't believe there was anything incorrect about what was placed on the death certificate. Birth and death certificates are legal documents and public health records. They aren't sentimental records of the hopes of the parents, no?

I suspect that this particular question is one of, as you suggested, potential for extremely different emotional responses from different people.