Um, who’s being idiotic now? That is seriously what you got out of my post? The point of my post is that in my view, the mother isn’t obligated to continue the pregnancy/undergo major surgery/otherwise do anything to help the babies survive, at risk of her own life.
Yeah, well, some judges make idiotic rulings.
But the risk to her own life comes after she gets pregnant again and tries to give birth in Nigeria, right?
Right. And she seemed pretty sure that the way her life was gonna turn out. To say otherwise is pretty much to ignore the reality of life for women in Nigeria, and more so 30 years ago.
Saying that she should just live in America until menopause seems pretty impractical as well.
Some doctors convinced a court that a forced c-section was necessary for Amber Marlowe as well, but she went ahead and gave birth vaginally anyway. Baby was fine. Some doctors convince nearly a third of American women that a c-section is necessary in their cases, and guess what? For a lot of them, it isn’t.
Yeah, well, I don’t know what life is like in Nigeria, so I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was seriously scared for her life. Look, you’ve never had a baby, I have. That lady wasn’t going to risk the life of those babies unless she has a serious reason to, I guarantee it.
. . . which is why I said to see my responses to Broomstick, because you are repeating the same idiocy she is. You are treating her as a Nigerian baby-making machine who will inevitably and without her control find herself in Nigeria one day having another baby.
How else do you interpret that they “planned to return to Africa, to an area where a cesarean delivery might not be possible should they have children later”?
And just so we’re all clear on this, everyone here does agree that there is a world of options between forced c-sections and giving birth in the ocean assisted by dolphins, right?
You interpret that to mean “it is a metaphysical certitude that this woman will eventually find herself giving birth in Nigeria”? Why?
Because it was a concern for the parents.
Otherwise what? They planned to return to Africa, to a culture that demands that women pump out the bebes or be outcasts, and they weren’t supposed to worry about a cut-open uterus?
What?
What do you mean what? The parents didn’t want a c-section because they believed that they might be back in Africa having a baby. Your answer of “just don’t give birth in Africa and everything will be fine” may not be have been that practical a solution for the woman.
Right. They “believed they might be” in a situation where a c-section today would kill the mother and perhaps another baby later. But people generally change their intentions and behavior when circumstances change and their original intentions could kill them. So, if I’m the doctor, and I’m weighing saving three lives today against the possibility of killing two people in the future (when one of those people can take measures to reduce that risk), I’m saving the three lives today.
Except of course that vaginal birth is not a death sentence, and that c-sections, handy as they may be, are not magical no-death-for-babies spells.
Which gets us back to the point that some doctors convinced a court that a c-section was warranted, so it was the best plan for those babies at that time.
So I’ll get back to the point that some doctors convinced a court that a c-section was warranted in the case of Amber Marlowe’s baby, and it was totally not.
Just because she had a successful vaginal delivery doesn’t mean a C-section wasn’t warranted, it just means she defied the odds.
This is quite possibly the dumbest conversation I’ve ever had on this board, and that’s saying something. If you can’t fathom a circumstance where a woman might not have control over whether or not she becomes pregnant, then you are a far bigger idiot than Broomstick or I will ever be. I’m out.
What odds? The odds of birthing big babies? She’d already done that, six times. The doctors were wrong, and with a c-section rate of over 30%, more than double the WHO’s recommendation, the doctors are wrong a lot.
You were out long ago.
I would think that a libertarian type would respect a woman’s physical autonomy and be outraged over the government taking over and forcing her into unwanted surgery.
[QUOTE=NAF1138;13931195CASTOR OIL DOESN’T MAKE THE UTERUS CONTRACT YOU FLAMING CUNT FUCK RETARD![/QUOTE]
[Moderating]
NAF1138, please don’t call other posters “cunts.”
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]