This is why it matters that the media is covering all the Trumpcapades without covering real news like: a "mainstream" GOP candidate for presidency would support laws that would force a 10 year old rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth. This SHOULD effectively end Huckabee's candidacy, but it won't. In fact, I'm guessing that this board is one of only a handful of places discussing this, much less criticizing it.
The other candidates would all do the same. He's just the only one who felt the need to run his mouth about it. But #notanextremist
Post by lissaholly on Aug 17, 2015 10:00:00 GMT -5
I really wish that the science behind pregnancy and childbirth was better understood, or more accurately, correctly portrayed. It is absolutely staggering how much more physically and mentally hard childbirth is on a woman than abortion. Each risk is like 4 times (? I read multiple sources and I don't have them handy) worse for a full term pregnancy.
Yet, every pro--lifer throws out the "mentally hard later on" as an afterthought when discussing the mom. It is terrible for the baby, and oh yeah, it might be hard for the mom, while completely dismissing that it is harder on the mom in every facet to go through childbirth.
This is why it matters that the media is covering all the Trumpcapades without covering real news like: a "mainstream" GOP candidate for presidency would support laws that would force a 10 year old rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth. This SHOULD effectively end Huckabee's candidacy, but it won't. In fact, I'm guessing that this board is one of only a handful of places discussing this, much less criticizing it.
The other candidates would all do the same. He's just the only one who felt the need to run his mouth about it. But #notanextremist
No, I totally agree! The GOP lineup is actually legit scary.
I really wish that the science behind pregnancy and childbirth was better understood, or more accurately, correctly portrayed. It is absolutely staggering how much more physically and mentally hard childbirth is on a woman than abortion. Each risk is like 4 times (? I read multiple sources and I don't have them handy) worse for a full term pregnancy.
Yet, every pro--lifer throws out the "mentally hard later on" as an afterthought when discussing the mom. It is terrible for the baby, and oh yeah, it might be hard for the mom, while completely dismissing that it is harder on the mom in every facet to go through childbirth.
They ignore the lifelong effects of pregnancy: incontinence, increased risk for hernia, diastasis recti, pelvic weakness and prolapse, and the permanent aesthetic changes which society will shame them for. Not to mention women who get 3rd and 4th degree tears which require reconstructive surgery and cause extensive lasting pain. They don't care at all other than a passing "that's a shame BUT..."
I really wish that the science behind pregnancy and childbirth was better understood, or more accurately, correctly portrayed. It is absolutely staggering how much more physically and mentally hard childbirth is on a woman than abortion. Each risk is like 4 times (? I read multiple sources and I don't have them handy) worse for a full term pregnancy.
Yet, every pro--lifer throws out the "mentally hard later on" as an afterthought when discussing the mom. It is terrible for the baby, and oh yeah, it might be hard for the mom, while completely dismissing that it is harder on the mom in every facet to go through childbirth.
Yeah, I don't see any of them talking about how it might be "mentally hard later on" for this poor child to have gone through pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery from a c-section at 10-11 years old.
I really wish that the science behind pregnancy and childbirth was better understood, or more accurately, correctly portrayed. It is absolutely staggering how much more physically and mentally hard childbirth is on a woman than abortion. Each risk is like 4 times (? I read multiple sources and I don't have them handy) worse for a full term pregnancy.
Yet, every pro--lifer throws out the "mentally hard later on" as an afterthought when discussing the mom. It is terrible for the baby, and oh yeah, it might be hard for the mom, while completely dismissing that it is harder on the mom in every facet to go through childbirth.
Yeah, I don't see any of them talking about how it might be "mentally hard later on" for this poor child to have gone through pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery from a c-section at 10-11 years old.
Omg, the physical reminder of a c-section on a ten year old is breaking my heart in crazy ways..
Post by meshaliuknits on Aug 17, 2015 12:37:10 GMT -5
I have a semi related question. When did the church move to life starts at conception from life starting at the quickening when the fetal movements start being felt? Was it the advances in science that made conception easier to pinpoint that pushed it back?
I have a semi related question. When did the church move to life starts at conception from life starting at the quickening when the fetal movements start being felt? Was it the advances in science that made conception easier to pinpoint that pushed it back?
I never heard of the church believing life started at the quickening of fetal movements. Where did you learn this?
I have a semi related question. When did the church move to life starts at conception from life starting at the quickening when the fetal movements start being felt? Was it the advances in science that made conception easier to pinpoint that pushed it back?
I never heard of the church believing life started at the quickening of fetal movements. Where did you learn this?
One of my college comparative religion courses. I'm reasonably sure it was the Catholic church we were talking about, not Christianity in general. I've seen it other places since, but I have fewer clear memories of things I didn't get tested on.
I never heard of the church believing life started at the quickening of fetal movements. Where did you learn this?
One of my college comparative religion courses. I'm reasonably sure it was the Catholic church we were talking about, not Christianity in general. I've seen it other places since, but I have fewer clear memories of things I didn't get tested on.
I would be surprised if the church had a stance on life beginning at conception before the advent of microscopy (1700 something?). I suspect no one had any way to understand what "conception" really meant prior to that, so quickening was probably a convenient operational definition for when life began.
One of my college comparative religion courses. I'm reasonably sure it was the Catholic church we were talking about, not Christianity in general. I've seen it other places since, but I have fewer clear memories of things I didn't get tested on.
I would be surprised if the church had a stance on life beginning at conception before the advent of microscopy (1700 something?). I suspect no one had any way to understand what "conception" really meant prior to that, so quickening was probably a convenient operational definition for when life began.
That makes sense to me. The date range is helpful, since I had no idea when that actually happened.
I have a semi related question. When did the church move to life starts at conception from life starting at the quickening when the fetal movements start being felt? Was it the advances in science that made conception easier to pinpoint that pushed it back?
1600's and then back to back Popes hard core in the 1800's. A Leo and a Pious, maybe? Before that there was a distinction between animated and inanimate fetuses. (Which aligns nicely with the viability standards of Roe)
I would be surprised if the church had a stance on life beginning at conception before the advent of microscopy (1700 something?). I suspect no one had any way to understand what "conception" really meant prior to that, so quickening was probably a convenient operational definition for when life began.
That makes sense to me. The date range is helpful, since I had no idea when that actually happened.
Post by NewOrleans on Aug 17, 2015 13:26:13 GMT -5
the medieval Popes did not believe abortion was a grave sin except one, and his edict didn't even last 50 years. So far as I know, science had little to do with their decisions and edicts; it was a question of when we got souls that guided their position.
the medieval Popes did not believe abortion was a grave sin except one, and his edict didn't even last 50 years. So far as I know, science had little to do with their decisions and edicts; it was a question of when we got souls that guided their position.
Post by StrawberryBlondie on Aug 17, 2015 13:48:29 GMT -5
I feel like Huckabee used to be likeable. Still with terrifying positions, but he kept the crazy in check. When did he let his freak flag start flying high?
the medieval Popes did not believe abortion was a grave sin except one, and his edict didn't even last 50 years. So far as I know, science had little to do with their decisions and edicts; it was a question of when we got souls that guided their position.
That's interesting. Who was the odd pope out?
I don't recall. It was someone with an uncommon name though, not like a Pope Leo or Pope Jim or something. And the more I think about it, the more I think his edict only lasted a couple years, like 5.
One of my college comparative religion courses. I'm reasonably sure it was the Catholic church we were talking about, not Christianity in general. I've seen it other places since, but I have fewer clear memories of things I didn't get tested on.
I would be surprised if the church had a stance on life beginning at conception before the advent of microscopy (1700 something?). I suspect no one had any way to understand what "conception" really meant prior to that, so quickening was probably a convenient operational definition for when life began.
I feel like Huckabee used to be likeable. Still with terrifying positions, but he kept the crazy in check. When did he let his freak flag start flying high?
Or am I just misremembering history?
No, I'm with you. In 2008, I remember discussing this with H and my BFF. We all kind of liked him. He didn't come across as a hate monger. We didn't want him to be president, but there was a period in time when I definitely recall thinking he was the least scariest of the Republican options. I recall there was an article by an NY Times columnist...maybe Nick Kristoff?...that was basically about what a reasonable person Huckabee was.
“One is the child, the other is that birth mother, who often will go through extraordinary guilt years later when she begins to think through what happened, with the baby, with her.”
Ummm......no, not true, I am pretty sure studies after studies have debunked this theory. I just fucking can't with this guy and really, using the anecdote about a doctor who was the product of rape and OMG what if his mother chose to abort? Fuck him.
I never heard of the church believing life started at the quickening of fetal movements. Where did you learn this?
One of my college comparative religion courses. I'm reasonably sure it was the Catholic church we were talking about, not Christianity in general. I've seen it other places since, but I have fewer clear memories of things I didn't get tested on.
So if I recall from something I read years and years ago was that way back in those days, men really didn't bother themselves with the business of childbirth. Women knew they were pregnant because they'd discuss symptoms with other women. But quickening was significant because it was a way for men to verify that the woman was pregnant.
I think quickening as the guidepost didn't really come about as a result of any sort of scientific or religious thinking. It was more just because before then, whatever was going on in the body was just considered lady mumbo jumbo.
the medieval Popes did not believe abortion was a grave sin except one, and his edict didn't even last 50 years. So far as I know, science had little to do with their decisions and edicts; it was a question of when we got souls that guided their position.
The odd-pope out was Sixtus V, with his papal bull Effraenatam (1588)--it said abortion at any stage of pregnancy was wrong. It was revoked in 1591 (by the next pope, Gregory XIV), and the church kept the division of "animated" vs. "inanimated" until the late 19th century. Ending a pregnancy before "quickening" was still considered a sin for most of the history of the Catholic Church, but it was not considered murder before the fetus had a soul.
I feel like Huckabee used to be likeable. Still with terrifying positions, but he kept the crazy in check. When did he let his freak flag start flying high?
Or am I just misremembering history?
No, I'm with you. In 2008, I remember discussing this with H and my BFF. We all kind of liked him. He didn't come across as a hate monger. We didn't want him to be president, but there was a period in time when I definitely recall thinking he was the least scariest of the Republican options. I recall there was an article by an NY Times columnist...maybe Nick Kristoff?...that was basically about what a reasonable person Huckabee was.
But he and his ilk have been encouraged, emboldened, and empowered by zealots-- and the success of zealots in making people who might have been moderate to embrace zealot positions (McCain and Romney).
One of my college comparative religion courses. I'm reasonably sure it was the Catholic church we were talking about, not Christianity in general. I've seen it other places since, but I have fewer clear memories of things I didn't get tested on.
So if I recall from something I read years and years ago was that way back in those days, men really didn't bother themselves with the business of childbirth. Women knew they were pregnant because they'd discuss symptoms with other women. But quickening was significant because it was a way for men to verify that the woman was pregnant.
I think quickening as the guidepost didn't really come about as a result of any sort of scientific or religious thinking. It was more just because before then, whatever was going on in the body was just considered lady mumbo jumbo.
Well, and quickening was seen as the only way to confirm a pregnancy.
For the church, quickening was the moment when the soul entered the fetus (before it was just flesh).
the medieval Popes did not believe abortion was a grave sin except one, and his edict didn't even last 50 years. So far as I know, science had little to do with their decisions and edicts; it was a question of when we got souls that guided their position.
The odd-pope out was Sixtus V, with his papal bull Effraenatam (1588)--it said abortion at any stage of pregnancy was wrong. It was revoked in 1591 (by the next pope, Gregory XIV), and the church kept the division of "animated" vs. "inanimated" until the late 19th century. Ending a pregnancy before "quickening" was still considered a sin for most of the history of the Catholic Church, but it was not considered murder before the fetus had a soul.