The Planned Parenthood Videos Seem to be Getting a Fair Amount of Traction

[ronburgundy]

I'm keep hearing more about these videos. I'm 100% pro-choice. I know that Planned Parenthood's activities involve 97% non abortion services. I know they are legally allowed to get get money for expenses (a lot better than throwing fetal tissue in the trash).

I'm listening to On Point now, which is usually a little left of center and some woman is saying, "OMG They are making a profit off BABY parts."

The videos are pretty disgusting. They show doctors arguing over the best way to abort a fetus to preserve the most valuable organs. Even considering the low integrity of the hit squad that made them I don't see Planned Parenthood surviving.

How are some doctors trying to figure out ways to save countless lives by performing abortions more carefully to preserve important tissues "disgusting"? How are rationality and trying to prevent lost benefits to society things that should make any minimal reasonable person upset? I don't doubt that the raving idiot masses will react with unreasoned knee-jerk emotion over such discussions, I just doubt that it is in any way disgusting, immoral, or unreasonable to have such a discussion or seek to achieve the goal they are talking about.

Did they say that they want to preserve the organs and that they have no concern for whether that would increase the pain and suffering of the fetus during the abortion process?

Abortion, no matter how you dance around it is ending a human life. It was made legal as a concern for human health.

No it isn't, or if it is then the category of "human life" is too broad to have any moral or political meaning. If it isn't surviving outside the mothers body, then it is not yet a human being in any sense that gives human beings their ethical and political status, which requires their ability to survive as a physically distinct organism. Genes are not all that matter. Whether the organism is enveloped within the body of a human matters for what is in scientific fact, ethically, and politically. It is a concern for human health precisely because its objective location within a human's body causes direct health impacts on that human.
If you want to argue that unreasoning emotional idiots react as though fetuses are human beings, then that is fine. But most of those same people do not react as though it is a human being when the mother is smoking, drinking, or doing other things that risk the life of that fetus. If they were, then would call for treating such actions the same as they do for a 1 year old whose mother intentionally blows smoke in its face or forcing liquor down its throat, or forces it to do any risky actions that many pregnant mothers do. They also do not show the same emotional sympathetic or behavioral response they do when a fetus dies as when a infant dies, which proves that despite any dishonest claims they make, they do not actually view fetuses as a human being in the same sense as post-birth children.

 

[NobleSavage]

Does anyone know if Life Action is the group that produced these videos?

 

[Achwienichtig]

If you want to argue that unreasoning emotional idiots react as though fetuses are human beings, then that is fine. But most of those same people do not react as though it is a human being when the mother is smoking, drinking, or doing other things that risk the life of that fetus. If they were, then would call for treating such actions the same as they do for a 1 year old whose mother intentionally blows smoke in its face or forcing liquor down its throat, or forces it to do any risky actions that many pregnant mothers do. They also do not show the same emotional sympathetic or behavioral response they do when a fetus dies as when a infant dies, which proves that despite any dishonest claims they make, they do not actually view fetuses as a human being in the same sense as post-birth children.

Really? Have you never met a women who's had a miscarriage? Contrary to what you say, people do mourn over the death of a fetus. It is not unheard of that people will actually have funerals for babies who died in utero. There was one woman in my church (back when I went to church) who had a funeral for a baby she had to abort on her doctor's advice. My mom (who had her own share of miscarriages) is one of those women who will console other women after a miscarriage. Your characterization does not apply to any people I actually know. All the people I know who say they value the life of a fetus actually do value the life a fetus.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Does anyone know if Life Action is the group that produced these videos?

The group that made the videos is called, ironically, "The Center for Medical Progress."

 

[ronburgundy]

If you want to argue that unreasoning emotional idiots react as though fetuses are human beings, then that is fine. But most of those same people do not react as though it is a human being when the mother is smoking, drinking, or doing other things that risk the life of that fetus. If they were, then would call for treating such actions the same as they do for a 1 year old whose mother intentionally blows smoke in its face or forcing liquor down its throat, or forces it to do any risky actions that many pregnant mothers do. They also do not show the same emotional sympathetic or behavioral response they do when a fetus dies as when a infant dies, which proves that despite any dishonest claims they make, they do not actually view fetuses as a human being in the same sense as post-birth children.

Really? Have you never met a women who's had a miscarriage? Contrary to what you say, people do mourn over the death of a fetus. It is not unheard of that people will actually have funerals for babies who died in utero. There was one woman in my church (back when I went to church) who had a funeral for a baby she had to abort on her doctor's advice. My mom (who had her own share of miscarriages) is one of those women who will console other women after a miscarriage. Your characterization does not apply to any people I actually know. All the people I know who say they value the life of a fetus actually do value the life a fetus.

So they call the cops immediately when they see a pregnant woman smoking, or drinking, or intentionally putting herself at risk? Because they would if it were an infant she was doing those things to. Are funerals of friends and family just as common for miscarriages among pro-lifers as they are for the death of other children? No.
The fact that parents some feel grief and their friends feel some sympathy in no way undermines my point that it is qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the reaction to harm and death to an infant. People feel grief and sometimes hold funerals for their cats. Does that mean they view their cats as human beings in the same way they view a child?

 

[Achwienichtig]

Really? Have you never met a women who's had a miscarriage? Contrary to what you say, people do mourn over the death of a fetus. It is not unheard of that people will actually have funerals for babies who died in utero. There was one woman in my church (back when I went to church) who had a funeral for a baby she had to abort on her doctor's advice. My mom (who had her own share of miscarriages) is one of those women who will console other women after a miscarriage. Your characterization does not apply to any people I actually know. All the people I know who say they value the life of a fetus actually do value the life a fetus.

So they call the cops immediately when they see a pregnant woman smoking, or drinking, or intentionally putting herself at risk? Because they would if it were an infant she was doing those things to. Are funerals of friends and family just as common for miscarriages among pro-lifers as they are for the death of other children? No.
The fact that parents some feel grief and their friends feel some sympathy in no way undermines my point that it is qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the reaction to harm and death to an infant. People feel grief and sometimes hold funerals for their cats. Does that mean they view their cats as human beings in the same way they view a child?

I don't think it's for you or me to judge what other people think or feel. We can only assess what they do and try to understand where they are coming from.

People mourn differently for different situations. Old people get less mourning than young people usually. Does that mean we think old people are less human than young people? No. It just means that life ebbs and flows in predictable ways, and this ebb and flow affects how we react. The death of an old person is usually anticipated. The death of a young person is seen as tragic. To come to a conclusion about what life is valued more based on how the mourning process is carried out is ridiculous. Likewise, to come to a conclusion about the value people assign to life in the womb based upon how they mourn is ridiculous.

As to calling the cops when a pregnant woman smokes, you know full well that there is no legal basis to call the cops. They can't do anything, so why would a pro-life person try? The most a person can do is offer some friendly medical advice (or greet the smoker with condemnation).

 

[PyramidHead]

If you want to argue that unreasoning emotional idiots react as though fetuses are human beings, then that is fine. But most of those same people do not react as though it is a human being when the mother is smoking, drinking, or doing other things that risk the life of that fetus. If they were, then would call for treating such actions the same as they do for a 1 year old whose mother intentionally blows smoke in its face or forcing liquor down its throat, or forces it to do any risky actions that many pregnant mothers do. They also do not show the same emotional sympathetic or behavioral response they do when a fetus dies as when a infant dies, which proves that despite any dishonest claims they make, they do not actually view fetuses as a human being in the same sense as post-birth children.

Really? Have you never met a women who's had a miscarriage? Contrary to what you say, people do mourn over the death of a fetus. It is not unheard of that people will actually have funerals for babies who died in utero. There was one woman in my church (back when I went to church) who had a funeral for a baby she had to abort on her doctor's advice. My mom (who had her own share of miscarriages) is one of those women who will console other women after a miscarriage. Your characterization does not apply to any people I actually know. All the people I know who say they value the life of a fetus actually do value the life a fetus.

I agree with this assessment as a statement of fact: we are hardwired to feel deeply protective of babies, even before they are born. This is a natural instinct that can be found throughout the entire animal kingdom. It is also morally backwards, because fetuses and even newborns have no interest in their continued existence beyond the most basic survival urge. If we accept the ethical assumption that killing someone harms them because it deprives them of the ability to satisfy their preference to go on living, killing an adult is far worse than killing a newborn baby, all else being equal. Yet, most would consider killing an infant to be a particularly heinous act. I think it's because we want to believe that bad things shouldn't happen to innocent people. Even though killing an adult is a more serious violation of the victim's conscious wishes, and destroys something that required much greater resources to maintain than a baby, the idea that a blameless babe could just be snuffed out is like fingernails on a chalkboard to our sense of fairness. People don't think straight when babies die. The unfortunate consequence is that institutions like Planned Parenthood, which among other things does the admirable work of preventing people from being born, get vilified by the emotional mob.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Really? Have you never met a women who's had a miscarriage? Contrary to what you say, people do mourn over the death of a fetus. It is not unheard of that people will actually have funerals for babies who died in utero. There was one woman in my church (back when I went to church) who had a funeral for a baby she had to abort on her doctor's advice. My mom (who had her own share of miscarriages) is one of those women who will console other women after a miscarriage. Your characterization does not apply to any people I actually know. All the people I know who say they value the life of a fetus actually do value the life a fetus.

I agree with this assessment as a statement of fact: we are hardwired to feel deeply protective of babies, even before they are born. This is a natural instinct that can be found throughout the entire animal kingdom. It is also morally backwards, because fetuses and even newborns have no interest in their continued existence beyond the most basic survival urge. If we accept the ethical assumption that killing someone harms them because it deprives them of the ability to satisfy their preference to go on living, killing an adult is far worse than killing a newborn baby, all else being equal. Yet, most would consider killing an infant to be a particularly heinous act. I think it's because we want to believe that bad things shouldn't happen to innocent people. Even though killing an adult is a more serious violation of the victim's conscious wishes, and destroys something that required much greater resources to maintain than a baby, the idea that a blameless babe could just be snuffed out is like fingernails on a chalkboard to our sense of fairness. People don't think straight when babies die. The unfortunate consequence is that institutions like Planned Parenthood, which among other things does the admirable work of preventing people from being born, get vilified by the emotional mob.

There was an interview with Cecile Richards (President of Planned Parenthood) where she was asked when her childrens' (I think she had two at the time) lives began for her. She said at birth. This answer was so alien to me. I remember when my wife and I first found out she was pregnant. We were ecstatic. That was such a defining point for us, and our emotional investment into our baby started that instant.

From a point of view of evolution, I see advantages and disadvantages on both sides. Without a natural instinct to protect and care for our young, life as we know it would cease. If that instinct kicks in prior to birth, it would seem more beneficial for the sake of perpetuating the species. On the other hand, for the vast history of humanity, the death of children has been an overwhelming theme. It makes sense that we would not invest all our emotional resources in infants who were likely to die early in life. Furthermore, children born too soon after their older siblings frequently had to be killed, as the older sibling was the more precious resource. Again, it makes sense that woman in those prehistoric times would not invest in their pregnancies. So which of these emotional constructs does evolution favor? I don't know.

So, I tend to see both sides to this emotional divide as being authentic. At least, I have to take people at their word, no matter how foreign their emotions seem to me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Would it be a bad idea for PP to form a new group that does only abortion services and use private funds (only 1/3 of their funding is Federal)? That would make it a lot harder to defund and it would highlight the fact that pro-life people are really against birth control and breast cancer screenings.

All of their abortions are privately funded anyway. Creating a separate business entity would have no effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It could happen:

View attachment 3681

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx

While I agree as far as the ballot box is concerned that graph isn't accurate--the pro-life line doesn't even appear on it. That brown? (I have color vision problems) line is really showing pro-life + pro-punishment people, the latter vastly dominating the former.

- - - Updated - - -

Oddly enough, those who are pro-choice jump to 80% is asked if their 17 year old daughter gets pregnant.

Do you have a cite for that? Not saying you are wrong. I'd like to see it.

I would, too--it would be a wonderful rebuttal.

 

[NobleSavage]

Would it be a bad idea for PP to form a new group that does only abortion services and use private funds (only 1/3 of their funding is Federal)? That would make it a lot harder to defund and it would highlight the fact that pro-life people are really against birth control and breast cancer screenings.

All of their abortions are privately funded anyway. Creating a separate business entity would have no effect.

Sure it would. It would be harder for pro-lifers to defund the new PP that does not do abortions. It's easy for them to attack with, "OMG baby parts for profit". It would be much harder for them to attack women's health. Yes, there will still be those who are fiercely against providing birth control, but lets draw them out in the open and point out that their stance causes more abortions.

 

[ronburgundy]

So they call the cops immediately when they see a pregnant woman smoking, or drinking, or intentionally putting herself at risk? Because they would if it were an infant she was doing those things to. Are funerals of friends and family just as common for miscarriages among pro-lifers as they are for the death of other children? No.
The fact that parents some feel grief and their friends feel some sympathy in no way undermines my point that it is qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the reaction to harm and death to an infant. People feel grief and sometimes hold funerals for their cats. Does that mean they view their cats as human beings in the same way they view a child?

I don't think it's for you or me to judge what other people think or feel. We can only assess what they do and try to understand where they are coming from.

Blech. It is precisely for us to judge how people think and feel. That is what is means to rationally understand people. I don't mean judge them morally, but judge what it is they are thinking and feeling, based not merely upon words they say (which often don't accurately correspond to the contents of their minds), but also their actions which are driven by the contents of their minds and thus reveal those contents. You and all humans constantly judge and infer the thoughts and emotions of others based upon their actions.

People mourn differently for different situations. Old people get less mourning than young people usually. Does that mean we think old people are less human than young people? No. The death of an old person is usually anticipated. The death of a young person is seen as tragic.

But fetuses are the youngest "people" possible, so if they were fully thought of as "people", they would get the most mourning. Yes, there are psychologica variables that predict mourning, one is how much life was left, and another is how much the life had the value of a fully human life. Since the fetus has the most life left, the fact that it isn't mourned nearly as much as an infant reveals something about how fetuses and infants differ on the other dimensions.

To come to a conclusion about what life is valued more based on how the mourning process is carried out is ridiculous. Likewise, to come to a conclusion about the value people assign to life in the womb based upon how they mourn is ridiculous.

You just did exactly that when you connected mourning differences of the very old versus young to the psychological states of "tragic' versus "anticipated". The difference in age makes one more "tragic" because it impacts the subjective value of the life that was lost. More life is lost when a young person dies. I am just being more reasoned and consist in how I make these connections between outward actions and internal psychological states rather than doing it.

As to calling the cops when a pregnant woman smokes, you know full well that there is no legal basis to call the cops. They can't do anything, so why would a pro-life person try? The most a person can do is offer some friendly medical advice (or greet the smoker with condemnation).

First, if people saw a woman blowing smoke into an infants' mouth, most would interfere directly before calling the cops. So the legal basis to stop her is irrelevant.
Also they would fight to create a legal basis to call the cops, if they actually cared enough and viewed the fetus the same as an infant. But they don't. They could fight to make all the same laws that protect infants to apply to a fetus, but they do not. They only fight to stop abortions, because it is not about protecting life, but about obeying religious rules and the authorities they blindly defer to have no rule for smoking while pregnant.

 

[ronburgundy]

I agree with this assessment as a statement of fact: we are hardwired to feel deeply protective of babies, even before they are born. This is a natural instinct that can be found throughout the entire animal kingdom. It is also morally backwards, because fetuses and even newborns have no interest in their continued existence beyond the most basic survival urge. If we accept the ethical assumption that killing someone harms them because it deprives them of the ability to satisfy their preference to go on living, killing an adult is far worse than killing a newborn baby, all else being equal. Yet, most would consider killing an infant to be a particularly heinous act. I think it's because we want to believe that bad things shouldn't happen to innocent people. Even though killing an adult is a more serious violation of the victim's conscious wishes, and destroys something that required much greater resources to maintain than a baby, the idea that a blameless babe could just be snuffed out is like fingernails on a chalkboard to our sense of fairness. People don't think straight when babies die. The unfortunate consequence is that institutions like Planned Parenthood, which among other things does the admirable work of preventing people from being born, get vilified by the emotional mob.

There was an interview with Cecile Richards (President of Planned Parenthood) where she was asked when her childrens' (I think she had two at the time) lives began for her. She said at birth. This answer was so alien to me. I remember when my wife and I first found out she was pregnant. We were ecstatic. That was such a defining point for us, and our emotional investment into our baby started that instant.

And if you are a normal human, then most of that emotional investment is about you anticipating having and actual child and the experiences for your that it will entail for the rest of your or its life. IOW, you invest emotionally in a future payout, almost all of which occurs post-birth. It does not signal that you view the fetuses life as inherently equal in value independent from your own self-centered interests in it. The question Richards was asked is a stupid one. Tying to question of whether it is a life to yourself confounds your ideas on whether a fetus in general is a human life with your emotions about anticipating your future life with a very particular child once it is no longer a fetus.

 

[Achwienichtig]

There was an interview with Cecile Richards (President of Planned Parenthood) where she was asked when her childrens' (I think she had two at the time) lives began for her. She said at birth. This answer was so alien to me. I remember when my wife and I first found out she was pregnant. We were ecstatic. That was such a defining point for us, and our emotional investment into our baby started that instant.

And if you are a normal human, then most of that emotional investment is about you anticipating having and actual child and the experiences for your that it will entail for the rest of your or its life. IOW, you invest emotionally in a future payout, almost all of which occurs post-birth. It does not signal that you view the fetuses life as inherently equal in value independent from your own self-centered interests in it. The question Richards was asked is a stupid one. Tying to question of whether it is a life to yourself confounds your ideas on whether a fetus in general is a human life with your emotions about anticipating your future life with a very particular child once it is no longer a fetus.

If I were normal? If I were normal, I would play Mozart for my baby while still in the womb. If I were normal, I would talk to my baby while still in the womb and read it books. If I were normal, I would stop to feel the baby kicking. If I were normal, I would take an ultrasound picture of the baby and keep it on the refrigerator like it was a member of the family. If I were normal, I would find out the gender as soon as possible and have a name already picked out. If I were normal, I would refer to the baby by name prior to being born.

These are all things normal people do. Normal people interact with the child in utero in whatever way they can. They form a connection. They find a way of creating an experience with the baby. They don't just anticipate.

Prior to having children, I, like you, used to believe that the value of a child was in its future. After having three children, I think that is entirely wrong.

Please refrain from telling me what I feel and how I feel. Your judgment is ill conceived (pun intended) and out of place. It's based on a psychology with no other foundation other than your own imagination and has no bearing on reality.

 

[credoconsolans]

And if you are a normal human, then most of that emotional investment is about you anticipating having and actual child and the experiences for your that it will entail for the rest of your or its life. IOW, you invest emotionally in a future payout, almost all of which occurs post-birth. It does not signal that you view the fetuses life as inherently equal in value independent from your own self-centered interests in it. The question Richards was asked is a stupid one. Tying to question of whether it is a life to yourself confounds your ideas on whether a fetus in general is a human life with your emotions about anticipating your future life with a very particular child once it is no longer a fetus.

If I were normal? If I were normal, I would play Mozart for my baby while still in the womb. If I were normal, I would talk to my baby while still in the womb and read it books. If I were normal, I would stop to feel the baby kicking. If I were normal, I would take an ultrasound picture of the baby and keep it on the refrigerator like it was a member of the family. If I were normal, I would find out the gender as soon as possible and have a name already picked out. If I were normal, I would refer to the baby by name prior to being born.

These are all things normal people do. Normal people interact with the child in utero in whatever way they can. They form a connection. They find a way of creating an experience with the baby. They don't just anticipate.

Prior to having children, I, like you, used to believe that the value of a child was in its future. After having three children, I think that is entirely wrong.

Please refrain from telling me what I feel and how I feel. Your judgment is ill conceived (pun intended) and out of place. It's based on a psychology with no other foundation other than your own imagination and has no bearing on reality.

I think some people prefer to start interacting with the baby once it's actually born because before then, it's just the parents projecting.

You want to play your baby Mozart? What if it hates classical music and only likes rap?

You want to read to your baby in the womb? What if, like 21st century teens, it finds reading boring and prefers TV?

You want to refer to the baby by your picked out name before it's out of the womb? OK, but babies aren't like dogs. They don't learn to respond to their names until much later in their development OUTside the womb, so you may as well be talking to yourself.

You're just emotionally investing in your projection of your child. It's all one-sided. The pre-born baby isn't getting anything.

 

[credoconsolans]

Oh and I renewed my membership to Planned Parenthood.

These attempts to character assassinate PP are tiresome.

The anti-choicers who are vehemently anti-abortion are all yanked around by their emotions and this group yanked their chain by putting on video one of the services PP does for its patients. Letting them donate fetal tissue to assist medical science.

Sounds pretty reasonable, eh?

But of course, they framed it as "PP tears apart babies and sells their organs to buy fancy cars!"

Cue costly government investigations that will go nowhere because PP did nothing wrong or illegal.

All this group did was stir the pot again to try to get people to react emotionally.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I don't think it's for you or me to judge what other people think or feel. We can only assess what they do and try to understand where they are coming from.

Blech. It is precisely for us to judge how people think and feel. That is what is means to rationally understand people. I don't mean judge them morally, but judge what it is they are thinking and feeling, based not merely upon words they say (which often don't accurately correspond to the contents of their minds), but also their actions which are driven by the contents of their minds and thus reveal those contents. You and all humans constantly judge and infer the thoughts and emotions of others based upon their actions.

And if we are smart, we realize that most of our judgments about other people's feelings are wrong. I used the example of Cecile Richards to illustrate an example of where I genuinely do not understand her viewpoint, but I accept it as a valid viewpoint nonetheless. I, unlike you, don't try to explain away how other people are mistaken about their own feelings while pretending I know better what they feel than they do.

People mourn differently for different situations. Old people get less mourning than young people usually. Does that mean we think old people are less human than young people? No. The death of an old person is usually anticipated. The death of a young person is seen as tragic.

But fetuses are the youngest "people" possible, so if they were fully thought of as "people", they would get the most mourning. Yes, there are psychologica variables that predict mourning, one is how much life was left, and another is how much the life had the value of a fully human life. Since the fetus has the most life left, the fact that it isn't mourned nearly as much as an infant reveals something about how fetuses and infants differ on the other dimensions.

To come to a conclusion about what life is valued more based on how the mourning process is carried out is ridiculous. Likewise, to come to a conclusion about the value people assign to life in the womb based upon how they mourn is ridiculous.

You just did exactly that when you connected mourning differences of the very old versus young to the psychological states of "tragic' versus "anticipated". The difference in age makes one more "tragic" because it impacts the subjective value of the life that was lost. More life is lost when a young person dies. I am just being more reasoned and consist in how I make these connections between outward actions and internal psychological states rather than doing it.

Zoom! . . . what was that? Oh, that was the point flying over your head.

You are being more consistent in stating a point that I reject.

I don't believe our emotions always reflect our value judgments, and this is particularly true of mourning. Does the fact that we mourn less for X than we do for Y indicate we believe X was less human than Y? Does it indicate we believe X is less valuable than Y? Not at all, because that is a ridiculous assertion. Mourning is influenced by so many factors outside of our value judgments. Do I need to get you a pamphlet about how everybody mourns differently?

Of course people mourn differently depending upon the age of the person that died. That says nothing as to whether they believe age matters to the value of life. In fact, it does not.

As to calling the cops when a pregnant woman smokes, you know full well that there is no legal basis to call the cops. They can't do anything, so why would a pro-life person try? The most a person can do is offer some friendly medical advice (or greet the smoker with condemnation).

First, if people saw a woman blowing smoke into an infants' mouth, most would interfere directly before calling the cops. So the legal basis to stop her is irrelevant.
Also they would fight to create a legal basis to call the cops, if they actually cared enough and viewed the fetus the same as an infant. But they don't. They could fight to make all the same laws that protect infants to apply to a fetus, but they do not. They only fight to stop abortions, because it is not about protecting life, but about obeying religious rules and the authorities they blindly defer to have no rule for smoking while pregnant.

So, how many pro-life people have you seen sitting around doing nothing while some pregnant woman was getting drunk? I have not witnessed it myself, but you seem to think it happens all the time.

You are dead wrong on so many levels. My mother is about the most outspoken pro-life person you will ever meet, and I have witnessed her do the sorts of things you say pro-life people don't do, including, but not limited to, caring for mentally handicapped children, speaking up against violence against woman, advising women to leave abusive relationships, etc. (Sorry, alcohol and smoking haven't come up as issues in any cases I know about.) And no, she is not a social worker. My mom has always considered it her responsibility to care for people, not just to end abortion. They go hand in hand.

Most pro-life people I know are like this. One pro-life family we knew growing up even adopted children with developmental issues, including children with fetal alcohol syndrome. Your false characterization of pro-life people is obnoxious and patently false.

- - - Updated - - -

If I were normal? If I were normal, I would play Mozart for my baby while still in the womb. If I were normal, I would talk to my baby while still in the womb and read it books. If I were normal, I would stop to feel the baby kicking. If I were normal, I would take an ultrasound picture of the baby and keep it on the refrigerator like it was a member of the family. If I were normal, I would find out the gender as soon as possible and have a name already picked out. If I were normal, I would refer to the baby by name prior to being born.

These are all things normal people do. Normal people interact with the child in utero in whatever way they can. They form a connection. They find a way of creating an experience with the baby. They don't just anticipate.

Prior to having children, I, like you, used to believe that the value of a child was in its future. After having three children, I think that is entirely wrong.

Please refrain from telling me what I feel and how I feel. Your judgment is ill conceived (pun intended) and out of place. It's based on a psychology with no other foundation other than your own imagination and has no bearing on reality.

I think some people prefer to start interacting with the baby once it's actually born because before then, it's just the parents projecting.

You want to play your baby Mozart? What if it hates classical music and only likes rap?

You want to read to your baby in the womb? What if, like 21st century teens, it finds reading boring and prefers TV?

You want to refer to the baby by your picked out name before it's out of the womb? OK, but babies aren't like dogs. They don't learn to respond to their names until much later in their development OUTside the womb, so you may as well be talking to yourself.

You're just emotionally investing in your projection of your child. It's all one-sided. The pre-born baby isn't getting anything.

Please educate yourself before responding.

http://www.ted.com/talks/annie_murphy_paul_what_we_learn_before_we_re_born?language=en

 

[credoconsolans]

I think some people prefer to start interacting with the baby once it's actually born because before then, it's just the parents projecting.

You want to play your baby Mozart? What if it hates classical music and only likes rap?

You want to read to your baby in the womb? What if, like 21st century teens, it finds reading boring and prefers TV?

You want to refer to the baby by your picked out name before it's out of the womb? OK, but babies aren't like dogs. They don't learn to respond to their names until much later in their development OUTside the womb, so you may as well be talking to yourself.

You're just emotionally investing in your projection of your child. It's all one-sided. The pre-born baby isn't getting anything.

Please educate yourself before responding.

http://www.ted.com/talks/annie_murphy_paul_what_we_learn_before_we_re_born?language=en

An extremely small study that is far from definitive and only addresses the sounds of vowels. That's a far cry from 'bonding' experiences such as liking Mozart or knowing names.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Please educate yourself before responding.

http://www.ted.com/talks/annie_murphy_paul_what_we_learn_before_we_re_born?language=en

An extremely small study that is far from definitive and only addresses the sounds of vowels. That's a far cry from 'bonding' experiences such as liking Mozart or knowing names.

What you said is that the fetus "isn't getting anything." On the contrary, it's getting a whole lot of stuff. It's amazing how many people seem to believe that the fetus's brain is completely inactive and then at birth BAMM! sliding out of vagina suddenly turns the brain on! It's the miracle of life!

The baby is getting a whole lot, and the way the mother of that child acts and behaves during pregnancy is of vital importance to the entire life of the person that will result. It is normal for an expectant parent to act in the ways I have described, and the indication is that this has some effect on the fetus. I'm not claiming the child will come out whistling Mozart.

ETA: I have to go check out that Dr. Seuss study myself.

 

[credoconsolans]

An extremely small study that is far from definitive and only addresses the sounds of vowels. That's a far cry from 'bonding' experiences such as liking Mozart or knowing names.

What you said is that the fetus "isn't getting anything." On the contrary, it's getting a whole lot of stuff. It's amazing how many people seem to believe that the fetus's brain is completely inactive and then at birth BAMM! sliding out of vagina suddenly turns the brain on! It's the miracle of life!

The baby is getting a whole lot, and the way the mother of that child acts and behaves during pregnancy is of vital importance to the entire life of the person that will result. It is normal for an expectant parent to act in the ways I have described, and the indication is that this has some effect on the fetus. I'm not claiming the child will come out whistling Mozart.

ETA: I have to go check out that Dr. Seuss study myself.

When I said the kid isn't "getting anything", I was referring to the bonding process that some parents assume they're doing when they do such things as talk or play music to the preborn. And this study does nothing to alter the fact that the parents are the ones 'bonding' based on their own projections. Not the infant. It is not definitive that all infants recognize vowels. And even if some do, that's not a "whole lot". And certainly not bonding.

And you contradicted yourself. Either the preborn is getting a 'whole lot' or just 'some'. They are getting a lot physically but it is yet to be definitively determined how much they get mentally while still in the womb.