100% pro-choice

Does a dog not have a right to live? Does a cow?

I'm not saying JUST having a beating heart gives the embryo a right to life, however I am stressing the fact that it is NOT JUST A BUNCH OF CELLS and I would appreciate if you stopped using such an incorrect comparison. We deal enough with pro-lifers lying about fetal development; we don't need pro-choicers lying too.

I can pull up the stats of 6-12 week embryos and fetuses if you really, really want me to. In fact, I think I will. The embryo hasn't been a blob of cells in weeks. It is already far, far past that stage. You'd have to abort in week 2 or 3 to abort a "blob of cells".

Week Five -
1. A functioning 4 chambered heart that is pumping blood throughout its entire body.
2. Lungs are beginning to develop
3. It has buds for its arms and legs.
4. It already has a neural tube growing out nerves to the rest of the body and forming the spinal cord - although it cannot feel pain yet.

"A beating heart is about all it has". Yeah, right.

You gonna tell me a clump of cells has a spinal cord, a 4 chambered heart and primitive lungs? I would call any individual piece of those a clump of cells; but not together.

Week Six -
1. The brain is developing. Yes, it already has a brain.
2. Eye lenses form.
3. Nostrils form.
4. Intestines and pancreas grow.
5. Limbs continue to develop.
6. Neural system continues to develop.

I wasn't aware that clumps of cells had intestines and limbs!

Week Seven -
1. Elbows form.
2. Fingers develop.
3. Ears, eyes, and nose begin to take on recognizable forms.
4. Teeth form inside the gums.

Wow!! Clumps of cells have TEETH!? That's a scary clump. Or you could call it an embryo.

Week Eight -
1. Cartilage and bones form.
2. Eyes reposition.
3. Tongue develops.
4. Fingers and toes are developed but webbed.

You still think it's a clump of cells? It's got bones for God's sake.

Week Nine -
1. Movement begins.
2. Flexing and instinctive reactions readily apparent.
3. This is the point where the embryo will move away from intrusive instruments. It's not doing so out of pain or fear, but just as an instinctive reaction to remain safe.

A clump of cells can move, and has instincts!? No, a clump of cells does not. But an embryo does.

Week Ten -
1. It is now officially a fetus.
2. All critical development is complete - mostly the fetus gets larger from this point on. Exceptions to this are obviously the lungs.
3. Irises begin to develop on nearly complete eyes.

You can't possibly call it a "clump of cells" at this point.

Week Eleven -
1. Fingers and toes are totally separated.
2. Hair and nails begin to grow.
3. Genitals take on proper gender.
4. Kidneys begin to function.
5. Intestines begin muscular contractions.

It may be small, but it is not a clump of cells and it is very much alive.

Week Twelve -
1. Vocal cords begin to form.
2. Eyes and ears shift towards their final locations.
3. Liver and pancreas function begins.

So there you have it. A blob of cells? I THINK NOT.

Source:
h ttp://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldev elopment1.php#week1

Do you eat meat? Do we prosecute every non-vegetarian? Do we put dogs down at the pound? Are those people put in jail for 25+ years because they've taken a life?

Nope, didn't think so.

I never talked about anything other than a 6 week old. You can go into detail for every other week/month/year that you want. I never ONCE said a 12 week or an 8 week old fetus was a blob of cells. Every single part of a 6 week embryo you mentioned is just cells. So yes, it really is just a blob of cells to me. At 6 weeks, there is no brain activity, there is no "instinct" for survival, it is FAR more primitive than the cows we eat or the dogs we put down just because we don't have enough room.

All I am trying to prove to you is that it is not "just" a blob of cells.

If a 6 week embryo is a blob of cells, then so are you.

The only question for me is whether it is a wanted blob of cells, or an unwanted blob of cells.

The only question for me is the developmental stage of the fetus.

Not you "were". ARE.

HM, now isn't that interesting? It seems other official sources agree with my point of view as well.

Regarding bodily autonomy, what do you think of these cases?

Could you be forced to have a c-section?
May 20, 2005

By Lisa Collier Cool, Baby Talk magazine, May, 2005

Amber Marlowe anticipated an easy delivery when she went into labor on January 14, 2004. But after a routine ultrasound, doctors at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital, in Pennsylvania, decided that the baby--at what looked like 13 pounds--was too big to deliver vaginally and told her that she needed to have a cesarean. The mom-to-be, however, wasn't convinced: After all, she'd given birth to her six previous kids the natural way, including other large babies. And monitoring showed that the fetus was in no apparent distress.

After she said no to surgery, doctors spent hours trying to change her mind. When that didn't work, the hospital went to court, seeking an order to become her unborn baby's legal guardian. A judge ruled that the doctors could perform a "medically necessary" c-section against the mom's will, if she returned to that hospital. Meanwhile, she and her husband checked out against the doctors' advice and went to another hospital, where she later gave birth vaginally to a healthy 11-pound girl. "When I found out about the court order, I couldn't believe the hospital would do something like that. It was scary and very shocking," says Marlowe. "All this just because I didn't want a c-section."

She and her husband, John, turned to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), in New York City, for help in contesting the judge's ruling--the first of its kind in Pennsylvania. The couple is also considering legal action against the hospital. "It's not about us," says John Marlowe. "What's going to happen to the next lady who goes there? We want everyone to know what's going on. What they did was wrong, and our goal is to put a stop to it so that other women don't end up with c-sections they don't need."

Coercive Medicine

Increasingly in the United States, pregnant women are encountering legal or more subtle pressures to have c-sections. Currently, more than a million expectant women have the operation annually, as America's rate of surgical deliveries has hit an all-time high. In 2003, cesareans accounted for nearly 28 percent of births in this country, compared with just 5 percent in 1970. Many factors contributed to this rise--increasing numbers of repeat c-sections, doctors' fears of malpractice lawsuits, and women waiting longer to have kids (which is related to higher rates of complications), to name a few. But while the procedure is usually quite safe and can be potentially lifesaving for mother and baby, it also poses a number of potential risks, including severe bleeding, infection, injury to the fetus, blood clots, and even the mother's death in extremely rare cases.

Yet hospitals in at least a dozen states have obtained court orders to compel unwilling women to undergo this major abdominal surgery. And while Marlowe was able to escape the scalpel, other patients were operated on-- despite their verbal or even physical resistance. In a tragic 1984 case, staff at a Chicago hospital forcibly tied a pregnant Nigerian woman who had declined a c-section to her hospital bed with leather wrist and ankle restraints. The woman objected to the surgery because she planned to return to Nigeria where the operation wasn't readily available, and she rightfully worried about health risks, including a ruptured uterus, if she became pregnant again and had another child vaginally back home. As she screamed for help and frantically tried to free herself, doctors, with a judge's permission, wheeled her off to the O.R. to perform the procedure.

Defying doctors' advice can even lead to criminal prosecution, as Melissa Rowland discovered last year. While pregnant with twins, the 28-year-old Utah mom initially declined a recommended c-section, even though doctors warned that without it her babies might die due to low levels of amniotic fluid and other problems. Several days later, on January 13, 2004, she changed her mind and had the operation. Her daughter, Hannah, survived after treatment with oxygen and antibiotics, but a twin boy was stillborn. Contending that the initial refusal caused his death, prosecutors charged Rowland with first-degree homicide. After spending three months in jail, she accepted a deal in which the homicide charge was dismissed in return for her guilty plea to two counts of child endangerment (unrelated to her c-section refusal). She's now free, and serving 18 months of probation.

"This case is a tragedy compounded by a shocking abuse of legal authority," contends Lynn Paltrow, executive director of NAPW and a lawyer specializing in reproductive issues. "It shouldn't be a crime for pregnant women to disagree with doctors and make their own medical decisions. Nor should they be punished for a bad outcome when there's always some risk to giving birth, regardless of whether it's vaginal or by c-section."

And you can't be legally compelled to undergo any other medical procedure for the benefit of another person. "You don't have to donate your kidney, your bone marrow, or your blood, even if someone else might die without it," explains Howard Minkoff, M.D., chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Maimonides Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York, and coauthor (with Paltrow) on an analysis of the Rowland case published in the December 2004 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology. You also can't be prosecuted for homicide if you refuse. "So why should c-sections be any different?" the doctor adds. "That's saying pregnant women have fewer rights than anyone else, including a fetus."

In April the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals wisely overturned the lower court's order, saying that the only factor to be considered was what Mrs. Carder wanted, determined from all available evidence. "The right of bodily integrity," Judge John A. Perry said, "is not extinguished simply because someone is ill, or even at death's door." Meanwhile Angela Carder's parents, Nettie and Dan Stoner, sued the Medical Center for malpractice and civil rights violations.












NAPW
The Rights of Pregnant Patients
Carder Case Brings Bold Policy Initiatives
HealthSpan, Volume 8, Number 5, 1991
By Terry E. Thornton and Lynn Paltrow

When George Washington University Medical Center ("GWUMC") recently developed and adopted groundbreaking policies concerning the rights of pregnant patients to make health care decisions without court intervention, it not only reversed its position on the appropriateness of court-ordered medical care,' but resolved three years of daunting litigation against it for having subjected 27-year-old Angela Carder to a life threatening court-ordered Caesarean section in June 1987.1

Along the way, the Angela Carder case resulted in the only appellate decision in the country to address, on a fully developed legal record, a hospital's duty to its pregnant patients and the development of model hospital policies which protect the interests of both patient and institution alike. The life and death of Angela Carder focused national attention on the propriety of using courts to determine medical treatment for pregnant patients and inspired a chorus of diverse voices to condemn coercive medical treatment. In the end, GWUMC emerged from the shadows as a leader in protecting the autonomy of pregnant patients.

The Angela Carder Story

At age 13, Angela was diagnosed as suffering from a rare and fatal form of cancer. Despite the odds, she survived and was cured after years of aggressive and often experimental chemotherapy and radiation. Ten years later, however, she developed another form of cancer. She bravely fought for life again, returning to chemotherapy and radiation and resorting to multiple surgeries. Ultimately, she consented to a hemipelvectomy, the surgical removal of her left leg and hip. After more chemotherapy and radiation, there were no signs of cancer anywhere. In 1986, three years into remission and confident in her ability to rob the grim reaper, Angela married and became pregnant. Because of her disability, she was eventually referred to the High Risk Pregnancy Clinic at GWUMC, where she was enthusiastically accepted as a teaching case.

According to her clinic obstetrician, Angela emphasized two points about her health care: she wanted to be watched closely for any signs of recurrence of cancer and, having struggled so long to survive, she wanted to be sure her own health was not compromised because of her pregnancy.

Unfortunately, during the 25th week of gestation, Angela was admitted to GWUMC and eventually diagnosed as having a lung tumor. Again, fighting to live, she wanted everything possible done to prolong her life. Surgery was ruled out, leaving chemotherapy and radiation as the only means of prolonging her life. Angela was informed that her baby was too small to be born, meaning too premature to have a good chance to survive, 2 and that her doctors did not consider intervention on behalf of the fetus appropriate until 28 weeks.3 She was also informed of the added risks to the fetus from chemotherapy and radiation, but Angela still decided to institute aggressive treatment of her cancer. This course was so clearly understood that her attending obstetricians did not consider, much less attempt, intervention for the fetus later that night when Angela's condition rapidly deteriorated, depriving Angela and the fetus of substantial amounts of vital oxygen for many hours.

The next morning, events took an unexpected turn. The hospital's administrators (who were also its liability risk managers) learned of the decision not to attempt delivery of the fetus. The administrator questioned the right of anyone but a court to make decisions affecting a potentially viable fetus, particularly in light of the political controversy over fetal rights. Although the decision was supported by Angela's parents and husband and by the obstetrical department as a whole, as consistent with the wishes of their patient, and despite the advice of legal counsel that the doctors should exercise their best medical judgment under the circumstances (which was not to deliver the - extremely premature and highly compromised fetus), the hospital required a court to decide what should be done for the fetus. Technically, the hospital sought a declaratory judgment as to "what it should do in terms of the fetus, whether to intervene and save its life."

In response to the hospital's petition, a court hearing was hastily convened at the hospital, counsel was rounded up in the hallways of the courthouse and appointed to represent Angela, counsel for the fetus was also appointed, and hospital counsel appeared for GWUMC. The hospital summoned all the witnesses who would testify at the hearing. Angela's family was brought to the hearing just before the proceedings began, with only minutes to confer with Angela's counsel. Angela's long-term cancer specialist, who had been at GWUMC the day before to consult on her case, was not contacted at all.

At the hearing, family members, including Angela's husband, opposed Caesarean surgery because Angela was not expected to be able to survive it and because all agreed that Angela would have opposed it. The treating physicians also opposed intervention based on their understanding of Angela's wishes and the clinical status of Angela and the fetus. However, a neonatologist, who had no familiarity with Angela's medical status, also testified at the hearing that the fetus had at least a 60 percent chance of survival (just slightly less than a fetus from a healthy woman at that gestational age). (Other medical experts have since concluded that there was virtually no chance of survival and that the fetus was already brain dead)

At the hearing almost no attention was paid to what was clinically best for Angela or to what she would want since, according to the hospital, it was "the apparent desire of the patient and her family" that no intervention be done on behalf of the fetus. Instead, the hearing focused on whether to "rescue" the fetus. Balancing Angela Carder's life expectancy as a cancer-ridden patient against that of the fetus (based on the neonatologist's unduly optimistic guesswork), the court ordered the Caesarean. Despite the court's order, the obstetricians refused to carry it out. The hospital was then in the ironic position of being in contempt of an order that the hospital itself had sought. Reluctantly, a staff obstetrician agreed to perform the surgery.

Although assumed to be near death and unconscious, Angela was lucid and able to communicate when, after the court made its ruling, one of her obstetricians told her about the court's decision. When her doctor explained that she might die as a result of the ordered surgery and that he would not perform the surgery without her consent, she said repeatedly, "I don't want it done." However, this declaration did not sway the hospital to withdraw its petition or the court to amend its order. A three-judge appellate panel upheld the decision during an emergency telephone appeal. Minutes later, having just been told that she probably would not survive the surgery, the woman who had courageously cheated death for fourteen years was rolled into the operating room. The fetus died within two hours. Two days later, Angela Carder died, never having received the cancer treatment she requested.

Despite her death, the Estate of Angela Carder, administered by her parents, Daniel and Nettie Stoner, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, pursued an appeal of the Caesarean section order to the entire Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The parties submitted legal arguments concerning the constitutional right to make health care decisions and the purported state interest in protecting a viable fetus. More than 120 civil rights groups, health care organizations and health care professionals, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists jointly filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs on behalf of Angela Carder, opposing the hospital's use of a court to resolve medical treatment issues.4

At the same time, the ACLU, on behalf of Estate of Angela Carder, instituted an unprecedented civil action against the hospital for damages, claiming discriminatory treatment of her cancer and pregnancy, hospital negligence, medical malpractice, the lack of informed consent arising out of the treatment of Ms. Carder and the decision to require a court to determine the course of medical care (Stoners U. George Washington University Hospital, et al., Civil Action No. 88-0M33 (Sup. Ct. D.C.)).

On April 26, 1990 the D.C. Court of Appeals en banc in In Re A.C. vacated the court-ordered Caesarean and held that Angela Carder had the right to make health care decisions for herself and her fetus.5 Seven months later, but only days before the scheduled trial in the Stoner case, the hospital agreed to settle the claims in the civil action by the payment of an undisclosed sum of money to the Carder estate and the development and adoption of hospital policies which implement the Court of Appeals' decision protecting the rights of pregnant patients to make health care decisions.

Profoundly disturbing, not at all surprising.

Thanks for taking the time to read all of that.

I wouldn't CARE because I'd be dead, and I would have died long before I was capable of thinking at all.