Conscious and Thinking

Coldest Night of the Year 2013

It’s cold out there. On March 27th, 2013, I’m going to be walking 10 km in the cold evening in order to raise $100 for programs that help people who are homeless. If you’d like to sponsor me, with a few cents or a few dollars, please follow this link and donate. Every cent makes a difference. If you aren’t able to help, for whatever reason, maybe support me by reblogging. Even a reblog could make a difference. :) Thank you Tumblr bloggers!

Legal Abortion Not The Answer In Ireland Deaths

Countless news reports are only talking about the septicaemia (i.e., blood poisoning), but few are discussing E.coli ESBL, which, incidentally enough, can lead to, you guessed it, septicaemia.  Just what is E. coli ESBL?  An antibiotic-resistant bacteria (not to be confused with regular strains of E. coli that cause food poisoning) that is associated with urinary tract infections (UTI).  This strain of E. coli has been spreading in the UK and last year two babies died in nearby Wales because of it.  The presence of E. coli ESBL is particularly problematic if Halappanavar was given antibiotics to fight an infection that was resistant to those very antibiotics.

According to the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, E. coli is one of the most common organisms to cause a UTI and complicated UTIs are frequently associated with pregnancy.  They write, “The likelihood of treatment failure and serious complications, particularly the development of antimicrobial resistance, is more common in cUTI [complicated urinary tract infection].”

So instead of jumping to the conclusions that Halappanavar needed an abortion and that Ireland needs to legalize the killing of the youngest of its kind, the reasonable approach would be to get to the bottom of what Halappanavar’s condition was and examine how it was, or was not, responded to.  We have yet to hear from the hospital and the medical professionals involved as to what precisely happened, but with this report of her dying from E. coli ESBL one wonders how killing Halappanavar’s baby Prasa would have killed the E. coli.

Is it possible that E. coli ESBL ascended her vagina and entered her uterus via the dilated cervix?  Yes, that’s possible.  But it’s also possible that her cervix dilated (thus initiating a miscarriage) because E. coli ESBL ascended her urinary tract and caused an infection in her kidneys, which can lead to uterine contractions, and if not treated, to cervical change. 

So the infection could have been elsewhere in her body besides the uterus.  Even if it was in the latter (a condition known as chorioamnionitis) then it is an ethical course of action to induce labour to eliminate this pathological and lethal condition (the presence of infected membranes) from her uterus.  But that act itself wouldn’t have eliminated the E. coli ESBL if it actually originated in the urinary tract, which, if resistant to interventions like antibiotics, could have lead to the septicaemia.

: Instead of pro-life and pro-choice, how about pro-murder and anti-murder?

opinionatedconservative:

tothew0lves:

tothew0lves:

choosechoice:

opinionatedconservative:

breederparody:

im anti-murder, anti-murder of all the 47.000 women that die every year from illegal abortion.

thats not murder. its more like suicide. they did it to themselves

Suicide is when you intentionally kill…

So the lives of women are nothing to you?
I’d like to direct you to the recent occurrence in Ireland, where the life I a group of cells took predominance over a woman’s life. You probably don’t disagree with giving chemotherapy to a cancer patient, so what’s the difference between giving women the option to remove a group of cells from their bodies which are undoubtedly going to disrupt/potentially ruin their lives?

the ONLY TIME abortion should be considered is when the mothers life is in danger, like what happened in ireland. other than that no excuse is good enough

What happened in Ireland, should not be used as an example. There is no detail linking the pregnancy to the mother’s death, at the moment. We must remember that she also had blood poisoning. We should wait for official reports before making any judgement calls.

Furthermore, I agree with whoever mentioned the term “desperate women”. Women who are desperate for a quick fix, are usually to consider abortion. Now, you’ve completely omitted the fact that there is almost always more than one answer to a problem. If a woman is pregnant and desperate, does the option of killing the child have to take dominance? Of course not. But seeing as abortion clinics advertise their services like McDonald’s advertises their hamburgers, many women turn to them as the “drive through/fast food”. Go in, come out, and it’s done. Is this the child’s fault? Should the child have to pay for the mother’s desperation? How about our society pays instead? Why not change our society so that women don’t become desperate, so that people are more responsible with their sexual affairs? Is it impossible? No. But abortion services are, of course, the way to get around the problem. It doesn’t solve the problem, no, it just gets around it. So why not confront our society and move for change? No body should have to die.

Impure Tale: Instead of pro-life and pro-choice, how about pro-murder and anti-murder?

impuretale:

consciousandthinking:

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

consciousandthinking:

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

what murder? here is a definition: mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun:The premeditated killing of one human being by another.Verb:Kill (someone) unlawfully and with…

your right it should not have to be repeated that a child is a child no matter the age size or self awareness. a person is a person no matter how small. and murder is murder no matter the victim   

Dr. Seuss was pro-choice. Don’t appropriate his writing for your BS cause. 

You’ve failed to adequately establish that murder is taking place.

Thanks for establishing that you think that a fetus is more of a person than someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant. 

i know that he was pro-choice and I.DO.NOT.CARE. the quot fits so I use it. also i already established that is is murder. you just refuse to accept it. they are not MORE of a person they are EQUAL of a person.

No, it doesn’t. 

No, you did not. 

Facts and real sources (other than a dictionary — your teachers would be disappointed).

Even if they were equal as persons (which they are not — by law if nothing else)? Nobody has the right to use another person’s body without their continued consent, even if their life depends on it. 

“Thanks for establishing that a fetus is more of a person than someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant.”

They haven’t established this. They’ve established that a fetus is AS MUCH a person as someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant. Your argument here is along the lines of: “So, you’re not going to let the president have me assassinated? What, you think I’m more of a person than she is?” 

Not the same thing at all. 

If you are saying that the pregnant person’s body can be used against their will, then you are saying that the fetus has more rights than they do. Period. 

someones right to life is more important than someone wanting to do what they wish with their body

No, it is not. Life and liberty are equal. They are BOTH inalienable rights. 

you must first have life, to have liberty

Not necessarily true. 

The Founding Fathers did not say “give me liberty or give me death” for no reason. But yes. As we’ve established: You think that it’s okay to use someone’s body against their will. So we have nothing further to discuss.

Life and Liberty

Without liberty, you can still have life (thus giving you the ability to attain more freedom). Without life, though, you cannot have liberty. If a child’s life is taken away, then both life and liberty are taken away, indefinitely. If a mother who doesn’t want to pregnant carries a child to birth, she still has life, and loses liberty with very specific regards for 9 months, after which she is no longer bound by those restrictions.

The Founding Fathers recognized that freedoms could not exist without appropriate limitations. The first political parties to fire up in US Congress disagreed on this very aspect: more federal control, less freedom or less federal control, more freedom. Neither party, though, advocated freedom without limitation, because, as they realized immediately after the Revolution, a union turns into anarchy and barbarism without defined guidelines that restrict freedoms, but not to the extent that it is oppressive.

So it’s okay to take a person’s right to their own body from them because it’s only temporary, by your logic. Do I need to list any examples to prove why that argument is bullshit? Really? 

Sorry, fella. We’re not talking anymore. I already know you’re full of crap. 

Please identify why you believe that temporary limitation of freedom is NOT a better scenario to complete annihilation of both life and freedom. And we are discussing a comparison because no freedom exists without limitation. To try and argue for pro-choice as being the apex of woman’s rights and complete liberty, is inaccurate at best. Allow me to illustrate another example through a quote:

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” - Thomas Jefferson

According to Thomas Jefferson himself, complete freedom (as, for example, is idealized with having no responsibilities after conceiving a child) is impossible. He has identified one limitation: not being ignorant.

(Source: southern-conservatism)

Impure Tale: Instead of pro-life and pro-choice, how about pro-murder and anti-murder?

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

consciousandthinking:

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

what murder? here is a definition: mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun:The premeditated killing of one human being by another.Verb:Kill (someone) unlawfully and with…

your right it should not have to be repeated that a child is a child no matter the age size or self awareness. a person is a person no matter how small. and murder is murder no matter the victim   

Dr. Seuss was pro-choice. Don’t appropriate his writing for your BS cause. 

You’ve failed to adequately establish that murder is taking place.

Thanks for establishing that you think that a fetus is more of a person than someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant. 

i know that he was pro-choice and I.DO.NOT.CARE. the quot fits so I use it. also i already established that is is murder. you just refuse to accept it. they are not MORE of a person they are EQUAL of a person.

No, it doesn’t. 

No, you did not. 

Facts and real sources (other than a dictionary — your teachers would be disappointed).

Even if they were equal as persons (which they are not — by law if nothing else)? Nobody has the right to use another person’s body without their continued consent, even if their life depends on it. 

“Thanks for establishing that a fetus is more of a person than someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant.”

They haven’t established this. They’ve established that a fetus is AS MUCH a person as someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant. Your argument here is along the lines of: “So, you’re not going to let the president have me assassinated? What, you think I’m more of a person than she is?” 

Not the same thing at all. 

If you are saying that the pregnant person’s body can be used against their will, then you are saying that the fetus has more rights than they do. Period. 

someones right to life is more important than someone wanting to do what they wish with their body

No, it is not. Life and liberty are equal. They are BOTH inalienable rights. 

you must first have life, to have liberty

Not necessarily true. 

The Founding Fathers did not say “give me liberty or give me death” for no reason. But yes. As we’ve established: You think that it’s okay to use someone’s body against their will. So we have nothing further to discuss.

Life and Liberty

Without liberty, you can still have life (thus giving you the ability to attain more freedom). Without life, though, you cannot have liberty. If a child’s life is taken away, then both life and liberty are taken away, indefinitely. If a mother who doesn’t want to pregnant carries a child to birth, she still has life, and loses liberty with very specific regards for 9 months, after which she is no longer bound by those restrictions.

The Founding Fathers recognized that freedoms could not exist without appropriate limitations. The first political parties to fire up in US Congress disagreed on this very aspect: more federal control, less freedom or less federal control, more freedom. Neither party, though, advocated freedom without limitation, because, as they realized immediately after the Revolution, a union turns into anarchy and barbarism without defined guidelines that restrict freedoms, but not to the extent that it is oppressive.

(Source: southern-conservatism)

Impure Tale: Instead of pro-life and pro-choice, how about pro-murder and anti-murder?

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

opinionatedconservative:

opinionatedconservative:

impuretale:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

what murder? here is a definition: mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun:The premeditated killing of one human being by another.Verb:Kill (someone) unlawfully and with…

your right it should not have to be repeated that a child is a child no matter the age size or self awareness. a person is a person no matter how small. and murder is murder no matter the victim   

Dr. Seuss was pro-choice. Don’t appropriate his writing for your BS cause. 

You’ve failed to adequately establish that murder is taking place.

Thanks for establishing that you think that a fetus is more of a person than someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant. 

i know that he was pro-choice and I.DO.NOT.CARE. the quot fits so I use it. also i already established that is is murder. you just refuse to accept it. they are not MORE of a person they are EQUAL of a person.

No, it doesn’t. 

No, you did not. 

Facts and real sources (other than a dictionary — your teachers would be disappointed).

Even if they were equal as persons (which they are not — by law if nothing else)? Nobody has the right to use another person’s body without their continued consent, even if their life depends on it. 

“Thanks for establishing that a fetus is more of a person than someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant.”

They haven’t established this. They’ve established that a fetus is AS MUCH a person as someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant. Your argument here is along the lines of: “So, you’re not going to let the president have me assassinated? What, you think I’m more of a person than she is?” 

(Source: southern-conservatism)