Bill Maher speaks the brutal truth live on MSNBC at the DNC
宗教之下真有勇妇,敢生唐氏儿或其他先天缺陷儿的,还觉得是神对他们诚信的考验,越发兢兢业业。
倒是想起一个无关的笑话,忘了哪个有名的英国喜剧演员说的:电视上看见的白人至上主义的信徒常常是他们信仰的活反面教材,不是缺鼻子就是少下巴,一看就遗传有大问题。
倒是想起一个无关的笑话,忘了哪个有名的英国喜剧演员说的:电视上看见的白人至上主义的信徒常常是他们信仰的活反面教材,不是缺鼻子就是少下巴,一看就遗传有大问题。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
我们马上要生的日本人的太太,因为她的年纪大,42岁了,怀这个老二的时候就把所有的检查都做了,包括染色体检查(就是羊穿)。所以倒是很早知道是女儿。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
两年前我还认为有严重先天缺陷的胎儿不应该被生出来,期间我的观点转了180度;倒不是说就反对在这种情况下做引产的(毕竟养育一个残疾孩子的辛苦,外人无法切身体会,怎么着都是站着说话不腰疼),而是认为残疾的胎儿仍然有其生存权利。森林的火焰 wrote:宗教之下真有勇妇,敢生唐氏儿或其他先天缺陷儿的,还觉得是神对他们诚信的考验,越发兢兢业业。
我的小姑是专做残障人护理辅导工作的。那些人的世界和我们的完全不同,但是他们亦有他们的喜乐哀愁。我不认为他们的人生就比我们的低级,而应该在生命之初就予以人道毁灭。
对于明知残疾而仍然选择生下孩子的人,我个人怀有莫大的敬意。我婆婆的邻居夫妇养了一个智障的女孩,终其一生她的智力都只能停留在3、4岁的状态。但是她会玩耍,会看着人微笑。她的笑容极富感染力,让人觉得她的生活是幸福的。
红颜弹指老,钻石恒久远。
羊水穿刺有流产风险,好像百分之一啥的。反正听到我这种毫无母性的人耳朵里,就是小到几乎可以忽略了。不过准妈妈跟我想的当然不一样。我女友怀孕的时候,那是什么十万分之一的风险都绝对不冒的。荷尔蒙力量大嘛。
前面的筛选不太准,羊水穿刺的结果是很准的,99%?她肯定是做了羊水穿刺是阳性。
不过这个讨论不要跑题了。咱又不是PRO-ABORTION. 咱是PRO-CHOICE. 做什么检查,冒什么风险,智障孩子生不生,跟胎儿什么时候建立感情,都应该是怀孕的准妈妈的决定范围。要有人说,唐氏综合症的孩子是天遣是诅咒,胎儿得流产,生出来也得掐死,那我也是反对的。强迫流产是侵犯孕妇的生育权,掐死孩子是侵犯这个人的生存权。
prolife prochoice 的主要分歧是什么时候胎儿才算个人. 反正我是没法接受受精的一刻就是人了.按这么说,连事后丸都是谋杀了.
刚听到新闻,女州长十七岁的女儿未婚先孕,已经有了五个月的肚子.呦,到底谁是Britney Spears???
前面的筛选不太准,羊水穿刺的结果是很准的,99%?她肯定是做了羊水穿刺是阳性。
不过这个讨论不要跑题了。咱又不是PRO-ABORTION. 咱是PRO-CHOICE. 做什么检查,冒什么风险,智障孩子生不生,跟胎儿什么时候建立感情,都应该是怀孕的准妈妈的决定范围。要有人说,唐氏综合症的孩子是天遣是诅咒,胎儿得流产,生出来也得掐死,那我也是反对的。强迫流产是侵犯孕妇的生育权,掐死孩子是侵犯这个人的生存权。
prolife prochoice 的主要分歧是什么时候胎儿才算个人. 反正我是没法接受受精的一刻就是人了.按这么说,连事后丸都是谋杀了.
刚听到新闻,女州长十七岁的女儿未婚先孕,已经有了五个月的肚子.呦,到底谁是Britney Spears???
有事找我请发站内消息
唐筛的cut-off rate各地不一样,一般在1:300左右,也就是说如果唐筛出来的结果有大约0.33%的概率是唐式儿,医生就会建议做羊水穿刺。
羊水穿刺的流产率大约是0.2%到0.5%,主要是可能的感染,跟做的医生是不是手潮,做完了有没有好好休息有关。
羊水穿刺出来的羊水细胞经培育后可以看到染色体图谱(所以会知道男女),就唐式这种基因缺陷(第21对染色体多出一条)而言,检查的准确率应该是100%(汗,100%这个说法真反科学)。
要不要保留唐式儿是人家准父母自己的决定,尤其反感左边口袋里一把来福枪,右边口袋里一堆“杀婴犯”标签见人就贴还自我感觉巨良好的主儿,我心里的想法,怎么也得先把牛肉汉堡戒了,才有资格指责别人杀生吧。
羊水穿刺的流产率大约是0.2%到0.5%,主要是可能的感染,跟做的医生是不是手潮,做完了有没有好好休息有关。
羊水穿刺出来的羊水细胞经培育后可以看到染色体图谱(所以会知道男女),就唐式这种基因缺陷(第21对染色体多出一条)而言,检查的准确率应该是100%(汗,100%这个说法真反科学)。
要不要保留唐式儿是人家准父母自己的决定,尤其反感左边口袋里一把来福枪,右边口袋里一堆“杀婴犯”标签见人就贴还自我感觉巨良好的主儿,我心里的想法,怎么也得先把牛肉汉堡戒了,才有资格指责别人杀生吧。
She is not pro-life. She is pro-fertilized eggs. Once the eggs are born do you think she gives a rat's behind whether they had food and shelter and schools and medicine?
According to conservatives, once you are born you get no help from the government for health care, assistance to working mothers, welfare that barely buys you diapers, poor schools and no police in poor neighborhoods, ..., ..., shipping you overseas to fight for oil, and, finally, death penalty to the retarded or insane criminals. Cut funding for schools, social services, health care, assistance to working mothers, etc., etc. and spend more money and building prisons, armies, weapons, and electric chairs. Tell me this is pro-life.
Don't believe me? One word: Katrina.
If you are poor and minority and powerless, you are screwed, and you don't even get birth control pills. Gotta love such life-affirming values.
They tell parents of children with Down's syndrome or mental illness or other disabling chronic diseases that life is beautiful and priceless and they have no right whatever. And from Ronald Reagan onward every Republican and most Democratic presidents and governors always cut funding for schools and social services and health care first to build more prison or give the tax dollars to their rich contractors friends.
Ask any parents with disabled children: What practical help do they get from their government who tells them nobody has the right to abortion? How can they take care of their disabled adult children once they are dead if there is no social and medical safety net to speak of? Compare that with countries with universal health care? Who is more pro-life?
Most Americans and Chinese believe that poor people are poor because of their own fault -- too lazy, too dumb, too many children, and they deserve to be poor and please do not share my tax dollars with them. If you then take away their right to choose abortion, teach them abstinence only in school, prohibit free condoms, and give the poor kids no education and no access to medical care and birth control pills, what is that? Force them to become homosexuals? No sex if you are poor but having babies at 17 if you are privileged?
According to conservatives, once you are born you get no help from the government for health care, assistance to working mothers, welfare that barely buys you diapers, poor schools and no police in poor neighborhoods, ..., ..., shipping you overseas to fight for oil, and, finally, death penalty to the retarded or insane criminals. Cut funding for schools, social services, health care, assistance to working mothers, etc., etc. and spend more money and building prisons, armies, weapons, and electric chairs. Tell me this is pro-life.
Don't believe me? One word: Katrina.
If you are poor and minority and powerless, you are screwed, and you don't even get birth control pills. Gotta love such life-affirming values.
They tell parents of children with Down's syndrome or mental illness or other disabling chronic diseases that life is beautiful and priceless and they have no right whatever. And from Ronald Reagan onward every Republican and most Democratic presidents and governors always cut funding for schools and social services and health care first to build more prison or give the tax dollars to their rich contractors friends.
Ask any parents with disabled children: What practical help do they get from their government who tells them nobody has the right to abortion? How can they take care of their disabled adult children once they are dead if there is no social and medical safety net to speak of? Compare that with countries with universal health care? Who is more pro-life?
Most Americans and Chinese believe that poor people are poor because of their own fault -- too lazy, too dumb, too many children, and they deserve to be poor and please do not share my tax dollars with them. If you then take away their right to choose abortion, teach them abstinence only in school, prohibit free condoms, and give the poor kids no education and no access to medical care and birth control pills, what is that? Force them to become homosexuals? No sex if you are poor but having babies at 17 if you are privileged?
Last edited by Jun on 2008-09-01 15:31, edited 4 times in total.
此喵已死,有事烧纸
这个哈,怎么说呢,就我个人经验而言,我是觉得有了孩子之后,不会更加pro-life,而是比之前不那么pro-choice了。就是说以前觉得5个月大做掉了就做掉了,现在就会觉得,啊呀那么大了,哪怕生下来送领养呢。vivi wrote:It seems like people are more pro-life after they have kids.
当然要是测出来严重的先天缺陷肯定还是不会留下来的,主要是担心我老挂掉了以后这孩子怎么办?
不过我强烈赞同小k意见,这事儿就应该当妈的说了算,----- 其实你们说这个美国政府强令大家不许堕胎跟我国政府多少年前强力推行计划生育有啥本质上的不同么?哦,对,我国政府是被逼无奈……
乡音无改鬓毛衰
PRO-CHOICE当然就是法律上给母亲决定权, 即使某些母亲做的不见得人人赞成, 比如9个月发现兔唇或者因为是女婴决定流产,或者有重要缺陷还是决定生下来, 我还是支持母亲的决定权是个人基本人权, 不主张由法律来直接影响. 母亲的决定可以由推广有效避孕方法, 提供早期筛选服务, 提供匿名托养来间接影响.
JUN列了一大串原教旨共和党的不那么受欢迎的政策, 其实如果要收集原教旨民主党不受欢迎的政策, 也有一大串. 真正上了台, 政策太极端的在CHECK & BALANCE的情况下不太可能通过. 布十的8年是失衡的8年, 这8年民主党又都干了什么来制衡? 讨好自己一方的极端派. 被遗忘的是中间派.
最近看了一篇文章分析大选后的经济政策,结论是:
1.谁都不能解决经济衰退
2.布十的减税会过期作废.
3. 谁都没平衡预算的打算.
JUN列了一大串原教旨共和党的不那么受欢迎的政策, 其实如果要收集原教旨民主党不受欢迎的政策, 也有一大串. 真正上了台, 政策太极端的在CHECK & BALANCE的情况下不太可能通过. 布十的8年是失衡的8年, 这8年民主党又都干了什么来制衡? 讨好自己一方的极端派. 被遗忘的是中间派.
最近看了一篇文章分析大选后的经济政策,结论是:
1.谁都不能解决经济衰退
2.布十的减税会过期作废.
3. 谁都没平衡预算的打算.
大家说得都非常有理,这事儿我觉得本来就是个人有个人观点,个人有个人选择。想生就生,不想生就不生,别把个人选择上升到社会群体的道德准绳就好。你们每个人的发言都让我觉得你们每个人都生机勃勃地活着。 别因为大家都摆摆自己的观点而伤了和气。
我觉得极左和极右都不那么妙。一方面,道德本身就是社会性的产物,一条严厉的道德线划下来这事儿就不那么人性;另一方面,明确坚信不该生残障儿是一种非常危险的优生论,第二次世界大战就是这么打起来的。
我觉得极左和极右都不那么妙。一方面,道德本身就是社会性的产物,一条严厉的道德线划下来这事儿就不那么人性;另一方面,明确坚信不该生残障儿是一种非常危险的优生论,第二次世界大战就是这么打起来的。
Last edited by 笑嘻嘻 on 2008-09-02 1:55, edited 1 time in total.
云浆未饮结成冰
我个人当然不赞成因为这样的原因这么做, 但是我觉得由法律来禁止侵犯了母亲的人权.
回到民主党来, 这里大家都觉得小克的8年是黄金时代, 可是民主党的票基和主流可不这么想. 很多产业工人都恨他拥抱全球化, 很多民主党人恨他大幅度削减福利,很多环保份子恨他极力支持医学研究. 虽然这里很多人都会认为这些政策明智, 他的政见在民主党里其实相当异类.
找到预测经济政策的文章了:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/2008/08/2 ... x_inl.html
回到民主党来, 这里大家都觉得小克的8年是黄金时代, 可是民主党的票基和主流可不这么想. 很多产业工人都恨他拥抱全球化, 很多民主党人恨他大幅度削减福利,很多环保份子恨他极力支持医学研究. 虽然这里很多人都会认为这些政策明智, 他的政见在民主党里其实相当异类.
找到预测经济政策的文章了:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/2008/08/2 ... x_inl.html
总的说来现在很多主张都只是竞选口号, 真正执政后肯定这些主张都是讨价还价的筹码. 自私的说, 请民主党人把GAY的结婚权换撤军吧.But as Obama himself told David Leonhardt of The New York Times, "I probably wouldn't have been as obsessed with deficit reduction" as former President Bill Clinton was in 1993. Translation: I'm not too worried about it now, either.
One good reason President Clinton was "obsessed" with deficit reduction: H. Ross Perot had garnered 19% of the popular vote in 1992, enabling Clinton to edge out President George H.W. Bush in the general election. And deficit reduction was a key plank of Perot's platform.
Also, at the time, 40% of the American public told pollsters the deficit was the country's most important economic problem; today, that number is 2%. You can't really expect politicians to tread where voters don't want to go--even if smart people like Warren Buffett think this is one of the country's biggest long-term problems.
That is not true in national politics.布十的8年是失衡的8年, 这8年民主党又都干了什么来制衡? 讨好自己一方的极端派. 被遗忘的是中间派.
In the 8 years of GWB, Democrats are the minority in both House and Senate for 6 years and marginal majority in the past 2. Even if they want to do something to oppose the right wing conservative policies, they cannot. The voters' sentiment has been in favor of GWB and conservatives since 2001, so they dare not.
What extremist agendas and positions have Democrats put forth? The most extreme I have heard of is nationalized health care and withdrawal from Iraq.
The reality is that the general political leaning in the United States is soooooooo far out right now (from the Supreme Court to the average public), that the Democratic positions today would be middle or slightly right to their positions 15 years ago or on the international spectrum.
The extreme left positions on some issues (like PETA) are so minor, so fringe, that no one takes them seriously and do not consider them to represent Democratic party positions. Globalization, NAFTA, free trade etc. are issues because Democratic politicians have to pander to unions who are traditional supporters of the party. Do Republican politicans support free trade? Only some do, the Southern Republican politicians are more protectionist than Democrats. They pander to the disgruntled, ununionized blue-collar white voters in rural areas.
WW2 was ignited because Germany decided to invade everybody, and Japan invaded US. Otherwise these countries would sit and watch them gas Jews without doing anything.坚信不该生残障儿是一种非常危险的优生论,第二次世界大战就是这么打起来的。
When a few parents 坚信非常危险的优生论, they kill a few unborn babies (how is this different from abortions of girls in China and India?). Only when such 非常危险的优生论 is adopted by the government into laws to force people (ie, take away personal choice and freedom) does it become 非常危险的 massacre.
Do I think fetuses with Downs should be born? Yes. I think they should be given the opportunity to live like anyone else and get the support and help from the community to live a full and rewarding life, not be born and abandoned by the society. I even believe that life may indeed begin at conception (fertilization). Abortion is not good for anyone and should be avoided if at all possible. However, I am disgusted with the hypocrisy.
Anti-abortion politics in the United States is not about how they love and respect and treasure life, but about forcing everyone, especially women, to conform to the religious and male-dominant power they hold. This is why conservatives want to absolutely ban abortion AND does not want to help make life easier for poor and young mothers or their unwanted children.
If conservatives believe in the absolute priority of life, why would they also support state-sanctioned murder as revenge (death penalty), send young men to foreign countries to kill hundreds of thousands of people there and be killed, and let people die prematurely only because they lose their jobs and cannot afford to see a doctor and buy medicine? But then insist that life is absolutely protected by the government as long as it is in a woman's womb? Makes no sense to me, until I realize that the Republican concern in the anti-abortion debate is NOT how precious life is.
此喵已死,有事烧纸
I want to clarify something about federal budget deficit.
How has GWB squandered the surplus left by the Clinton administration? The two biggest holes from which tax money has drained out are two things pushed by the GWB white house (while manipulating and forcing the Congress --- with Republican majority --- to go along): First a huge corporate and capital gain tax cut in 2000, then the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The corporate tax cut was the third largest tax cut in history. McCain voted against it then, but now says he wants to expand it and make it permanent in 2010 when the original law expires. Both Obama and Clinton said their position was to let it expire.
If Democratic politicians do not immediately balance the budget, just by letting the original tax cut to expire and to stop the bleeding that is the war, the budget deficit would at least shrink and eventually disappear.
If McCain (and more important, the neo-cons behind him) goes into power, the additional tax cut he proposes and the continuation of the war will tear the hole bigger and bigger and bigger.
The tax cut proposed by Obama has a lower income limit (less than 250K per year I think) than McCain (something like 5 million), which means that, by Obama's plan, more people in the upper income bracket will pay the higher tax rate. Thus more tax revenue over all.
So if a person feels that diminishing federal budget deficit is important and necessary, it would not make sense to agree with McCain's plan.
How has GWB squandered the surplus left by the Clinton administration? The two biggest holes from which tax money has drained out are two things pushed by the GWB white house (while manipulating and forcing the Congress --- with Republican majority --- to go along): First a huge corporate and capital gain tax cut in 2000, then the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The corporate tax cut was the third largest tax cut in history. McCain voted against it then, but now says he wants to expand it and make it permanent in 2010 when the original law expires. Both Obama and Clinton said their position was to let it expire.
If Democratic politicians do not immediately balance the budget, just by letting the original tax cut to expire and to stop the bleeding that is the war, the budget deficit would at least shrink and eventually disappear.
If McCain (and more important, the neo-cons behind him) goes into power, the additional tax cut he proposes and the continuation of the war will tear the hole bigger and bigger and bigger.
The tax cut proposed by Obama has a lower income limit (less than 250K per year I think) than McCain (something like 5 million), which means that, by Obama's plan, more people in the upper income bracket will pay the higher tax rate. Thus more tax revenue over all.
So if a person feels that diminishing federal budget deficit is important and necessary, it would not make sense to agree with McCain's plan.
此喵已死,有事烧纸
我觉得都这年头了美国这个antiabortion的运动还这么如火如荼很不可思议,居然还有成功的可能性就太吓人了.
弱弱地说一句,我觉得28周以后的胎儿就已经是个人了.虽然我觉得母亲有权利决定生 不生,但不应该是只要还没生出来就可以.加拿大的线好象是二十五六周.当然说一百六十天(或者类似数字)就不是人一百六十一天就是人这件事不合逻辑,但是这条线总得划在什么地方.二十五六周有足够的时间给妈妈做决定.
我个人认为九个月因为兔唇就不要和生下来发现宝宝不是完美宝宝就掐死没啥区别.既然后者是谋杀,我觉得前者也不应该允许.
至于说性别选择的流产,只要流产合法,好象没什么理由不允许.道德上我们可以鄙视.加拿大很多印度和中国人聚居地方的b超室拒绝判断性别只不过是制造一点不方便,哪挡得住啊.
我个人在有可能的情况下不会选择生唐氏儿.不过我想友情提醒一下想当妈妈的,能在胎儿时期查出来的问题是有限的,健康胎儿因为生产时出状况也有可能生下来有比唐氏症更严重的问题,比如脑瘫.另外孕产妇死亡率永远不是零.
很同意小白说当妈后心比较软.我大半夜的喂完奶不睡觉啃哧啃哧地用iphone在这里发贴子.
弱弱地说一句,我觉得28周以后的胎儿就已经是个人了.虽然我觉得母亲有权利决定生 不生,但不应该是只要还没生出来就可以.加拿大的线好象是二十五六周.当然说一百六十天(或者类似数字)就不是人一百六十一天就是人这件事不合逻辑,但是这条线总得划在什么地方.二十五六周有足够的时间给妈妈做决定.
我个人认为九个月因为兔唇就不要和生下来发现宝宝不是完美宝宝就掐死没啥区别.既然后者是谋杀,我觉得前者也不应该允许.
至于说性别选择的流产,只要流产合法,好象没什么理由不允许.道德上我们可以鄙视.加拿大很多印度和中国人聚居地方的b超室拒绝判断性别只不过是制造一点不方便,哪挡得住啊.
我个人在有可能的情况下不会选择生唐氏儿.不过我想友情提醒一下想当妈妈的,能在胎儿时期查出来的问题是有限的,健康胎儿因为生产时出状况也有可能生下来有比唐氏症更严重的问题,比如脑瘫.另外孕产妇死亡率永远不是零.
很同意小白说当妈后心比较软.我大半夜的喂完奶不睡觉啃哧啃哧地用iphone在这里发贴子.
我再澄清一下,我不反对因为兔唇流产量,我反对九个月了还可以想流就流.据我所知,流产合法的发达国家都有一条线规定多大可以流.我怀疑在这边即使合法找不找得到医生肯做六个月以后的胎儿.就像木开说的,医学上已经不是abortion了,而是堕胎了.木开 wrote:满35周后胎儿的早产成活率就达到99%了。因此9个月的流产实际上是引产,一般先用药物杀死胎儿,再刺激母体排出死胎。不幸碰上生命力强的胎儿,还要生下来再掐死一把。豪情 wrote:即使某些母亲做的不见得人人赞成, 比如9个月发现兔唇或者因为是女婴决定流产
理论上6个月的早产儿就有生存概率,因此我个人以为至少在那以后胎儿算得上是一个人,而不能由父母决定生死。
我看过一个产科医生的文章,说他们最怕做一车车抓来计划生育的大肚婆,出来都是活生生的,还会哭.......
没事谁流孩子啊,不管多大的.别说人流了,自然流掉还伤心得不行呢.讨论的不就是有事的时候,比如九个月发现兔唇.......
再顶着砖头说一句,六个月都过来了真的又不想要了生下来送人也不算太起侵犯妇女权利.唐氏儿都有人肯收养兔唇算什么.
我搞错了,加拿大是没有限制的。有限制的国家:
As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.[6] In contrast, another 44 of the 152 most populous countries generally banned late-term abortions after a particular gestational age: 12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Fed., Slovak Rep., Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and the United Kingdom [Northern Ireland excluded]).
As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.[6] In contrast, another 44 of the 152 most populous countries generally banned late-term abortions after a particular gestational age: 12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Fed., Slovak Rep., Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and the United Kingdom [Northern Ireland excluded]).
Éúº¢×Ó֮ǰ֮ºóÎÒ¶¼ÊÇpro-choiceµÄ¡£Ñø¹ýº¢×ÓÕâ¼þÊ»áʹÎÒ¶Ô×Ô¼ºµÄchoice¸ü¼ÓÉ÷ÖØ¡£
---------------ÎÒÊÇÀäЦ»°µÄ·Ö¸îÏߣ£££££
Õ⼸ÌìÎÒ³°·íÎÒ¼ÒÀÏÍ·µÄ»°ÊÇ£º£¢ÄãÕâ¸öRepublican!"
ËûÑÏËàµØ¾ÀÕý£º£¢ÆäʵÎÒÊǸöIndependent."
---------------ÎÒÊÇÀäЦ»°µÄ·Ö¸îÏߣ£££££
Õ⼸ÌìÎÒ³°·íÎÒ¼ÒÀÏÍ·µÄ»°ÊÇ£º£¢ÄãÕâ¸öRepublican!"
ËûÑÏËàµØ¾ÀÕý£º£¢ÆäʵÎÒÊǸöIndependent."
Last edited by gigi on 2008-09-03 1:05, edited 1 time in total.
按照德国的刑法,孕妇在22周后流产要判上至一年的自由刑(对此法官有很大范围的量刑权,事实上由于晚期引产对孕妇本人健康损伤极大,常常免予刑罚),医生在孕12周后为人作手术的,最高可以判5年。不过德国的限制流产是有例外的,比如如果对孕妇本人造成重大身心影响的,即使在孕晚期也是可以流产的。vivi wrote:When a woman is determined to get rid of the baby how would you stop her? or just punish her afterwards?
不过在这点上我同意vivi说的,一个女人铁了心不要孩子,任谁也拦不住。现有的法律限制的主要是医生。这种限制无疑增加了孕妇想流产的风险。――当然我不愿意见到因为找了一个江湖郎中动手或者自行处理、造成一尸两命惨剧的这种极端状况,但你要问我有什么更好的法子,我也想不出来。因为母亲的选择权要保护,胎儿的生存权也应该得到保护,完全向着一个也是不对的。
事实上流产的立法跟社会状况有很大的关系。比如在欧洲,社会对未婚生育的容忍度相当高,而等着领养孩子的家庭一大堆,我觉得满一定周数以后原则上不许流产、生下孩子可以送人的规定就没什么不妥。倘若换了一个国家,未婚生子会让一个女人身败名裂的,或者孩子生出来也无力养育的,强求人生下孩子就很不厚道。
老实说,我觉得绝对反对流产和无限制支持流产都过于极端。就个人观点而言,我偏向于设一个22周-28周的分界线。(8、9个月的引产,说实话让我想一下就头皮发麻。)当然,如果生育会造成孕妇本人的身心健康严重受损的,则无论如何应该以母亲的生命健康为重。
红颜弹指老,钻石恒久远。
就是小K说的,谁没事儿流产五六个月以上的胎儿啊。真要流的,都是万般无奈的。
就象是交通管理,谁愿意没事儿撞死人出车祸?每年死在交通事故里的人是多少?婴儿的生命是生命,成年人的生命更是生命了。能否以尊重生命的名义完全避免任何人在交通事故中死亡?禁止开车是不可能的,加强车辆管理也只保证一个比较高的安全百分比,没有系统可以保证100%的完美性,不能因为有荒谬的个案就禁止整套规则行为。
加拿大是否有流产时限我不知道,不过我来了以后听说通过了一条法案:新生儿遗弃在公共场合(比如警察局门口,医院,公车站)的,不追究责任不入罪。这样是为了避免一些panic的小妈妈生了孩子拼命掩盖,遗弃在荒郊野外垃圾站使孩子死掉。
就象是交通管理,谁愿意没事儿撞死人出车祸?每年死在交通事故里的人是多少?婴儿的生命是生命,成年人的生命更是生命了。能否以尊重生命的名义完全避免任何人在交通事故中死亡?禁止开车是不可能的,加强车辆管理也只保证一个比较高的安全百分比,没有系统可以保证100%的完美性,不能因为有荒谬的个案就禁止整套规则行为。
加拿大是否有流产时限我不知道,不过我来了以后听说通过了一条法案:新生儿遗弃在公共场合(比如警察局门口,医院,公车站)的,不追究责任不入罪。这样是为了避免一些panic的小妈妈生了孩子拼命掩盖,遗弃在荒郊野外垃圾站使孩子死掉。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
Cindy McCain is really not good at interviews (perhaps she was not supposed to be anyway):
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Conventio ... 292&page=1
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Conventio ... 292&page=1
Upon McCain's complaints about reputed sexism in the media, Sawyer pointed out that Palin, in a months-old video interview with Newsweek magazine that has been posted on YouTube, once said of Hillary Clinton's sexism complaints, "I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. I mean, you've got to plow through that."
Palin also said in the Newsweek interview, "When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'Man, that doesn't do us any good -- women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country.'"
Cindy McCain responded, "I don't ever remember her saying that. But that doesn't mean it didn't occur. But in my opinion, what's going on right now, I truly believe, is sexism. If she were a man, these questions would not be asked at all."
我现在很喜欢半夜发贴子.
再多说一句关于人流堕胎合法化.在继续妊娠危及孕妇生命健康的情况下,当然是母亲的生命更重要.但是正常妊娠的情况下,超过一定时间,引产对母亲身体的伤害并不比正常生产少多少.如果胎儿已经足月,我在父母班上学到的是引产更可能导致各种复杂情况的发生.在加拿大,19周以后中止妊娠都可以申请产假,我的理解是20周流产和40周生产需要同样的时间来恢复.
因此我个人觉得象木开说的划一道22-28周的线在正常情况下对母亲的生命健康没啥影响.只是考虑到可行性问题,才更倾向于无限制的人流堕胎合法化.
在人流堕胎尚未合法化的地方,我相信有时间限制的方案会有更多人接受.谁想到third trimester abortion头皮会不发麻啊.
再多说一句关于人流堕胎合法化.在继续妊娠危及孕妇生命健康的情况下,当然是母亲的生命更重要.但是正常妊娠的情况下,超过一定时间,引产对母亲身体的伤害并不比正常生产少多少.如果胎儿已经足月,我在父母班上学到的是引产更可能导致各种复杂情况的发生.在加拿大,19周以后中止妊娠都可以申请产假,我的理解是20周流产和40周生产需要同样的时间来恢复.
因此我个人觉得象木开说的划一道22-28周的线在正常情况下对母亲的生命健康没啥影响.只是考虑到可行性问题,才更倾向于无限制的人流堕胎合法化.
在人流堕胎尚未合法化的地方,我相信有时间限制的方案会有更多人接受.谁想到third trimester abortion头皮会不发麻啊.