Medical update

It is as I suspected: Bennett's UTI was just a fluke. He caught it in the NICU. No valve issues at all. I want to scrunch up my face and be all cynical about this. Be all "hospitals are for sick people! See! This is why I wanted to birth in a birthing center!" But you know.... better a fluke than a valve issue.

B had a follow up ultrasound this morning that showed his kidneys and bladder in perfect working condition. No need for a far more invasive VCUG test (in which dye is inserted up through the penis to watch his urine flow) and we can stop giving him the antibiotics. Yay!

At what point is a baby entitled human rights?

I wish I had seen the Saddleback debates. (See this article for my reference.) John McCain immediately answered the above question with "at conception."

Aaaarrggh!

I too am pro-life! Which is why I'm against the death penalty, pro-environmentalism, 100% in favor of sex ed and birth control, and pro-choice.

McCain must know that his answer is nothing but a ploy to rope in conservative voters. How, o how, can we assign human rights at conception? This kind of thinking is so troublesome on many many levels. We cannot even pinpoint conception. Does this mean that every woman having intercourse must assume the possibility that she is carrying another life? How do we apply human rights to a being that is in utero? At what point do those minimal rights that the foetus can participate in override the human rights of the mother? I want to know McCain's answer to that!

Muslim law (in general) says that a baby gets its soul/becomes a person at 120 days. This is approximately 4 months, which is about the time the baby's movements become noticable and about the time the threat of miscarriage has passed. I would advocate that baby rights could start at about this point. This makes more sense. If we ascribe rights to a clump of cells (which is what a foetus is for the first couple of months) merely because it has the potentiality for life then testicles and ovaries need to be guarded as well. Do we then give human rights to sperm and eggs? Uh.... wait a sec. That means that all humans carry the potentiality for life (not counting that humans are already alive) and therefore deserve human rights... which they already have.

To all those people who loved McCain's answer and who go along with the theory that "life begins at conception" I want to know what they'd do if they were faced with crippling poverty, the news that their foetus had severe genetic disorders that would either severely limit the child's development or cause bankruptcy due to being underinsured, the reality of rape, etc. It is all fine and dandy to go on and on about "life beginning at conception" if never faced with a reality other than a wanted and healthy pregnancy and child. I want ALL foetuses to be wanted and healthy, but sadly that's not the reality all of time.

Granting human rights to clumps of cells limits the options for already living and breathing women (and their partners) and places the possibility of "moral failure" where it doesn't need to be. As if women need one more thing to monitored for and feel guilty about.

I hate the "pro-life/pro-choice" debate. It's a false dichotomy, a ruse, a moral distraction for the real issues that we struggle with. I want to a see a politician refuse to even entertain these sorts of ridiculous baited questions.

Meme - The Letter P

Rulz:
Comment and I'll give you a letter; then you have to list ten things you LOVE that begin with that letter. Afterward, post this in your journal and give out some letters of your own.

Great to do while breast feeding.

( P )