I'm glad people agree on timelines around abortions, because that aligns with the reality that there is timelines around abortions.
Well duh.
Canada funds abortions up to 23 weeks in some provinces and some clinics offer late term abortion services.
According to Statistics Canada, 491 babies were born alive between 2000 and 2009 following an abortion, only to die shortly after. This means, once fully separated from their mothers, they were either breathing or had a beating heart. Other “signs of life” include “pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.”
This is too late in my opinion. Much too late. I'm all for women's rights, but be somewhat responsible: know ahead of time where you are at with regards to an accidental pregnancy and move forward with the procedure so an infant isn't gasping its dying breaths on a stainless steel table.
gross. my nephew was born at 24 weeks and survived (barely). he was a fully formed human, albeit very small, but a living, breathing human nonetheless. 23 weeks is too late. I don't know what the cutoff should be, but to me that seems way too late.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I'm glad people agree on timelines around abortions, because that aligns with the reality that there is timelines around abortions.
Well duh.
Canada funds abortions up to 23 weeks in some provinces and some clinics offer late term abortion services.
According to Statistics Canada, 491 babies were born alive between 2000 and 2009 following an abortion, only to die shortly after. This means, once fully separated from their mothers, they were either breathing or had a beating heart. Other “signs of life” include “pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.”
This is too late in my opinion. Much too late. I'm all for women's rights, but be somewhat responsible: know ahead of time where you are at with regards to an accidental pregnancy and move forward with the procedure so an infant isn't gasping its dying breaths on a stainless steel table.
gross. my nephew was born at 24 weeks and survived (barely). he was a fully formed human, albeit very small, but a living, breathing human nonetheless. 23 weeks is too late. I don't know what the cutoff should be, but to me that seems way too late.
Yup. Too late barring circumstances such as a stillbirth or life threatening situation.
I'm glad people agree on timelines around abortions, because that aligns with the reality that there is timelines around abortions.
Well duh.
Canada funds abortions up to 23 weeks in some provinces and some clinics offer late term abortion services.
According to Statistics Canada, 491 babies were born alive between 2000 and 2009 following an abortion, only to die shortly after. This means, once fully separated from their mothers, they were either breathing or had a beating heart. Other “signs of life” include “pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.”
This is too late in my opinion. Much too late. I'm all for women's rights, but be somewhat responsible: know ahead of time where you are at with regards to an accidental pregnancy and move forward with the procedure so an infant isn't gasping its dying breaths on a stainless steel table.
gross. my nephew was born at 24 weeks and survived (barely). he was a fully formed human, albeit very small, but a living, breathing human nonetheless. 23 weeks is too late. I don't know what the cutoff should be, but to me that seems way too late.
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
I'm glad people agree on timelines around abortions, because that aligns with the reality that there is timelines around abortions.
Well duh.
Canada funds abortions up to 23 weeks in some provinces and some clinics offer late term abortion services.
According to Statistics Canada, 491 babies were born alive between 2000 and 2009 following an abortion, only to die shortly after. This means, once fully separated from their mothers, they were either breathing or had a beating heart. Other “signs of life” include “pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.”
This is too late in my opinion. Much too late. I'm all for women's rights, but be somewhat responsible: know ahead of time where you are at with regards to an accidental pregnancy and move forward with the procedure so an infant isn't gasping its dying breaths on a stainless steel table.
The age of viability is pretty universally agreed to be 24 weeks gestation. Even with extraordinary measures, it is nearly impossible to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb before that, beating heart or not. I helped deliver a pregnant woman who was in premature labor at 23 weeks. The infant did not survive. Amniocentesis for genetic testing is usually done between 15 and 20 weeks, and results may take a few days to up to 4 weeks.
And the sun it may be shining . . . but there's an ocean in my eyes
I'm glad people agree on timelines around abortions, because that aligns with the reality that there is timelines around abortions.
Well duh.
Canada funds abortions up to 23 weeks in some provinces and some clinics offer late term abortion services.
According to Statistics Canada, 491 babies were born alive between 2000 and 2009 following an abortion, only to die shortly after. This means, once fully separated from their mothers, they were either breathing or had a beating heart. Other “signs of life” include “pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.”
This is too late in my opinion. Much too late. I'm all for women's rights, but be somewhat responsible: know ahead of time where you are at with regards to an accidental pregnancy and move forward with the procedure so an infant isn't gasping its dying breaths on a stainless steel table.
gross. my nephew was born at 24 weeks and survived (barely). he was a fully formed human, albeit very small, but a living, breathing human nonetheless. 23 weeks is too late. I don't know what the cutoff should be, but to me that seems way too late.
How's your nephew fared since?
he had some learning issues at first, and he walks with his heels in the air (not enough time in the womb for his leg muslces to stretch out and develop properly), but he's a perfectly normal, functional 18 year old kid now.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I'm glad people agree on timelines around abortions, because that aligns with the reality that there is timelines around abortions.
Well duh.
Canada funds abortions up to 23 weeks in some provinces and some clinics offer late term abortion services.
According to Statistics Canada, 491 babies were born alive between 2000 and 2009 following an abortion, only to die shortly after. This means, once fully separated from their mothers, they were either breathing or had a beating heart. Other “signs of life” include “pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.”
This is too late in my opinion. Much too late. I'm all for women's rights, but be somewhat responsible: know ahead of time where you are at with regards to an accidental pregnancy and move forward with the procedure so an infant isn't gasping its dying breaths on a stainless steel table.
gross. my nephew was born at 24 weeks and survived (barely). he was a fully formed human, albeit very small, but a living, breathing human nonetheless. 23 weeks is too late. I don't know what the cutoff should be, but to me that seems way too late.
How's your nephew fared since?
he had some learning issues at first, and he walks with his heels in the air (not enough time in the womb for his leg muslces to stretch out and develop properly), but he's a perfectly normal, functional 18 year old kid now.
That's awesome. We have a family member who delivered at 26 weeks. He is probably a little older than your nephew and is also doing fine.
And the sun it may be shining . . . but there's an ocean in my eyes
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
I am pro-choice. But I would have to do a LOT more research to form an informed opinion on the timeline I think should be followed. I am just stating from my experience, that back in 1998 they gave my nephew about a 3% chance of survival. he was in the hospital for 3 months and no one could go in to his ICU except my brother and his wife. I didn't meet my nephew until he was 12 weeks old.
we were told at the time he was one of the earliest born babies to ever survive in my province. I'm sure that needle has moved earlier in the past 18 years.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
I have been an RN for a long time. This hasn't changed much. A 2014 summary of a workshop that involved the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics said that “in general, those born at 23 weeks of gestation should be considered potentially viable” because more than a quarter of such babies survive when treated intensively. The report said nothing helps babies born at less than 22 weeks to survive.
And the sun it may be shining . . . but there's an ocean in my eyes
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
I have been an RN for a long time. This hasn't changed much. A 2014 summary of a workshop that involved the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics said that “in general, those born at 23 weeks of gestation should be considered potentially viable” because more than a quarter of such babies survive when treated intensively. The report said nothing helps babies born at less than 22 weeks to survive.
Great info, thanks! Technology is constantly evolving, so again viability may change in the future as it that term is solely based on current technology and I feel that technology should be pursued for those who would like the ability to continue with the life of their child if for some reason they are unable to continue carrying them in their uterus.
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.
You keep leaving out "with current technology". I do not think that you can have a serious discussion because of your inherent bias against pro life advocates. That and having a later and later non-viable standard supports your bias towards your own abortion ethics.
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.
You keep leaving out "with current technology".
What point are you trying to make? You proved you don't know anything about what you are arguing about so now you're trying to move the goal post to hypotheticals and possible future technology.
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.
You keep leaving out "with current technology".
What point are you trying to make? You proved you don't know anything about what you are arguing about so now you're trying to move the goal post to hypotheticals and possible future technology.
You've chosen to attack because my rhetoric challenges your already preconceived notions...stop replying then to me if you cannot carry on an actual discussion...I'm providing valid arguments and you are not responding to them because you do not have any of your own.
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.
I don't think dismissal is a very valid form of dialogue. see the exchange above between oceaninmyeyes and pjpower as an example of how things work better around here.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.
I don't think dismissal is a very valid form of dialogue. see the exchange above between oceaninmyeyes and pjpower as an example of how things work better around here.
I am %100 comfortable with where I stand. If you haven't noticed a certain poster here is not interested in facts, only maybes and trying to de-legitimize the marches from last weekend....Trumps world now. I'm not interested, and I will call it out when I see it....they will cry victim. If you want to fall for that, go for it.
23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.
I don't think dismissal is a very valid form of dialogue. see the exchange above between oceaninmyeyes and pjpower as an example of how things work better around here.
I am %100 comfortable with where I stand. If you haven't noticed a certain poster here is not interested in facts, only maybes and trying to de-legitimize the marches from last weekend....Trumps world now. I'm not interested, and I will call it out when I see it....they will cry victim. If you want to fall for that, go for it.
So questioning things is delegitimization? If anything, the fact that a conversation has been started is legitimation of the marches...right? Unless you have a "agree with me or fuck you" mentality.
I would prefer to read information from a professional in the field.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
Those kids would ask about the pink hats, and why you weren't marching.
My daughters were laughing at the marchers and thought the speakers were insane.
Of course they were. You have shaped their viewpoints as a parent. That's what happens. In some cases children can escape the dark cloud of narrow mindedness, but not always.
Nope. Completely uncoached. I do not push my point of view on them at all.
That is truly impossible. Not arguing for or against the discussion here, just calling out BS.
Why? I don't speak to them the way I write in here. They get a lot more of a progressive spin at school and when we discuss things I don't shoot down anything. We talk about how things are looked at from different angles but I am very careful to not make my preference seem like the right one. In terms of media I mainly have MSNBC on in the house which they don't even pay attention too. My daughters laughing at the march happened completely on their own when we happened to drive past a woman carrying a sign in Toronto. I hadn't to that point discussed the march with them at all. They saw clips of rioters the day before on their own and saw clips of Madonna later in the day. They were not impressed and I had zero to do with it.
Your daughters are laughing at marchers and Madonna and rioters? clearly they are not into empowering themselves as women, and making fun of other women, for taking a stand? You must be proud. That mocking and belief of others came from somewhere.
Yes. It brought a tear to my eye. #prouddad
Way to go lifting them up and empowering them.
They have a mother who competes in crossfit competitions in her spare time. They get plenty of empowerment. Sorry that they find foul-mouthed aging rock stars desparate for relevancy to be lame.
you said they were laughing at the marchers.
Yes. It started when they saw some women carrying signs in Toronto. They said "why are they marching? They don't live in the states? Who cares?". To which I said "they are showing support for women in the states". To which they said "Trump won and he hasn't even done anything yet...they should give him a chance". I said "they are worried he will take away their right" and they thought that was just ridiculous. I gave them the view point of the marchers and they didn't buy it. Later they saw clips of madonna and ashley judd and they thought they were nuts.
So you think that they're so much smarter than the marchers, in a different country, under a different rule... but they think the largest protest in US history should give him a chance, an admitted pussy grabber, and so much more. ( just look at what's happened since Friday). Clearly they don't understand. But go ahead, let them judge A huge diverse group of people and while you're at it, I'm sure your influence is there.
Well I haven't said that they are smarter. I only have said that they have a different opinion. A free country allows for that. You claim to be all about hope and optimism and the need for a free media but when it comes to thought you are as facist as they come.
I get your point BS, but you do influence them by how you do or don't answer and discuss topics. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that because we all do it, intentional or not. If you had been supportive of the march from your own perspective you would answer their questions differently and in more detail because you want them to fully understand it, but if you don't agree or aren't quite sure, your answer is more vague and less informative for them to comprehend the reasons.
That's fair but for the record on this topic I gave them the marchers point of view...I play devils advocate with them all the time just to get them to think. Now certainly I didn't give them the marchers point of view with any level of intensity but I didn't show any disdain for the march either. This came from their own mouths and whether it was absorbed from me or their mother or someone at school is irrelevant...the march did not generate any real empathy in them and in some respects the clips they saw (summed up in the video I posted) pushed them away. The point being that while the march was very impressive in numbers it may not have achieve it's intended goal. It might in fact have done the opposite.
I can't watch the video you posted while at work, but was it Madonna talking about blowing up the white house? did they see the FULL clip, where she says "yes, I have thought about it.....but I'm here to promote love...." and the actual message was that love trumps hate. I can see why everyone is jumping all over madonna for those comments, because all they saw was the first part about blowing up the WH.
I don't think it was the whole clip just the choice words. I guess you can make an argument about context but I don't think Madonna covered herself in glory no matter which way you slice it.
... and what channel is this?
Not sure. MSNBC and CNN I believe showed it live but they didn't see it then. Her comments were pretty much covered everywhere and have been all over the internet. I am not sure what point you are trying to prove but I would hope that you would support a women's right to think for herself. It seems that this concept troubles you?
What's troubling is your lack of acknowledging your influence.
And if the media is highlighting the negative points for Madonna's speech? Rather than the entire speech which was about love? Hmmm
She was still wrong to do that though. Glad Cyndi Lauper called her out for that. Ferrara and Johansson took the high road. Madonna can learn a thing or two.
Comments
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
we were told at the time he was one of the earliest born babies to ever survive in my province. I'm sure that needle has moved earlier in the past 18 years.
-EV 8/14/93
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
To get back on a more relevant subject
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
-EV 8/14/93