Wow... just, wow. (1208 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.14 on 26 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by worm (View user info) at 2004-05-14 00:21:59 EDT
I swear I will not respond to anything in this topic, I just want to see what people have to say.
The topic is abortion, I figured I'd give you a fair warning. For those of you tired of the subject or unwilling to read on, please utilize the toolbar on the left side of yuor screen to find another topic.
NOTE: The pictures are ****NOT**** gruesome in nature although they may appear to be at first glance; read the story and you will understand.
Without further ado...
==========================
In August of this year, www.Federalist.com posted a remarkable photograph of little Samuel Armas. You may recall, Samuel was only 21 weeks in his mother's womb when he underwent corrective micro-surgery for spina bifida. It was during surgery that he reached from the incision in her womb, and grasped the finger of his surgeon, Dr. Joseph Bruner.
After years of trying to have children, Julie and Alex Armas, were finally pregnant with little Samuel. But in July, received the devastating news that he had a spinal condition that would probably leave their child with severe handicaps from birth. Julie searched the Internet for help and found a website giving details of pioneering surgery being carried out by a team of specialists at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
Though considered high risk, the surgery was successful and little Samuel arrived December second, about a month before he was expected! He weighed 5 lbs., 11 ounces, and was 20.5 inches long, and was so healthy that he went go home with his parents a few days later. Samuel does have some weakness and motor sensation problems below his knees, and has begun physical therapy. His physician is optimistic that he will, in time, be able to walk.
User Reviews
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-05-14 12:08:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Or, I guess I misunderstood what I read. I thought you were implying that it had been made up and that we'd have to be making a big assumption to assume it wasn't fabricated. The USA Today archive makes you pay them to see the article now and archive.org won't show it to me.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-05-14 12:06:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I can't read.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2004-05-14 11:50:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Note: I'm not spamming you with -2's. Each of your last 2 replies has deserved a -2 more than the post itself did (which is why my first reply was a 0).
"Assuming that the doctor's line were not completely fabricated, I would also take the doctor's word over the photographer's."
Why should we assume that it was fabricated? And if you are saying it's fabricated, who are you accusing of making it up? You asked for a source that disagreed with the USA Today photographer and I provided a USA Today reporter's artical with a quote from the doctor that performed the surgery. I'd say that pretty much ought to settle it. However, you are now claiming that the doctor didn't say what he was quoted as saying or that he was lying, so it's my turn to make a demand. Find me some proof that the doctor didn't really say that or that he was lying when he did say it.
============================================
John,
I never assumed it was fabricated. In fact, I did just the opposite. However, I don't know you and I haven't checked your sources. I'm pretty sure I said that I would check it out tomorrow (today now) because I had to go to sleep.
.....
The 15 minutes of research that I have done after your last post leads me to believe that the hand did "flop out", **just as I assumed after your post about the doctor's quote**.
I do believe that you have gotten to the bottom of this, but I will check it out after my finals today.
-Wo|2M
Submitted by I_Have_a_Kristen_Fetish (user info) at 2004-05-14 10:00:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-05-14 09:49:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
*I normally wouldn't give this a +2. See if you can figure out why I did.
---
Because you're a cunt. Now give me whatever I win for figuring it out.
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-05-14 09:54:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
21 weeks is far past the cutoff for getting a legal, "routine" abortion in the US--which can only be performed by or before the first trimester (about 12-15 weeks).
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-05-14 09:49:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just for fun: Notice how many times the doctor himself referred to the fetus as a "baby." But wait, it's not a baby YET, is it? Oh that's right, precious few of the world's population are actually doctors.
*I normally wouldn't give this a +2. See if you can figure out why I did.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-05-14 09:34:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by circle_of_willis (user info) at 2004-05-14 09:29:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
take it from someone who does this for a living, the kid didn't move, the kid was asleep, just like mom. Really.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-05-14 06:13:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Note: I'm not spamming you with -2's. Each of your last 2 replies has deserved a -2 more than the post itself did (which is why my first reply was a 0).
"Assuming that the doctor's line were not completely fabricated, I would also take the doctor's word over the photographer's."
Why should we assume that it was fabricated? And if you are saying it's fabricated, who are you accusing of making it up? You asked for a source that disagreed with the USA Today photographer and I provided a USA Today reporter's artical with a quote from the doctor that performed the surgery. I'd say that pretty much ought to settle it. However, you are now claiming that the doctor didn't say what he was quoted as saying or that he was lying, so it's my turn to make a demand. Find me some proof that the doctor didn't really say that or that he was lying when he did say it.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2004-05-14 05:45:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, it seems that this is the other 1%.
Assuming that the doctor's line were not completely fabricated, I would also take the doctor's word over the photographer's.
I'm going to go to sleep now, but I will be sure to look into this more tomorrow. I'd like to thank John Galt for his observations.
-Wo|2M
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-05-14 05:34:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
OK, so we have the word of a USA Today photographer vs. the word of a surgeon regarding what the status of a patient was. You can believe the photographer all you want, but I'm gonna take the doctor's word for it.
This was taken from here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/thehand.asp
What actually happened, as described in news reports of the surgery, was that:
[J]ust as surgeon Dr. Joseph Bruner was closing the incision in Julie Armas' uterus, Samuel's thumbnail-sized hand flopped out. Bruner lifted it gently and tucked it back in. (Source 2)
Dr. Bruner later elaborated on some of the exaggerated and false claims made about this picture:
"It has become an urban legend," says Bruner, the Vanderbilt University surgeon who fixed the spina bifida lesion on Samuel. Many people he hears from wonder whether it's a fake.
"One person said the photo had been reviewed by a team of medical experts and they had determined that it was a hoax," Bruner says with a laugh.
More commonly, people want to know how the photo came to be.
Some opponents of abortion have claimed that the baby reached through the womb and grabbed the doctor's hand.
Not true, Bruner says.
Samuel and his mother, Julie, were under anesthesia and could not move.
"The baby did not reach out," Bruner says. "The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on." (Source 3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
Davis, Robert. "Spinal Surgery in Womb Tests Faith, Technology."
USA Today. 13 December 1999 (p. D7).
Davis, Robert and Michelle Healy. "Baby in Gripping Photo Born Healthy on Dec. 2."
USA Today. 7 September 1999 (p. D8).
3. Davis, Robert. "Hand of a Fetus Touched the World."
USA Today. 2 May 2000 (p. D8).
1. Higa, Keith K. "The 'Hand of Hope'."
Breaking the Chain. http://www.lava.net/~higak/chain/other/babysamuel.htm
2. Lore, Diane. "Samuel A. Armas: Reached Out from Womb."
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution. 31 December 2000 (p. A1).
The Irish Independent. "Holding Hands."
31 October 1999.
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2004-05-14 04:55:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Too depressing for a friday morning
Submitted by UberWeiss (user info) at 2004-05-14 04:41:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fact or Fiction, intriguing none the less.
I think abortion comes down to whether or not you want to have a baby.
Life is not measured in sentience, nor in comprehension, life is measured in that little spark of spirit that makes a walking lump of flesh and bone retain an instinct for survival. Not having logical thought processes or self awareness shouldn't qualify or disqualify you for mercy - having life should. Basically I believe every living thing, at some level no matter how low, is life-aware...why else survive?
And personally I believe that spark starts just when you're pulling your "Oh my God I'm gonna cum" face and ends when - well, when it ends. So while I don't rant and rave that Abortion is murder, I personally believe taking a life is murder on some level, in the purest definition of removing life from something, be it human, animal or plant. It's only how we feel about it that makes it different, not the end result.
Of course, we don't worry about plants because we don't believe they have nerves or self-awareness therefore anything we do to them can't possible be hurting them - ipso facto we CAN do ANYTHING to them - but we can hardly apply that sort of psychology to a foetus cos we know it will grow into a human one day, so instead of acknowledging the fact that life is life we bicker about whether or not the "Foetus" will be aware, and we carefully refrain from referring to the "baby" or anything that might give it that extra shred of humanitygive it a name and we argue the symantics about Rape victims and the mothers right to choose.
I still think it's taking a life, but whether that definition fits into the lofty ideals of murder that our society has developed seems to be the big poser. Then again, I wouldn't force my wife to give birth if she really didn't want a kid, I don't ahve that right - I've got the right to my opinion, sure, but at the end of the day the Mother has to decide and whether she likes it or not she's a mother when she makes that decision.
Which all goes to prove it's a fucking complex issue so it's best to form a general opinion and save it for the last drop of jack in the bottle...
*sigh*
UW
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2004-05-14 03:38:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay, last time- I promise. This gives me 99% certainty that the fetus did, in fact, reach out from the womb.
This was also found in that same google search. A USA Today photographer was there to get pictures of the surgery (as it is very risky and relatively new); this is how the picture came to be. Here is a small exerpt of what he had to say:
======
"The tension could be felt in the operating room as the surgery began. The procedure would take place within the uterus, and no part of the child was to breach the surgical opening. The entire surgical procedure on the child was completed in one hour and 13 minutes. When it was over, the surgical team breathed a sigh of relief, as did I.
"As a doctor asked me what speed film I was using, out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one's hands were near it. It was shaking from within.
"Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor's finger.
"As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture. Wow!"
When the USA Today photo editor later phoned Michael to confirm its publication, the editor declared, "It's the most incredible picture I've ever seen." The photo appeared in the newspaper in September 2000 and spread at warp speed across the globe - - leading USA Today to subsequently refer to it as the "hand of a fetus [that] touched the world."
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2004-05-14 03:24:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but JohnGalt said that the story is not true.
After a quick "Samuel Armas" search in google, I found quite a few pages regarding the surgery; all of them stating that his hand did not fall out, but was thrust out by the fetus. The 6th site in the search not only explicitly stated
"As Dr. Joseph Bruner prepared to close the womb, Samuel rolled over and thrust his fist through the surgical opening. Bruner gently tucked the tiny hand back inside and finished the procedure."
but also showed a picture of a different fetus during another in-utero operation reaching for the surgeon.
Link to the google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Samuel+Armas&btnG=Google+Search
Link to the 6th site:
http://pages.preferred.com/~7ofus/alternativechoice2.html
While this is, by no means, concrete proof that this is exactly what happened, I challenge any disbelievers to find a source that states otherwise.
Sorry for breaking my promise of not replying, but I felt that my thread was wrongly discredited.
Submitted by oddzandendz (user info) at 2004-05-14 03:17:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ohhh cuz the baby was all alive and shit (grabbing the finger) so thats why they should have all the rights as regular people who dont live in wombs. GHEY!
Submitted by oddzandendz (user info) at 2004-05-14 03:14:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Wow i didnt know they could do that. Surgery is cool. I learn something new everyday. Where does abortion tie in here? Would they have aborted this child at 21 weeks (over 5 months) becuase he had a disease??
Submitted by TheMidnight12AM (user info) at 2004-05-14 03:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I just wonder when life will have the value it once did.
Submitted by bargled (user info) at 2004-05-14 01:47:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The main reason for posting this has been shown to be wrong.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2004-05-14 01:40:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i agree, the baby grabbing his hand is bullshit.
dude (i can't remember your name, but the guy that posted before me, the argument is supposed to be, if this baby could grab the doctor's hand at 21 weeks, isn't that reason enough that abortion is taking the life of a human being?
but then you have to define human being... does this baby have the full mental capacity of a human, or is it just as intelligent as an ape, which we'd have no problem killing.
basically, the flaw in this argument is the babies life is still dependent upon the mother. since this is the case, the baby is just an extension of the mother's life, and therefore it is the mother's right to choose how her life is "lived".... well, that's what i think...
Submitted by Zod (user info) at 2004-05-14 01:39:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
In response to Dakingisdead:
There are so many things wrong with this countries medical systems, its not even funny. It's actually kinda sad if you think about it.
Submitted by dakingisdead (user info) at 2004-05-14 01:35:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Yeah just like wow.
And now the $700 000 that these doctors are paid is cool if you need their services. It is probably not cool for a whole lot of people who cannot get basic medical care because of the amount of money siphoned into these 'glamor treatments'.
And before anyone wants to jump on my bones about "if it was my kid I would think differently" etc. Yes you may be right. However that is why we elect governments to manage our finite resources for us.
I do not believe that in all instances we should be offering treatment 'just because we can'.
It is like the whole smoking deal. Figures show that if a person was to even give up smoking 6 weeks prior to an operation their recovery rate and risk of infection is not far different from that of a nonsmoker. If they do not tho they have something like a 75 percent chance of complications.
Should we not therefore be rating our patients on the likely hood of positive outcomes and penalising those who will not do what they need to ensure this.
I have another friend who had a quadruple bypass 4 years ago. He gave up smoking and remained off the fags for about 9 months. Now he is back smoking like a chimney again. Should he have the same rights for retreatment as a non smoker with a genetic predisposition to high cholestoral and heart disease?
Then as another piece of the puzzle: Should a 78 year old multimillionaire be given a multiple organ transplant to keep him alive for another possible 5 or so years, whilst there are people in their late teens and early twenties dying because they cannot get simple replacemnet kidneys etc.
I have given up smoking again today. Today is the first day of the rest of my life...
Submitted by Twiztid (user info) at 2004-05-14 01:24:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How is this topic about Abortion?
I am confused.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-05-14 01:18:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't wanna rain on your parade or anything, but that baby didn't "reach" anywhere or "grab" anything. His arm flopped out during the surgery and the docter picked it up and tucked it back in. Both the baby and the mother were knocked out for the procedure.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2004-05-14 00:55:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I disagree Zod, I believe it's a great base for an argument, its just that he's leaving it up to us to analyze. The finger grabbing thing really is amazing.
Submitted by Zod (user info) at 2004-05-14 00:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Um...for?
This really isn't much of a base for argument, although i think the baby grasping the finger is amazing. My sister had open heart surgery the day after she was born, and she's fine. Pediatric Cardiovascular surgeons deserve the $700,000 they make a year.