AquaVita

What, if anything are you contributing to the solution of this problem by statements such as this?

gcameron

I was sort of expecting a kitty.

Oh, well...

livius drusus

I've watched horror. Real life is always worse. If to marvel on the wonders of science was Amie's point, then yes it would have been better suited to S&S. Of course, she would then have had to write an op of substance with clear indications of the link's content and her perspective on it, so a warning would not have been necessary. The first paragraph of the article contains 2 explicit references to the picture's political value in the abortion debate. It is packed with melodramatic superlatives about the importance of the picture. It takes every opportunity to personify the fetus using the emoting of mother and even surgeon to underscore the explicitly-stated message that fetus=baby and the clearly implied message that abortion=baby-killing. From the main page of the Youth for Life site linked to in the op: The politics evident in that article are not incidental, they are the main stated aims of the organization hosting it. I'm sure I don't know to whom this is addressed. What posters in this thread have even mentioned religion in passing?

Sabine Grant

[QUOTE]Originally posted by viscousmemories


" And for what it's worth, I'd chop that little guy to pieces with a butter knife if the mother wished it done."


Viscousmemories...if you were arguing graphism, your statement just nullified your argument.

As far as the message this picture carries as well as the article, then you need to deal with the reality it was borrowed from the Independent Irish Newspaper and the freedom of the press prevails when it comes to expressing opinions even those you dislike or disagree with.
If you have any problems with the post you refered to having been moved from the Philosophy forum as it was evaluated inappropriate for the topic at hand, I suggest you address your grievance to the Administration.
Livius could have addressed her concern for the graphism of the present picture as simply and directly as Monkeybot did or Clarice did. She could have suggested FIRST that Amie posts an OP more elaborated which would warn the viewer. As a reminder I did ask twice the author of the post in the Philosophical forum to post a warning. Which was ignored. I then informed the moderator following the Forum's procedures. Then I brought it up in the Complains forum and awaited a decision. You are welcome to follow the same procedures.
As far as the pro life message the article carries, I am not aware of any censure of this forum which percludes the expression of opinions of various currents. Debates on pro and con life issues are carried out in upper forums without anyone accusing anyone of some form of cohersion.
Amie has the right to to present her opinions or articles which she believes support her arguments as much as you have the right to do so.
We are to be responsible though for the content of pictures we post to be viewed by all including links to websites.
If I agree with posting a warning in the OP as simple as " some viewers may be affected by the content of this picture taken during a surgical procedure", I disagree with the rest of your grievances.

Shpongle

Off topic picture deleted.

Monkeybot

Totally irrelevant. The complaint was not that the image was graphic; the complaint was that the image was graphic and a warning should have been posted. This is not unusual on IIDB; a few months ago there was a thread called "Pictures as Proof" in which many, many horribly graphic images were posted. There was a disclaimer at the beginning of the thread, and as a moderator at the time, I changed quite a few pictures to links in order to spare people from looking at a horrible image if they didn't want to.

Your horror movie analogy fails because most people willingly and knowingly subject themselves to horror movies. They are prepared for the graphic images. Amie did not adequately forewarn people about the graphic nature of the image she presented; quite the opposite, she referred to it as "amazing" and "great," descriptions which only the most cynical of posters would take to mean "graphic picture of a bloody fetus." A more appropriate movie analogy, in my opinion, would be if Amie had described the movie Silence of the Lambs as "about detectives and stuff."

****

On the topic of the actual picture: What exactly is the significance of the fetus grasping? Does it show brain activity? Does it show awareness? Or is it an automatic muscular reaction? I don't think the article satsifactorily answered (or discussed) these questions, preferring to assume that we would all jump to our own conclusions.

That said, I'm extremely glad doctors have this surgery available. My aunt suffers with spina bifita, and while she is basically a normal functioning adult, she does have medical problems that have hampered her life in some ways. Worse were the societal expectations that she would automatically be retarded because of her condition (because many spina bifita children have water in the brain, causing damage), when she is anything but.

If we can do something to nip these problems in the bud, I'm all for it. There's no reason for people to needlessly have to deal with the problems caused by SB.

viscousmemories

I'm not sure what problem you're referring to, but that statement really wasn't intended to contribute to a solution of any problem. However, it did have a purpose. I was trying to express my belief that abortion should be legal for any woman who chooses to have one. At the same time pointing out, in the vulgar and offensive terms that pro-lifers seem best able to grasp, that I believe in the right of women to have abortions regardless of whether the fetus can sing and dance, squeeze fingers, or recite shakespeare, and no matter how gross the procedure looks on film and video.

Simply put, if someone is going to show me a gross picture of a bloody fetus to try to deter me from my view that women have a right to abortion, then I am going to respond in kind. Not because I think two wrongs make a right, but because I want it to be perfectly clear that I am not swayed by their disgusting tactics because, as is a recurring theme lately, I am able to separate my reasoning from my emotion.

Chicken Girl

Holy shit, Amie.

I have a Stomach of Steel (TM), so that picture didn't bother me at all, but I'd love to know what the point of that little exercise was. Why so vague? From what you wrote in your OP I was expecting puppies frolicking in a hayfield or something. I refuse to believe you are dumb enough not to know that a picture taken during a major surgery featruring tons of blood and internal organs would disturb people. What gives? We weren't born yesterday, you know.

Sabine Grant

Since it appears that some posters are interested in exploring the themes presented in both the picture and the article, should we then do so? should we start with the picture first?

The picture taken without the article inspired these thoughts to my mind : intra uterine fetal surgery can now modify a life threatening condition. I wonder how the surgeon felt as his handed was grabbed by the fetus. I wish there were a way to know his thoughts at that precise moment. I thought of the knowledge that man had to acquire to accomplish a procedure which impacted a human being and his family and resulted in giving them all the joy of having a healthy child versus one with his open spine. He gave this mother the alternative to keep her child rather than have to make the excruciating decision to terminate the pregnancy. I thought of the wonderful story this little guy will be told when he is in age to understand. I am in total awe of how medical science can prevent a tragedy. To see on that picture such a tiny human being, so fragile, so vulnerable being restored to the hope of living.....

The article... well it is pro life propaganda. It is obvious that the article targets the fact that the fetus did " something human" at 21 weeks. It exposes the argument many pro lifers use which is the humanity of the unborn. Of course that humanity has become irrelevent in the face of the rights of the mother to choose. However many pro choice individuals recognize the need to use palliative measures for abortions performed on fetuses which have developped sensorial and motor functions. So that " humanity " is not quite ignored by all pro choice individuals. In some instances, pro choice people are not considering abortion as a right because they believe " in killing children" but simply because they recognize the right for a pregnant woman to decide to support the life or her unborn fetus or not support it.

So many inflamatory terms have been used on both sides of the abortion issue that people have lost the sense of preventing abortions. Unless performed for medical reasons, or the product of rape or incest, any abortion could be avoided with safe and adequate contraceptive measures.
I would like to see more energy, time and money spent on contraception programs and activism in this country than on the abortion issue. It would be one step in the right direction. The second step being to restore some degree of responsibility when it comes to sexualy active teens. I do not think that abstinence is a solution for all teens but it needs to also be presented as an alternative to contraception.

Any other thoughts?

Doubting Didymus

The article claims that the act was conscious. The foetus is described as 'literally hanging on for dear life'. Implications include the foetus's ability to make concious human choices about grasping things for comfort. This is tenuous given that the foetus has no idea that the surgeons finger is a healing and not a dangerous object. If we are to believe that the foetus has some means of differentiating between comforting objects and frightening ones, how do the writers of the article propose that the foetus knew it was in a surgery and not an abortion clinic? Perhaps the foetus's sentiment is actually pro choce? This is obviously tongue in cheek, but nonetheless there is no evidence here that the foetus is driven by any kind of developed consious human agency.