Slashdot Mirror

And yet a fetus is a baby, just still in the womb. If you remove the baby from the womb, it is still a baby, thus all fetus are babies, but according to the pro baby killers, fetus are not babies and that distinction in language has made the murder of millions of babies easier to get away with by calling them fetus, parasites and blobs of tissue instead of what they are, babies.

100 years from now abortion will be viewed as we today view slavery, with horror and disbelief that a civilized society could condone and legalize the murder of their own children for the sake of convenience. Savages and the ancient world did this, but our society is no better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Babies in the womb are genetically distinct, living humans, who while being dependent on their mothers for nutrients and protection, meet every criteria of a living organism and while a blastocist 20 days after fertilization is clearly not a baby, at 10 weeks (prior to 99% plus of all abortions, excepting the morning after pill, which has the same effect of preventing implantation as most birth control pills and clearly does not kill a baby) the baby is clearly identifiable as such by any 6 year old. https://www.babycenter.com/ims... Regardless of how anyone feels emotionally about this issue, unless you can refute the above, abortion is demonstrably the murder of a baby. Unless you start defining personhood by location, intelligence, ability, method of feeding, or some other arbitrary factor, the personhood of the unborn baby is undeniable.

They have these little rubber thingies that you put on banannas to stop women from getting pregnant

I got some bad news for you.

btw, men do it too. Being an ass hole isn't limited to one gender.

I fully understand the statistics and considerations that you are citing, However, you need to take it out of the theoretical and apply it to the story if you want to have a relevant post. The post was specifically about "micro babies" which is pure bunk based on the statistical deviation that they saw. (Micro babies are those born from 20-25 weeks that weigh an average of around 500g). Further, it is a well documented fact that baring genetic deformity or maternal compromise (i.e. drug use, malnutrition, etc.) fetal health and viability is predominantly predicated on gestational age and not weight at the time of birth. So the concern on birth weight is not relevant in that sense either...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://www.babycenter.com/ave...

For the record I am generally pro-choice:

As far as I understand it http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-9-weeks is well within what is considered early in the pregnancy and about average for for legal termination in many free countries. According to the slideshow above at 10 weeks the brain is 'fully developed' (or mini-brain as the slashdot article called it). This is the very beginning of the brain and nowhere near viability let alone consciousness.

Here is another example (GIS): http://www.psyking.net/387eb950.jpg, 9 weeks being approximately 63 days. Still very early and probably not doing much at this point. This is very clearly the pre-fetal period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development#Week_9. Development of conciousness is not even on the agenda at this point. "These mini-brains" are likely smaller than a pinhead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development#Week_9

I agree there is a problem with creating more fully developed brains in the lab, especially if consciousness could be achieved in sensory deprivation. Philosophically, I find it less troubling, how can something have consciousness without sense to know one exists? I do not have the answers to these questions.

Counting? Languages? At 6 months?

He'll be doing OK to say "mamma" and "papa" at 6 months.
http://www.babycenter.com/0_developmental-milestone-talking_6573.bc

An Android could be an OK toy for a 6-month-olds. But anything beyond flashing lights, shapes and sound is wasted.

Of course a colored block of wood is also a great toy for a 6-month-old.

(Actually, the most important thing about a toy is that it keeps the parent's attention so that they'll play with it together with the kid. If an Android does that, fine.)

--Why would anyone consider it responsible to have children when they don't have a year's expenses in savings?

http://www.moneyrelationship.com/retirement/the-average-net-worth-of-americans-where-do-you-stand/

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005074.html

Correlate the above data and you will see that people have children before they have money. Most people don't have a net worth of their yearly costs until they are 35. Now is this because so many people have children in their 20's? Also remember that the risks with childbirth increase with age

http://www.babycenter.com/404_what-are-the-risks-of-having-a-baby-if-im-35-or-older_3127.bc

but that said, with the advances in medical care, the outcomes are good, again having to use the medical advances to have a baby will increase expenses and lead to longer absences from an existing career.

First of all, chicken eggs from the supermarket do not have embryos in them. That would be fucking disgusting and I wouldn't eat one, let alone "bucketfuls".

50% of all abortions are performed before 8 weeks (and 98% are performed before 20 weeks). Want to see what an 8-week-old embryo looks like?

http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-8-weeks

Size: 0.63 inch/1.6 cm
Weight: 0.04 ounce/1 gram

Calling that a baby is a major fucking stretch.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. All the things you described don't mean shit because the ability/attractiveness of two working parents lies solely in the cost/convenience of child care, not simply about the value of what either parent takes home. The things you describe might account for the decline in the number of children per family unit but not for the family's decision to have both parents work. If anything, the "declining value" of individual income would lead more people to prefer staying home and taking care of the kids instead of trying to work in order to afford paying someone else to do it. Or, did you think child care was free?

The average cost of center-based daycare in the United States is $11,666 per year ($972 a month) per child.
http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-much-youll-spend-on-childcare_1199776.bc

Yeah, paying that much for a donor egg would render your intellect questionable

Raising a child is an expensive proposition. It's somewhere in the $200k range, just for the food, shelter, clothing, education, and medical care for 18 years. Then you toss on all the prenatal, neonatal, and postpartum medical bills, along with college, and it all adds up to a huge pile of money. Further, that assumes nothing goes wrong (no teen pregnancy or delinquency, no serious medical problems). At that point, spending an extra 1% for better genes doesn't seem as extravagant, and is probably a good investment.

All the financial issues aside, parents generally want what's best for their kids, and will go to great lengths for them. If getting an egg donor with good genes offers their kid a promising future, it's something prospective parents will prioritize almost irrationally.

Since you've not been through sex ed or haven't had a child, you should become educated. The due date is calculated based on the the first day of the last menstrual cycle. It's 10months. All care is based on this date.
Due date.

You should gain roughly 25-35 lbs. during your pregnancy. Over the last two trimesters you should gain about 4 lbs. every 4 weeks. How it breaks down If you gained the average of range above, this is where the weight would go (totals are rounded): Maternal: Uterus 2.39 lbs. Breasts 1.0 lbs. Blood 3.09 lbs. Water 4.15 lbs. Fat 8.27 lbs. Subtotal 18.89 lbs. Fetal: Fetus 7.5 lbs. Placenta 1.6 lbs. Amniotic Fluid 1.97 lbs. Subtotal 11.07 lbs. Total 29.96 lbs.

And even though you are posting on /. - I'll trust the baby center site over your own experience.

Theoretically a corporation serves the common good [alternet.org] or public good.

That hasn't even been theoretically true since the US was founded.

Ergo Thomas Jefferson's warning.

Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it.

I don't believe this is a significant portion of the uninsured. Please provide a citation.

I don't have a citation, or the numbers, all I know is that some people don't want health insurance.

Whether you consider it good or evil, socialized healthcare in most places taxes the rich more and gives back to everyone equally, thus resulting in wealth being redistributed from the top to the bottom. This helps to stabilize a runaway, extreme capitalist economy by partially mitigating wealth condensation.

It's also bad for research. Though by no means all research is done in the US a lot is done here. And the US basically subsidizes the rest of the world. Whereas a drug may cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in the US, elsewhere the cost may be a lot lower. Bulk purchases can lower costs, like Walmart is doing. They're using their leverage to purchase drugs in hugh bulk volumes and selling them cheap, Walmart has pledged to sell a lot of drugs at or lower than $10. And many people complain about Walmart, including me.

Ahh, so you're arguing that socialized healthcare will increase your costs?

Yes, socialized medicine will increase my cost. I don't have medical insurance but if I'm forced to have some I will be forced to pay. Look at Massachusetts, the state passed a law requiring all residents to have medical insurance, and some can't afford it. The state helps some pay for it, however it doesn't help everyone who needs the help, and those who don't have coverage will be fined by the state. People will either have to pay for something they can't afford or they will pay a fine.

If you want everyone in the US, er those who want it, to be able to afford to have medical insurance then you have to change tax codes. During World War II the US passed Wage and Price Control Laws. Without the ability to pay employees more employers had trouble getting and keeping workers. After breaking free trade, to "correct" employers' problems, the government allowed them to offer employees fringe benefits such as health insurance, and neither employers nor employees had to then pay more in tax. However by allowing employers to pay employees more without raising tax for either, say letting an employer pay an employee $3600 a year more but not raising either one's taxes the employee could then take that $3600 and buy health insurance on their own. With so many more people able to get their own insurance insurance issuers will lower insurance premiums so more could afford it, it's called competition.

Hold on, I'm not finished. Change zoning laws to allow mixed use and let neighborhood clinics open up in them, without heavy and expensive regulations, as well as allowing people to start businesses in their homes. Allow alternative and complimentary medicine to be practiced. And encourage more home births. Most babies can be delivered safely at home, and such deliveries cost less. Delivery in a hospital can cost thousands of dollars whereas home births with a midwife may cost only a few hundred, if that. Also in hospitals many unnecessary Caesarean sections are done rai

Offered with an intent to help, not criticize...

You say you had him on a "leash" but you don't seem to really mean it. 3yrs old ... large, open public place ... use a real leash like other parents have learned to.

http://ks.essortment.com/childrenleashes_rvjf.htm

http://www.epinions.com/content_106201976452

http://www.babycenter.com/dilemma/toddler/toddlerb ehavior/1149656.html

and on, and on, and on...

Been there (on the leash side ... as a kid, not an adult), can't remember squat from that young, so didn't mind.

On a serious note, it is very expensive to raise a child these days. You can count yourself lucky actually making a net gain, not 100 000 dollar loss, as most parents suffer ;-)

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/calc/raiseChild.asp
http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/

Surur

My sister has something like this.

It monitors the baby's movement (even breathing while sleeping). If there's no movement for 20 seconds, it'll sound an alarm. That could provide some peace of mind.

Babies eyes don't settle down to their final colour until sometime bewteen 6 and 12 months (source, another).

So, their irises do change, certainly in colour. There aren't many 6-12 month-old terrorists running around, so maybe that's not an issue. But what Lockridge said is clearly wrong.

Forgent Networks apparently is pretty forgentful, if they fergont to mention this until now.

Now, the Diaper Genie, there's an invention worthy of its patent.