10 Yrs. Later, Boys 'Hand of Hope' Continues to Spark Debate

[rockin'robin]

Nearly 10 years after a stunning photograph of his tiny hand traveled the world, Samuel Armas has a firm grip on what "The Hand of Hope" means to him.

"When I see that picture, the first thing I think of is how special and lucky I am to have God use me that way," Samuel told FOXNews.com. "I feel very thankful that I was in that picture."

On Aug. 19, 1999, photographer Michael Clancy shot the "Fetal Hand Grasp" — his picture of a 21-week-old fetus grasping a doctor's finger during innovative surgery to correct spina bifida. Nearly four months later, on Dec. 2, Samuel Armas was "born famous."

The photo, which first appeared in USA Today on Sept. 7, 1999, quickly spread across the globe as proof of development in the womb and was later cited during congressional debates on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which passed in 2000.

"It's just a miracle picture, a miracle moment," Clancy told FOXNews.com. "It shows the earliest human interaction ever recorded."

• Click here for photos.

Samuel, now 9 and living in Villa Rica, Ga., said the photo likely gave countless "babies their right to live" and forced many others to debate their beliefs on abortion, something he's proud of.

"It's very important to me," Samuel said of the photograph. "A lot of babies would've lost their lives if that didn't happen."

Julie Armas, Samuel's mother, said her eldest son has a "very strong sense of right and wrong" and understands the impact of his unconventional first baby photo.

"He identifies it more in terms of a pro-life message more than anything," she told FOXNews.com. "This photo happened and God used it to show people that this baby in mom's tummy is alive. He's pleased that his photo conveyed that message."

Armas said Samuel will wear lower leg braces for the rest of his life as a result of spina bifida, which occurs when the spine fails to close properly during early pregnancy. He'll also use a wheelchair during long trips, as he did at Great Adventure earlier this week. But the mother of three said Samuel "walks great" and has been lucky enough to avoid some surgeries associated with his condition.

"He's doing extremely well," she told FOXNews.com. "We pray that he continues to be as healthy and able as he has been."

Samuel's condition hasn't slowed his activities as a decorated Cub Scout or in the swimming pool, where he took first place last weekend in a 25-yard backstroke event.

"I love to swim," Samuel said of his typical Saturday activity. "You use your arms a lot and it gives your arms great muscles."

The third-grader also loves science and animals, especially orcas, bald eagles and tigers. And he still collects bugs, something his father, Alex, revealed during a Senate hearing in 2003 to highlight advances in fetal surgery.

"Anything we see, he wants to catch and put it in a jar to watch it," Julie Armas said. "He's a great kid, he really is. He's very gentle; he's very laid-back."

Clancy, who hasn't photographed a surgery since Samuel's, recalled meeting him for just the third time in 2007 during an event for Come Alive Ministries in Atlanta.

"His eyes just lit up because he was born famous because of that picture," Clancy told FOXNews.com. "It was amazing."

Clancy, who was a freelancer for USA Today when he photographed Samuel's fully-formed hand, now works as a motivational speaker at pro-life events. Prior to the picture, Clancy said, he was pro-choice.

"And that's what I'm going to do, keep telling this story," he said. "It can change people's hearts. What started off as an assignment turned into a responsibility to keep telling the story behind it."

A crucial part of the story, Clancy argues, is whether Samuel reached through the 8-inch opening in his mother's uterus and grabbed Dr. Joseph Bruner's hand, or if the doctor manipulated the hand during surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Tennessee.

"I could see the uterus shake violently and then this little fist came out of the surgical opening," Clancy recalls. "It came out under its own power. When Dr. Bruner lifted the little hand, I fired my camera and the tighter Samuel squeezed, the harder Dr. Bruner shook his hand."

Bruner, who could not be reached for comment, has told reporters that Samuel and his mother were under anesthesia and could not move. In a Jan. 9, 2000, article in The Tennessean, he said he pulled Samuel's hand out of the uterus, further complicating the debate surrounding the photograph.

But none of that matters to Julie Armas. Samuel continues to thrive, and he is leading the way for his 3-year-old brother, Zachary, who also has spina bifida.

"I don't care, honestly," Julie Armas said. "What I felt the picture showed is that this is a child engaging in some form of interaction. I'm a labor and delivery nurse, so I understand that Samuel was anesthetized to some degree.

"So if he reached out, I don't know. If Dr. Bruner reached out, I don't know. The fact of the matter is it's a child with a hand, with a life, and that's meaningful enough."

Ten Years Later, Boy's 'Hand of Hope' Continues to Spark Debate - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

"It's just a miracle picture, a miracle moment," Clancy told FOXNews.com. "It shows the earliest human interaction ever recorded."

A crucial part of the story, Clancy argues, is whether Samuel reached through the 8-inch opening in his mother's uterus and grabbed Dr. Joseph Bruner's hand, or if the doctor manipulated the hand during surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Tennessee.

"I could see the uterus shake violently and then this little fist came out of the surgical opening," Clancy recalls. "It came out under its own power. When Dr. Bruner lifted the little hand, I fired my camera and the tighter Samuel squeezed, the harder Dr. Bruner shook his hand."

Bruner, who could not be reached for comment, has told reporters that Samuel and his mother were under anesthesia and could not move. In a Jan. 9, 2000, article in The Tennessean, he said he pulled Samuel's hand out of the uterus, further complicating the debate surrounding the photograph.

I don't think Clancy is telling the truth at all. Can a fetus shake violently inside an uterus at 21 weeks gestation, especially under ANESTHESIA? Would a 21-week gestation fetus actually have the strength to reach out and grasp the doctor's finger if it weren't under anesthesia, which it was under anesthesia anyway? And If I were the doctor who operated on the mother, I would NOT shake the FRAGILE fetus' hand - in fear of possibly HARMING the FRAGILE fetus. A fetus at 21 weeks gestation is FRAGILE. Also, I do not think doctors/surgeons are supposed to do things like this, it is extremely inappropriate - this doctor's job was to FIX the birth defect, not do a "photo op" and be touching the other parts of the fetus' body unless it is something that needs to be gently moved out of the way in order to get to the area needed to fix the birth defect. I also took a look at the picture, and it clearly and obviously does NOT look like the fetus actually reached out on its own, but rather more like the doctor actually manipulated the hand out of the uterus and did a "photo op" - the fetus's hand looks limp, which is to be expected as the fetus was under ANESTHESIA. And when the mother was being operated on, BOTH the mother and the fetus were under anesthesia, therefore it was IMPOSSIBLE for the fetus to actually reach out and grasp the doctor's finger, let alone squeeze the doctor's finger, therefore there was NO actual interaction between the fetus and the doctor, period. The fetus' hand WAS MANIPULATED out of the uterus for a photo op, period.

I personally think the doctor who did this "photo op" should have been fired and his license revoked forever. At least the doctor told the truth and said that he DID PULL the fetus' hand out of the mother's uterus. So Clancy's words has no weight at all, he is full of it - there is no interaction between the fetus and the doctor, period.

If I was that doctor I would NOT be manipulating that fetus' hand out of the uterus for a "photo op" simply because it was NOT the appropriate thing to do during a serious major surgery where the fetus was in a VERY FRAGILE situation/condition. NO doctor nor surgeon in his/her own right mind would SHAKE a FRAGILE 21-WEEK GESTATION fetus's hand, even if the fetus' hand squeezed, which it did NOT. The fetus could have been HARMED by the doctor's shaking. A 21 week fetus is FRAGILE. I would NEVER do that if I was a doctor or a surgeon...if I were the doctor I would ONLY do what I was SUPPOSED to do...which was to FIX the birth defect, and then when I was done, to clean up and close the patient's incision up and be done, and I would not do anything else, and I would most certainly not be doing any "photo op" just because it looks so "awesome". This doctor did this for the "awesomeness" factor as well as a photo op, and Clancy had his agenda, which is why he snapped that photo. Besides, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the fetus to even squeeze the doctor's finger given the fact that the fetus AND the mother was under ANESTHESIA. When you are under anesthesia you CANNOT MOVE. YOU CANNOT FEEL ANYTHING.

THERE IS NO INTERACTION BETWEEN THE FETUS AND THE DOCTOR, PERIOD BECAUSE THE FETUS WAS UNDER ANESTHESIA AND THEREFORE COULD NOT MOVE - WHEN ONE IS PUT UNDER ANESTHESIA ONE IS PUT TO SLEEP SO THE DOCTORS/SURGEONS COULD DO THE SURGERY SAFELY WITHOUT THE PATIENT MOVING AROUND - THEY HAVE TO BE VERY STILL! END OF STORY!

 

[pek1]

As a journalist, if I was in a situation that would deem a photo-op, such as this or 9-11, I'd take the picture and then some. It's not trampling upon the rights of anyone, as it is news in the making and by all means, people would want to see it.

As for suspending the doctor's license: What for? I'm sure that when my orthopedic surgeon operated on my left hand, he had someone there taking pictures; he was also a professor of anatomy at the University of Minnesota Hospital. I would anticipate there would be pictures during the operation for future teaching; he had residents with him when he saw me, why wouldn't he have pictures taken? One resident took pictures at least twice if I can remember, so I have no "ethical" problem with pictures being taken.

Lucia, I think you're asking for a pound of flesh. Suppose he had another surgeon step in to do some work while he stepped out to use the restroom. Would that be a reason for him to lose his license? Of course not, because ALL surgeons have to have another one in the operating room at all times in case the primary surgeon cannot complete the surgery.

As for the other arguments you made, the doctor knows what he is doing and knows all risks and then some. How many years have you studied medicine? I think your argument is on the side of being pro-abortion, because those people who want and are in favor of abortion would never want to see those pictures, especially of a baby's hand.

I applaud medical science for what it's doing and the work that's to come in the future. Can you imagine if a baby is known to be born deaf and the doctor goes in and fixes the hearing what it would do? I know the deaf community would hate it, but others would applaud that the middle and inner ear can be repaired as such. Unfortunately, the deaf community fights amongst its own, so I don't put much stock into what it has to say. I'm sure if a deaf child has only one hand and medical science went in to correct the other one (as in my case), the deaf community would be vehemently against it.

 

[rockin'robin]

As a journalist, if I was in a situation that would deem a photo-op, such as this or 9-11, I'd take the picture and then some. It's not trampling upon the rights of anyone, as it is news in the making and by all means, people would want to see it.

As for suspending the doctor's license: What for? I'm sure that when my orthopedic surgeon operated on my left hand, he had someone there taking pictures; he was also a professor of anatomy at the University of Minnesota Hospital. I would anticipate there would be pictures during the operation for future teaching; he had residents with him when he saw me, why wouldn't he have pictures taken? One resident took pictures at least twice if I can remember, so I have no "ethical" problem with pictures being taken.

Lucia, I think you're asking for a pound of flesh. Suppose he had another surgeon step in to do some work while he stepped out to use the restroom. Would that be a reason for him to lose his license? Of course not, because ALL surgeons have to have another one in the operating room at all times in case the primary surgeon cannot complete the surgery.

As for the other arguments you made, the doctor knows what he is doing and knows all risks and then some. How many years have you studied medicine? I think your argument is on the side of being pro-abortion, because those people who want and are in favor of abortion would never want to see those pictures, especially of a baby's hand.

I applaud medical science for what it's doing and the work that's to come in the future. Can you imagine if a baby is known to be born deaf and the doctor goes in and fixes the hearing what it would do? I know the deaf community would hate it, but others would applaud that the middle and inner ear can be repaired as such. Unfortunately, the deaf community fights amongst its own, so I don't put much stock into what it has to say. I'm sure if a deaf child has only one hand and medical science went in to correct the other one (as in my case), the deaf community would be vehemently against it.

Good post!

 

[Dixie]

:agree:

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

First off, I want to say I have absolutely NO issues with the mother's decision to have this surgery done on her and her fetus. But, that's not the issue here, anyway.

As a journalist, if I was in a situation that would deem a photo-op, such as this or 9-11, I'd take the picture and then some. It's not trampling upon the rights of anyone, as it is news in the making and by all means, people would want to see it.

The photo-op was done for selfish reasons: publicity for the pro-lifers. Pro-lifers will try to get their hands on anything and everything that even in the slightest supports the pro-life agenda. They seize every single opportunity. They are very obsessed. Want to know what the really sad thing about this is? Some of them spend years picketing at the abortion clinics, then have even gone into the very same clinic secretly for their own abortions, and then come back out, recover, and then go back to picketing at the very same clinic and condemning the very same abortions they just had - they are the biggest hypocrites I have ever seen, seriously. They do this because they know the clinic CANNOT talk to others about it - against the HIPAA laws, and the pro-lifers take advantage of that so they can have secret abortions while continuing to support their own anti-abortion agenda. It's true. Seriously, if you are against abortion, don't have one!

And, it's not 9/11. 9/11 is a really HUGE deal than this. I mean, that was epic. I don't think I have ever experience something as epic as this ever before. I still have NOT forgotten that day, I have NOT forgotten seeing both towers coming down, the people jumping or falling to their deaths (some actually jumped). I was scared shitless to stay alone in my apartment on that day - I'd just moved to this college town a few weeks earlier therefore I was not in a familiar place anymore, I ended up staying at my ex-best friend's dorm at our university, squashed up together on one little twin bed in her room just because we felt safer together. We didn't know what the terrorists would do next. And the media played the 9/11 videos on all the news stations repeatedly for weeks on end. Also, 9/11 is not something you can hide from the rest of the USA. I mean, that was in NYC. New York City. People in NYC talk. People at the Pentagon talk. So, there is no liability in this case with the 9/11 photos, except for some people who put the 9/11 photos on ebay for their own selfish reasons - ebay rightfully so removed those pictures and revoked their accounts and that was pretty much it.

As for suspending the doctor's license: What for? I'm sure that when my orthopedic surgeon operated on my left hand, he had someone there taking pictures; he was also a professor of anatomy at the University of Minnesota Hospital. I would anticipate there would be pictures during the operation for future teaching; he had residents with him when he saw me, why wouldn't he have pictures taken? One resident took pictures at least twice if I can remember, so I have no "ethical" problem with pictures being taken.

Yes, if the pictures were taken for documenting the surgery for legal and medical reasons only, and if permission was given, for teaching purposes.

I had a CI surgery in October of 2006. I have no issues with photos being taken of the surgery as long as it was done for legal and medical reasons - for liability if the surgery goes wrong, as well as teaching purposes (I still want them to have me sign waivers if they want to use these photos for teaching purposes in medical schools). Not for photo-ops unless have given permission, which I have not given permission for. If I ever found out that the photos taken during my surgery has been leaked to the media, I would have a big issue since I never signed any waivers to permit the doctors to provide the photos to the media. I do not do photo-ops.

Lucia, I think you're asking for a pound of flesh. Suppose he had another surgeon step in to do some work while he stepped out to use the restroom. Would that be a reason for him to lose his license? Of course not, because ALL surgeons have to have another one in the operating room at all times in case the primary surgeon cannot complete the surgery.

Then that surgeon who stepped in should be held responsible as well. Everyone in the entire team who is involved in a surgery should always be held responsible if something goes wrong.

As for the other arguments you made, the doctor knows what he is doing and knows all risks and then some. How many years have you studied medicine? I think your argument is on the side of being pro-abortion, because those people who want and are in favor of abortion would never want to see those pictures, especially of a baby's hand.

Well, I know for a fact that a fetus is FRAGILE, especially when it was not even yet full term. Everybody knows that. Like, DUH. You do not need a medical school degree to know that.

Yes, I am pro-abortion. I choose the lesser of the two evils. I do not like abortions, BUT, I would rather that legal abortions be allowed for safety reasons and are less painful and less traumatizing to the women than the back-alley and kitchen abortions of the 1950s. Do you want to go back to the 1950s period where women were having illegal secret abortions in their own kitchens on the kitchen tables with "so-called" doctors who clearly were not qualified, using very dirty and non-sterile tools such as a coat hanger or some other tools that are very harmful, doing a VERY PAINFUL BOTCHED ABORTION with no anesthesia, causing very grave medical consequences to the women, ranging from very serious infections to hemorrhaging to even a VERY PAINFUL DEATH? SO MANY WOMEN DIED!!! Which scenario do you want? If you want the latter, the 1950s scenario, then I feel really sorry for you.

What if a woman finds during her pregnancy out that the fetus will make it to birth but will be so disabled to the point where basically there is no brain function except to keep the heart beating and for breathing or maybe not even that? Would she and the father want the child to have such a life where the child cannot even think, cannot even react, basically as if the child had no brain, nothing...blank eyes staring into space, no movements, absolutely no signs of interaction, no reaction, nothing, no brain activity except maybe just enough to keep the child alive but nothing else - be fed via a tube, put on a vent, require 24/7 care by nurses that cost millions of dollars? I have heard about such cases. I think the child would be better off in "a better place" or whatever you like to call it. Anything would be better than forcing a child to live such a lifeless life. I mean, there is NO treatment in the world that can ever make such a child function (talk, play, move, whatever). Everything that doctors try to do will only be for nothing. I see no sense in making a child live such a life like that, plus, it would be such a huge weight on the parents' shoulders, caring for the child 24/7, no breaks, medical and nursing bills and all kinds of things, it would even affect the parents' whole life, they would not ever be able to retire and live the lives that many elderly parents want to do (traveling, retirement, vacations, or even just enjoying a quiet relaxing life together at home, etc) because their entire lives are spent caring for that child for its entire life. It would even affect the parents' marriage, even to the point of a divorce. It would completely kill your love life, including your sex life. You even no longer want to masturbate because you're just too depressed and you're just too busy caring for the child that you don't even think about it, and don't even have the time to do so. I've read about those cases, and my heart goes out to these parents who have such children, my heart goes out to these children too. Pek1, if you had such a child, would you keep the child and attempt to have the child live as long as possible, caring for the child 24/7, hiring nurses to care for the child, have to be responsible for the astounding and astronomical medical and nursing bills incurred by the whole situation, spending your whole life doing nothing but care for the child because such a child requires such intensive care, to the point where you do not even have time to even sit down and relax and enjoy a tv show for half an hour, you get no breaks, your entire life is completely devoted to a child that is basically lifeless with basically no significant brain activity? This kind of situation can last for years. It would affect you so much mentally. it can make you very depressed, it can even make you suicidal because you could then begin to regret ever giving birth to the child and wishing you had an abortion instead or you wish you had let the child die at birth so that you can let the child go instead of making the child live a lifeless live? You would cry everyday because you cannot interact with the child, you cannot play with the child, you cannot even have a conversation with your child ever. You would never ever get a reaction at all of any kind, not even eye movements. Oh and that brings up another topic - euthanasia. Are you for or against it? Would you abort the fetus or let the child go if the child made it to birth? Or would you make the child life a lifeless life because you are also against euthanasia? Because it would apply in this case.

I suggest that you watch "If These Walls Could Talk" (the first one, not the second movie - there are two in a series, I don't know if they will make more). It is an eye opener.

You think I would never want to see a picture of a fetus's hand? I do! Honestly, I think it is very interesting. Medical stuff is an interest of mine. When I was a child, I insisted on watching videos of surgeries being done - there was a medical channel on cable on TV back then. My mom thought I was nuts. Normally, I would think it was neat. However, the problem I have with this picture of the fetus' hand, is that the photos were taken to support a selfish agenda. Also, there is the confidential issue, liability, ethics, etc. Did the mother give permission to the doctors, the hospital, to provide the photo of the fetus' hand to the media in the first place? That is one thing I wonder about. Was the photo provided to the media before seeking the mother's permission to do so, and she only found out when she saw it in the media, but she didn't care about that, so the doctors were lucky in this case? However, if I was that mother, I would have gone to court for this because I would feel that my privacy and the HIPAA laws have been violated if they did not have my permission in the first place (if it happened today). If I was the doctor I would have NOT allowed the photo to be provided to the media WITHOUT the mother's permission, I would have to have her sign a waiver, a legal contract, waiving me from any and all legal issues as well as ethical issues, before I even thought about providing the picture to the media for whatever reason.

I applaud medical science for what it's doing and the work that's to come in the future. Can you imagine if a baby is known to be born deaf and the doctor goes in and fixes the hearing what it would do? I know the deaf community would hate it, but others would applaud that the middle and inner ear can be repaired as such. Unfortunately, the deaf community fights amongst its own, so I don't put much stock into what it has to say. I'm sure if a deaf child has only one hand and medical science went in to correct the other one (as in my case), the deaf community would be vehemently against it.

I applaud medical science, too, but you are being ridiculous. Legally, the decision of whether to go in and fix a fetus' hearing or anything else lies with the parents. Some parents will go for it while others will be against it. Same goes with fixing a Deaf fetus who has only one hand or has a hand that is not fully developed or whatever, although most parents will usually go for that, I would go for that - it would allow for the born Deaf child to be able to sign with both hands as well as being able to do tasks such as zipping up a coat - you need both hands for that - especially if you argue that ASL is very vital - the benefits of having both hands for a Deaf child is very obvious and necessary. However, the decision still lies with the parents. You cannot make the parent's decisions for them - the parents has to be the one who has to decide what needs to done with the fetus medically. Even if I was a doctor and even if it was actually possible, I cannot and would NOT go in and fix a fetus' hearing or any other thing WITHOUT the parents' consent. Nor would I force the parents to make a decision for one way or the other. It's just how things works in the medical society, legally. (no, I don't want to be a doctor).

Besides, I don't think there is even a possibility that a doctor can actually go in and fix the fetus' hearing - it's just impossible. That would be one very complicated and very risky surgery to do. It has NEVER been tried, I think, on any humans nor fetuses. I don't think doctors would go for a surgery that risky. Just like doctors cannot fix anyone of any age's hearing at all - the most they can ever do is do a CI or an ABI. Medical science does have very many limitations.

I was born with hip dysplasia. I had to have surgeries to fix it, or I would not walk very well at all, walking would be extremely difficult, and it would be more painful. I spent large amounts of time in body casts. I have pictures of me in my body cast to prove it, if you don't believe me. I have some memories. I had tons of physical therapy. I was able to do very well for over 20 years, and I do not regret my mother's decision to have the surgeries done, as it allowed me to do many things I would otherwise not have been able to do while growing up, such as downhill skiing, which I absolutely loved doing, and going on long nature hikes in wilderness with my class on field trips, even though I was often teased by other schoolmates for how I walked - my gait was very off and how I walked was very obvious to the point where many actually thought I had CP which I do not have - I cannot help that at all. Actually, if the surgeries had not been done I would have been in pain all the time while growing up from the hip dysplasia itself, anyway. But in around 2000 I began to experience the effects of being born with hip dysplasia itself and the effects of the damage that has been done in order to fix the hip dysplasia. I'm at the point where I need a chair part-time at least. I can still walk, but not for long. I cannot shop around Wal*mart without a motor cart anymore. I'm trying to get the doctors to agree to a hip replacement, but they don't want to do it because they claim they see no evidence of issues with my hips, even with the level of pain I experience. I requested CT Scans and other high-tech tests, but the doctors believed that the x-rays that was taken was good enough, and refused the CT Scans and other high-tech tests. Also, I no longer have the medical documents from the Children's Hospital in Colorado and in Wisconsin to prove to my current doctors, all I have is a 8-inch-long scar on my hip. My dad does not even have them, and I do not think they keep documents for longer than 10 years. I honestly believe that if they did an exploratory surgery right now they would SEE ALL THE DAMAGE of the initial surgeries and from over the years growing up, and they would be SHOCKED. Seriously, the effects are terrible. Lately I have been feeling like my joint is not connected right. Some days I can't even do a damn thing because of the pain. I'm thankful for Hulu - Watch your favorites. Anytime. For free. on these days. Even though the benefits of the surgeries that had been done did not last for more than 20 years for me, at least it allowed me to experience many things that I otherwise may have not been able to do, and would not be able to do these things with a group of people I loved, such as my foster family, going downhill skiing with my foster family, and being left out of many activities. My Deaf foster dad taught me how to ski, and that is something I cherish very much and will never forget, as he and my brother passed away in 2005. I really loved downhill skiing. It is a very exhilarating experience to ski down a nice snowy hill. I miss it. I plan on going back to the ski resort if I am ever in the Upper Michigan area again, regardless of how much it costs to rent skis and ski boots and other equipment, even though my foster dad is gone. And I'm a person who normally hates the cold weather. Besides, the decision to have the surgeries done was with my late mother. And she was just a teenager of only 16 years. But she thought long and hard about the benefits and the cons of the surgeries. She asked countless questions. She did not take the surgical options lightly. She sought second and third opinions. She was very persistent in making sure I got the correct treatment I needed, that I got everything I needed. She was a very excellent mother. In my opinion, she has made the right decision.

And if I found out that the pictures from my surgeries were leaked to the media, I would have a cow. 1) Privacy 2) I don't want attention.

Oh, and I would NOT like to be born famous, personally. I don't want to have that much attention. I'm not the kind of person who thinks it would be so awesome to be on TV or be an actor, or even be in the media. I don't really like attention. Although I may not look like it, I am a private person. I always turn down offers by various reporters for various things. I like for my life to be kept private. I feel more secure this way. But when I was a child, I did like attention. But not anymore. I'm older and I now want privacy. But, what little kid would turn down the chance to be famous? Kids are kids...

 

[KarissaMann05]

:roll:

If you dont like to lie anybody, dont lie.
If you are against slavery, dont buy one.
If you dont like to abuse anybody, dont abuse.
So on...

Guess what? I saw a Pro-Choice Girl told the other girl to dont have an abortion because she didn't like it. A few days later, the other girl changed her mind to have one. Basically, people would say, "Oh, shut up! I will do whatever I want!" I'd seen it so many times. :roll: I'm not surprise typical pro-choicers are still deny a "fetus" is already human being. Obviously, a pro-life pov is just too much for pro-choicers. Oh my, my, too bad. That boy's life was worthless when they called him a fetus cos he was a not person in her womb! Lovely. =/

Well, thank you for posting this, Robin.

That boy is definitely so amazing!

EDIT: I just saw a similar link: http://community.livejournal.com/prolife/1002200.html?style=mine

EDIT II: I had watched that movie, "If These Walls Could Talk", and this is nothing change my mind. I am still thinking abortion is killing a human being. Your 'screaming opinion' do not affect my POV at all. Oh no, don't get me wrong. I have a feeling for woman, otherwise I will assume you, as an anti-death penalty, are only care about crimicals and do not care about his/her victim(s) (just like you assume all pro-lifers are careless and only care about unborn babies). :roll:

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

:roll:

If you dont like to lie anybody, dont lie.
If you are against slavery, dont buy one.
If you dont like to abuse anybody, dont abuse.
So on...

Guess what? I saw a Pro-Choice Girl told the other girl to dont have an abortion because she didn't like it. A few days later, the other girl changed her mind to have one. Basically, people would say, "Oh, shut up! I will do whatever I want!" I'd seen it so many times. :roll: I'm not surprise typical pro-choicers are still deny a "fetus" is already human being. Obviously, a pro-life pov is just too much for pro-choicers. Oh my, my, too bad. That boy's life was worthless when they called him a fetus cos he was a not person in her womb! Lovely. =/

Well, thank you for posting this, Robin.

That boy is definitely so amazing!

EDIT: I just saw a similar link: prolife: Sometimes I wonder...

EDIT II: I had watched that movie, "If These Walls Could Talk", and this is nothing change my mind. I am still thinking abortion is killing a human being. Your 'screaming opinion' do not affect my POV at all. Oh no, don't get me wrong. I have a feeling for woman, otherwise I will assume you, as an anti-death penalty, are only care about crimicals and do not care about his/her victim(s) (just like you assume all pro-lifers are careless and only care about unborn babies). :roll:

No, you do not care about women, if you actually saw EVERYTHING in the movie. I saw the movie. It was SO difficult to watch, that scene in the 1950s of that woman having an illegal dangerous abortion done on her kitchen table, there was so much blood! It is one of the most difficult movies I have ever seen. I had to watch it as part of my university class - my class was "Psychology of Women". It was a very shocking and emotional movie. Even my interpreter had a very hard time terping the movie and I told her that she doesn't have to look and that she doesn't have to terp any part that was too difficult for her (the professor couldn't figure out how to put on the captions as it was on a projector screen and I know nothing about high tech projector DVD players so I could not turn on the CC myself either) I did not want to subject her to the graphic parts - I could see that she was about ready to lose her dinner and about ready to cry! I told her to take a break, I told her she could leave the classroom until the movie was over if she needed to. I left bad for the poor terp. I gave her a hug. I felt so bad for her, she is a very sweet terp.

Did you even watch the scene where the "so called doctor" actually performed a very BLOODY abortion on the woman right there on her kitchen table with NO anesthesia and really nasty tools? The blood was everywhere! The woman then suffered grave medical consequences from the illegal abortion. You probably did not watch it. You probably covered your eyes until you felt it was safe to look at the TV again. Try again. Watch the whole movie, including that scene. And I am not kidding. You need to watch every single second of the whole movie! You're selectively watching certain scenes while not watching others in order to be able to support your agenda because you are afraid if you saw the scene it would cause you to change your agenda. Forget the agenda for at least two hours, and watch the movie again but this time with an open mind. You're a hypocrite if you support your agenda but you won't even watch that specific scene because you're afraid it will make you change your agenda or that it will affect your agenda. Either you only selectively watched scenes while avoiding the graphic ones, or you never even watched the movie at all.

Well, pro-lifers apparently do not care about WOMEN either. If they claim to care about fetuses, or as they like to call them, unborn babies, then they should care about the women too! Many women DIED in the 1950s, and you don't care? That's very sad. Today, with safe, clean, sterile legal abortion clinics with proper abortion equipment and lifesaving equipment too for the women in case the abortion ever went wrong - just in case! And real, certified, qualified doctors who actually went to medical school and graduated from medical school with a real medical degree along with many, many, many classes and tons of training in abortion procedures and proper abortion equipment, much, much, much fewer women have died. Compare 1950s abortion-related deaths of women to 2009 abortion-related deaths of women statistics. It is like night and day. The so-called "doctors" who performed dangerous abortions in the 1950s are nothing but amateurs. Today, 2009, there are now real doctors with real degrees who are true professionals who know everything and know how to perform proper abortion techniques and procedures with proper abortion equipment and they also know what to do when something does go wrong. They have emergency personnel on staff as well. Also. technology for abortion equipment have gotten so much better than in the 1950s when only metal tools were used. Tools that look like they could disbowel a guy. Seriously. It is like night and day.

Do you even know what the doctors and the nurses and the receptionists at the abortion clinics go through everyday? Because of the overzealous pro-lifers who go overboard with their protesting to the point where they scare the living hell out of women who go to the clinic to seek a safe legal abortion. The women get scared that the protesters will actually physically hurt them - the protesters intimidate them to that point - many clinics now have to get "escorts" - people who work at the clinics who will monitor the parking lot and the protesters and watch for any women who are trying to get into the front door for an abortion and to keep pro-lifers out unless they need a secret abortion too - those pro-lifers seeking secret abortions usually have them arranged by phone so they can hide their faces when they get to the clinic and have staff ready to guide them to the front door safely - as soon as they see a car pull into the parking lot they run out to the car, meet the woman and her friend, protect and guide the women through the confusing crowd full of screaming protesters into the clinic as quickly and as safely as possible, and when the woman seeking an abortion is done with her abortion procedure and is released, they then take the woman and her friend back out (women are often accompanied by a friend who drives them home afterwards as it is not a good idea to drive after an abortion) and guide them out to their car, make sure they get into the car and make sure they lock the doors, and make sure the car leaves the parking lot safely, and for those women who arrive by city buses and other public transit, they are guided from the bus stops to the clinic and afterwards they are guided back to the bus stop, wait with them until the bus arrives, make sure they get into the bus safely and as soon as the bus leaves they run back into the clinic - actually they are urged to take a taxi cab home instead as it is more safer - they can leave the clinic quicker and be across town within 20 minutes. They risk their lives everyday to make sure those women can get their legal abortions safely without getting harmed by crazy protesters, regardless of whether they are pro-choice or pro-lifers. They basically have put themselves on the front lines of the pro-choice/pro-life war and they put their own lives on the line so the women can get abortions when they need one. They even go as far as to even guide women whose faces are covered who are actually pro-life protesters who are hypocrites but need a secret abortion and don't want the other pro-lifers to know (because they either still support the pro-life agenda or they suddenly get into the same situation and realize that what the pro-lifers are doing is wrong but is ashamed to admit it and is too ashamed to even stop protesting), into the clinic so they can get their safe legal secret abortion, regardless of the fact that they are pro-life hypocrites and their agenda, and they guide them back out afterwards and making they don't get hurt, either. Really. They don't judge, because they want ALL WOMEN, regardless of their agenda, to have access to have safe and legal abortions, no matter what. It's true. And the abortion clinics are constantly under bomb threats, they are frequently getting calls of bomb threats all the time. Those people who threat to bomb the abortion clinics - guess who they are? TERRORISTS. Pro-life TERRORISTS. Threatening to bomb a clinic makes you a terrorist, period. Maybe they should be thrown into Gitmo camp. Terrorism is AGAINST THE LAW. Abortion is LEGAL.

I feel sorry for you. You have no heart, except that red fist-shaped thing that pumps blood in and out of the valves and stuff. Not a caring heart. You don't care that if we go back to the 1950s era of illegal abortions done on kitchen tables with inadequate and inappropriate abortion tools that are dirty, that so many women will DIE, because you want to save their fetuses. Some women also don't get abortions at all but instead carry the fetus to full term and then give birth to a live baby but they could not care for the baby or keep the baby at all for whatever reason and they are frantic because they feel ashamed and they are afraid their parents or their relatives or their church or anybody will condemn them because they are pregnant or had a baby at a wrong time (such as unmarried, teenager, etc) and they don't think straight, even when there are all kinds of options out there. What do you think happens when they are in that situation? Many live babies end up in dumpsters, and oftentimes they are found way too late - the baby has already died - often from freezing to death in the winter time. Do you want that situation, too? And some women will even kill their own baby, because they don't know what else to do (not because they are evil but because they are frantic and desperate and don't know what else to do and are not aware of other options including abortions).

I know all this shit from friends and family who have had abortions. They told me their experiences. I also have read books on this, and I also learned a lot in my Psychology of Women class at my university.

I truly feel sorry for you. I pity you. I hope you don't find yourself in a situation where you are pregnant but you are unable to carry the baby to term because you just could not handle it emotionally. Good luck in your life and I hope it does not happen to you.

Oh, and I notice that you mention that you are anti-death penalty. Would you still be anti-death penalty if Jeffrey Dahmer was still alive today? I grew up in Milwaukee, where he grew up also. I grew up in fear. I grew up with nightmares of him getting me, my mother, and my sister. He was convicted and sent to prison and was on death row. But it was not enough. He was still alive. I feared every single day that he would manage to escape the state prison in Portage and hitchhike his way back to the city, and come find my family and kill us all. The day another inmate killed him, was the day my fear went away for good, it was like a huge load of weight had been lifted off my shoulders and my chest. Thank goodness. He's dead. That mean he can't come after me and my family and kill us all. Seriously, watch the movie about Jeffrey Dahmer - it was so fucking creepy. I recognized so many things in the movie because of the fact that I grew up in Milwaukee and know the city like it was the back of my hand. I don't need GPS there like I need one in San Antonio. That was creepy. And the movie, I had to stop watching because it got too gory. It got darker and darker as the movie went on. Scary. After watching that movie, are you going to still be anti-death penalty?

Death penalty is there for a reason - to get hardcore serial killers off the face of earth and bring a feel and sense of safety to so many people - the day Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison by another inmate was the day I stopped living in total fear. Honest. I no longer have to live in fear now.

 

[KarissaMann05]

:roll:

If you do think pro-lifers don't care about women, then why are there pro-lifers invovle with many progarms, supportive clubs, pregnany clinics from some religious churches or any place where you could get some help, donations for teen mothers. They are for the cooperative and supportive. Oh please. I am there! I'm a member of the pro-life progarm for the donation TO HELP PEOPLE, ESPEICALLY WOMEN AND TEEN GIRLS. So thank you for your kindly assumpution about me.

I'm so tired of ranting pro-choicers who are screaming about how much pro-lifers are bad and so evil.
Yet they mock abortion survivors and defending crimicals for the rights.



Well, you should visit some websites that pro-lifers speak out against volience on abortion clinics. I DONATED SOME GOOD STUFF TO HELP THEM! If a person bombs on an abortion clinic, he/she is not a pro-life, period.

You are just the another typical pro-choicer like I'd seen them before. YOU SEEMINGLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE BOY WHO IS NOW TEN YEARS OLD BUT THE MOTHER. That's why I said I'm not surprise you deny his existence in her womb as usual, and supporting the mother of the boy. EDIT: Can you support both woman's future and her child for the help? I think you can.

As for that movie -- ummmmm.... I watched it fully. Yes, its sad and horrible, I know. But I'm sorry, this movie do not change my pro life POV. I still think abortion is the killing.

So are you really trying to change my POV so harder, aren't you?

Well, I'm done with this thread now.

 

[shel90]

I have to agree with Lucia...to use this photo as a way to support the taking away of women's rights is unethical. That's the whole point of this thread. The manipulation of an event to promote one view.

 

[Babyblue]

I have to agree with shel.

Not all mothers are fortunate to be able to have such surgery.

So some have to resort to other methods.

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

:roll:

If you do think pro-lifers don't care about women, then why are there pro-lifers invovle with many progarms, supportive clubs, pregnany clinics from some religious churches or any place where you could get some help, donations for teen mothers. They are for the cooperative and supportive. Oh please. I am there! I'm a member of the pro-life progarm for the donation TO HELP PEOPLE, ESPEICALLY WOMEN AND TEEN GIRLS. So thank you for your kindly assumpution about me.

I'm so tired of ranting pro-choicers who are screaming about how much pro-lifers are bad and so evil.
Yet they mock abortion survivors and defending crimicals for the rights.



Well, you should visit some websites that pro-lifers speak out against volience on abortion clinics. I DONATED SOME GOOD STUFF TO HELP THEM! If a person bombs on an abortion clinic, he/she is not a pro-life, period.

You are just the another typical pro-choicer like I'd seen them before. YOU SEEMINGLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE BOY WHO IS NOW TEN YEARS OLD BUT THE MOTHER. That's why I said I'm not surprise you deny his existence in her womb as usual, and supporting the mother of the boy. EDIT: Can you support both woman's future and her child for the help? I think you can.

I have not denied his existence of his body. I just am of the opinion that until he is born, he is still a fetus. A fetus is a fetus. It's a correct medical term. ALL doctors use that term. He existed as a FETUS, and then when he was born, he was considered a BABY. Now he is a boy. Just because I call a fetus a fetus does not mean I deny its existence. The fetus is still there, just that it is still a fetus. I just prefer to use correct medical terms. In this case, the mother wasn't even seeking an abortion or anything anyway, so that does not mean I don't support the boy as well as the mother. I just do not like how his photo has been used for a selfish pro-life agenda.

I am and always will be pro-choice. No matter what. I believe in women's rights. End of story.

As for that movie -- ummmmm.... I watched it fully. Yes, its sad and horrible, I know. But I'm sorry, this movie do not change my pro life POV. I still think abortion is the killing.

There goes the "ummmmm". Obviously you did not really watch the whole thing. Thererfore, I fiind it quite difficult to believe you. Someone who is telling the truth and is honest always has the ability to answer this type of question without a lot of stalling like you've just shown.

So are you really trying to change my POV so harder, aren't you?

No, I'm just trying to get you to wake up to reality. I am and always will be pro-choice. No matter what. I believe in women's rights. End of story.

Well, I'm done with this thread now.

I guess you can't handle the heat. You seem flustered now. Well, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Bye Bye!

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

i have to agree with lucia...to use this photo as a way to support the taking away of women's rights is unethical. That's the whole point of this thread. The manipulation of an event to promote one view.

THANK YOU!!!

 

[shel90]

As a journalist, if I was in a situation that would deem a photo-op, such as this or 9-11, I'd take the picture and then some. It's not trampling upon the rights of anyone, as it is news in the making and by all means, people would want to see it.

As for suspending the doctor's license: What for? I'm sure that when my orthopedic surgeon operated on my left hand, he had someone there taking pictures; he was also a professor of anatomy at the University of Minnesota Hospital. I would anticipate there would be pictures during the operation for future teaching; he had residents with him when he saw me, why wouldn't he have pictures taken? One resident took pictures at least twice if I can remember, so I have no "ethical" problem with pictures being taken.

Lucia, I think you're asking for a pound of flesh. Suppose he had another surgeon step in to do some work while he stepped out to use the restroom. Would that be a reason for him to lose his license? Of course not, because ALL surgeons have to have another one in the operating room at all times in case the primary surgeon cannot complete the surgery.

As for the other arguments you made, the doctor knows what he is doing and knows all risks and then some. How many years have you studied medicine? I think your argument is on the side of being pro-abortion, because those people who want and are in favor of abortion would never want to see those pictures, especially of a baby's hand.

I applaud medical science for what it's doing and the work that's to come in the future. Can you imagine if a baby is known to be born deaf and the doctor goes in and fixes the hearing what it would do? I know the deaf community would hate it, but others would applaud that the middle and inner ear can be repaired as such. Unfortunately, the deaf community fights amongst its own, so I don't put much stock into what it has to say. I'm sure if a deaf child has only one hand and medical science went in to correct the other one (as in my case), the deaf community would be vehemently against it.

The hearing community fights amongst its own. Look at all the drama btw the Liberals and Conservatives. The Deaf community is not allowed to fight amongst itself? Ok...

 

[shel90]

thank you!!!

yw

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I don't think Clancy is telling the truth at all. Can a fetus shake violently inside an uterus at 21 weeks gestation, especially under ANESTHESIA? Would a 21-week gestation fetus actually have the strength to reach out and grasp the doctor's finger if it weren't under anesthesia, which it was under anesthesia anyway? And If I were the doctor who operated on the mother, I would NOT shake the FRAGILE fetus' hand - in fear of possibly HARMING the FRAGILE fetus. A fetus at 21 weeks gestation is FRAGILE. Also, I do not think doctors/surgeons are supposed to do things like this, it is extremely inappropriate - this doctor's job was to FIX the birth defect, not do a "photo op" and be touching the other parts of the fetus' body unless it is something that needs to be gently moved out of the way in order to get to the area needed to fix the birth defect. I also took a look at the picture, and it clearly and obviously does NOT look like the fetus actually reached out on its own, but rather more like the doctor actually manipulated the hand out of the uterus and did a "photo op" - the fetus's hand looks limp, which is to be expected as the fetus was under ANESTHESIA. And when the mother was being operated on, BOTH the mother and the fetus were under anesthesia, therefore it was IMPOSSIBLE for the fetus to actually reach out and grasp the doctor's finger, let alone squeeze the doctor's finger, therefore there was NO actual interaction between the fetus and the doctor, period. The fetus' hand WAS MANIPULATED out of the uterus for a photo op, period.

I personally think the doctor who did this "photo op" should have been fired and his license revoked forever. At least the doctor told the truth and said that he DID PULL the fetus' hand out of the mother's uterus. So Clancy's words has no weight at all, he is full of it - there is no interaction between the fetus and the doctor, period.

If I was that doctor I would NOT be manipulating that fetus' hand out of the uterus for a "photo op" simply because it was NOT the appropriate thing to do during a serious major surgery where the fetus was in a VERY FRAGILE situation/condition. NO doctor nor surgeon in his/her own right mind would SHAKE a FRAGILE 21-WEEK GESTATION fetus's hand, even if the fetus' hand squeezed, which it did NOT. The fetus could have been HARMED by the doctor's shaking. A 21 week fetus is FRAGILE. I would NEVER do that if I was a doctor or a surgeon...if I were the doctor I would ONLY do what I was SUPPOSED to do...which was to FIX the birth defect, and then when I was done, to clean up and close the patient's incision up and be done, and I would not do anything else, and I would most certainly not be doing any "photo op" just because it looks so "awesome". This doctor did this for the "awesomeness" factor as well as a photo op, and Clancy had his agenda, which is why he snapped that photo. Besides, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the fetus to even squeeze the doctor's finger given the fact that the fetus AND the mother was under ANESTHESIA. When you are under anesthesia you CANNOT MOVE. YOU CANNOT FEEL ANYTHING.

THERE IS NO INTERACTION BETWEEN THE FETUS AND THE DOCTOR, PERIOD BECAUSE THE FETUS WAS UNDER ANESTHESIA AND THEREFORE COULD NOT MOVE - WHEN ONE IS PUT UNDER ANESTHESIA ONE IS PUT TO SLEEP SO THE DOCTORS/SURGEONS COULD DO THE SURGERY SAFELY WITHOUT THE PATIENT MOVING AROUND - THEY HAVE TO BE VERY STILL! END OF STORY![/QUOTE]

Good eye, Lucia. You're right about this. Not only is this story questionable for the reasons you stated, but also, when someone is placed under general anesthesia, they are giving medications to paralyze them so the surgeon can do the needed work safely. After all, you can't have the patient moving around involuntarily while the doc has a grasp of the kids' spinal cord!

Good God!

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I have to agree with Lucia...to use this photo as a way to support the taking away of women's rights is unethical. That's the whole point of this thread. The manipulation of an event to promote one view.

I have to agree with shel.

Not all mothers are fortunate to be able to have such surgery.

So some have to resort to other methods.

THANK YOU!!!

You're welcome! Count me as one who also agrees.

Also, interesting to some, maybe? I was born with spina bifida. The same birth defect this kid had fetal surgery for. Apparently, the child is doing well, but that is not always the case. In almost every case where fetal surgery is performed, the kid is born premature, so you correct the defect in the back, but the kid is trading being born premature (and all the potential complications that go with it) for being born paralyzed or what-have-you.

That, to me, doesn't sound like a good trade off.

But, back to the point to the thread. I remember when news of this became known and I remember thinking "what a crock of ______" . The pro-life movement will grasp onto just about anything to prove a point. That is very maddening and also sad. This kid is now 9 yrs old and he can't grasp how he has been and continues to be exploited.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I have to agree with shel.

Not all mothers are fortunate to be able to have such surgery.

So some have to resort to other methods.

I was born with SB when fetal surgery didn't exist. I've struggled with my health, but I will tell you, I am not exactly jumping up and down (pun unintended ) that they can go into the womb at 21 wks gestation and do surgery on a fetus. Not only is that flirting with medical disaster, but ethically it shouldn't be done in my mind. I say leave well enough alone until the kid is born and then do something because, you are only minimizing the effects of the SB at best. Fetal surgery will only close the defect. It won't mitigate damage already done to the spine. This is what also occurs if you leave the kid alone and do the repair soon after birth. I had surgery to close my spine at 2 days of age. I'm paralyzed, but even if I had been "fortunate" enough to have surgery in utero, I STILL would have deficits to contend with as does this kid.

 

[KarissaMann05]

This last post is for Dixie, Rockin'Robin, and Pek1. With that reason, I can't PM you. I have no idea why, so I post it here instead... =/

I know the pro-life is too sensitive subject to people because of the political correctness. I do not care if they think I'm a fool for believing in "fake" pictures. If they think it's not real, then fine. I know there are always two sides on one subject for any, it may not always see an eye to eye. I'm really sorry that you felt overwhelmed by pro-choice posts because you have a different POV. That is why I was really trying to speak up for you guys, through defending pro-life belief is pretty slim... So, I dont know if you are pro-lifers or not, but I just want to inform you that there is a good link:

VIOLENCE IS NOT PRO-LIFE . It's very worth to visit that you should check it out.

Okay, bye bye to this thread for real.

 

[faire_jour]

I was born with SB when fetal surgery didn't exist. I've struggled with my health, but I will tell you, I am not exactly jumping up and down (pun unintended ) that they can go into the womb at 21 wks gestation and do surgery on a fetus. Not only is that flirting with medical disaster, but ethically it shouldn't be done in my mind. I say leave well enough alone until the kid is born and then do something because, you are only minimizing the effects of the SB at best. Fetal surgery will only close the defect. It won't mitigate damage already done to the spine. This is what also occurs if you leave the kid alone and do the repair soon after birth. I had surgery to close my spine at 2 days of age. I'm paralyzed, but even if I had been "fortunate" enough to have surgery in utero, I STILL would have deficits to contend with as does this kid.

But for every minute the defect is open is another minute that the body is being damaged. Why would you want to leave the defect open, and allow the damage to continue?