A midwife who looks like a close relative of the Childcatcher from 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang' has declared Outrage!
It seems that expectant mothers are using modern technology in ways this midwife finds reprehensible. They are meeting up and comparing ultrasound pictures of their unborn progeny. Some even have film of baby doing... not very much.
Worse, it appears that these expectant mothers have circumvented NHS control and paid for these photos and videos privately. Naughty, naughty mothers.
I admit my first thought on this story was 'So what?' No taxpayers' money is used, it's not costing the NHS a penny and no children or mothers are being harmed. If women want to show off a photo of something inside them that looks like one of those corpses they sometimes dig out of peat bogs, why should anyone else care at all? Really, it is the most harmless thing anyone could be doing and if the NHS are now at the stage of objecting to this level of trivia, then their time must surely be up.
My second thought was 'There must be more to this, there must be a reason behind it' and there are at least two in that article.
Prof Warwick also questioned whether it may escalate the thinking among some people that a foetus should have a life of its own before birth and, therefore, rights of its own.
Ah, right. People might start thinking that maybe they don't want an abortion after all, and we can't have that, can we?
My views on abortion are simple. It's none of my business unless it's my child. Some people declare that a baby cannot be called a baby until it reaches the point where it can survive outside its mother. Until then it's just a growth. Others insist that life begins at conception and that even aborting a fertilised egg with a morning-after pill is murder.
I have no argument with either viewpoint. People have strong views at both ends of the scale and everywhere in between and when they apply those views to their own lives, no problem. When they try to enforce their own views on other people, then the problems begin.
That's a small agenda item in this denormalisation of baby photos. There is a much bigger one, and this one caused me to pause for a long time.
'At the moment, UK law allows for the mother to make decisions on behalf of her baby until the baby is born,' she said.
Read that once again. At the moment, the State generously allows mothers some leeway when it comes to deciding what's best for them and their child during pregnancy Not a lot of leeway, not once they get hold of your smoking, drinking and eating habits, but so far they have been benevolent in allowing those mothers to get ultrasound images made without restriction.
Oh, and note the end of the line. 'Until the baby is born'. As Captain Ranty will tell you, once you have a birth certificate, that baby is not yours. It belongs to the State. You are merely the registered keeper and if they don't like you, they can take it away.
There are anti-abortionists who loudly proclaim that life starts at conception. If this woman gets her way, State ownership of life will also start at conception and then they will be able to decide who is aborted and who is allowed to live.
Can't happen here? The stuff of Hitlerite dreams? It happened in America after WWII, where some states enforced sterilisation of anyone declared unfit to breed through either physical or mental differences. Now that we have an array of tests that can tell whether the foetus is likely to under-perform in terms of State requirements, it would be a simple matter to prevent those costs to the NHS from Downs' syndrome, malformed limbs, below minimum State-required IQ level (and for the proles, above the upper IQ limit declared by the State) and the long-sought eugenics dream becomes reality.
Hitler didn't invent eugenics, and it didn't die with him either.
She has other silly notions, including the old 'equality' saw - if not everyone can afford private scans, nobody can have them - but this one is, I think, the real giveaway.
We pay the NHS to control our lives and they want more. They want to own us from conception. There is no end to this, not until we are a race of identical clones built to State specifications and living and thinking within State limits.
If ever anyone finds proof of life after death, the first the ghosts will know of it will be when the spectral tax demands arrive.
25 comments:
I'm afraid my first (uncharitable) thought was 'No wonder they call 'em 'madwives', if this woman's any indication'...
"She has other silly notions, including the old 'equality' saw - if not everyone can afford private scans, nobody can have them ..."
I'm seeing a lot of this - apparently, people having nice things makes other people feel bad. I expect she'll be picketing Ferrari dealerships next?
Strangely, it's just fine for the poor to not be able to afford the quantities of booze and tobacco enjoyed by the rich.
This 'equality' is not equally applied.
Historically a midwife was a local woman who just happened to have a lot of experience helping women through the birth of the child and trusted to do a better job of keeping them both alive than the doctors (whose anatomy training was based on dissecting greyhounds and goats). And now midwives are apparently the storm troopers of the Age of Do-As-We-Say-ers. Their predecessors, I hope, will rise up and haunt them to the point of insanity.
I sometimes wonder why it is that there has been this mission creep in the health services, and how they justify it. As you say, midwives used to just aid in the birth and post-natal care. and maybe a little advice to the ante-natal mother. Now it seems they think they have the right to demand obedience to their diktats.
My four children (now all adults) were born of (two) mothers who smoked and drank throughout pregnancy. There was never any pressure to give up either smoking or drinking, and as all four children are healthy and intelligent, it would seem that their mother's habits during pregnancy had no bearing on the end result. Yet to hear today's strident warnings you'd be forgiven for thinking that smoking / drinking during pregnancy will result in a sickly two-headed monster with a life expectancy of a fortnight.
Silly old bag has previously wrote this which gives a clue as to where she's coming from
Babies, mothers and midwives are paying for bankers’ greedhttp://www.nursingtimes.net/babies-mothers-and-midwives-are-paying-for-bankers-greed/5021190.article
Imagine laying awake at night, grinding your teeth at the thought of women you'll never meet looking at pictures of babies that haven't been born.
If you ask me being a socialist seems to be its own punishment.
"What happens if a woman is celebrating a normal-looking baby"
I simply can't believe anyone looking like her would have fitted into that category....
I look forward to a better world, where contraceptives in the water supply prevent any pregnancies. Then the NHS will have special wards where the antidote is given to the chosen few, with beds available for procreation, under carefully-controlled conditions of course. Having babies is too important to be personal choice in the modern world - we must all accept that the State knows best and will nurture and protect us from cradle to grave.
We need to get rid of the NHS.
This will not be easy because
1) There are still some people who still think it is 'the envy of the world'.
2) There are more who think it is free.
3) We've got sell an alternative that most people can see is an improvement.
I haven't thought about this as much as I need to; all I've thought of at the moment is a compulsory individual medical insurance taken out with an approved and licensed private insurer.
A system similar in some ways to compulsory motor insurance.
'Compulsory' and 'approved' and 'licensed' are not words with positive connotations for you, Mr. Leg-Iron or for your readers. Or for me.
But if smokers, drinkers, processed meat-eaters etc declare on a proposal form what their health-related behaviours are then a commercial premium could be charged.
And we could all choose to have additional cover if we wanted.
I should pay less for medical insurancethan you, LI, because I don't smoke. But we should each be able to get the same cover, even if at different prices.
Then we wouldn't be 'costing the NHS' so we could tell busybodies to go away.
I'm not perfectly happy with my idea here, so if you or your readers have thought about it in greater depth I'd like to read your thoughts.
"Now that we have an array of tests that can tell whether the foetus is
likely to under-perform in terms of State requirements, it would be a
simple matter to prevent those costs to the NHS from Downs' syndrome,
malformed limbs, below minimum State-required IQ level (and for the
proles, above the upper IQ limit declared by the State) and the
long-sought eugenics dream becomes reality."
This doesn't necessarily mean that destruction of the unborn might be enforced. Another option would be to deny a birth certificate to any mother incapable of providing documentation proving her offspring has been pre-approved by The State for "Inclusion".
Now there's an idea for your dystopic stories ;)
"I should pay less for medical insurancethan you, LI, because I don't smoke."
Simple calculation easily shows that you should pay more. It's generally accepted that smokers contribute 3-4x
more in tax than it costs for their treatment and it comes directly
from cigarette sales. ( Not to mention
any National Insurance a working smoker will pay on top of that.)
Hence, no outright ban on smoking and the side-step claim that smoking causes "preventable" diseases.
As for... "smokers, drinkers, processed meat-eaters etc "...pricing of ingestible substances on their Health value for it's own sake isn't a
consideration ever...profit is...it's just a matter of *who* gets what
slice of profit/tax.
The NHS is awash with so much money that people should be able to eat, drink and smoke as much as they liked without ever impacting on the cost of treatment for those who don't over-indulge. The thinking that the cash *only* goes on the cost of treating illness is how these squabbles are initiated and perpetuated throughout the population. An almost-but-not-quite plausible diversionary tactic.
If there's anything anyone should pay more of it's more attention to that man behind the curtain and where the cash is really going.
"I should pay less for medical insurancethan you, LI, because I don't smoke."
Simple calculation easily shows that you should pay more. It's generally accepted that smokers contribute 3-4x
more in tax than it costs for their treatment and it comes directly
from cigarette sales. ( Not to mention
any National Insurance a working smoker will pay on top of that.)
Hence, no outright ban on smoking and the side-step claim that smoking causes "preventable" diseases.
As for... "smokers, drinkers, processed meat-eaters etc "...pricing of ingestible substances on their Health value for it's own sake isn't a
consideration ever...profit is...it's just a matter of *who* gets what
slice of profit/tax.
The NHS is awash with so much money that people should be able to eat, drink and smoke as much as they liked without ever impacting on the cost of treatment for those who don't over-indulge. The thinking that the cash *only* goes on the cost of treating illness is how these squabbles are initiated and perpetuated throughout the population. An almost-but-not-quite plausible diversionary tactic.
If there's anything anyone should pay more of it's more attention to that man behind the curtain and where the cash is really going.
Oh no...not sure what happened there sorry ! The spacing is all over the place too...please delete one of those posts I can't do it from my side :(
JS, when was the last time you visited the Doctors? Last time I went was about 3 years ago, but only then to change surgeries, prior to that it must have been in excess of 10 years ago.
Yet as a middle-aged smoker, drinker and being classed as "borderline obese" (Yeah right, I'm carrying a bit of extra weight but can still run up down ladders all day carrying buckets of tar and cement) Yet you "feel" my healthcare cost should be more than yours do you?
Based on what precisely?
XX My views on abortion are simple. It's none of my business unless it's my child. XX
There are, of course candidates a pleanty, who are a good argument for raising the "allowed abortion period" to 21 years old.
Why have I just imagined the socially sanctioned offspring of Deborah Arnott and Diane Abbott? What has the state of this country done to my mind?!
What an awful statement, "... until the baby is born."
This means that after the baby is born the mother of the child no longer has any right to make any decisions as to how that child is raised. Only the State will have that right.
That is both evil and disgusting. How can anyone think like that?
I give thanks for the fact that both of my daughters were born overseas and that the pernicious and all-pervasive "State" in the UK has very little say in how their lives are lived. Older daughter (graduated) is now gainfully employed in Dubai, younger daughter will leave this awful country once she has graduated in two years time. Neither University education was State subsidised. I've paid the full price for each. Neither daughter owes the State a penny.
And I am broke!
Her mother didn't.
I naturally recoil at the word 'compulsory' but what we have now is compulsory and also linked to a single provider. Pay up and you have no choice who you pay. If they don't want to provide the service you've paid for, there is nothing you can do about it.
Even a compulsory insurance with your choice of provider (as with car insurance) would be a step in the right direction. With competition between providers it won't be long before no-claims bonuses start appearing.
Link it to life insurance/pensions and the costs balance out. Those of us who are supposed to die younger will pay less for the pension component, the 'healthy' people pay less towards the medical insurance and more towards the pension.
As now, the unemployed would get their basic cover paid for. Those who want to buy extended cover can work for it.
It would work out just like the current system except a) we can choose our own service provider. b) nobody can bleat about 'costs to the NHS' while ignoring the reduced cost to pensions, and c) we'd be buying our own pensions, not relying on future taxpayers to stump up for them.
One wiped, as requested. ;)
In some of my 'Vlad the Impaler' moments I have suggested a cull at 16 and the concept of 'retrospective abortion'. I've mellowed a bit now. I'm sure I still have the wrong image in my head when someone mentions 'baby boom' though.
The state already acts as though it owns us. Look at all the interventions justified on the grounds of 'for the cheeeldren'. If the state thinks you're mad they can lock you up even if you've done no harm to anyone. Children have been stolen from parents because they're judged to be overweight.
All the Righteous Professor is proposing is extending that ownership to conception, because the state is the best judge of who should be allowed to breed...
Of all the 'sins' deemed to have health implications on the unborn child I would suggest that light/moderate smoking poses minimal (if any) risk. Common sense should dictate that alcohol and drug abuse are potentially far worse. Obesity too. But, as regarding virtually all things tobacco related, the primary agenda for discouraging ante natal smoking is rooted in the denormalisation crusade.
From conception? Just one more little push and you'll need permission to conceive and a doctor's excusal letter if you don't want to.
Unless you smoke. Then you're not supposed to be able to.
Post a Comment