facist law forces mom to give birth just to watch the child die 15 minutes later

[Cecilie1200]

Neb. mom carried non-viable pregnancy due to law | The Associated Press | Nation | San Francisco Examiner

Danielle Deaver was about 22 weeks into her pregnancy when doctors told her she wouldn't be able to carry to term and her child would die soon after birth. Then to her surprise, she learned doctors couldn't end her non-viable pregnancy because of a new Nebraska law barring late-term abortions.

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

I love how you are twisting this to make a stance you oppose look bad.

Ten days later, on Dec. 8, she gave birth to a baby girl named Elizabeth who died in her mother's arms after 15 minutes.

Ten days after she found out about the problem she gave birth. She did not have a miscarriage, and she got to hold her child for 15 minutes. That focus on the 22 weeks is a bit deceiving, don't you think?

Eight days, almost half of which she spent seeing specialists and trying to save the baby, so she wouldn't have had the abortion THEN, anyway. The lack of an abortion only extended the pregnancy about five days, and I fail to see how going through labor and holding her baby while she died would have been any better for anyone if it had been five days earlier. Call me crazy, but in the same circumstances, I think I would have treasured that last few days with my baby alive inside me, rather than being in a hurry for her to be dead and gone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The story gives no indication of a scientific diagnosis that could identify a medical problem that would cause a baby to die within 15 minutes of birth. They operate on babies in the womb these days. They could perform a Cesarian at 22 weeks. I smell a big fat liberal rat in this story.

More than one. They seem to be ignoring the fact that this baby must have been near term before the doctors managed to diagnose the problem. Even the Supreme Court cut off abortions after 6 months.

No, she was at 22 weeks when the problem was diagnosed. But what they don't tell you is that the problem they diagnosed - the one unhelpfully described in the story as "non-viable pregnancy" - was that she was in the middle of a miscarriage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ten days after she found out about the problem she gave birth. She did not have a miscarriage, and she got to hold her child for 15 minutes. That focus on the 22 weeks is a bit deceiving, don't you think?

You guys are still not addressing the OP's point as to why the state should have the authority to make this decision for her.

On behalf of all those babies who WEREN'T doomed before their "mothers" decided to kill them.

Any other stupid questions?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ten days after she found out about the problem she gave birth. She did not have a miscarriage, and she got to hold her child for 15 minutes. That focus on the 22 weeks is a bit deceiving, don't you think?

You guys are still not addressing the OP's point as to why the state should have the authority to make this decision for her.

Because late term abortion is illegal, just is. The article is short on facts and long on emotional dishonesty.

The fetus was viable, it was born alive.

She didn't want an abortion. Most likely she is being manipulated due to her grief to score points with pro choice mindless

Baby wasn't viable. She was unable to breathe on her own, and apparently never would have been able to.

I'm just not sure why a woman who goes on about how she "didn't want an abortion" is so upset that she didn't get one, when the difference was only a few days anyway.

 

[geauxtohell]

The story gives no indication of a scientific diagnosis that could identify a medical problem that would cause a baby to die within 15 minutes of birth. They operate on babies in the womb these days. They could perform a Cesarian at 22 weeks. I smell a big fat liberal rat in this story.

Tell us again why we should listen to you on this matter? You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about.

 

[USAMomma]

Could have become a "Miracle" and a big time money maker for the doctors for the long-term care for the baby, who if survived, would very likely need very expensive life-supporting care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

First, you don't know what "fascism" means. Second, even though I'm pro-choice, I'm not sure I understand how doctors sucking the baby's brains out is somehow vastly superior then it being born and dying as if one is humane and the other is barbaric. Don't get me wrong, I oppose stopping the doctor from doing that. But I don't think a sad situation that was going to end up sad either way is the best argument against this law.

lets see.... ending the mothers pregnancy prematurely or forcing her to wait around knowing that the baby will die right after birth anyway, make her give the birth (and the pain that entails) and then let her have the baby for 15 minutes of the baby in extreme pain followed by death...

Um, dude, they would have made her go through the labor anyway. What, precisely, do you think they were going to do in that abortion? They were going to induce labor, have her go through the whole process, then let her hold the baby until she stopped breathing. Literally the only difference here is that it happened five days later.

I have no idea what her big rush was.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, the baby was compromised because of the reduction of amniotic fluid, which brought about severe complications for the baby making it likely it would die upon birth.

But in cases like this, it is better for the mother to go ahead and deliver the baby. Abortion is risky, and the baby was likely going to die anyway. That does NOT mean it would be the right thing to hurry up and kill it, to get it over. Some things have to run their course. Child birth is one of those things, whether or not the baby is perfect.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ten days after she found out about the problem she gave birth. She did not have a miscarriage, and she got to hold her child for 15 minutes. That focus on the 22 weeks is a bit deceiving, don't you think?

You guys are still not addressing the OP's point as to why the state should have the authority to make this decision for her.

Because late term abortion is illegal, just is. The article is short on facts and long on emotional dishonesty.

The fetus was viable, it was born alive.

She didn't want an abortion. Most likely she is being manipulated due to her grief to score points with pro choice mindless

In the entire history of mankind, no child has survived that was born at 22 weeks gestation. There are a couple of accounts of women that gave birth to children that were that pre-mature, but the conventional wisdom is that they were miss-dated.

Term is 37-42 weeks. While I agree that we don't know a lot of medical fact about this issue, we due know that children at 22 weeks are not viable outside the womb. If the pro-life crowd doesn't like the term "viability", then insert "can't survive". That's the medical facts behind the matter. The best neonatologist in the world won't be able to save a child who is born that pre-mature. Even at 32 weeks, the birth is considered high risk and their have to be several interventions to ensure the child lives (i.e. giving the mother steroids in order to try and ensure the baby's lungs properly mature) and it is going to the NICU.

If this was not a case of fetal demise and the baby's death was imminent, then I think the proper steps were taken. Deliver the baby with the knowledge that it isn't going to make it and let the mother have some closure. C-section is absolutely not indicated at 22 weeks. It's not going to change the outcome.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really?

What medical care was she prevented from receiving?

Apparently, she really, REALLY needed her baby to die five days earlier, for some totally unspecified reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody asks whether the child suffered- or might have suffered less if euthanize?

Who the hell can determine that? It's impossible.

Though generally speaking a natural death is always better than murder.

In this case, she was going to die exactly the same way either way. I'm not sure what "suffering" JB and Company think would have been spared.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, the baby was compromised because of the reduction of amniotic fluid, which brought about severe complications for the baby making it likely it would die upon birth.

But in cases like this, it is better for the mother to go ahead and deliver the baby. Abortion is risky, and the baby was likely going to die anyway. That does NOT mean it would be the right thing to hurry up and kill it, to get it over. Some things have to run their course. Child birth is one of those things, whether or not the baby is perfect.

Oligohydramnios. My guess would be that the baby had renal agenesis, which means it's kidneys and GU system never developed, which means the baby wasn't going to make it.

I don't know if they induced her or if she went into spontaneous labor. Either way, it's sad.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does it matter?

Yes.

The point of wanting to abort was about the parents suffering not the childs

If the exists as an individual, then the welfare and suffering of the child must be considered. The child becomes a second patient to whom the doctor has no less an obligation than the mother.

Since it matters to you - there is no indication the child suffered in the womb at all.

Right. The child being the secondary patient to a healthy mother whose physical health was not threated by her in any way was not killed to ease the possible future emotional distress of her mother.

I can't imagine that it would have helped the mother's emotional distress in the slightest, other than NOW she's got herself all worked up about how she was "forced" into something.

My mother lost my oldest brother to a miscarriage back when they didn't have the ability to stop it with medication. That was 45 years ago, and given that she still remembers his birthday and talks about him, I'd venture a guess that she would TREASURE having a few extra days with him before he died.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes.


If the exists as an individual, then the welfare and suffering of the child must be considered. The child becomes a second patient to whom the doctor has no less an obligation than the mother.

Since it matters to you - there is no indication the child suffered in the womb at all.

Right. The child being the secondary patient to a healthy mother whose physical health was not threated by her in any way was not killed to ease the possible future emotional distress of her mother.

I can't imagine that it would have helped the mother's emotional distress in the slightest, other than NOW she's got herself all worked up about how she was "forced" into something.

My mother lost my oldest brother to a miscarriage back when they didn't have the ability to stop it with medication. That was 45 years ago, and given that she still remembers his birthday and talks about him, I'd venture a guess that she would TREASURE having a few extra days with him before he died.

Your mother's perspective is not universal to all women.

 

[Cecilie1200]

then you know that a human foetus is all of the above

it is a distinct living human organism

you can't deny that without denying basic biology

No, it is not a distinct living organism. You can continue to claim this, but it's not going to change the fact that this is not supported by the scientific community to any meaningful degree. It is, at best, a topic of much continuing debate.

I'm not denying basic biology. I'm just denying the additions you are trying to make.

Where are YOU going to nursing school, that they told you a fetus isn't a distinct living organism? Guadalajara U?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know someone who had to carry her dead twins almost to term. I can't imagine how painful that was, but she survived and now had three healthy children. Women are a lot tougher than people think.

I'm curious. If they were dead, how come the doctors couldn't remove them? Wasn't leaving them in there risking the mother's life?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The baby died with dignity. What kind of selfish mother would want less than that?

The crazy thing is that if she'd had her way, the EXACT SAME THING would have happened, just a few days earlier. What was the damned hurry?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I thought she pretty clearly understood that

She was TOLD that the baby would be dead, would NOT survive.

Being FORCED to carry this baby for a few more weeks or even months in other cases due to this law, does not allow the parents to END their trauma, their sorrow and their grief, and forces the woman DAILY to rehash what is going on inside her....

IT'S WRONG, wrong wrong....

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

We DO know, actually. The pregnancy couldn't have gone to term, because the "non-viability" the OP's article unhelpfully talk about was due to the mother starting to miscarry. THAT is what the doctors told her: that the circumstances of the miscarriage meant the baby would never have the anatomy to breathe on her own. They didn't induce any labor, because they had no intention of doing anything to prolong the baby's life, since there wasn't anything they could have done. That fact would have made it an abortion, and not legal. So instead, they let the miscarriage proceed on its own.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You want to know the part that sticks in my head?

This looks like a full term pregnancy where the doctors apparently told a woman they could not induce labor because the law made that illegal. Color me skeptical, but that is complete and total bullshit.

Not sure what you mean because from what I read, she was only 24 weeks along in the pregnancy. That is not full term.

Immie

The story does leave that impression, doesn't it. The things is, she was asking to induce labor, and gave birth 10 days later. The numbers do not make sense to me.

Technically, she only asked to induce labor about five days before it happened on its own, because she had spent several days prior to that trying to PREVENT labor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the baby's lungs did not develop...the child was born very premature and really had no chance of survival

read the article

Nah, it's better for people to just repeat talking points.

All the posters on this thread know better about how to care for the mother and baby than the hospital and doctors did.

When a doctor says death is certain, he's lying because only God knows that, better to have the baby born naturally and die a slow, painful natural death than to have a doctor step in and make the situation the best it could be medically for all involved.

Maybe if the OP's original article had bothered to give some facts, instead of wasting all that space on biased emotional crap, people wouldn't have had to try to guess at what happened.