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

[Charles_Main]

Just wondering, were they able to use any of the child's organs to help others? That would have been the only reason I can see to justify making here carry the child to term.

Don't get me wrong, I am far from Pro Abortion, but then I do recognize a need for it at times. This being one glaring example of a time when it should have been allowed, even late term.

 

[gekaap]

As far as I've seen in all of this, the notion that the woman "needed" to have an abortion option available to her is based on the mother's grief. The inevitability of losing her unborn child was so emotionally disturbing, an abortion should have been available to her. I simply cannot buy such an argument. I can't imagine what this woman must have gone through in all of this. But at the end of the day, unless there was a noteworthy risk to her well being, then no, there was no reason that abortion HAD to be available to her. I get the impression that more than anything, this is a "have to do something argument."

 

[Avatar4321]

Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty messed up that the pro abortion crowd is whining that a mother who didnt want her child to die wasnt allowed to kill it?

 

[jgarden]

If this woman had lived in Oklahoma, the Republican "gods" have decided that her doctors would have been under no legal obligation to even inform her that her child was suffering from a birth defect at any stage in her pregnancy.

Apparently the same conservatives who in their self-righteous rush to denounce the perils of "Obamacare," see nothing wrong when they legislate that the long arm of the state can intrude into a "doctor/patient" relationship!

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Her story makes me glad I am a man. I dont know if I could handle it.

I can't imagine it was any better for the father.

It is a sad story. For both of them I am sure. I dont mean to make light of the impact it may have had on the Husband, but I feel the Wife's position is unique. No man could feel it the way she did. I hope they get a second chance in the future.

 

[Cecilie1200]

methinks you can't actually come up with anything intelligent to say about the topic. typical.

I've already said quite a bit on topic. Your posts, on the other hand, have no intelligent content on which to comment, so I commented on THAT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just wondering, were they able to use any of the child's organs to help others? That would have been the only reason I can see to justify making here carry the child to term.

Don't get me wrong, I am far from Pro Abortion, but then I do recognize a need for it at times. This being one glaring example of a time when it should have been allowed, even late term.

She didn't carry to term. See, that's why I object to the OP's incredibly biased, agenda-driven link, which the AP should have been ashamed to publish: it's very misleading in its attempt to tug at heartstrings.

She had to let the miscarriage progress on its own, rather than having labor induced. The difference was only a few days. And it wasn't late-term, it was just later than the law allowed.

The inducement apparently wouldn't have made any practical difference except those few days. The tragic irony is that inducing versus having to wait never would have been a question if she hadn't tried so hard to save the baby when the miscarriage began.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

As far as I've seen in all of this, the notion that the woman "needed" to have an abortion option available to her is based on the mother's grief. The inevitability of losing her unborn child was so emotionally disturbing, an abortion should have been available to her. I simply cannot buy such an argument. I can't imagine what this woman must have gone through in all of this. But at the end of the day, unless there was a noteworthy risk to her well being, then no, there was no reason that abortion HAD to be available to her. I get the impression that more than anything, this is a "have to do something argument."

Are you saying that it was her mental health or the physical hardships of pregnancy she needed to endure that you clearly don't care about? Or maybe you just don't care about the baby's suffering? Which of these reasons is compelling you to suggest that there was no reason to end the unfortunate situation early?

Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty messed up that the pro abortion crowd is whining that a mother who didnt want her child to die wasnt allowed to kill it?

You would prove yourself to be rather moronic if you are truly incapable of discerning the differences. Do you actually believe anyone, including people of this forum or the mother actually wanted the child to die? Let's see how far you're willing to go to wrongfully vilify people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Am I the only one who thinks it's pretty messed up that the pro abortion crowd is whining that a mother who didnt want her child to die wasnt allowed to kill it?

I think the bastards are taking advantage of her grief and desire to lash out and blame SOMEONE for her pain. Her reaction is understandable, if misguided, but they're doing her no help, and probably a great deal of harm by encouraging it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If this woman had lived in Oklahoma, the Republican "gods" have decided that her doctors would have been under no legal obligation to even inform her that her child was suffering from a birth defect at any stage in her pregnancy.

Apparently the same conservatives who in their self-righteous rush to denounce the perils of "Obamacare," see nothing wrong when they legislate that the long arm of the state can intrude into a "doctor/patient" relationship!

The baby didn't have any birth defects, asshole, so why the hell are you trying to shoehorn this garbage into the thread?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Her story makes me glad I am a man. I dont know if I could handle it.

I can't imagine it was any better for the father.

It is a sad story. For both of them I am sure. I dont mean to make light of the impact it may have had on the Husband, but I feel the Wife's position is unique. No man could feel it the way she did. I hope they get a second chance in the future.

I don't want to sound callous, but given this woman's history of miscarriages, I think they'd be better off to just quit trying to have any more biological children before she ends up maimed or dead.

 

[gekaap]

Are you saying that it was her mental health or the physical hardships of pregnancy she needed to endure that you clearly don't care about? Or maybe you just don't care about the baby's suffering? Which of these reasons is compelling you to suggest that there was no reason to end the unfortunate situation early?

Wait a second, do you have anything worthwhile to say, or do you just want to sit here and mischaracterize what I've said in a feeble effort to insinuate some kind of moral failing on my part?

You obviously do not know me or anything about me, so let me be explicit. I am a strong supporter of abortion rights. I was at one point engaged (I eventually had to break it off) to a woman for whom I still care deeply, who has bipolar disorder. I've watched how much she suffered from her mental health issues. I, myself, have PTSD from an abusive childhood, and know how difficult that has been for me to learn to overcome. I know, better than you probably, how important mental health is. I say all of this so there can be no misunderstanding as to where my biases lie.

That being said, my objective assessment of the situation is that inasmuch as the woman's health was not in danger by continuing the pregnancy, I do not see a problem with this law being as it is. I'm not saying that I'm advocating the law to remain exactly as it is. I'm just not going to advocate that it necessarily has to change either. I have no doubt that this has been a very painful experience for the mother. But aborting the pregnancy would not have provided anything productive either. The mother's mental health is not an issue here, because any "damage" done in that arena was already done. Mental heath and mental comfort are not the same thing.

Life is difficult sometimes, and we all experience loss at some point in our lives. This woman's loss is great. But sadness is not an argument. As I've already said, and as you have so thoroughly proven, the arguments saying that abortion needed to be available to this woman boil down to saying that it's a terrible thing that happened to her and she needed to be able to do something. It's not important to you that that "something" be productive.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

I can't imagine it was any better for the father.

It is a sad story. For both of them I am sure. I dont mean to make light of the impact it may have had on the Husband, but I feel the Wife's position is unique. No man could feel it the way she did. I hope they get a second chance in the future.

I don't want to sound callous, but given this woman's history of miscarriages, I think they'd be better off to just quit trying to have any more biological children before she ends up maimed or dead.

True. I could not take it. I would look into adopting.

 

[Zander]

Omaha is a 2 hr drive to Des Moines Iowa and less than 30 mins to the Iowa border. If she seriously wanted to terminate her pregnancy she could have driven across the river and been done with it. The story has the stink of a lie....

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The baby didn't have any birth defects, asshole, so why the hell are you trying to shoehorn this garbage into the thread?

I'm fairly certain that being born without vital internal organs and having doctors know survival is impossible is considered a birth defect in at least 49 states.

Wait a second, do you have anything worthwhile to say, or do you just want to sit here and mischaracterize what I've said in a feeble effort to insinuate some kind of moral failing on my part?

Mischaracterize? I used your exact words. You stated "there was no reason that abortion HAD to be available to her" which suggests that you do not believe abortion was warranted/necessary despite mental anguish of the mother, physical demands of bringing a baby up to and through labor, and the suffering of a dying baby with no quality of life. So if those three reasons aren't enough that abortion HAD to be available to her, what is? You said you were a strong supporter of abortion rights, whatever those are, but you're not really showing it.

That being said, my objective assessment of the situation is that inasmuch as the woman's health was not in danger by continuing the pregnancy, I do not see a problem with this law being as it is. I'm not saying that I'm advocating the law to remain exactly as it is. I'm just not going to advocate that it necessarily has to change either. I have no doubt that this has been a very painful experience for the mother. But aborting the pregnancy would not have provided anything productive either. The mother's mental health is not an issue here, because any "damage" done in that arena was already done.

This last statement is one on which you have no basis to make. You have no clue what that mother went through. You think PTSD is even a real mental health issue? You probably just made it up.

Doesn't feel good when someone else minimizes or hand-waives your pain, does it? So why would you do it to someone else when you are in no position to understand what she went through? For someone who starts paragraphs with the ever so immature "you don't know me!" you sure have some audacity to believe you know what this woman went through.

Life is difficult sometimes, and we all experience loss at some point in our lives. This woman's loss is great. But sadness is not an argument. As I've already said, and as you have so thoroughly proven, the arguments saying that abortion needed to be available to this woman boil down to saying that it's a terrible thing that happened to her and she needed to be able to do something. It's not important to you that that "something" be productive.

Except, as previously mentioned, that something is productive. It reduces the mental and physical burden on the mother, and would have completely removed the relentless suffering of the child. There are clear benefits in this situation. How bad does it need to be before you see taking action as "productive?"

 

[Momanohedhunter]

-This last statement is one on which you have no basis to make. You have no clue what that mother went through. You think PTSD is even a real mental health issue? You probably just made it up.Doesn't feel good when someone else minimizes or hand-waives your pain, does it? So why would you do it to someone else when you are in no position to understand what she went through? For someone who starts paragraphs with the ever so immature "you don't know me!" you sure have some audacity to believe you know what this woman went through.

And so you do to the poster what you say they are doing to the woman ? And what puts you in such a position that you know any better ? You are an asshole.

 

[beowolfe]

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.

Ever hear of HIPPA? So, you would have them cut this woman open to retrieve a fetus that they knew was going to die? How little regard you have for this woman's physical well being.

 

[gekaap]

Mischaracterize? I used your exact words. You stated "there was no reason that abortion HAD to be available to her" which suggests that you do not believe abortion was warranted/necessary despite mental anguish of the mother, physical demands of bringing a baby up to and through labor, and the suffering of a dying baby with no quality of life.

How in the Hell do you quote me, then turn around and use a complete different set of words, and still manage to say that you're using my exact words, without your head exploding from the mindblowingness of it all?

I said that there was no reason abortion HAD to be available to her. The only reason abortion HAD to be available to her would have been if there was a significant risk to her health. It has NOTHING to do with abortion being "warranted." What we have is is a state law, enacted by the state legislature, who was duly elected by the people of the state. It is their decision whether to have such a law or not, and inasmuch as the law is the will of the people and does not violate the constitution then it is an acceptable law. If you live in that state, and you would like to see the law changed then you should write to your legislator(s) and let your voting decisions reflect those who will support your concerns. On the other hand, if you don't live in that state, then your only concern should be that no basic human rights are being violated, nor the constitution.

So if those three reasons aren't enough that abortion HAD to be available to her, what is?

I've already said it multiple times, if there was a significant risk to the woman's health by continuing to carry the pregnancy. A late term abortion cannot be justified on the basis of "the mother will be sad" which is essentially what your argument boils down to. I have no doubt that this whole ordeal has been the most difficult thing this woman has ever had to endure. But the law is not required to permit late term abortion just because something had to be done to help the mother feel better. Pain and deeply upsetting experiences are a part of life. In this woman's case, this is one of those deeply upsetting experiences. Having a late term abortion would not have made a difference in the grand scheme of things.

You said you were a strong supporter of abortion rights, whatever those are, but you're not really showing it.

I'm showing an objective opinion on a specific incident. I am also deeply spiritual and devout in my beliefs. That doesn't mean that I want to legislate religion over other people. There is a difference between supporting an idea, and allowing one's biases to ruin one's objectivity.

This last statement is one on which you have no basis to make. You have no clue what that mother went through. You think PTSD is even a real mental health issue? You probably just made it up.

Okay, do YOU have any meaningful basis to say that the woman has suffered some kind of significant damage from the continued pregnancy? The fact that you're willing to dismiss PTSD as a "real" mental health issue shows that you don't have any actual care for a person's mental health. So you lose any place to invoke mental heath as a reason to demand a late term abortion.

Doesn't feel good when someone else minimizes or hand-waives your pain, does it?

Actually, I could care less what your opinion is of my PTSD. What an anonymous person on the internet has to say about the matter is of no concern to my life.

So why would you do it to someone else when you are in no position to understand what she went through?

I'm not minimizing anything. I've said already that I have no doubt that this has all been an incredibly difficult experience for this woman. But you obviously don't have any understanding about what mental health means or what mental health treatment is all about. If you think that a woman, wanting to have a child, suffers more from her continued pregnancy than she does from losing her child, then you're insane.

For someone who starts paragraphs with the ever so immature "you don't know me!" you sure have some audacity to believe you know what this woman went through.

I never said I know what she went through. But then again, neither do you. The difference between you and I is that I have a basic understanding of what mental health is all about. You're trying to invoke something of which you know nothing, in an attempt to support your position, which is otherwise unsupportable. Mental health is not about "Oh noes don't let her feel bad!" You invoke mental health and seem to think that doing so demands that the law must allow people to be sheltered from anything unpleasant. But in fact, that's more like the opposite of the truth. Mental health is about actually being able to deal with the stressors of life, overcome hardships and a healthy way, etc. I grew up with abusive parents. But to suggest that the law should have allowed me to kill them in self defense, to protect my mental health, would be insanity! The questions of my mental health then and now continue to be about my ability to cope with the things my parents did to me in a healthy way so that they do not inhibit me from having a happy and productive future.

Except, as previously mentioned, that something is productive. It reduces the mental and physical burden on the mother, and would have completely removed the relentless suffering of the child.

This is unsubstantiated. As already said, if you think that an abortion would have actually provided any comfort to this woman over losing her long anticipated and desired child, then you are insane! At best, it would have been a distraction from the woman's real issues, which would actually have been BAD for her mental health. You obviously don't know what you're talking about in all of this so just stop playing the mental health card.

There are clear benefits in this situation. How bad does it need to be before you see taking action as "productive?"

A significant risk to the mother's health.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is a sad story. For both of them I am sure. I dont mean to make light of the impact it may have had on the Husband, but I feel the Wife's position is unique. No man could feel it the way she did. I hope they get a second chance in the future.

I don't want to sound callous, but given this woman's history of miscarriages, I think they'd be better off to just quit trying to have any more biological children before she ends up maimed or dead.

True. I could not take it. I would look into adopting.

It's not like there aren't lots of healthy babies out there who need families, and they seem like a nice enough couple, just really, REALLY not able to produce a viable pregnancy. This weird determination some people have to have biological children is endangering her health.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The baby didn't have any birth defects, asshole, so why the hell are you trying to shoehorn this garbage into the thread?

I'm fairly certain that being born without vital internal organs and having doctors know survival is impossible is considered a birth defect in at least 49 states.

No, fucktard, she was not born without internal organs. As a side effect of her mother going into premature labor, the baby was underdeveloped. And the loss of amniotic fluid apparently means she wouldn't have been able to develop any further. Go look up "birth defect", retard. Or just read the goddamned news stories, instead of making shit up and trying to shove it into the discussion.

Wait a second, do you have anything worthwhile to say, or do you just want to sit here and mischaracterize what I've said in a feeble effort to insinuate some kind of moral failing on my part?

Mischaracterize? I used your exact words. You stated "there was no reason that abortion HAD to be available to her" which suggests that you do not believe abortion was warranted/necessary despite mental anguish of the mother, physical demands of bringing a baby up to and through labor, and the suffering of a dying baby with no quality of life. So if those three reasons aren't enough that abortion HAD to be available to her, what is? You said you were a strong supporter of abortion rights, whatever those are, but you're not really showing it.

That being said, my objective assessment of the situation is that inasmuch as the woman's health was not in danger by continuing the pregnancy, I do not see a problem with this law being as it is. I'm not saying that I'm advocating the law to remain exactly as it is. I'm just not going to advocate that it necessarily has to change either. I have no doubt that this has been a very painful experience for the mother. But aborting the pregnancy would not have provided anything productive either. The mother's mental health is not an issue here, because any "damage" done in that arena was already done.

This last statement is one on which you have no basis to make. You have no clue what that mother went through. You think PTSD is even a real mental health issue? You probably just made it up.

Yes, post-traumatic stress disorder is a real mental health issue, moron. What fucking rock have you been hiding under?

As for "not knowing what the mother went through", would you like to tell us how having the baby die IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, but five days earlier, would have helped the mother in the slightest? Would it have made her grieve her lost child any less?

Doesn't feel good when someone else minimizes or hand-waives your pain, does it? So why would you do it to someone else when you are in no position to understand what she went through? For someone who starts paragraphs with the ever so immature "you don't know me!" you sure have some audacity to believe you know what this woman went through.

I doubt it matters to him or anyone else what a halfwit drooler like you thinks.

No one is "hand-waving" her pain (and by the way, why don't you learn to spell?). We're pointing out that, however much she wants to lash out and blame someone now, having the baby die five days earlier would not have made her hurt any less.

If you and your comrades really gave a rat's ass about this woman's pain, you'd stop using her as a human shield to advance your agenda behind, stop encouraging her to obsess about this law, and let her get some counseling, heal, and move on.

Life is difficult sometimes, and we all experience loss at some point in our lives. This woman's loss is great. But sadness is not an argument. As I've already said, and as you have so thoroughly proven, the arguments saying that abortion needed to be available to this woman boil down to saying that it's a terrible thing that happened to her and she needed to be able to do something. It's not important to you that that "something" be productive.

Except, as previously mentioned, that something is productive. It reduces the mental and physical burden on the mother, and would have completely removed the relentless suffering of the child. There are clear benefits in this situation. How bad does it need to be before you see taking action as "productive?"

I think it's not a matter of how bad the situation is, but the "solution" ACTUALLY being productive. You and your comrades have yet to show how inducing labor five days earlier would have been the slightest bit productive for anyone.

The mother was under no physical burden, and a five-day-earlier death was not going to ease her mental burden at all. And as I've said, if you really cared about easing her mental burden, you'd quit encouraging this obsession of hers. You really think THIS is helping her let go of the pain?

As for the "relentless suffering of the child" you keep blithering on about, you CLEARLY haven't read any of the news articles about the story, because nowhere do ANY of them say that the child was in any pain.