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

[Care4all]

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.


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.



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?



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.

FYI-10 days longer NOT 5 days longer

 

[AllieBaba]

So what? If it's better for the woman then you should be all for that.

And I guarantee it was. Abortion is not a riskless solution, and there is no dr in the world who will choose a medical/surgical procedure over allowing the same exactly outcome occurring naturally. Because there is always added risk with any treatment/procedure/surgery. Always.

And butchering the baby in utero would not elminate all suffering, Care, you ghoul.

 

[Care4all]

So what? If it's better for the woman then you should be all for that.

And I guarantee it was. Abortion is not a riskless solution, and there is no dr in the world who will choose a medical/surgical procedure over allowing the same exactly outcome occurring naturally. Because there is always added risk with any treatment/procedure/surgery. Always.

And butchering the baby in utero would not elminate all suffering, Care, you ghoul.

maybe you wouldn't look so foolish, if you actually read the article Allie....they would not induce labor....


what in God's name does inducing labor have to do with butchering up this baby?

 

[AllieBaba]

Care, you have proven you don't understand the difference between dead and alive in this thread, so I don't think you're exactly the voice of reason and critical thinking.

Psst...I did read the article. Much, much more thoroughly did you, given your freaked out spasmings about the ALMOST DEAD baby and all the horror that attached to it..in your sick, twisted mind.

 

[Care4all]

Care, you have proven you don't understand the difference between dead and alive in this thread, so I don't think you're exactly the voice of reason and critical thinking.

Psst...I did read the article. Much, much more thoroughly did you, given your freaked out spasmings about the ALMOST DEAD baby and all the horror that attached to it..in your sick, twisted mind.

You didn't answer my question on what in the world did your rant about butchering up this baby have to do with this case? The baby was not going to be butchered? Where did you get that crap from?

I happen to be totally against late term abortion, in all cases except ones similar to this woman's situation. In a situation like hers, I believe it is MORE humane to allow the mother, father and doctor make the decision on whether to INDUCE LABOR or not to induce labor. I do NOT believe that it should be me or you or the government, making this very personal medical decision...it should be up to, those personally involved.

I don't view this gory, i know it is not butchering as you falsely claimed...I view it as compassionate towards the mother and father...understanding their sorrow, and their need to make this sorrowful decision for themselves.

 

[AllieBaba]

*butcher* is synonymous w/kill.

I wasn't thinking of actually cutting it up, if that's what you're referring to. Though it makes sense that you are.

BTW, once labor is induced, things can go very badly. As I said, there is no dr. in the world who would rather force the untimely delivery of a baby if they think the baby will come naturally and more safely.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, having imperfect babies is a terrible trial to unfortunate parents. Hopefully someday we can kill all imperfect babies 5 days before they would be born naturally. What an incredible relief that would be to Care.

 

[Care4all]

Yes, having imperfect babies is a terrible trial to unfortunate parents. Hopefully someday we can kill all imperfect babies 5 days before they would be born naturally. What an incredible relief that would be to Care.

this has nothing to do with Infanticide and killing deformed babies after they are born because they were not perfect.

NOTHING!

 

[Valerie]

Yes, having imperfect babies is a terrible trial to unfortunate parents. Hopefully someday we can kill all imperfect babies 5 days before they would be born naturally. What an incredible relief that would be to Care.

this has nothing to do with Infanticide and killing deformed babies after they are born because they were not perfect.

NOTHING!

She seems a tad obsessed with that imagery.

 

[Care4all]

*butcher* is synonymous w/kill.

I wasn't thinking of actually cutting it up, if that's what you're referring to. Though it makes sense that you are.

BTW, once labor is induced, things can go very badly. As I said, there is no dr. in the world who would rather force the untimely delivery of a baby if they think the baby will come naturally and more safely.

this is not about inducing labor for a full term pregnancy.

It should be up to the mother, the father and the doctor, in this particular case.... if the doctor is willing to induce labor in her case with a non-viable fetus, and she and her husband think this is the best solution, causing less grief for themselves, then gvt and you, should not have a say in it.

I stand by that...

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.


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.



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?



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.

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.

FYI-10 days longer NOT 5 days longer

Try to stay with me here.

Her water broke on the evening of November 28. She rushed to the hospital. The next morning, the 29th, an ultrasound showed that there was hardly any amniotic fluid left around the baby. She spent 24 hours on bed rest, and spoke to a perinatologist on Tuesday, November 30, probably in the afternoon, since the specialist was in Omaha, and I don't think they live in Omaha, so they would have had to travel.

So we're down almost three days there. Elizabeth was born around 3 in the afternoon on December 8, and died 15 minutes later. So she was NOT forced to wait ten days for an abortion. She waited seven (I apparently misread the number of days between her water breaking and the baby's death) from the time she decided she wanted to end it, because she spent three of them trying to save the pregnancy.

Was that the only objection you wanted to raise?

 

[Care4all]

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.


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.



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?



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.



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.

FYI-10 days longer NOT 5 days longer

Try to stay with me here.

Her water broke on the evening of November 28. She rushed to the hospital. The next morning, the 29th, an ultrasound showed that there was hardly any amniotic fluid left around the baby. She spent 24 hours on bed rest, and spoke to a perinatologist on Tuesday, November 30, probably in the afternoon, since the specialist was in Omaha, and I don't think they live in Omaha, so they would have had to travel.

So we're down almost three days there. Elizabeth was born around 3 in the afternoon on December 8, and died 15 minutes later. So she was NOT forced to wait ten days for an abortion. She waited seven (I apparently misread the number of days between her water breaking and the baby's death) from the time she decided she wanted to end it, because she spent three of them trying to save the pregnancy.

Was that the only objection you wanted to raise?

NOPE.

I have already voiced my opinion and stance on the topic...i've been clear, so I see no need to go over it again Cecilie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

FYI-10 days longer NOT 5 days longer

Try to stay with me here.

Her water broke on the evening of November 28. She rushed to the hospital. The next morning, the 29th, an ultrasound showed that there was hardly any amniotic fluid left around the baby. She spent 24 hours on bed rest, and spoke to a perinatologist on Tuesday, November 30, probably in the afternoon, since the specialist was in Omaha, and I don't think they live in Omaha, so they would have had to travel.

So we're down almost three days there. Elizabeth was born around 3 in the afternoon on December 8, and died 15 minutes later. So she was NOT forced to wait ten days for an abortion. She waited seven (I apparently misread the number of days between her water breaking and the baby's death) from the time she decided she wanted to end it, because she spent three of them trying to save the pregnancy.

Was that the only objection you wanted to raise?

NOPE.

I have already voiced my opinion and stance on the topic...i've been clear, so I see no need to go over it again Cecilie.

Okay. Let me put it this way. Do you have any objections or opinions based on reality?

 

[BenNatuf]

This is wrong, if the mother or baby are going to die according to the best medical opinions and there's nothing to be done, that would be the reason for the "life of the mother" exclusion, perhaps it should be expanded to include a baby who won't survive birth also. But to be fair, I've never ever heard of any situation like this, and I don't believe laws should be taylored to rare exceptions.

But lets be real here, you'd want her to be able to murder the baby even if it were healthy.

I've also noticed the story doesn't say why the fetus was non-viable, yet the baby lived for 15 minutes outside the womb... meaning of course that it was viable. The birth occured at about the 23 week, did the baby die merely because instead of giving it life saving medical treatment they just gave the premie to the mother to hold until it died? Why wasn't thisd baby rushed to an incubator in an ICU unit?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

No. My feigned dismissal of his very real problem was nothing more than a reflection of his own poor etiquette, with the purpose of making his callous remarks hit closer to home so he can see how ridiculous they are. It was not genuine. Thus the subsequent sentences.

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.

Amazing how quickly people are willing to demand a violation of medical privacy rights lest they jump to conspiracy theories that the mother AND doctors AND media are all lying.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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's the difference between HAVE to have an abortion, and it being warranted? Seems to me it's just a line in the sand. You say it HAD to be available if there was risk to her life. Why only that extreme? Because you said so? See the medical world generally operates on the principle that services should be available to people to improve their well being and quality of life. Certainly that would apply if the conception was a risk to her life, but it's clear to most people in this thread, as well as the doctors caring for her, that availability of abortion would have been a benefit to all involved.

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.

Yes, the mental anguish is one of the three things I mentioned as negative outcomes,. You seem to be repeatedly overlooking the fact that the baby suffered for the entirety of its limited existence. Again I ask and you ignore: who benefited from denying an abortion in this case?

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.

I think a woman who wants to have a child suffers more from being forced to see it suffer and die shortly after birth. But as you said, you think her mental anguish is completely irrelevant to the issue.

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.

Once again I state three things that could have been helped with an abortion, and once again you completely ignore 2 of them. Sure. Let's say you're right in that abortion would have provided this woman no comfort even though she herself states it would have in the various articles and VIDEOS of her. Let's just move it off the table altogether. Will you continue to ignore the issue of continuing to carry a nonviable fetus and the suffering of the baby itself?

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.

and clearly not the baby's. Interesting double standard you have there. In your mind, it's ok as long as the mother doesn't PHYSICALLY suffer for it to any substantial degree, but it's ok if the baby suffers horribly until its inevitable death in a few minutes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is wrong, if the mother or baby are going to die according to the best medical opinions and there's nothing to be done, that would be the reason for the "life of the mother" exclusion, perhaps it should be expanded to include a baby who won't survive birth also. But to be fair, I've never ever heard of any situation like this, and I don't believe laws should be taylored to rare exceptions.

But lets be real here, you'd want her to be able to murder the baby even if it were healthy.

I've also noticed the story doesn't say why the fetus was non-viable, yet the baby lived for 15 minutes outside the womb... meaning of course that it was viable. The birth occured at about the 23 week, did the baby die merely because instead of giving it life saving medical treatment they just gave the premie to the mother to hold until it died? Why wasn't thisd baby rushed to an incubator in an ICU unit?

I went and researched the story and posted what happened. I forget which one of my posts it was in.

 

[AllieBaba]

What the hell is a non-viable fetus? Because my understanding was that the baby had a small percentage of a chance to survive, and that it did indeed survive as a fetus, but then died after birth. The baby had complications from not having enough amniotic fluid.

It was sick. There's no justification in killing children who are sick, and if we're talking about the well being of the mother, her medical needs were best met by allowing nature to take its course.

So I guess the argument that abortion is necessary to protect the health of the mother doesn't apply here. In this case, no risk is too great...so long as the baby dies before it takes its first breath.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

Ah you're right. It wasn't that she was missing kidneys as geuxtohell suggested before more information came out. You are right in saying that her lungs couldn't develop. Nonetheless, the baby's inability to breath doesn't really change the point.

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?

Exactly the same way? You think the equivalent of being waterboarded for 15 minutes until dead is equivalent to using a medication to instantly stop the fetal heart? You are actually dumb enough to think that having the mother watch her baby turn blue because it couldn't breath is equivalent to fulfilling her wishes from the standpoint of grief? Really now?

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.

No. They say the baby couldn't breath. It's lungs couldn't work and it couldn't get oxygen to its body. Do me a favor. Hold your breath for 15 minutes. See how comfortable you are. Maybe you'll gain some common sense in the process.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What the hell is a non-viable fetus? Because my understanding was that the baby had a small percentage of a chance to survive, and that it did indeed survive as a fetus, but then died after birth. The baby had complications from not having enough amniotic fluid.

It was sick. There's no justification in killing children who are sick, and if we're talking about the well being of the mother, her medical needs were best met by allowing nature to take its course.

So I guess the argument that abortion is necessary to protect the health of the mother doesn't apply here. In this case, no risk is too great...so long as the baby dies before it takes its first breath.

And that still wouldn't have happened. If the doctors had induced labor, Danielle would have had the baby just like she did, then held her until she died, just like she did anyway. These people have their panties in a wad because the exact same thing that happened didn't happen seven days earlier, that it happened naturally instead of through deliberate intent. That's their whole frothing outrage: that Elizabeth died on her own, instead of being killed.