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

[AllieBaba]

No, they have their panties in a wad because they are pissed the baby wasn't just killed outright in utero.

 

[Care4all]

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.

as you said, after you clear out your crapola....the baby was going to die, whether induced labor or not, IN HER MOTHER'S ARMS.

Elizabeth WAS NEVER going to be killed inside her mother's womb, by anyone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, it does. I don't want to sound unkind, but it wasn't the baby who was defective; it was her mother's reproductive system.

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?

What the holy fuck are you blithering about, waterboarded and medication?

The baby would have died exactly the same way had Danielle gotten what she wanted. What do you think they were going to do? They would have induced labor, she'd have given birth, and the baby would have died because she couldn't breathe. And where are you getting this "turning blue" bullshit? My father and my mother-in-law both died in essentially the same way this baby did - in their cases, their lungs had lost the ability to function properly - and they gradually just stopped breathing. Neither of them "turned blue", you freak. Stop fantasizing.

Why the hell can't you people be bothered to RESEARCH before you run off screeching like Chicken Little?

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.

The baby was not capable of breathing well enough to continue living, that's true (And by the way, she was a SHE, not an IT. Not only is that incredibly bad grammar, it's fucking insulting). That doesn't mean she was "holding her breath for fifteen minutes", you dimwit. She WAS breathing. Badly, and not well enough to sustain her for any length of time, but your drama queen imaginings of her turning blue and whatnot are just that: imaginings.

And again I say, what do you think would have been different seven days earlier?

 

[Care4all]

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.

i thought you said you read the article? the article said the baby was a NON-VIABLE fetus....those are not my words. Inducing labor was not what would kill the child...the child would have died on its own, just as it did 10 days later.

the baby was going to die, the doctor gave it ZERO chances of living once born....ZERO.

WHERE are you getting your information from? how about sharing a link that says the baby had a small chance of living as you stated....or is this info from some blogger?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, they have their panties in a wad because they are pissed the baby wasn't just killed outright in utero.

They do seem to have some odd ideas about what the doctors would have done.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

Actually, all of that is still false. Stick to thinking you have a decent handle on fallacies instead of making up medicine. Simply because you refer to birth as "natural" does not mean it is without risk either, nor should you start making statements about how every doctor in the world will act in this situation. The fact remains that bringing a nonviable fetus to term and going through pregnancy is going to have larger medical risks than ending a pregnancy earlier. In fact, I would bet you can't name a single risk that applies to abortion that does not apply to pregnancy.

Painlessly ending the life of a fetus in utero WOULD eliminate the suffering of the baby before the labor was induced, and greatly reduce the suffering of the mother. As usual, I take it you will complain about something unrelated to the point, and then never address the fact that you readily spew unsupported bullshit at every opportunity.

*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.

Butcher is not synonymous with kill. They have different connotations. Check a dictionary for the verb, please. But this is your normal method of slipper slope exaggeration because you are incapable of making actual points otherwise.

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.

Once again a ridiculous slippery slope exaggeration that NO ONE in this thread had EVER brought up.

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?

If you check more recent articles, some of the details would clarify.
New abortion law fueled local woman's heartache | News 5 | News, Weather, Sports for Hastings | Kearney | Grand Island | Nebraska | Local News

It was non viable because the lungs couldn't develop, and the baby was being compressed because of low amniotic fluid. This article also notes how that one doctor sees a similar case once or twice a year, which suggests other doctors do as well, meaning it's not as rare as you think.

What the hell is a non-viable fetus? Because my understanding was that the baby had a small percentage of a chance to survive

Your understanding is still wrong. As usual.

The lungs couldn't develop. It could not breath. Breathing is necessary for life. Thus lacking such a capacity is not compatible with life, better known as not viable.

It was sick. There's no justification in killing children who are sick]

THE FLU would make it sick. HIV from birth would make it sick. LACKING THE ABILITY TO BREATH is not some bug that you just get over. Once again, another poor understanding and slippery slope argument that completely dismisses the facts of the case.

 

[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.

i thought you said you read the article? the article said the baby was a NON-VIABLE fetus....those are not my words. Inducing labor was not what would kill the child...the child would have died on its own, just as it did 10 days later.

the baby was going to die, the doctor gave it ZERO chances of living once born....ZERO.

WHERE are you getting your information from? how about sharing a link that says the baby had a small chance of living as you stated....or is this info from some blogger?

From the Des Moines Register:

Deaver, 34, of Grand Island, Neb., wanted to see something, anything to validate the news doctors delivered eight days before: Her baby had virtually no chance of survival. And if she lived, she would be severely disabled.

Any other questions?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What the holy fuck are you blithering about, waterboarded and medication?

Go look up what waterboarding is. Regarding the medication: given the ability to abort a child, a couple would have been able to avoid the 15 minutes of suffering from failing to breath altogether. You are right in saying this couple's plan was to do the same thing but earlier. We could split hairs about whether those days really changed anything. My point continues to be that it should still have been their decision with their doctor, and an available option was an outright abortion to reduce the suffering.

And where are you getting this "turning blue" bullshit? My father and my mother-in-law both died in essentially the same way this baby did - in their cases, their lungs had lost the ability to function properly - and they gradually just stopped breathing. Neither of them "turned blue", you freak. Stop fantasizing.

Why the hell can't you people be bothered to RESEARCH before you run off screeching like Chicken Little?

So you think comparing your father and mother in law to a newborn baby is appropriate? And you want me to do my research? Go type "blue baby" or "cyanosis" into google. Clearly you don't understand what happens to babies when they can't breath.

And again I say, what do you think would have been different seven days earlier?

Probably not much. That's not my point. That's not care's point either. You and Allie have a hard time actually understanding our points because you're too busy flipping out about the topic.

 

[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.

i thought you said you read the article? the article said the baby was a NON-VIABLE fetus....those are not my words. Inducing labor was not what would kill the child...the child would have died on its own, just as it did 10 days later.

the baby was going to die, the doctor gave it ZERO chances of living once born....ZERO.

WHERE are you getting your information from? how about sharing a link that says the baby had a small chance of living as you stated....or is this info from some blogger?

From the Des Moines Register:

Deaver, 34, of Grand Island, Neb., wanted to see something, anything to validate the news doctors delivered eight days before: Her baby had virtually no chance of survival. And if she lived, she would be severely disabled.

Any other questions?

Care has gone off the deep end.

 

[AllieBaba]

What the holy fuck are you blithering about, waterboarded and medication?

Go look up what waterboarding is. Regarding the medication: given the ability to abort a child, a couple would have been able to avoid the 15 minutes of suffering from failing to breath altogether. You are right in saying this couple's plan was to do the same thing but earlier. We could split hairs about whether those days really changed anything. My point continues to be that it should still have been their decision with their doctor, and an available option was an outright abortion to reduce the suffering.

And where are you getting this "turning blue" bullshit? My father and my mother-in-law both died in essentially the same way this baby did - in their cases, their lungs had lost the ability to function properly - and they gradually just stopped breathing. Neither of them "turned blue", you freak. Stop fantasizing.

Why the hell can't you people be bothered to RESEARCH before you run off screeching like Chicken Little?

So you think comparing your father and mother in law to a newborn baby is appropriate? And you want me to do my research? Go type "blue baby" or "cyanosis" into google. Clearly you don't understand what happens to babies when they can't breath.

And again I say, what do you think would have been different seven days earlier?

Probably not much. That's not my point. That's not care's point either. You and Allie have a hard time actually understanding our points because you're too busy flipping out about the topic.

*THE HORROR THE HORROR OMG OMG OMG*

Maybe you should read through Care's posts before saying anyone else is flipping out.

And we're not having a hard time understanding at all. You equate baby killing with a cessation of misery. Check.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What the holy fuck are you blithering about, waterboarded and medication?

Go look up what waterboarding is. Regarding the medication: given the ability to abort a child, a couple would have been able to avoid the 15 minutes of suffering from failing to breath altogether. You are right in saying this couple's plan was to do the same thing but earlier. We could split hairs about whether those days really changed anything. My point continues to be that it should still have been their decision with their doctor, and an available option was an outright abortion to reduce the suffering.

I know what waterboarding is, and so the question still stands: what the FUCK are you blithering about? No one waterboarded that little girl.

Regarding the medication, that made no sense whatsoever. What medication do you think was going to be given? They were going to induce labor earlier than her own body was going to. That's it. The baby still would have done the whole "15 minutes" thing. That's not "hair splitting". That's a significant fact. The death would have been the exact same. It would have accomplished nothing except for her to die seven days earlier.

As far as your whole "decision with her doctor", "reduce the suffering" schtick, give me a break. You tell me how moving the SAME EXACT DEATH SCENE up seven days was going to reduce any suffering. Same death for Elizabeth, so no less suffering there, if she even WAS suffering. Even the mother says she doesn't know. And I KNOW you're not cold and heartless enough to think Danielle was going to get over the death of her baby faster if she killed her instead of Elizabeth dying naturally. That's just sick.

And by the way, don't think we don't all know that you and your comrades are once again trying to hide your agenda behind the skirts of a hard-luck story. How often do you think something like this comes up, in Nebraska or in the nation in general? But you think we should change the law over one lousy situation that was going to suck massively no matter what happened, and you want us to believe that you think there's going to be women with interrupted 23-week miscarriages every other week. Bullshit.

And where are you getting this "turning blue" bullshit? My father and my mother-in-law both died in essentially the same way this baby did - in their cases, their lungs had lost the ability to function properly - and they gradually just stopped breathing. Neither of them "turned blue", you freak. Stop fantasizing.

Why the hell can't you people be bothered to RESEARCH before you run off screeching like Chicken Little?

So you think comparing your father and mother in law to a newborn baby is appropriate? And you want me to do my research? Go type "blue baby" or "cyanosis" into google. Clearly you don't understand what happens to babies when they can't breath.

Yes, comparing three people who died because their lungs stopped functioning and they gradually stopped breathing is completely appropriate.

Why would I type "cyanosis" or "blue baby"? Why would I be interested in researching something that exists, in this case, only in your head? The baby was not cyanotic, nor was she blue. If you have evidence to the contrary, other than your assumptions, let's see it. Show me an article, any article, that says Elizabeth was blue.

She couldn't breathe WELL, idiot. Both the AP and the Des Moines Register, I believe, said that she was gasping. That means she WAS breathing, not turning blue. Had she been not breathing AT ALL, she wouldn't have lived fifteen minutes. Dumbfuck.

Like I said, go research.

And again I say, what do you think would have been different seven days earlier?

Probably not much. That's not my point. That's not care's point either. You and Allie have a hard time actually understanding our points because you're too busy flipping out about the topic.

Of COURSE that's not your point, because you don't give a fuck if ANYTHING was actually different, let alone better. All you care about is that no barrier is ever put up to women killing their babies whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. And if that means exploiting this poor family's tragedy and grief, well then, thank God Danielle miscarried so you had the opportunity. Right?

If you have another point besides that one, let's hear it. Because I can tell you right now, THAT one isn't going to get a lot of sympathy.

 

[AllieBaba]

And yes, it is hard to understand you when you make up things such as *zero* chance of survival, 10 days of (horror) waiting, *practically* dead, *as good as* dead, etc.

Try to stick to the facts and maybe we can have a convo. Keep making shit up and nobody is going to take you seriously.

 

[Cecilie1200]

i thought you said you read the article? the article said the baby was a NON-VIABLE fetus....those are not my words. Inducing labor was not what would kill the child...the child would have died on its own, just as it did 10 days later.

the baby was going to die, the doctor gave it ZERO chances of living once born....ZERO.

WHERE are you getting your information from? how about sharing a link that says the baby had a small chance of living as you stated....or is this info from some blogger?

From the Des Moines Register:

Deaver, 34, of Grand Island, Neb., wanted to see something, anything to validate the news doctors delivered eight days before: Her baby had virtually no chance of survival. And if she lived, she would be severely disabled.

Any other questions?

Care has gone off the deep end.

They're just making shit up at this point.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

My Wifes Grandmother is 92 and had 12 Kids and 5 miscarriages.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know. It's like I said, this isn't about anything except the justification of killing a baby. It's funny, because usually squawk about it being necessary for the health of the mother, but apparently in this case, the mother's health is of secondary importance. That baby needed to be killed, dammit!

 

[AllieBaba]

Lots of women have multiple miscarriages. Killing the babies that aren't viable is not a way to prevent that. Miscarriage is a risk of pregnancy, and one this particular family had a lot of experience with. They chose to take that risk.

 

[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.

My Wifes Grandmother is 92 and had 12 Kids and 5 miscarriages.

That's not now, is it? And I'll bet she didn't start off with all five at once.

In this day and age, with modern medicine and prenatal care, if you're STILL having three miscarriages, then one baby, THEN another miscarriage, nature is trying to tell you something, and you should just stop.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lots of women have multiple miscarriages. Killing the babies that aren't viable is not a way to prevent that. Miscarriage is a risk of pregnancy, and one this particular family had a lot of experience with. They chose to take that risk.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that killing non-viable babies is a way to prevent miscarriage. I think he was commenting on my remark that these people should give up on having more biological children, because she's risking her own health and safety and clearly not built for having babies.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's a pretty common result of pregnancy, Cec.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lots of women have multiple miscarriages. Killing the babies that aren't viable is not a way to prevent that. Miscarriage is a risk of pregnancy, and one this particular family had a lot of experience with. They chose to take that risk.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that killing non-viable babies is a way to prevent miscarriage. I think he was commenting on my remark that these people should give up on having more biological children, because she's risking her own health and safety and clearly not built for having babies.

I was referring to the idea that it saves anyone any suffering to kill the baby in the OP prior to her natural birth and subsequent death.