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

[SmarterThanHick]

You equate baby killing with a cessation of misery. Check.

False. Keep making blind exaggerated stabs in the dark though. Maybe if you keep restating what you want to believe despite both me and Care telling you that you aren't understanding the point, you may start to actually believe it yourself.

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.

These are the facts. Can you produce a single report of any baby surviving without developed lungs? Last I checked, they are somewhat a vital organ. That's why all of those pesky underqualified people known as DOCTORS said the baby was not viable. For some reason, you still equate this to "just a little sick, with a chance of recovery." Not breathing is apparently just a minor flesh wound in your universe.

While we're on the topic of you making things up you can't support, are you going to inform me about these major complications of abortion you referenced that are not also complications of pregnancy? Yeah my guess is you'll keep ignoring that too. Pesky facts!

 

[AllieBaba]

It's pretty pathetic that I have to keep bringing you both back to the idiocies you've said.

Namely that killing the baby before she died would have reduced suffering.

And that the baby was good as dead and had zero chance to live.

I didn't say those things, though I can see why you would like to pretend they weren't said.

 

[Care4all]

as the woman said in the article allie, she was not asking to have an abortion, she wanted to induce her pregnancy, instead of waiting around for some unknown time for the miscarriage/or labor to take place....

her baby girl was not viable...do you even know what that means?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

What, miscarriages? Relatively, yes, but the vast majority of them happen before the mother is even aware she was pregnant. And multiple miscarriages are, thankfully, not that statistically common.

Which still doesn't change the fact that if your body has that much trouble carrying to term, you shouldn't be risking it. Doesn't make it any less dangerous to the mother to keep miscarrying over and over if lots of people are doing it.

 

[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.

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.

No, that's completely ridiculous. And you'll notice that even Hick admitted that it wouldn't have changed anything, and that it wasn't the point if it did or not. At least he was honest enough to finally SAY that it wasn't about "lessening suffering", regardless of all his caterwauling on the subject.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You equate baby killing with a cessation of misery. Check.

False. Keep making blind exaggerated stabs in the dark though. Maybe if you keep restating what you want to believe despite both me and Care telling you that you aren't understanding the point, you may start to actually believe it yourself.

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.

These are the facts. Can you produce a single report of any baby surviving without developed lungs? Last I checked, they are somewhat a vital organ. That's why all of those pesky underqualified people known as DOCTORS said the baby was not viable. For some reason, you still equate this to "just a little sick, with a chance of recovery." Not breathing is apparently just a minor flesh wound in your universe.

While we're on the topic of you making things up you can't support, are you going to inform me about these major complications of abortion you referenced that are not also complications of pregnancy? Yeah my guess is you'll keep ignoring that too. Pesky facts!

Well, apparently, there WAS a chance of survival, however small, or they wouldn't have said, "IF she lived, she'd be severely disabled."

Damned facts!

 

[Cecilie1200]

as the woman said in the article allie, she was not asking to have an abortion, she wanted to induce her pregnancy, instead of waiting around for some unknown time for the miscarriage/or labor to take place....

her baby girl was not viable...do you even know what that means?

Yeah, that'd be an abortion. I already posted the definition once. Do you need me to do it again?

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

No, that's completely ridiculous. And you'll notice that even Hick admitted that it wouldn't have changed anything, and that it wasn't the point if it did or not. At least he was honest enough to finally SAY that it wasn't about "lessening suffering", regardless of all his caterwauling on the subject.

Care, however, views the baby as an abomination, practically dead, and asserted, repeatedly, that anything was preferable to delivering it naturally.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

lol, Not sure what then or now has to do with it. The wifes Grandma lost her first 2 then had 1 and lost 1 had one lost one. then all of the sudden 11 kids in a row no miscarriages, then she lost the last attempt.

Unless her Doctor is telling her there is significant health risk to her, I don't see why they should just stop. If they want more kids. You never know she could end up with 12 kids too.

 

[AllieBaba]

as the woman said in the article allie, she was not asking to have an abortion, she wanted to induce her pregnancy, instead of waiting around for some unknown time for the miscarriage/or labor to take place....

her baby girl was not viable...do you even know what that means?

Yes, I do know what it means. It means it would probably die.

Just as it would most certainly die if they induced before the woman's body was ready to deliver the baby. Only by inducing, the mother is also jeopardized.

So the only thing you are supporting is putting the mother at risk, and taking the life of a child that would most likely die anyway. Because you, personally, can't stand the thought of an imperfect child.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

lol, Not sure what then or now has to do with it. The wifes Grandma lost her first 2 then had 1 and lost 1 had one lost one. then all of the sudden 11 kids in a row no miscarriages, then she lost the last attempt.

Unless her Doctor is telling her there is significant health risk to her, I don't see why they should just stop. If they want more kids. You never know she could end up with 12 kids too.

I'd imagine her doctors HAVE told her that repeated miscarriages are dangerous.

The difference between then and now is that back then, the occasional miscarriage was the norm and didn't necessarily mean there was anything wrong with the woman's reproductive system. Bad medical care - or none at all - bad nutrition, and hard living conditions all took their toll. Like I said, my own mother lost my older brother when she fell down the stairs. She told me when I was pregnant with one of my kids that nowadays, there would have been a much greater chance of saving him.

A woman having four miscarriages, three of them right in a row like that, in the twenty-first century points to a reproductive system that just ain't built to pop out kids.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I know what waterboarding is, and so the question still stands: what the FUCK are you blithering about?

Are you sure you know what it is? Because if you did, you'd see the obvious connection. Perhaps you should share with the class what your understanding of the sensation it produces and how it produces it.

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.

The point is and has been regarding abortion medications. If you still have some refutation, given this clarification, I'm happy to entertain it. As I mentioned in my previous post, I have no reason to start splitting hairs regarding things happening 7 days earlier, and it appears that neither do you.

Once again I will restate the two points: these decisions should be made by a patient and doctor for these types of situations, not the state. Abortion in this instance would have reduced unnecessary suffering.

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.

Yes, it IS easy to call someone sick after creating ridiculous projections. No, the same death for the baby would not have resulted if the mother had the choice for and opted for abortion. She knew abortion was not an option, opted for early induced labor, and then found out that wasn't an option either. Nevertheless we're still discussing what ought to be available to patients in this situation. Abortion should be such an option if desired to reduce suffering.

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.

Yes, it is easy to call bullshit on exaggerated numbers you just made up. Here let me try: it's bullshit you think that it's all the same if the baby died 20 weeks later! Notice how you never actually said that yet I still said you were wrong anyway? You have a habit of doing that constantly, and it should generally be avoided.

Let's look at the actual reported numbers instead of the bullshit you make up and then call bullshit. That one doctor stated he sees 1 to 2 of those types of cases every year. That's 40-80 in his career alone. How many doctors of his specialty do you think are in that state alone? I don't know, and unlike you I'm not going to make blind guesses. The point is that this is not an isolated case, it's just one that's been reported.

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

Oh I see. Because they all had a single general thing in common, they are all the same situation. Well apples are red, and raspberries are red, so clearly any problem that effects one will also always be the same in the other. You know, I think I've seen two apples in my life so that puts me in a good position to know all about raspberries now.

You're quite the expert in pulmonology yourself due to your vast experience with two people. Clearly having developed lungs that fail much later in adulthood looks and is treated the exact same way as lungs which never developed in a baby.

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.

You should type those words into google to get your learn on. Babies turn blue when they lack oxygen. I know your vast experience with older individuals in the hospital being given supplemental oxygen makes you think you are an expert here, but babies don't stay pink without oxygen.
When Your Baby's Skin Looks Blue

It's a good thing the article explicitly told you the baby, being non-viable and unable to breath properly, passed away. Clearly you wouldn't have been able to figure that one out either otherwise. You may want to try that google thing now for those terms.

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.

Gasping doesn't mean getting oxygen. Gasping means opening the mouth and retracting breathing muscles. Air effectively getting in and oxygen effectively getting to the blood are two completely different things. People who get massive clots stuck in their lungs, or people with collapsed lungs will appear to be gasping for air. That doesn't mean it's working.

If you still wish to remain in your stubborn stupidity on the topic, just remind me how the baby passed away. What was the cause again?

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.

It's rather pathetic that you need to exaggerate your fabrications to this degree to make yourself feel right. Can you point out a single place I've stated any of that? Of course not. Neither myself nor Care believe that, nor have we indicated such. In your usual childish temper tantrum, you go blowing things out of proportion to create an extremist straw man stance. You might as well have claimed I support terrorism while you're at it.

The FACT remains that there WERE ways available to reduce the suffering of mom and baby in this and all similar cases that were not utilized, and that preventing mothers from those options is of benefit to NO ONE. This is a statement that you still have not addressed, to the best of your misleading straw man abilities. No, I am STILL not talking about inducing labor 5 days earlier.

 

[Care4all]

as the woman said in the article allie, she was not asking to have an abortion, she wanted to induce her pregnancy, instead of waiting around for some unknown time for the miscarriage/or labor to take place....

her baby girl was not viable...do you even know what that means?

Yes, I do know what it means. It means it would probably die.

Just as it would most certainly die if they induced before the woman's body was ready to deliver the baby. Only by inducing, the mother is also jeopardized.

So the only thing you are supporting is putting the mother at risk, and taking the life of a child that would most likely die anyway. Because you, personally, can't stand the thought of an imperfect child.

I am supporting the mother, father and doctor, making the informed choice together....if the parents think it would be better for them to induce labor in the now, instead of sitting back and waiting...then it should be their decision to make. If they chose to sit back and wait, a week, weeks or a month, then that is their choice as well.

I don't believe the gvt should be the one making this decision for them.

 

[AllieBaba]

Your miscarriage info isn't comprehensive, Cecilie. ..I know of very few women who have multiple kids who haven't had at least one miscarriage. I have had 3, and 4 live babies. Each of my pregnancies was just fine up until I miscarried, and no complications whatsoever with the four full terms.

What my dr. told me is that in the event of spontaneous miscarriage, in a case like mine and most cases, it's not the mother that has the issue, it's the baby. In my case, each of the bambinos died before I miscarried.

Not that it really matters for the purpose of this conversation...just saying it's not uncommon at all (and this comes from my drs).

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Care, however, views the baby as an abomination, practically dead, and asserted, repeatedly, that anything was preferable to delivering it naturally.

Where ON EARTH did you read that care believes the baby was an abomination? No, YOU said that, not Care. More straw man arguments, as always.

And why do you keep referring to a mother whose water broke carrying a non viable fetus around until her body eventually decides to evacuate the uterus "natural?" What is so "natural" about this process?

Yes, I do know what it means. It means it would probably die.

No, that's not what it means.
Let me google that for you

Non viable doesn't mean "probably." Lacking developed lungs is not compatible with human life.

Just as it would most certainly die if they induced before the woman's body was ready to deliver the baby. Only by inducing, the mother is also jeopardized.

You keep saying moronic things like this. You're still wrong.

Labor is induced by a doctor with the same hormone the body normally produces for labor. I'd ask you to provide a scrap of proof to support what you're saying, but I have yet to see you do that in ANY thread for ANY topic to date. Is ignorance as blissful as they say?

 

[gekaap]

What's the difference between HAVE to have an abortion, and it being warranted?

Let's use an example within the medical framework. A breast augmentation is WARRANTED any time a patient decides they want one done. But there is no requirement under the law or good faith and conscious that such a procedure be necessarily available to a woman. However, it becomes NECESSARY when a woman has breast cancer and other treatments are ineffective.

Seems to me it's just a line in the sand.

That's because you know very little about the logical distinction between necessary and sufficient causes, or of anything having to do with the health care field.

You say it HAD to be available if there was risk to her life. Why only that extreme? Because you said so?

Because that is all that is protected by constitutional rights in the case of late term abortion.

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.

Don't try to tell me how the health care world operates because I am in a better position to know than you.

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.

No, it's not clear from anyone. You insist that the woman would have benefited from an abortion, but your insistence is unsubstantiated and based on nothing more than your own biases. The real problem for this woman is not that she had to carry the fetus a few more days. It's the fact that she was ready to become a mother, and at the last minute her hopes and plans fell apart.

You seem to be repeatedly overlooking the fact that the baby suffered for the entirety of its limited existence.

This argument has no merit, and if you knew anything about the health care field you would already know that. If you are going to invoke the suffering of the fetus as any kind of justification, then you logically must deal with the fetus on equal terms as any living and breathing human being, just like you and myself. The health care industry is not in the business of killing off people just because they are suffering. It would be a violation of medical ethics.

Again I ask and you ignore: who benefited from denying an abortion in this case?

Who said that anyone had to benefit for the law to be just? Sometimes shit happens and there are no winners. But as has already been said by someone else, the law should not be written based on special rarities. The fact that this woman found herself in a very unusual and unpleasant circumstance does not make the law unjust. At the end of the day, the law did not require her to die or endure any risk to her well being. The only thing she has suffered is the very traumatic loss of her newborn baby. And as much as my heart goes out to this woman, the law is not to blame.

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.

In terms of identifying whether it is a just law, unfortunately yes, her mental anguish is pretty much irrelevant. The world is not perfect. Sometimes people have very disturbing experiences. But you're really doing a discourtesy to this woman by trying to wallow in her suffering, as opposed to having a more positive attitude. As painful as this is for this woman, she CAN go on. She may need to seek some professional help to help her cope with the loss of her child. But the truth of the matter is that what has happened to this woman is NOT ABOUT THE DAMN LAW. It is about the tragic loss of her child.

Once again I state three things that could have been helped with an abortion, and once again you completely ignore 2 of them.

I haven't ignored anything. I've simply explained away how the various things you're trying to push are not relevant, or have no place exerting influence here. Invoking the suffering of the fetus in support of your invokes logical problems that lead to violations of medical ethics (maybe here I kinda ignored that point at first, but that's because I have an understanding of how health care works, such that it was pretty much unthinkable to me to even think that someone would suggest what you say, while you are simply willing to invoke such things in ignorance). I've I had also already dispensed with your invoking the "mental anguish" of the mother because based on the standard to which you held me, you have no standing to invoke such. That left me with one point left, which I subsequently addressed.

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.

Like I said, something had to be done, right? Not much different than someone being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. They want SOMETHING to be done, even though any potential operation will not actually provide them any physical results, and their "mental anguish" will not actually be alleviated in the end. If you knew anything about mental health, you wouldn't even be talking about this. This woman's emotional problem is that she lost her baby. A late term abortive procedure would have been about as much benefit to her as giving her a bottle of bourbon. Anyone who is in the health care field can easily recognize that this woman's current reactions are typical defensive mechanisms, and part of the normal grieving process.

Will you continue to ignore the issue of continuing to carry a nonviable fetus and the suffering of the baby itself?

As already explained, trying to raise this issue creates logical problems that would subsequently require your position to violate medical ethics, since invoking the suffering of the baby logically requires that the fetus be afforded all of the rights, privileges, and standings of a fully born person. Except where state law explicitly provides, medical ethics does not recognize active euthanasia. Even when the patient is suffering greatly, passive measures must be employed. I.E. nature must take its own course. You are advocating that other people should hold the power to make the decision of taking a life just because the person is suffering. You're arguing that the law and medical ethics should allow for mercy killings.

and clearly not the baby's. Interesting double standard you have there.

Again, by making an argument from the baby's condition, you are arguing for mercy killings under the law and medical ethics.

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.

If you understood anything about medical ethics you would not try to present the case in such an artificially inflammatory manner. You are trying to present the issue as if I only have compassion for the mother and not the baby. That is not the case, and it's offensive to all people in the health care field that you would paint the ethics of the profession in such a way. The sad truth of life is that sometimes people suffer, sometimes they suffer greatly. It is considered ethical under certain situations to conduct passive euthanasia, i.e. letting nature take its course, as a means to end human suffering. This usually involves things like Do Not Rescusitate orders, living wills, etc. This also at times involves decisions to refuse treatment, or to remove life sustaining treatment (like the Terry Shiavo case). But active euthanasia is a different matter. With the exception of where specific laws make specific provisions, it is beyond a health care provider's ethical role to actively end a life, even if to alleviate suffering. That is the rules by which the health care profession operates. So for you to try to invoke the suffering of the baby in support of your position only creates unresolvable logical circles.

 

[Care4all]

this woman was NOT asking to abort her child, she just wanted to induce labor, so she could deliver her daughter....instead of having to wait....but apparently, inducing labor was against the law since this new law in Nebraska....took hold.

 

[AllieBaba]

So why would it be better to bring about the death of the child instead of allowing nature to do its thing?

 

[Care4all]

So why would it be better to bring about the death of the child instead of allowing nature to do its thing?

ask the mother to be....she's the one that said it caused her more grief...read the article in the op.

and nature would have done its thing, induced or not induced....it still would have been nature to take this girl's life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your miscarriage info isn't comprehensive, Cecilie. ..I know of very few women who have multiple kids who haven't had at least one miscarriage. I have had 3, and 4 live babies. Each of my pregnancies was just fine up until I miscarried, and no complications whatsoever with the four full terms.

What my dr. told me is that in the event of spontaneous miscarriage, in a case like mine and most cases, it's not the mother that has the issue, it's the baby. In my case, each of the bambinos died before I miscarried.

Not that it really matters for the purpose of this conversation...just saying it's not uncommon at all (and this comes from my drs).

From what I can understand of this woman's story, the problem doesn't appear to be faulty fetuses, but that her body has trouble maintaining the pregnancies. I don't know for sure about two of the miscarriages, but this one went south in the 23rd week, and a previous one in the 16th. My understanding is that if there's something wrong with the fetus such as to cause a miscarriage, it happens quite early. Unless, that is, the problem with the baby is that he sustains catastrophic injury, as in my mother's miscarriage of my older brother. And, of course, there was nothing wrong with this little girl, except that her mother's water broke early, causing her damage.