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

[Cecilie1200]

My impression was that her water broke, which is a symptom of labor. They banked on the hope there was enough amniotic fluid to sustain the baby. There wasn't.

This second guessing and blaming drs for everything that goes wrong is why they're running from OB/GYN. Childbirth is risky, and a crap shoot. Sometimes shit happens. It doesn't mean we need to lynch the doctors, or kill the babies.

That would also be my impression if it were not for the stories implication that the doctors apparently refused to induce labor not for medical reasons but for legal reasons. I didn't say that... the STORY did.

That's the confusion. Why did they think it would have qualified as an illegal abortion, rather than a legal one under the exception for "health of the mother"?

If Danielle wants someone to lash out at in her grief so badly, I'm really wondering if her beef isn't with the doctors, rather than the law.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Yeah hick. you know all about the medical profession and all state and federal law dont you ?You throw Oregon in there minus one major fact, and that is any one who wants to end there life can ask for it. Matter of fact, anyone any ware who wants to end there life can do so. They have a choice. You are clear that you advocate abortion as birth control and you should stick to that argument. In this case, the mother and Father got to hold the child, and at the very least, the child passed in her Mothers arms. This is what you would rather have happened-



So instead of passing on warm and loved in her mothers arms you would have the child assaulted. You in my opinion are a fucking ghoul. And no, I did not watch the video and will not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did they? Then why didn't they rush the kid to the ICU for the best medical care it could be provided? Other children have survived birth with proper medical care at less than even the 23 weeks this baby got.

This child had no lungs. The poor girl was doomed. Her lungs were so undeveloped that a respirator would have done her no good. She was not meant for this world and any action short of direct intervention by God would have been an act in futility. The article explains it. It is just a sad story. And sadly, just the way things are. We live and we die.

Was there a link I missed besides the OP? Because the story linked in the OP did not mention this. Aren't lungs developed enough to survive by the 23rd week? It would seem to me they must be since with proper medical care babies have been born and survived in the 21st week. how did she live for 15 minutes without lungs?

She had lungs. That was a misstatement. She had underdeveloped lungs. And apparently, even when an extremely premature baby survives, their lungs are never entirely right. It seems in this case, her chances of survival were virtually non-existent, and even if it had happened, she'd have been severely disabled, both in ability to breathe and other basic functions, like the ability to eat.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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?

Labor Induction
And mind you, this is talking about risks to mothers with full-term pregnancies. I can't imagine that the risks would have improved in Danielle's situation. So Allie is technically correct: it IS better to let the body work on its own, if at all possible.

I highly recommend you read your own article. That article is supporting my claim that inducing labor early does not provide any increased risk for the mom. The article does state that early labor would increase risk FOR THE FETUS, but that's not been the concern with this case. My confusion is that you seem to be supporting what I am saying and refuting Allie, while claiming she's right. From the article: "Continuing an unhealthy pregnancy can sometimes be more dangerous than delivering the baby early". You are right in saying it's better to go to term naturally, but that refers to the FETUS, not the mother.

Why wasn't this LIVING baby given life saving medical treatment? Why was she not rushed to the ICU and given the best medical care possible? Why was she allowed to just die without medical care? Other children have survived being born at 21 weeks when given proper medical care. This baby SURVIVED the birth and dies later having been denied medical care.

Exactly. I have a cousin who was probably going to die after being born. She had SEVERAL problems. Her Diaphram didn't devlop right and all of her intestines were up in her chest cavity, causing her lungs to under develop. They didn't expect her to make it after being born. BUT, they did surgery in the womb to help her after birth. Then she had several surgeries as soon as she was able. She will likely have more, but she survived!

I don't think either of you two realize THERE WERE NO OPTIONS AVAILABLE. It is a rare case for ANY baby to survive that early, let alone when they don't have functional lungs. You who demand something be done: show me what options were available. You know nothing of medicine yet claim to have some insight into this case that there were options. So what were they? Provide them or just stop this ridiculous line of reasoning.

I'm not asking the mother, I'm asking you, since you are a proponent of killing babies before their time and the person who is participating in the convo.

So are you saying a mother's desires dictate all? Even if it's not a medically sound desire?

It's amazing. Care4All consistently says one thing: the decision should be made by the patient AND HER DOCTOR. You then respond by saying Care believes the mother alone should dictate all. Are you willfully stupid or is it accidental? At least Cecilie is making points that don't grossly distort what others are saying. That logical fallacy class of yours must have some pretty low standards.

 

[kaz]

The legal issue here is not what is the right decision, but who should make the decision. If people think the mother should make a particular decision they have every right to say so. If people think they, the government or even the doctor should make the decision for her and government guns should enforce it, they are too arrogant to take seriously and should be ignored as the fools they are. Those people need to figure out how to run their own lives before they bother trying to tell someone else how to run theirs.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

This child had no lungs. The poor girl was doomed. Her lungs were so undeveloped that a respirator would have done her no good. She was not meant for this world and any action short of direct intervention by God would have been an act in futility. The article explains it. It is just a sad story. And sadly, just the way things are. We live and we die.

Was there a link I missed besides the OP? Because the story linked in the OP did not mention this. Aren't lungs developed enough to survive by the 23rd week? It would seem to me they must be since with proper medical care babies have been born and survived in the 21st week. how did she live for 15 minutes without lungs?

She had lungs. That was a misstatement. She had underdeveloped lungs. And apparently, even when an extremely premature baby survives, their lungs are never entirely right. It seems in this case, her chances of survival were virtually non-existent, and even if it had happened, she'd have been severely disabled, both in ability to breathe and other basic functions, like the ability to eat.

My bad. But the alternative way of dieing was no better. The way I understood it there was for the most part no chance of the child surviving. Abortion and weather or not it was or was not a good idea is not an issue. Had the girl lived, even if she were extremely disabled and had to be cared for for the rest of her life it would have been the parents obligation to do so. Those are the consequences of becoming parents.

 

[kaz]

My bad. But the alternative way of dieing was no better. The way I understood it there was for the most part no chance of the child surviving. Abortion and weather or not it was or was not a good idea is not an issue. Had the girl lived, even if she were extremely disabled and had to be cared for for the rest of her life it would have been the parents obligation to do so. Those are the consequences of becoming parents.

I wouldn't believe the Right telling you the baby was viable without independent confirmation. They also said Terry Scheivo could come back because people come back from comas. This was a lie because she was a flat liner and no one has EVER come back from that. As logical as Rush Limbaugh usually is even when I disagree with him (typically social issues or the wars), he gave a Terry Schlievo is alive and could revive speech so devoid of reality it was worthy of being a DNC press release.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Labor Induction
And mind you, this is talking about risks to mothers with full-term pregnancies. I can't imagine that the risks would have improved in Danielle's situation. So Allie is technically correct: it IS better to let the body work on its own, if at all possible.

I highly recommend you read your own article. That article is supporting my claim that inducing labor early does not provide any increased risk for the mom. The article does state that early labor would increase risk FOR THE FETUS, but that's not been the concern with this case. My confusion is that you seem to be supporting what I am saying and refuting Allie, while claiming she's right. From the article: "Continuing an unhealthy pregnancy can sometimes be more dangerous than delivering the baby early". You are right in saying it's better to go to term naturally, but that refers to the FETUS, not the mother.

You don't know a lot about pregnancy and labor, do you? Or, apparently, reading.

From my link:

Research dating back to the 1980s and earlier has consistently shown induced labors more often end in cesarean section, forceps deliveries, serious infections, and greater complications for both mother and baby.

Women get epidural anesthesia more frequently when labor is induced, indicating that induced labors may be more painful.

Epidural anesthesia, for those who don't know, involves a shot directly into the spine. I shouldn't have to tell anyone how potentially dangerous that can be.

Other articles I have read suggest that inducing labor can produce contractions so strong that they result in the placenta tearing loose from the uterine wall.

 

[BenNatuf]

This child had no lungs. The poor girl was doomed. Her lungs were so undeveloped that a respirator would have done her no good. She was not meant for this world and any action short of direct intervention by God would have been an act in futility. The article explains it. It is just a sad story. And sadly, just the way things are. We live and we die.

Was there a link I missed besides the OP? Because the story linked in the OP did not mention this. Aren't lungs developed enough to survive by the 23rd week? It would seem to me they must be since with proper medical care babies have been born and survived in the 21st week. how did she live for 15 minutes without lungs?

She had lungs. That was a misstatement. She had underdeveloped lungs. And apparently, even when an extremely premature baby survives, their lungs are never entirely right. It seems in this case, her chances of survival were virtually non-existent, and even if it had happened, she'd have been severely disabled, both in ability to breathe and other basic functions, like the ability to eat.

OK, thats tragic, but it seems to me if thats the case this baby was not 23 weeks into gestation. I'm not a doctor, so I definately coulod be wrong, but I think there may be some error in the date of conception here.

 

[AllieBaba]

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?

Labor Induction
And mind you, this is talking about risks to mothers with full-term pregnancies. I can't imagine that the risks would have improved in Danielle's situation. So Allie is technically correct: it IS better to let the body work on its own, if at all possible.

I highly recommend you read your own article. That article is supporting my claim that inducing labor early does not provide any increased risk for the mom. The article does state that early labor would increase risk FOR THE FETUS, but that's not been the concern with this case. My confusion is that you seem to be supporting what I am saying and refuting Allie, while claiming she's right. From the article: "Continuing an unhealthy pregnancy can sometimes be more dangerous than delivering the baby early". You are right in saying it's better to go to term naturally, but that refers to the FETUS, not the mother.

And unsubstantiated claim, but do carry on.

Exactly. I have a cousin who was probably going to die after being born. She had SEVERAL problems. Her Diaphram didn't devlop right and all of her intestines were up in her chest cavity, causing her lungs to under develop. They didn't expect her to make it after being born. BUT, they did surgery in the womb to help her after birth. Then she had several surgeries as soon as she was able. She will likely have more, but she survived!

I don't think either of you two realize THERE WERE NO OPTIONS AVAILABLE. It is a rare case for ANY baby to survive that early, let alone when they don't have functional lungs. You who demand something be done: show me what options were available. You know nothing of medicine yet claim to have some insight into this case that there were options. So what were they? Provide them or just stop this ridiculous line of reasoning.

The option is to not kill the baby early when it's going to die naturally, when there is absolutely no reason to kill it early.

I'm not asking the mother, I'm asking you, since you are a proponent of killing babies before their time and the person who is participating in the convo.

So are you saying a mother's desires dictate all? Even if it's not a medically sound desire?

It's amazing. Care4All consistently says one thing: the decision should be made by the patient AND HER DOCTOR. You then respond by saying Care believes the mother alone should dictate all. Are you willfully stupid or is it accidental? At least Cecilie is making points that don't grossly distort what others are saying. That logical fallacy class of yours must have some pretty low standards.

No, I'm getting an A.

And if you don't mind, lol, I'm going to share your posts with the class.

This entire post of yours is an excursion into logical fallacy. From misstating the case, to false premise, to ad hominem, to just not supporting one thing you claimed.

And thank you for clearing up that the mother's desires are the only factor to take into consideration.

I was under the impression her dr. chose NOT to induce labor on command, which is what the whole thing hinges on.

 

[BenNatuf]

Exactly. I have a cousin who was probably going to die after being born. She had SEVERAL problems. Her Diaphram didn't devlop right and all of her intestines were up in her chest cavity, causing her lungs to under develop. They didn't expect her to make it after being born. BUT, they did surgery in the womb to help her after birth. Then she had several surgeries as soon as she was able. She will likely have more, but she survived!

I don't think either of you two realize THERE WERE NO OPTIONS AVAILABLE. It is a rare case for ANY baby to survive that early, let alone when they don't have functional lungs. You who demand something be done: show me what options were available. You know nothing of medicine yet claim to have some insight into this case that there were options. So what were they? Provide them or just stop this ridiculous line of reasoning.

And you are an expert? It is only rare because any birth that early is rare to begin with, so naturally those that survive would be even rarer... but it does happen. Your claim that "nothing could be done" is just as unsupported as my asking the question "why was nothing done?"...

which by the way is not a claim but a question.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother.

You keep "knowing" this and it's still false. Induced early labor has no more increased risk to the mother than naturally induced labor. In fact, it can decrease risk if there is a threat to the mother's health. Once again I will ask you to support ANYTHING you're saying, and once again you will pretend not to read this. And then you wonder why people make threads about you being a moron that lacks integrity.

The baby wasn't sick. The MOTHER couldn't carry to term

What's the difference? If the mother can't carry to term and vital organs can't develop, I guarantee you that baby is sick.

Then why didn't they rush the kid to the ICU for the best medical care it could be provided? Other children have survived birth with proper medical care at less than even the 23 weeks this baby got.

I still don't think you realize that not having the ability to breath makes all interventions futile. OTHER CHILDREN have been born early WITHOUT THAT DEFICIT. We're not discussing those other babies. We're talking about THIS baby. Just because they share one thing in common, being premature birth, does not mean they are the same. Please stop comparing them as such.

 

[BenNatuf]

The baby wasn't sick. The MOTHER couldn't carry to term

What's the difference? If the mother can't carry to term and vital organs can't develop, I guarantee you that baby is sick.

The baby was not sick, it was undeveloped and since it survived for 15 minutes apparently COULD breath. Thats not to say it would have lived even with the best medical care... but then I never made the claim it would, I ASKED why it wasn't afforded that care.

Then why didn't they rush the kid to the ICU for the best medical care it could be provided? Other children have survived birth with proper medical care at less than even the 23 weeks this baby got.

I still don't think you realize that not having the ability to breath makes all interventions futile. OTHER CHILDREN have been born early WITHOUT THAT DEFICIT. We're not discussing those other babies. We're talking about THIS baby. Just because they share one thing in common, being premature birth, does not mean they are the same. Please stop comparing them as such.

I haven't "compared" anything, I've ASKED questions based on some apparent facts surrounding fetal developement, which if what you say is true... (which the baby's surviving for 15 minutes would seem to negate--- unless of course you think a severly premature newborn can survive for 15 minutes without breathing) ...then the question is answered. I know not all baby's develope exactly the same way, but they all do develope about the same way, and at 23 weeks most babies developing normally would have a good chance to survive given proper emergency and intensive medical care unless there were other complications.

 

[AllieBaba]

Labor Induction
And mind you, this is talking about risks to mothers with full-term pregnancies. I can't imagine that the risks would have improved in Danielle's situation. So Allie is technically correct: it IS better to let the body work on its own, if at all possible.

I highly recommend you read your own article. That article is supporting my claim that inducing labor early does not provide any increased risk for the mom. The article does state that early labor would increase risk FOR THE FETUS, but that's not been the concern with this case. My confusion is that you seem to be supporting what I am saying and refuting Allie, while claiming she's right. From the article: "Continuing an unhealthy pregnancy can sometimes be more dangerous than delivering the baby early". You are right in saying it's better to go to term naturally, but that refers to the FETUS, not the mother.

You don't know a lot about pregnancy and labor, do you? Or, apparently, reading.

From my link:

Research dating back to the 1980s and earlier has consistently shown induced labors more often end in cesarean section, forceps deliveries, serious infections, and greater complications for both mother and baby.

Women get epidural anesthesia more frequently when labor is induced, indicating that induced labors may be more painful.

Epidural anesthesia, for those who don't know, involves a shot directly into the spine. I shouldn't have to tell anyone how potentially dangerous that can be.

Other articles I have read suggest that inducing labor can produce contractions so strong that they result in the placenta tearing loose from the uterine wall.

They've been ignoring this inconvenient factoid when I refer to it, so maybe this will help them see it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'm not a doctor, so I'm not entirely clear on why that loss of amniotic fluid makes this circumstance different from other babies born this premature, but everything I can find so far indicates that that IS the case.

Again, just because two things have something in common, such as premature delivery, DOES NOT mean they are the same. Loss of amniotic fluid means the developing fetus will be compressed by the uterus at all times of development, which only causes more deformations.

So I'm left with wondering why the doctors didn't think this was a clear-cut case of "danger to the life and health of the mother", which is included in the Nebraska abortion law.

Because it wasn't. Mom wasn't in any immediate danger. I recommend you do a little googling on the term preeclampsia. It will serve as a contrast to this situation and make light of your appropriate question.

YYou throw Oregon in there minus one major fact, and that is any one who wants to end there life can ask for it. Matter of fact, anyone any ware who wants to end there life can do so. They have a choice.

Not legally they don't. If you try to end your life you get incarcerated for it. Oregon residents can't just ask for assisted suicide. They must be suffering from a terminal illness, as this baby was. Did you look up the term double effect yet?

You are clear that you advocate abortion as birth control

Oh I am? Amazing how anti-choice people always take rational arguments and make ridiculous extremist zealotry out of it. Where did you EVER see me state abortion should be used as birth control? Try not to look like a straw man moron when discussing ethics.

I wouldn't believe the Right telling you the baby was viable without independent confirmation. They also said Terry Scheivo could come back because people come back from comas. This was a lie because she was a flat liner and no one has EVER come back from that. As logical as Rush Limbaugh usually is even when I disagree with him (typically social issues or the wars), he gave a Terry Schlievo is alive and could revive speech so devoid of reality it was worthy of being a DNC press release.

This is all very insightful. Medicine RELIES on legitimate outcomes, not impossible long shots. You will never see a surgeon perform an operation just because it has a 0.001% chance of working. Ever. This was a non-viable situation. Any out of context reactions to a "what if" question answered by the doctor should not be held as valid possibility.

From my link:

Research dating back to the 1980s and earlier has consistently shown induced labors more often end in cesarean section, forceps deliveries, serious infections, and greater complications for both mother and baby.

Women get epidural anesthesia more frequently when labor is induced, indicating that induced labors may be more painful.

Epidural anesthesia, for those who don't know, involves a shot directly into the spine. I shouldn't have to tell anyone how potentially dangerous that can be.

Other articles I have read suggest that inducing labor can produce contractions so strong that they result in the placenta tearing loose from the uterine wall.

And ALL of that wonderful research from over three decades ago is in relation to full term labor, NOT severely pre-term inductions. Again, you have this bad habit of making false comparisons and attempting to apply inapplicable information onto this situation.

The option is to not kill the baby early when it's going to die naturally, when there is absolutely no reason to kill it early.

Some people are interested in reducing unnecessary suffering. As you said, it's going to die anyway. That leaves two options: 15 minutes of asphyxiation, or preventing the suffering early. The end result is the same. Why would you subject any baby to the former? What is the benefit? Oh that's right, you don't answer any questions.

And thank you for clearing up that the mother's desires are the only factor to take into consideration.

Once again you claim to have read that in both my and Care's point. I have yet to see where either of us state that. Which logical fallacy is that?

It is only rare because any birth that early is rare to begin with, so naturally those that survive would be even rarer... but it does happen. Your claim that "nothing could be done" is just as unsupported as my asking the question "why was nothing done?"...

"My" claim that nothing could be done is the doctor's claim that nothing could be done. The entire field of neonatology is dedicated to this exact topic. Early births are not rare, and that field knows exactly how to deal with situations WHEN THEY CAN. Clearly that wasn't the case.

 

[Sarah G]

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.

I'm not asking the mother, I'm asking you, since you are a proponent of killing babies before their time and the person who is participating in the convo.

So are you saying a mother's desires dictate all? Even if it's not a medically sound desire?

allie, you are evil, evil, evil.....you need to tame your, lying, evil tongue....you may think you are crafty with your words, but you are possessed by evil!

I am not a proponent of killing babies before their time....i have stated such, a thousand times over....

your head is messed up....lay off the bottle of alcohol...it's not good for you.

Sincerely,

Care

She's plain ignorant. Who says that kind of wingnut bullshit?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

nutjobs. pure ridiculous crazies.

 

[gekaap]

If you are a "strong opponent of abortion", then what is "our cause" and who the hell is the "us" being accused?

Typo. I meant so say "proponent."

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not asking the mother, I'm asking you, since you are a proponent of killing babies before their time and the person who is participating in the convo.

So are you saying a mother's desires dictate all? Even if it's not a medically sound desire?

allie, you are evil, evil, evil.....you need to tame your, lying, evil tongue....you may think you are crafty with your words, but you are possessed by evil!

I am not a proponent of killing babies before their time....i have stated such, a thousand times over....

your head is messed up....lay off the bottle of alcohol...it's not good for you.

Sincerely,

Care

She's plain ignorant. Who says that kind of wingnut bullshit?

o

Thank you for coming late to the party and posting this nice drive-by ad hominem.

BTW, I just noticed...Care is not a proponent of killing babies BEFORE their time, which implies she's ok with killing them when they're time is up...or when someone determines it's time.

So she's just a proponent of killing babies, period, I guess.

 

[AllieBaba]

nutjobs. pure ridiculous crazies.

Do you ever utter a non-logical fallacy? Please reference one real argument that wouldn't earn you a big fat "F" if it was written down and submitted in a paper....