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

[Immanuel]

you do know that ONLY what is termed "partial birth" abortion has been banned federally and that the other methods of late term abortion like cutting up the foetus in the womb, and saline solution abortions and c section abortions were NOT federally banned....all that hype and victory sound from the partial birth abortion federal law being passed did not stop ONE late term abortion.

OK, but it doesn't change my point and as I said I'm not in favor of banning any abortions. I am in favor of social conservatives taking the personal responsibility to convince and provide options on their own. Something they claim to support, other then that which they want government to do for them because they are too lazy. And I still don't think this is the best example of opposing the law.

the law is fine imo, IF IT HAD an exception for medical reasons similar to this woman's case....she was not only put through the grief of knowing she had another baby that was biting the dust, but put through more grief by being made to carry her basically dead child to term....yes, it was just a couple of weeks before she miscarried, but it COULD HAVE BEEN longer and even more painful to her and her husband.

Did you realize this pregnancy did not go to full term? She gave birth at less than 24 weeks according to the article. That is less than 6 months. I'd like to know what caused the mother to go into labor at that time i.e. did they in fact induce labor and if the doctors even tried to save the life of the child. Did they even attempt to clear the airway or did they just let it suffocate?

This article conveniently gives no details.

One way or another this story is a tragedy.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

So does science

Citation needed.

Except for, you know, biology

Again, citation needed.

Life trumps privacy

So protecting ants trumps your right to privacy?

I believe you were the one that stated the opposites to his points and you stated them first. I would think that it is up to you, at the very least, to support you assertions with citations as well. Actually, since you made the initial claims it should be your responsibility to defend them first.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

She was TOLD that the baby would be dead, would NOT survive.

Being FORCED to carry this baby for a few more weeks or even months in other cases due to this law, does not allow the parents to END their trauma, their sorrow and their grief, and forces the woman DAILY to rehash what is going on inside her....

IT'S WRONG, wrong wrong....

The baby wasn't dead. She was told it wouldn't survive after birth. Imminent death and DEAD are two different things. You really don't understand that?

You think it's a horror to carry a baby that's less than perfect?

That if a baby is sick then we should just kill it before it has a chance to take a breath of air, to be hugged by its mother, to see her face?

That's a funny kind of compassion. Pretty much not compassion at all.

huh? Semantics.... You think it mattered to the child's parents? That the child was assured death right after delivery vs dead in the womb already?

I don't know what the child's defects were....but if the child was as good as dead as the Doctor told her and her husband....then making her carry this as good as dead child for any length of time, is inhumane....I stick by that....

You are a monster.

*as good as dead*.

Wtf does that even mean? Is a cancer patient as good as dead? Should we just kill pancreatic cancer patients as soon as they're diagnosed? Cuz it's really hard to watch someone die, after all. Think of all the suffering we'll save their loved ones.

As far as that goes, a large percentage of boys die in their teens...should we just determine which ones are at higher risk, and kill them at birth? That way the parents don't have to go through loving them and supporting them for years, just to lose them.

What a pig.

 

[chanel]

The baby died with dignity. What kind of selfish mother would want less than that?

 

[Immanuel]

Er..Care, the baby didn't die until after it was born.

I thought she pretty clearly understood that

She was TOLD that the baby would be dead, would NOT survive.

Being FORCED to carry this baby for a few more weeks or even months in other cases due to this law, does not allow the parents to END their trauma, their sorrow and their grief, and forces the woman DAILY to rehash what is going on inside her....

IT'S WRONG, wrong wrong....

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

I thought she pretty clearly understood that

She was TOLD that the baby would be dead, would NOT survive.

Being FORCED to carry this baby for a few more weeks or even months in other cases due to this law, does not allow the parents to END their trauma, their sorrow and their grief, and forces the woman DAILY to rehash what is going on inside her....

IT'S WRONG, wrong wrong....

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

well, I do believe that the doctor would NOT have told this mother that her baby was going to die immediately following birth, and that he was certain that she would miscarry, if he wasn't certain of it....and as it turns the Doctor was not scummy as you elude to, and did tell the TRUTH to his patient, because the baby DID DIE right after she miscarried.

The mother did NOT have her pregnancy induced? Where did you read that? It is my understanding the law did not permit him to induce labor....this is why she had to live with this soon to be dead baby inside of her for a few weeks....and not allowed to mourn.

IF YOU think that is humane....then so be it.....but I can tell you for a FACT, it is NOT.

STAY OUT OF IT.....it is NONE of your business, and it is NONE of the gvts....the doctor and the patient, should have been allowed to do, what was right for the patient, in this case.

You can WHAT IF, all you want, but it doesn't change a thing.

 

[Immanuel]

She was TOLD that the baby would be dead, would NOT survive.

Being FORCED to carry this baby for a few more weeks or even months in other cases due to this law, does not allow the parents to END their trauma, their sorrow and their grief, and forces the woman DAILY to rehash what is going on inside her....

IT'S WRONG, wrong wrong....

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

well, I do believe that the doctor would NOT have told this mother that her baby was going to die immediately following birth, and that he was certain that she would miscarry, if he wasn't certain of it....and as it turns the Doctor was not scummy as you elude to, and did tell the TRUTH to his patient, because the baby DID DIE right after she miscarried.

The mother did NOT have her pregnancy induced? Where did you read that? It is my understanding the law did not permit him to induce labor....this is why she had to live with this soon to be dead baby inside of her for a few weeks....and not allowed to mourn.

IF YOU think that is humane....then so be it.....but I can tell you for a FACT, it is NOT.

STAY OUT OF IT.....it is NONE of your business, and it is NONE of the gvts....the doctor and the patient, should have been allowed to do, what was right for the patient, in this case.

You can WHAT IF, all you want, but it doesn't change a thing.

You accept the story as given by leftist news agencies without question.

The claim was that she did not have the labor induced. I simply said, that they might have done so regardless of what NB law states. It would not be the first time that someone has taken the law into their own hands and it surely won't be the last.

Also, the question is DID they even TRY to save the life of Elizabeth? Evidently they didn't lift a finger to save her. I question why not? Elizabeth lived for 15 minutes. Maybe she could have lived 50 years or more, if they had attempted to save her life. Maybe not, the article doesn't say why she was not expected to live. Why doesn't the article say why Elizabeth was expected to die? Surely, the doctors have a reason for believing Elizabeth would not live more than a few minutes.

There are a lot of questions the article doesn't answer.

Why should I stay out of it? You aren't! Who was the patient? From the moment she was born, Elizabeth was a patient.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

What I want to know is if this pregnancy was allowed to go to full term, would the baby have survived? Note: that means I question whether or not they actually induced labor to reduce the mother's suffering.

Sadly, we will never know the answer to that question.

The doctor "told" her. Doctors tell people they only have X number of months to live and are wrong about that all the time. Doctors don't know everything and they make mistakes in these Wild Ass Guesses all the time.

Back in the 60's they gave my grandmother a pacemaker and told her it would extend her life maybe a year. She lived until 1978. Go figure.

Immie

well, I do believe that the doctor would NOT have told this mother that her baby was going to die immediately following birth, and that he was certain that she would miscarry, if he wasn't certain of it....and as it turns the Doctor was not scummy as you elude to, and did tell the TRUTH to his patient, because the baby DID DIE right after she miscarried.

The mother did NOT have her pregnancy induced? Where did you read that? It is my understanding the law did not permit him to induce labor....this is why she had to live with this soon to be dead baby inside of her for a few weeks....and not allowed to mourn.

IF YOU think that is humane....then so be it.....but I can tell you for a FACT, it is NOT.

STAY OUT OF IT.....it is NONE of your business, and it is NONE of the gvts....the doctor and the patient, should have been allowed to do, what was right for the patient, in this case.

You can WHAT IF, all you want, but it doesn't change a thing.

You accept the story as given by leftist news agencies without question.

The claim was that she did not have the labor induced. I simply said, that they might have done so regardless of what NB law states. It would not be the first time that someone has taken the law into their own hands and it surely won't be the last.

Also, the question is DID they even TRY to save the life of Elizabeth? Evidently they didn't lift a finger to save her. I question why not? Elizabeth lived for 15 minutes. Maybe she could have lived 50 years or more, if they had attempted to save her life. Maybe not, the article doesn't say why she was not expected to live. Why doesn't the article say why Elizabeth was expected to die? Surely, the doctors have a reason for believing Elizabeth would not live more than a few minutes.

There are a lot of questions the article doesn't answer.

Why should I stay out of it? You aren't! Who was the patient? From the moment she was born, Elizabeth was a patient.

Immie

you can express your opinion....the Stay OUT OF IT, has to do with the LAW that does not allow for an exception to the rule for medical reasons.

she HAD to carry this baby until she miscarried on her own, according to the law....that could have been months, thank GOD, that he did not allow her to go that long....

ARE YOU DOUBTING that there are not deformities and circumstances and medical reasons for a baby that are KNOWN conditions that cause DEATH?

Well, there are situations where the Doctor KNOWS that the baby to be will not make it....will have a certain imminent, DEATH....

Whether this was one of them or not, as you are holding on to....the situation DOES OCCUR and the law should allow for a termination of pregnancy, in those cases, IF the mother and father and doctor agree.

 

[AllieBaba]

Holy crap, I thought Sky was going to be the next online nervous breakdown.

Obviously, I should have laid my money on Care.

 

[Immanuel]

well, I do believe that the doctor would NOT have told this mother that her baby was going to die immediately following birth, and that he was certain that she would miscarry, if he wasn't certain of it....and as it turns the Doctor was not scummy as you elude to, and did tell the TRUTH to his patient, because the baby DID DIE right after she miscarried.

The mother did NOT have her pregnancy induced? Where did you read that? It is my understanding the law did not permit him to induce labor....this is why she had to live with this soon to be dead baby inside of her for a few weeks....and not allowed to mourn.

IF YOU think that is humane....then so be it.....but I can tell you for a FACT, it is NOT.

STAY OUT OF IT.....it is NONE of your business, and it is NONE of the gvts....the doctor and the patient, should have been allowed to do, what was right for the patient, in this case.

You can WHAT IF, all you want, but it doesn't change a thing.

You accept the story as given by leftist news agencies without question.

The claim was that she did not have the labor induced. I simply said, that they might have done so regardless of what NB law states. It would not be the first time that someone has taken the law into their own hands and it surely won't be the last.

Also, the question is DID they even TRY to save the life of Elizabeth? Evidently they didn't lift a finger to save her. I question why not? Elizabeth lived for 15 minutes. Maybe she could have lived 50 years or more, if they had attempted to save her life. Maybe not, the article doesn't say why she was not expected to live. Why doesn't the article say why Elizabeth was expected to die? Surely, the doctors have a reason for believing Elizabeth would not live more than a few minutes.

There are a lot of questions the article doesn't answer.

Why should I stay out of it? You aren't! Who was the patient? From the moment she was born, Elizabeth was a patient.

Immie

you can express your opinion....the Stay OUT OF IT, has to do with the LAW that does not allow for an exception to the rule for medical reasons.

she HAD to carry this baby until she miscarried on her own, according to the law....that could have been months, thank GOD, that he did not allow her to go that long....

ARE YOU DOUBTING that there are not deformities and circumstances and medical reasons for a baby that are KNOWN conditions that cause DEATH?

Well, there are situations where the Doctor KNOWS that the baby to be will not make it....will have a certain imminent, DEATH....

Whether this was one of them or not, as you are holding on to....the situation DOES OCCUR and the law should allow for a termination of pregnancy, in those cases, IF the mother and father and doctor agree.

What I AM doubting, is that the article is giving the full story. The omissions as to the condition of Elizabeth only lead one to wonder why the article would not give the full story.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm just rather blown over by the concept that killing babies will reduce the number of dead babies. How does that work? And Care, your whole "omg omg omg dead baby dead baby OMG OMG OMG" schtick concerns me, because you come across as though you're having nightmares about dead babies or something. And if you ARE, I certainly hope you have the intelligence to realize it and get help instead of going off the deep end. Because the idea that you can eradicate death by killing is absolutely crazy.

As is the idea that killing something inside your body is better than killing it outside your body. In both places, a baby should be in your loving care.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm just rather blown over by the concept that killing babies will reduce the number of dead babies. How does that work? And Care, your whole "omg omg omg dead baby dead baby OMG OMG OMG" schtick concerns me, because you come across as though you're having nightmares about dead babies or something. And if you ARE, I certainly hope you have the intelligence to realize it and get help instead of going off the deep end. Because the idea that you can eradicate death by killing is absolutely crazy.

As is the idea that killing something inside your body is better than killing it outside your body. In both places, a baby should be in your loving care.

I didn't get the idea that Care was saying that it was better to kill a child in the womb than outside of the womb. It seems to me that her concern is for the welfare of the mother in this case who's grieving process was prolonged by the fact that she "knew" her baby was going to die and this natural process was being prevented from happening.

Honestly, I think in that case, Care is right, not that I or my wife would have chosen to abort the baby, but I can understand that Mrs. Deaver suffering was extended by the law.

I'm not convinced by the story that Elizabeth was bound to die. Maybe she was, but, the paper is conveniently leaving out some important facts that I question why they have been left out.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ten days after she found out about the problem she gave birth. She did not have a miscarriage, and she got to hold her child for 15 minutes. That focus on the 22 weeks is a bit deceiving, don't you think?

You guys are still not addressing the OP's point as to why the state should have the authority to make this decision for her.

The point I see is that it did not make the choice, nature did.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm just rather blown over by the concept that killing babies will reduce the number of dead babies. How does that work? And Care, your whole "omg omg omg dead baby dead baby OMG OMG OMG" schtick concerns me, because you come across as though you're having nightmares about dead babies or something. And if you ARE, I certainly hope you have the intelligence to realize it and get help instead of going off the deep end. Because the idea that you can eradicate death by killing is absolutely crazy.

As is the idea that killing something inside your body is better than killing it outside your body. In both places, a baby should be in your loving care.

I didn't get the idea that Care was saying that it was better to kill a child in the womb than outside of the womb. It seems to me that her concern is for the welfare of the mother in this case who's grieving process was prolonged by the fact that she "knew" her baby was going to die and this natural process was being prevented from happening.

Honestly, I think in that case, Care is right, not that I or my wife would have chosen to abort the baby, but I can understand that Mrs. Deaver suffering was extended by the law.

I'm not convinced by the story that Elizabeth was bound to die. Maybe she was, but, the paper is conveniently leaving out some important facts that I question why they have been left out.

Immie

However the minute we get to kill people based upon the PROBABILITY that they will cause us suffering is the minute we become monsters.

The baby was not dead and rotting in the mother. It was alive with a bad prognosis. The prognosis was that it would die after birth. That would make me want to keep that baby alive in me as long as possible. Not seek and destroy.

But aside from that, you don't get to kill babies based upon your own inconvenience and suffering. That's wrong, just as it's wrong to kill any child because he's disabled, or irritating, or a financial drain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Doesn't matter.
People don't get to terminate the lives of others.

Sometimes they do - you have the right to take a human life when exercising the right of self-defense.

 

[gekaap]

However the minute we get to kill people based upon the PROBABILITY that they will cause us suffering is the minute we become monsters.

That already happens. If someone breaks into your home and you pull out your handgun to protect yourself, do you think you have to wait until he pulls his out and takes the first shot? Would I be a monster to pull the trigger, protecting my wife and family, off of nothing more really than the probability that he'll actually harm them?

 

[Immanuel]

I'm just rather blown over by the concept that killing babies will reduce the number of dead babies. How does that work? And Care, your whole "omg omg omg dead baby dead baby OMG OMG OMG" schtick concerns me, because you come across as though you're having nightmares about dead babies or something. And if you ARE, I certainly hope you have the intelligence to realize it and get help instead of going off the deep end. Because the idea that you can eradicate death by killing is absolutely crazy.

As is the idea that killing something inside your body is better than killing it outside your body. In both places, a baby should be in your loving care.

I didn't get the idea that Care was saying that it was better to kill a child in the womb than outside of the womb. It seems to me that her concern is for the welfare of the mother in this case who's grieving process was prolonged by the fact that she "knew" her baby was going to die and this natural process was being prevented from happening.

Honestly, I think in that case, Care is right, not that I or my wife would have chosen to abort the baby, but I can understand that Mrs. Deaver suffering was extended by the law.

I'm not convinced by the story that Elizabeth was bound to die. Maybe she was, but, the paper is conveniently leaving out some important facts that I question why they have been left out.

Immie

However the minute we get to kill people based upon the PROBABILITY that they will cause us suffering is the minute we become monsters.

The baby was not dead and rotting in the mother. It was alive with a bad prognosis. The prognosis was that it would die after birth. That would make me want to keep that baby alive in me as long as possible. Not seek and destroy.

But aside from that, you don't get to kill babies based upon your own inconvenience and suffering. That's wrong, just as it's wrong to kill any child because he's disabled, or irritating, or a financial drain.

First of all, we do not know that it was a bad prognosis.

We don't even know what Elizabeth died from as the papers conveniently left that out.

My understanding was that the doctor told her Elizabeth would die shortly after birth and that was what happened.

Second, I agree with you. We don't get to make that choice. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know exactly what happened to the baby. Let's just hope the doctors actually did all they could do.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't get the idea that Care was saying that it was better to kill a child in the womb than outside of the womb. It seems to me that her concern is for the welfare of the mother in this case who's grieving process was prolonged by the fact that she "knew" her baby was going to die and this natural process was being prevented from happening.

Honestly, I think in that case, Care is right, not that I or my wife would have chosen to abort the baby, but I can understand that Mrs. Deaver suffering was extended by the law.

I'm not convinced by the story that Elizabeth was bound to die. Maybe she was, but, the paper is conveniently leaving out some important facts that I question why they have been left out.

Immie

However the minute we get to kill people based upon the PROBABILITY that they will cause us suffering is the minute we become monsters.

The baby was not dead and rotting in the mother. It was alive with a bad prognosis. The prognosis was that it would die after birth. That would make me want to keep that baby alive in me as long as possible. Not seek and destroy.

But aside from that, you don't get to kill babies based upon your own inconvenience and suffering. That's wrong, just as it's wrong to kill any child because he's disabled, or irritating, or a financial drain.

First of all, we do not know that it was a bad prognosis.

We don't even know what Elizabeth died from as the papers conveniently left that out.

My understanding was that the doctor told her Elizabeth would die shortly after birth and that was what happened.

Second, I agree with you. We don't get to make that choice. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know exactly what happened to the baby. Let's just hope the doctors actually did all they could do.

Immie

You want to know the part that sticks in my head?

This looks like a full term pregnancy where the doctors apparently told a woman they could not induce labor because the law made that illegal. Color me skeptical, but that is complete and total bullshit.

 

[Care4all]

I didn't get the idea that Care was saying that it was better to kill a child in the womb than outside of the womb. It seems to me that her concern is for the welfare of the mother in this case who's grieving process was prolonged by the fact that she "knew" her baby was going to die and this natural process was being prevented from happening.

Honestly, I think in that case, Care is right, not that I or my wife would have chosen to abort the baby, but I can understand that Mrs. Deaver suffering was extended by the law.

I'm not convinced by the story that Elizabeth was bound to die. Maybe she was, but, the paper is conveniently leaving out some important facts that I question why they have been left out.

Immie

However the minute we get to kill people based upon the PROBABILITY that they will cause us suffering is the minute we become monsters.

The baby was not dead and rotting in the mother. It was alive with a bad prognosis. The prognosis was that it would die after birth. That would make me want to keep that baby alive in me as long as possible. Not seek and destroy.

But aside from that, you don't get to kill babies based upon your own inconvenience and suffering. That's wrong, just as it's wrong to kill any child because he's disabled, or irritating, or a financial drain.

First of all, we do not know that it was a bad prognosis.

We don't even know what Elizabeth died from as the papers conveniently left that out.

My understanding was that the doctor told her Elizabeth would die shortly after birth and that was what happened.

Second, I agree with you. We don't get to make that choice. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know exactly what happened to the baby. Let's just hope the doctors actually did all they could do.

Immie

so you think the mother of this wanted child let the 'evil doctor' just twiddle his thumbs when Elizabeth could be saved? Where do you get this from? isn't that illegal?

 

[Immanuel]

However the minute we get to kill people based upon the PROBABILITY that they will cause us suffering is the minute we become monsters.

The baby was not dead and rotting in the mother. It was alive with a bad prognosis. The prognosis was that it would die after birth. That would make me want to keep that baby alive in me as long as possible. Not seek and destroy.

But aside from that, you don't get to kill babies based upon your own inconvenience and suffering. That's wrong, just as it's wrong to kill any child because he's disabled, or irritating, or a financial drain.

First of all, we do not know that it was a bad prognosis.

We don't even know what Elizabeth died from as the papers conveniently left that out.

My understanding was that the doctor told her Elizabeth would die shortly after birth and that was what happened.

Second, I agree with you. We don't get to make that choice. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know exactly what happened to the baby. Let's just hope the doctors actually did all they could do.

Immie

You want to know the part that sticks in my head?

This looks like a full term pregnancy where the doctors apparently told a woman they could not induce labor because the law made that illegal. Color me skeptical, but that is complete and total bullshit.

Not sure what you mean because from what I read, she was only 24 weeks along in the pregnancy. That is not full term.

Immie