Home - List All Discussions

True circumstances for late term abortion

sad but sometimes nessesary

by: BossMomma

http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.html

Is this woman a murderer for her choice?

reply from: Banned Member

One more month and they might have had at least the chance to live, if delivered early. Or, at least they would have not died by the will of their own parents fearful choice, and would have died with at least an attempt to save their lives and dignity and not simply been aborted by parents and doctors who were "playing the numbers".

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Not to me, she isn't. It sounds like the most heartbreaking decision she ever had to make, and seeing that the doctors were right about her survival and the non-survival of the babies, she made the right choice.

reply from: faithman

You know, you really are one stupid cold blooded death scanc. Hard cases make bad law. No one is, nor ever has, advocated the denial of life saving measures. but what your ignorant murderous turn key behind willingly fails to see, is the 98% elective abortions done by pukes like you who just get off on feeling more powerful by bullying womb children to death. You are a miserable excuse for a human being, and hopefully we will be able to put the likes of you in the prison with the inmates you bully now. That would be way to kind. You deserve to have your arms and legs pulled off and your brains sucked out of your skull, just like you advocate for womb children.

reply from: Agape

That is so sad. I can't imagine the pain they went through.

reply from: yoda

And in this discussion, they are irrelevant distractions.
The real debate about abortion concerns the HEALTHY mothers that abort HEALTHY babies electively, for various reasons. And they constitute about 95% of all abortions.

reply from: yoda

The real debate about abortion concerns the HEALTHY mothers that abort HEALTHY babies electively, for various reasons. And they constitute about 95% of all abortions.

reply from: churchmouse

I totally agree. They were playing the numbers. I dont think any attempt was made to save them at least enough to let them die a natural death.
Well of course not.....hearbreaking in your opinion?......You are pro-choice anyway, so why should you care? You are pro-abortion remember.
Yea can you just imagine the pain the kids went through.......wow.
Were these children taken to save the mothers life? I dotn think so. They were killed because they would have been an inconvenience. I didnt see any urgency on the part of the medical profession that this had to be done in a hurry to save her life. They gave her time to decide.
FRom the article......
" Letting the girls die on their own didn't seem like an option, because we believed they were suffering while endangering my own health. And even if Sierra could survive the operation, what kind of life would she have? My parents said they would quit their jobs to help care for her, but it didn't seem right to bring her into the world with such bleak prospects. I thought about what my pastor had said, and to me, giving her the most life meant releasing her to heaven rather than having her suffer on earth."
How was it endangering her health? Did I miss something? And bring her into the world because it might have been bleak? The pastor is not God. She decided life and death for her children.
And if she were in that much danger she would have been taken to a hospital not some abortion mill.
Probably no hospital would take her because they dissagreed with her decision.
So sweet she played the piano.......wow
She killed her children.

reply from: galen

i hope lukesmom makes a post here... i think she is the only one of us to have any real insite into this matter...
personally i think they were wrong... but in my opinion this would fall short of murder.
i also know how rare this case is... it is not the same thing as a teenager or other woman having an abortion of convienence.
PS hydrops children sometimes do make it past birth... so the info released here is not one that i would call overwhelming... i would have to see an actual medical record and ultrasound images to make a better descision as to how i would categorise these parents....

reply from: Agape

It said in the article that "I was mirroring some of her symptoms and retaining fluids. My body was extremely swollen and I could hardly walk. If I continued the pregnancy, I could put my own health at risk too." She didn't go into detail. I guess I would have gone into alot of detail to justify my decision if I was going to publish this story.
Makes me wonder.
Still, a horrible situation.

reply from: galen

something else i noticed.. this lady had a procedure done by Tiller....he is the only one of the few who routinely do later term AB's who uses a hotel....why were her own MD's not willing to do her termination... especially if it was so necessary.... it makes me wonder, as those OB's that i have contact here and at the medical school will do the termination themselves if there is absolutely no other way....
something is wrong with this story....
possibly a Tiller plant?

reply from: galen

the mirror of the twin could have been curbed by medication if she had wanted to carry to term....

reply from: galen

i also have not heard of a prolifer calling what she described as a partial birth abortion....the 2 are not the same....
yeah the more i read this the more it seems a Tiller plant... especially as Glamour has routinely stated that many of thier 'true life' stories are fabrications of the various freelance writers they use...
sounds like someone went and did a pick see from tiller's old site.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Absolutely not. As she herself said, "These procedures are protected under Roe v. Wade if the mother's health or life is at risk, which mine was."

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's my concern too. I'm currently fighting on another forum about it. I only oppose abortions in healthy mothers with healthy babies.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

yes, they were. You clearly have selective reading. The woman was beginning to mimic the conditon Savanna had, retaining fluids, and it would have lead to her death. The article states several times that her life was at risk.
You didn't want to see it.
Yes, you did. As I stated before, and even quoted in my own post from the article:
"These procedures are protected under Roe v. Wade if the mother's health or life is at risk, which mine was."
It wasn't acute danger, but she WOULD have died if the abortion had not been done. The abortion clinic had better facilities to perform the procedure safely. The hospital did not.
They were killing her.
"My doctor also confirmed that Savanna's illness could trigger a rare syndrome in me: I was mirroring some of her symptoms and retaining fluids. My body was extremely swollen and I could hardly walk. If I continued the pregnancy, I could put my own health at risk too."
Even in the lines YOU quoted you missed it:
"We knew what we had to do. Letting the girls die on their own didn't seem like an option, because we believed they were suffering while endangering my own health."

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This woman saved her own life. I'll never consider that wrong.
Why are their medical records any of your business?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

She did? Where in the article did it say she went to Tiller's clinic? No where, to my knowledge. That's verging on conspiracy theorizing.

reply from: ChristianLott2

You just can't wait to inform us of your pba in a few more months boss. It will be your sacrament by way of sacrifice.
btw, vote mccain blah blah. .

reply from: lukesmom

This scenerio is heartbreaking. Sick babies, who BTW DID have a chance to live, even if only a 5% chance. The mother had a so called health risk that she doesn't name but I am wondering was Hydroamnios, a build up of amniotic fluid. I also had this and it is NOT life threatening. In the worst case scenerios fluid can be removed. Anyway as heartbreaking as this case was it was by no means necessary to "kill" these girls. I can't begin to put into words what I want to say but thought of a letter another mom who carried 2 pregnancies to term knowing her child would die. Here is her letter:
Why Carry A Dying Child? A Mother's Perspective
Teresa Streckfuss
Charlotte Mary, the Streckfuss' second anencephalic child, was delivered by cesarean section June, 21st, 2004. She lived for 5 days, and died on the same day as her brother, Benedict, also anencephalic. Please visit baby Charlotte's website to see her full story and beautiful pictures.
Many of you may have wondered, "What's the point?"... or perhaps pitied us for 'having' to continue carrying a child who is not going to live for long... I understand these thoughts, because when my sister was carrying Thomas Walter (who had been diagnosed with anencephaly at 18 weeks and lived for 17 ½ hours after birth) I really didn't properly comprehend the whole situation. I knew it was the 'right' thing to do. I didn't question that I would have no other option if the same thing ever happened to me (although I knew it never would!) But I thought how awful it was to know for over four months that the child you are carrying is unable to live outside your womb.
Once he was born, I was able to hold my nephew and see him finally as a real person - a precious unique creation - I began to realise that there was a lot more to it than mere 'ethics'. When, much to my disbelief, my own baby, Benedict, was diagnosed with this same condition four years later - I was finally able to grasp it, although it has taken me a long time to be able to put my thoughts into words. It is only since Charlotte's diagnosis that I have found words that almost convey my feelings.
Some people think we carried Benedict and Charlotte to term because we don't agree with abortion, because we are Catholic, or perhaps because our nephew was carried to term after a fatal diagnosis. While these factors probably all played a part in our immediate refusal of the option to 'terminate', this is not what it's all about! It's about love! It's about my baby! It's not about some tragic, fatal medical condition - it's about my child. We do not possess more strength than other people. It's not because we can cope where others wouldn't. There is no way to avoid the sad fact that she cannot live long after birth with this condition, but causing Charlotte to die earlier will not stop this happening. Causing her to die earlier will only take from us the beautiful experience of knowing and loving her.
The tragedy is not the fact that we know our baby will die. The tragedy is that our baby will die. It is not nice to know for months beforehand, but it gives us a chance to appreciate a life so brief, and not to miss a moment.
The value of Thomas Walter, Benedict and Charlotte cannot be measured by the length of their lives - we don't apply this yardstick to adults, so why should we to babies? A baby is not a possession, an accessory to acquire. A baby is a gift, a new entity, a precious, individual soul loved by God. We are created for a purpose, there is a reason for our being here. Even if that reason is unclear to us most of the time, we are constantly affecting other people in our families, communities etc. Who knows what purpose can be fulfilled in 9 months and one day? I don't know, but God does. I do know that Benedict left a lasting impression on our family, he made us slow down, savour life, and treasure our other children even more. He made us realise that we cannot control or predict what will happen in the future, he made us rely on God. And how often are we given the opportunity to really give another person true unconditional love? Love that truly expects no return? It is a blessing to experience that kind of pure love!
So don't pity us for carrying a child we know will die. Carrying this beautiful person is an honour. Grieve for the fact that our baby will die. We wouldn't wish away the time we had with Benedict, and also this time we are now experiencing with Charlotte, just to save us the pain of losing them. I've always thought of it like this; if your 3 year old was diagnosed with untreatable, fatal cancer and had only 4 months to live; would you prefer the doctor kill your child straight away so that you didn't have to wait for his/her impending death? Or would you prefer to spend as much time as you could with your child and love him/her for as long as you had left?
Someone asked us after Benedict died, "Was it worth it?" Oh, YES! For the chance to hold him, and see him, and love him before letting him go ... For the chance for our children to see that we would never stop loving them, regardless of their imperfections? For the chance to give him everything we could? Oh, YES! Love your children, and remember that they each have their own unique mission. Children are always and only a blessing from God - even if they don't stay very long ...

reply from: lukesmom

And in this discussion, they are irrelevant distractions.
The real debate about abortion concerns the HEALTHY mothers that abort HEALTHY babies electively, for various reasons. And they constitute about 95% of all abortions.
Yoda, ill unborn children deserve to live the life they are given until a natural death, same as healthy babies. Why aren't their lives worth debating? Why do you consider them "irrelevant distractions"?

reply from: ChristianLott2

And in this discussion, they are irrelevant distractions.
The real debate about abortion concerns the HEALTHY mothers that abort HEALTHY babies electively, for various reasons. And they constitute about 95% of all abortions.
Yoda, ill unborn children deserve to live the life they are given until a natural death, same as healthy babies. Why aren't their lives worth debating? Why do you consider them "irrelevant distractions"?
I think he's just speaking about generalities vs particulars. Let's have a debate about the 95% and not about the less than 5% and fewer.
But you're also right lukesmom.
http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_18.asp

reply from: Banned Member

To hell with Roe v. Wade.

reply from: churchmouse

Sounds like my pregnancy. I retained fluids and I could barely walk. My sister was in the Trendelenburg position for over two weeks. Many women have minor complications but not life threatening.
The article said......."If I continued I COULD PUT......COULD." Her life was not in danger when she decided to end their lives.
And I agree a horrible painful situation to have to live with the rest of your life.

reply from: galen

This woman saved her own life. I'll never consider that wrong.
Why are their medical records any of your business?
__________________________________________________________
When a person goes to length to explain why a procedure is so dire... and then goes to an abortionist to have it done it raises many red flags in the medical community... the physicians i know personally and those i know only by profession are loath to let anyone undergo a procedure such as the one described in any place but a hospital w/ an ICU. The fact that she did not have a delivery by her physician raises a red flag... and no one but Tiller sends a patient that is in that dire a strait to a HOTEL to finish dialation.. its done in hospital so she can be monitered... there for the fact that no medical documentation accopanies this report says they probably have something to hide...
Anyone who is willing to describe thier late term abortion and put thier name to it who has a real story usually provides much more than vauge decriptions of a possible problem... as i stated there are many more careful ways to handle someone whos life is truely at risk.
And yeah i know of what i speak here... trust me this story is full of holes.

reply from: galen

She did? Where in the article did it say she went to Tiller's clinic? No where, to my knowledge. That's verging on conspiracy theorizing.
______________________________________________________
Tiller is the ONLY abortionist who sends people to a hotel to dialate... and this story is very similar to 2 that were posted on his site about 4 years ago.

reply from: Agape

That's my concern too. I'm currently fighting on another forum about it. I only oppose abortions in healthy mothers with healthy babies.
Because those other babies just aren't worth fighting for.

reply from: nancyu

To hell with Roe v. Wade.
Amen.

reply from: BossMomma

And in this discussion, they are irrelevant distractions.
The real debate about abortion concerns the HEALTHY mothers that abort HEALTHY babies electively, for various reasons. And they constitute about 95% of all abortions.
Then stop the lies about how abortion is elective throughout all 9 months. The real debate is abortion, not just the first trimester abortions on non-viable fetii that you so-called lifers like to rant about.

reply from: BossMomma

There is such a thing as an induced labor abortion in which the woman wishes a more natural removal of either a dead fetus or a fetus that is terminally ill so that the fetus is intact and can be bonded with by grieving parents.

reply from: BossMomma

And Tay Sachs infants can often live up to five years suffering the symptoms of their condition, is it more godly to just let them suffer?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Um, yes she does name it. On top of that, her entire body was beginning to swell. I can't believe how many of you missed this important fact. She was not simply retaining amnionic fluid.
"My doctor also confirmed that Savanna's illness could trigger a rare syndrome in me: I was mirroring some of her symptoms and retaining fluids. My body was extremely swollen and I could hardly walk. If I continued the pregnancy, I could put my own health at risk too."
You have no inderstanding of the condition she was suffering from; as she states, it was not simply the retention of amniotic fluid. Her entire body was swelling.
Because you missed the part about her having a life-threatening condition, I can understand why you think this is simply a case of aborting lethally deformed babies, but it's not.
For every story of a woman carrying and being happy, I could find one where she was forced to carry and was in agony or died, or a story where she aborted and was extremely grateful for the procedure.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And in this discussion, they are irrelevant distractions.
The real debate about abortion concerns the HEALTHY mothers that abort HEALTHY babies electively, for various reasons. And they constitute about 95% of all abortions.
Yoda, ill unborn children deserve to live the life they are given until a natural death, same as healthy babies. Why aren't their lives worth debating? Why do you consider them "irrelevant distractions"?
Because they constitute less than 1% of all abortions performed in America. So do rapes, and abortions done because of extremely low maternal age. They are all extremely rare and are indeed just distractions.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

To hell with Roe v. Wade.
These procedures are protected if the mother's health or life is at risk.
What will you say next, "to hell with the woman"?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's my concern too. I'm currently fighting on another forum about it. I only oppose abortions in healthy mothers with healthy babies.
Because those other babies just aren't worth fighting for.
No they're not, because the mother's health comes first.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Health should definitely be a consideration, but "happiness" is far too broad an interpretation. (Some people actually are happiest when they are suffering.) The mother is still the major component in the equation. If she dies, so does that fetus unless the pregnancy is far enough advanced to save the VIABLE unborn.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I mean more than the normal amount of risk, I mean something much more serious. It's not a legal cop-out: if I was told I would have a good chance of dying if I stayed pregnant, and the child was not viable yet OR if the only safe option was abortion, I would choose it in a heartbeat. Even more, if not only I was in danger, but my child was also lethally deformed, I would definitely choose an abortion to end their suffering and to save my own life.

reply from: ChristianLott2

To hell with Roe v. Wade.
These procedures are protected if the mother's health or life is at risk.
What will you say next, "to hell with the woman"?
To hell with Roe v. Wade because the life of the mother was always priority before Roe v. Wade anyway.
Pro aborts like to live in this fantasy world where before Roe v. Wade doctors were allowing women to die because of their babies. This was never the case and the life of the mother ALWAYS was first priority.
Roe v. Wade can safely be abolished. Most of the abortions will stop and women and their babies will live longer, safer, happier lives.

reply from: lukesmom

#1. I will say this again: You have absolutely NO idea what you would do unless you ACTUALLY face this situation, so please stop making assumptions about what you would do.
#2. I deal with pts EVERY DAY whoes "body's swell up with fluid" for various different diagnosises. Same treatment, you remove the fluid. People take medication for this every day with no ill effect to themselves. The ill effect to the unborn would most likely not be as dramatic as abortion.
#3 This woman did not have an "induced" labor per sae as her cervix was unnaturally stretch and her babies removed physically. She had no assurance her children would be removed in one piece. She had no assurance they didn't suffer through this procedure.
#4. She reports her babies had a 5% chance of life. A friend yest lost her 10 yr old daughter to brain cancer. Everyone knew Emma would die but if anyone would have put a pillow over her face to kill her, they would have been tried for murder. Same scenerio here only these children were unborn so, yes, this mother is a murderess for consenting to a procedure she knew would kill her children.
As my father used to say "don't let Julia foolya" this mother let fear of carrying her children to a natural death make this so called "choice". She also is not a very good christian if she can't trust enough in God to carry her and her children through this. Christianity core belief is to simply trust God and accept what we cannot change.
And Mary is right, Tiller is the only one who would do this kind of killing that late in the pregnancy. It is NOT good medical practice to send a pt to a hotel in the middle of a procedure.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How exactly do you remove extra fluid from someone's ankle or stomach or arm, when it is the very cells and tissue that is swollen? It's not a balloon!! The only way to reduce that extra fluid is through delivery of the child and thus removal of the causation of the fluid retention, OR, medication which is probably not safe to use during pregnancy.
I don't believe abortion is ever murder. As much as I absolutely loathe late term abortions, if the mother chooses to do it, it's not murder. If anyone else kills it, then that's murder. I don't feel a healthy mother should be able to make that choice if her child is also healthy, but even if she did, I would still not consider it murder.

reply from: lukesmom

You use Lasix, or Hydrochlorthiazide, or Spironolactone. Doesn't matter where to tissue edema is, these will reduce the edema. I also beleive use of these medications is a little (said sarcaticly) more benign and therefore safer for the unborn child than being aborted. Don't you think?
Well, there you go. This is a proabort statement if I ever heard one. If it waddles and it quacks... well you know the rest.
Yup, a duck in disguise.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Do any of those medications harm the woman? Would it be safer for her to abort than to have those chemicals used? I just simply do not believe the doctor would not have advised the woman to abort unless she was truly in danger of dying.

reply from: churchmouse

Her life was not in danger at the time she killed them. Hell she played piano for them the week before. Her life was not in danger and the article does not state that it was. She didnt want to deal with imperfect kids.

reply from: lukesmom

None of these meds would cause more than possible dehydration in the mom, if she didn't drink enough fluids and wasn't in acute renal failure. 99% of healthy and unhealthy adults I see take one or two of these meds with little ill effect on the pt.
You are living in a dream world if you don't think doctors every day don't recommend abortion to ALL moms carrying a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis. Talk to ANY mom who has faced this and she will tell you her MD advised her to terminate. EVEN my Catholic doctor advised me and a psychologist. Some moms are not even given info that she has a choice, just told to abort or terminate which is the pc term for cases of poor prenatal diagnosis. I can sight you story after story. I have yet to meet one single women who wasn't "pushed" toward termination by her doctor.

reply from: lukesmom

Liberal, When you recieve the news that your unborn child/ren is sick you are given very few options. You are terrified of 2 things in probably equal measure, 1. you can't and don't want to watch you child die or carry them to term knowing the most likely result will be watching them die. 2. You are terrified your baby is in pain. It is a horrible, hellish position to be in, a position no parent should have to face but it does happen, much more fequently than anyone knows untill you have been there and actually talk to other parents.
I wish moms were given a true choice by there doctors but this doesn't happen. Most of us are given no info except where we can go to "terminate" and what "termination" entails. Until the last 3-4 years there was NO information about carrying to term. Many of us moms have banded together and through the internet are changing this. Now there is a prenatal hospice option and a few books and internet sites we started so moms can talk to other moms for guidance and support.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Her life was not in danger at the time she killed them. Hell she played piano for them the week before. Her life was not in danger and the article does not state that it was. She didnt want to deal with imperfect kids.
It is certainly possible for a dying person to play the piano the SAME DAY that they die. Think terminal cancer or other serious diseases.
Her children were more than "imperfect", they were darn near dead already. Do you REALLY think a woman would abort two WANTED children that she was looking forward to having on a WHIM???????

reply from: lukesmom

Her life was not in danger at the time she killed them. Hell she played piano for them the week before. Her life was not in danger and the article does not state that it was. She didnt want to deal with imperfect kids.
It is certainly possible for a dying person to play the piano the SAME DAY that they die. Think terminal cancer or other serious diseases.
Her children were more than "imperfect", they were darn near dead already. Do you REALLY think a woman would abort two WANTED children that she was looking forward to having on a WHIM???????
Not on a whim but because of fear of the unknown and fear of the future, and because her doctor recommended it, yes.
Gotta go take my son to look for a job. Later...

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Actually, that would appear to indicate that we are coming out AHEAD by halving the death rate from abortion.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

reply from: lukesmom

I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And so has everyone who is pro-life.

reply from: lukesmom

And so has everyone who is pro-life.
Difference is we prolifers are not "for" killing the unborn. We respect the right to live for the unborn, whereas those of you for abortion do not. Do you not already know this?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And so has everyone who is pro-life.
Difference is we prolifers are not "for" killing the unborn. We respect the right to live for the unborn, whereas those of you for abortion do not. Do you not already know this?
Those of us who are pro-choice are not "FOR ABORTION" - but we believe that, like any other medical procedure, it should be an option for women with unwanted or dangerous pregnancies.

reply from: yoda

That's like saying "those of us who favor the legalization of drugs aren't for drugs"....... yeah, right....

reply from: lukesmom

Our very much loved children are NOT "hideous mutants" or a "mess" and my son was not an "it" and actually was a much better person than you, even without a brain. Maybe you should look in the mirror to see a heartless, hideous mutant, and you questionably have a brain. There IS currently much debate about that but no debate about the fact you have no heart, compassion or soul. There aren't enough nasty names for b####es like you.

reply from: lukesmom

Putting an end to their pregnancy is actually KILLING, ie: putting an end to their child, in your words. I hate to tell you but carrying a "hideous mutant" or a "mess" does not make a mother unheathy.
You are an unspeakable b####.

reply from: lukesmom

Double speak. Do you get tired chasing your tail like that?

reply from: yoda

Every child deserves life. Every child's life is worth debating. But to spend time debating the seriousness of various genetic disorders and/or maternal complications during pregnancy takes us far, far away from the basic principle that ought to guide us about every abortion...... that no unborn child ought to be electively killed.
If a discussion of these poor unfortunate children and their unfortunate mothers could be held without falling into the trap of diversion and distraction that the proaborts constantly lay for us, then that would be a perfectly valid thing to use forum time and space for. But in reality, it isn't possible. They can and they will use these subjects to get us completely off the basic reason for being here..... to oppose elective abortion.

reply from: yoda

Have you been run over by a semi today?

reply from: lukesmom

Every child deserves life. Every child's life is worth debating. But to spend time debating the seriousness of various genetic disorders and/or maternal complications during pregnancy takes us far, far away from the basic principle that ought to guide us about every abortion...... that no unborn child ought to be electively killed.
If a discussion of these poor unfortunate children and their unfortunate mothers could be held without falling into the trap of diversion and distraction that the proaborts constantly lay for us, then that would be a perfectly valid thing to use forum time and space for. But in reality, it isn't possible. They can and they will use these subjects to get us completely off the basic reason for being here..... to oppose elective abortion.
Agreed but termination for medical reasons is also elective and one of my main reasons to be here is to open eyes to the injustice done to our ill children too. So I will continue to fight for ALL unborn children, even the minority.

reply from: yoda

Actually, the use of the word "elective" here is to indicate that there is no medical indication for the abortion.
Whether or not the medical condition actually justifies taking the baby early is another matter, but 95% of all abortions are done without ANY medical condition being present. And until we can establish that a HEALTHY mother with a HEALTHY baby has no moral justification to kill her baby, we can't begin to deal with the medical issues. It's just a matter of getting things in logical order.

reply from: sweet

LIKE THE ABORTIONIST??

reply from: sweet


WE'RE ALL IN DANGER OF DYING...JUST BY LIVING!
a stray bullet can come through your window any second...i could drop dead of heart failure 5 seconds from now...DON'T KILL MY CHILD BECAUSE MY LIFE COULD END ANY SECOND. i'm not sure if i'll be alive tomorrow(accidents happen)..BUT DON'T KILL MY CHILD BECAUSE THAT STILL WON'T MAKE ME LIVE FOREVER!

reply from: sweet

of course you know the answer is YES. um...sounds like she is claiming "self-defense" though.
this case sounds pretty creative and fabricated. if it is true, i feel sorry for a mother who KILLS not one, but two(serial killer?)children to "save her own life."
what quality of life is she left with now....one that involves trying to cover up the truth with fancy wording? Let's call it what it is, then ask the same question. IS THIS WOMAN A MURDERER FOR COMMITTING MURDER?

reply from: lukesmom

Actually, the use of the word "elective" here is to indicate that there is no medical indication for the abortion.
Whether or not the medical condition actually justifies taking the baby early is another matter, but 95% of all abortions are done without ANY medical condition being present. And until we can establish that a HEALTHY mother with a HEALTHY baby has no moral justification to kill her baby, we can't begin to deal with the medical issues. It's just a matter of getting things in logical order.
Actually in the case of "mutants and messes" as pinheady would call them, there is no medical implications to the mother or the child to continue the pregnancy until it's natural end so therefore it IS an elective procedure.
Now I do understand about putting perspective on this and following an order of events but I have my personal crusade also and that will not go away or be forgotten because moms like me won't let it. So you all are stuck with me and my crusade for all the defenceless ill unborn children. GET THAT PINHEADDY? CHILDREN, NOT HIDEOUS MUTANTS OR MESSES!

reply from: sweet

late-term murder is always sad......NEVER necessary. once we start calling it what it really is.......the questions will become easier to answer...
~what's wrong with MURDERING a baby because the mother is poor?
~what's wrong with MURDERING a baby because his father is not ready to be a father?
~what's wrong with a mother choosing to MURDER her baby because she wants to finish college first?
~what's wrong with a mother murdering her baby because the baby is sick?
~what's wrong with a mother murdering her baby because she already has too many children?
hmmmmm.

reply from: BossMomma

Our very much loved children are NOT "hideous mutants" or a "mess" and my son was not an "it" and actually was a much better person than you, even without a brain. Maybe you should look in the mirror to see a heartless, hideous mutant, and you questionably have a brain. There IS currently much debate about that but no debate about the fact you have no heart, compassion or soul. There aren't enough nasty names for b####es like you.
While I would not refer to these unfortunant babies as mutants or messes, they clearly were incompatable with life outside the womb or already dead in utero. Aborting the pregnancy was humane as even if the child had lived briefly outside of the womb, what quality of life would they have had? Many women in this circumstance still bond with the dead child, take pictures, pass the child around to family to create some memories with the child. No, your son was not an "it", he was a human baby who was unfortunantly incompatable with life and you have my sympathies.

reply from: BossMomma

Have you been run over by a semi today?
Nope, though I'm sure you'd wish such a demise upon me and my unborn child who btw, has made his or her first movements known. After all, pro-choicers and their unborn are not protected by your narrow minded psuedo-life mind set.

reply from: galen

And Tay Sachs infants can often live up to five years suffering the symptoms of their condition, is it more godly to just let them suffer?
___________________________________________________
there is ABsolutely NO reason to concieve a tay sachs infant as people who are carriers of this gene can be screened BEFORE pregnancy.
that being said a tay sachs child can have several years of good life before the disease sets in .. and can be snowed out to the end. ( mercifully they reaspond to pain meds.)

reply from: galen

And Tay Sachs infants can often live up to five years suffering the symptoms of their condition, is it more godly to just let them suffer?
If suffering justifies killing the one who is suffering, why would the same logic not apply to born human beings? Who gets to decide which human beings would be "better off dead?"
__________________________________________
the person experiencing the suffering...

reply from: galen

Um, yes she does name it. On top of that, her entire body was beginning to swell. I can't believe how many of you missed this important fact. She was not simply retaining amnionic fluid.
"My doctor also confirmed that Savanna's illness could trigger a rare syndrome in me: I was mirroring some of her symptoms and retaining fluids. My body was extremely swollen and I could hardly walk. If I continued the pregnancy, I could put my own health at risk too."
You have no inderstanding of the condition she was suffering from; as she states, it was not simply the retention of amniotic fluid. Her entire body was swelling.
Because you missed the part about her having a life-threatening condition, I can understand why you think this is simply a case of aborting lethally deformed babies, but it's not.
For every story of a woman carrying and being happy, I could find one where she was forced to carry and was in agony or died, or a story where she aborted and was extremely grateful for the procedure.
_______________________________________________
i did nNOT miss that point... the mirror syndrom...and guess what... it does not require the fetus to be removed in order to fix it... ever heard of diuretics... they can with proper monitering be used in pregnant moms.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, here you have it. Pro-lifers don't give a shyte whether the born child suffers, has no quality of life or, no life at all in utero so long as nothing is done to remove the non-viable fetus prior to natural labor and delivery pro-lifers are fine with it. And us pro-choicers are the hideous ones? It's you psuedo-lifers who have no soul, compassion or, even the slightest empathy. Call me a pro-abort if that's what floats your boat but I still come out cleaner.

reply from: galen

__________________________________________________
nope you come out the looser... nothing about what those children in you link had said they were suffering one whit... you need to look up the conditions they had... they were possibly dying... but they were not suffering and there is the diffrence.

reply from: lukesmom

Well pinheaddy, what I did was not noble or anything else you want to accuse me of. I actually KNOW and talk to several moms who made the decision to end their pregnancy and their child and would also take huge offence to having their child called a "hideous mutant or a mess". Want me to "sic" them on you here? Just say the word, idiot.
Oh, BTW, moms who terminate their pregnancies because their child is sick, actually name "it" and if labor is induced, bathe "it" and bury "it" and actually take pictures of "it" before burying their "hideous mutant mess of an it". Shove it sunshine.

reply from: galen

i would personally LOVE to watch that one!

reply from: lukesmom

Boss, Yest my friend's 10 yr old daughter died of brain cancer. She was diagnosed 3 yrs ago and is the same age as my son, Pete. She underwent 2 brain surgeries and maxed out on chemo. Hospice became involved in the spring. Her pain was controlled but she had problems eating and drinking and was frail and we expected the end anytime but on July 3rd she perked up and was mad because she couldn't go to the fair like she wanted. Another friend visited her this weekend and reported she was peaceful beyond words. Now she did suffer during this but would it have been acceptable to kill her prematurely? No, and never did she make mention of wanting to die.
When told of my son's diagnosis a part of me died right then. Every parent no matter what they end up deciding enters hell on diagnosis day. Aborting that child does not end that hell any sooner. What often times these moms don't have that I do, is peace and the answer to the inevitable question of "what if". I also have the added grace of knowing I did nothing to cause his death and everything to ensure his wellbeing while alive.
I have compassion for any parent who goes through this. I know the heartbreak but I also know the joy that overshadows the heartbreak and that is the difference. I wouldn't change a thing.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Just a note, but calling someone noble is a compliment, not an accusation.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree you do. I'm in the same boat as you as far as aborting lethally deformed fetuses goes. Of course I can't say for sure how I'd feel, but I know I'd want the choice to end their suffering to be there. Next they'll be taking away the right to humanely euthanize pets who are sick and dying!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why do you think her doctors felt this was not a good answer?

reply from: lukesmom

No offense but I don't want or need compliments about a normal parenting instinct to protect my child's life.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

WE'RE ALL IN DANGER OF DYING...JUST BY LIVING!
You do not have a high chance of dying right now though. There are conditions that arise during pregnancy that increase a woman's chance of mortality to nearly 100% unless the pregnancy is removed. Her death can be prevented by removing the pregnancy.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

LIKE THE ABORTIONIST??
No, like someone stabbing/shooting the woman in the stomach, or pushing her down the stairs, or crashing into her car and compressing her stomach and causing a miscarriage.

reply from: lukesmom

I agree you do. I'm in the same boat as you as far as aborting lethally deformed fetuses goes. Of course I can't say for sure how I'd feel, but I know I'd want the choice to end their suffering to be there. Next they'll be taking away the right to humanely euthanize pets who are sick and dying!
Say what?! Comparing euthanizing children with euthanizing animals? Oh brother... There IS no comparison. I am hoping you didn't mean your statement the way it sounds.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's like saying "those of us who favor the legalization of drugs aren't for drugs"....... yeah, right....
Straight-edge people can still be for the legal state of alcohol... they simply choose not to drink themselves.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And so has everyone who is pro-life.
Difference is we prolifers are not "for" killing the unborn. We respect the right to live for the unborn, whereas those of you for abortion do not. Do you not already know this?
Those of us who are pro-choice are not "FOR ABORTION" - but we believe that, like any other medical procedure, it should be an option for women with unwanted or dangerous pregnancies.
Oh I've tried explaining that to them, it's of no use.

reply from: lukesmom

LIKE THE ABORTIONIST??
No, like someone stabbing/shooting the woman in the stomach, or pushing her down the stairs, or crashing into her car and compressing her stomach and causing a miscarriage.
How is that any different than ripping them apart, limb to limb or forcing them to be born before they can effectively breath as in abortion?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Her life was not in danger at the time she killed them. Hell she played piano for them the week before. Her life was not in danger and the article does not state that it was. She didnt want to deal with imperfect kids.
Her doctors considered her life endangered enough to advise abortion.

reply from: lukesmom

WE'RE ALL IN DANGER OF DYING...JUST BY LIVING!
You do not have a high chance of dying right now though. There are conditions that arise during pregnancy that increase a woman's chance of mortality to nearly 100% unless the pregnancy is removed. Her death can be prevented by removing the pregnancy.
Driving down the road increases your chance of death, crossing a street increases your chance of death but hey, people do it every day. In fact, while we are living parts of us are actually dying. How does any of that justify killing the unborn?

reply from: lukesmom

Why do you think her doctors felt this was not a good answer?
She never says if she was offered this. Most likely she was but as I have said previously, doctors advocate abortion in cases like this. It is cheaper for the "system" and it is considered emotionally "easier" for the mother. Hah, gotta love that one!

reply from: lukesmom

Her life was not in danger at the time she killed them. Hell she played piano for them the week before. Her life was not in danger and the article does not state that it was. She didnt want to deal with imperfect kids.
Her doctors considered her life endangered enough to advise abortion.
Abortion is almost ALWAYS advocated by the doctor regardless.

reply from: nancyu

And so has everyone who is pro-life.
Difference is we prolifers are not "for" killing the unborn. We respect the right to live for the unborn, whereas those of you for abortion do not. Do you not already know this?
Those of us who are pro-choice are not "FOR ABORTION" - but we believe that, like any other medical procedure, it should be an option for women with unwanted or dangerous pregnancies.
Oh I've tried explaining that to them, it's of no use.
I know! Isn't it awful? We are so thick headed aren't we? We're just way too biased that way. We should try being more pro choice like you, so we can all just get along. We should try being more understanding, and open minded about killing defenseless, innocent children. We should stop calling it "killing a child" and start calling it a "medical procedure" like you do. Then we could all be friends, and the world would be such a happy place.

reply from: churchmouse

What a blessed post. God bless you Lukesmom

reply from: churchmouse

We should never compromise our position, never. There is no such thing as sittin the fence on this issue. You either stand up for the unborn, or you believe they can be killed by their mothers.
It is killing. That is the goal of EVERY ABORTIONIST. The procedure is not complete until the unborn is dead, until the heart stops.
And as far as i am concerned we dont have any permission slip from the fetus so......if you intentionally kill.....what is that called?
It is murder and it should be referred to as premeditated murder no less.

reply from: galen

Why do you think her doctors felt this was not a good answer?
_______________________________________________-
without her records we don't know if they gave her this option or not. that is why we need more information... in my line of work this type of therapy is routinely offered to even the worst case scenarios...so i can't think of a single good reason as to why they wouldn't have offered it. Some women however don't want it.. and convienently fail to mention any offer being made, so they do not have to answwer delicate questions.

reply from: galen

Her life was not in danger at the time she killed them. Hell she played piano for them the week before. Her life was not in danger and the article does not state that it was. She didnt want to deal with imperfect kids.
Her doctors considered her life endangered enough to advise abortion.
Abortion is almost ALWAYS advocated by the doctor regardless.
________________________________________
i know that to be true in many areas... at least in mine this is not always the case... the ones i work with are a bit more open minded to the reality of what happens when a parent aborts a wanted child...thanks in part to your story about luke and others like it... that website is wonderful.

reply from: lukesmom

And for that I am greatful Mary. The key to change is education.
Thank you!

reply from: lukesmom

Mary, here is another great site to look at. http://www.benotafraid.net/

reply from: galen

sorry i can't get it to connect, i'll try again in a bit...

reply from: galen

great site.. i'll add it to the syllubus...

reply from: galen

here is a link on hydrops fetalis...
https://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/35569/Nav/1/router.asp

reply from: Hosea

I feel terribly for this woman and her husband. What she went through is terrible. The guilt of having her babies killed would only increase the pain and sorrow. Abortion has always been legal for LIFE of the mother, not health. She needed to get the babies out of her. It may be that her life was threatened but aborting the children did not male her health any better than if she would have delivered those babies tight away. Healthy babies born at 28 weeks have an 85 % chance of survival. These babies were 30 weeks when they were killed. Due to their conditions they probably would have died shortly after birth but that is not for sure and we have no right to decide when someone dies. What if she quickly went into labor and delivered them prior to getting to the abortion clinic. Would it be right for her to go into the nursery and have them killed? Shouldn't she have left them die a natural death. You can't kill someone because you don't want to watch them suffer. Instead you pay to have you put to sleep while they suffer with abortion.
She should have allowed them to be delivered live to say goodbye or to get medical attention. Yes she did pay someone to kill her children
When my baby died at 4 1/2 months, I would have loved to hold him alive for a while. It is not the same holding a dead baby. You can't sleep for months wondering how he might have suffered when the died. I can't imagine how much worse this is for a woman who aborts her children. I believe this abortion killed her children and permanenly scared her heart much worse than if she had delivered them alive.

reply from: Hosea

sorry pressed it too soon. I meant to say her docot is a murderer. She paid the hitman ( Doctor) I explain a couple replies earlier

reply from: yoda

"Medically indicated" abortions are the exception, not the rule, even in late term abortions:
February 26, 1997, Wednesday NATIONAL DESK
An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure
By DAVID STOUT (NYT) 801 wordsWASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies. He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he intentionally misled in previous remarks about the procedure, called intact dilation and evacuation by those who believe it should remain legal and ''partial-birth abortion'' by those who believe it should be outlawed, because he feared that the truth would damage the cause of abortion rights. But he is now convinced, he said, that the issue of whether the procedure remains legal, like the overall debate about abortion, must be based on the truth.
In an article in American Medical News, to be published March 3, and an interview today, Mr. Fitzsimmons recalled the night in November 1995, when he appeared on ''Nightline'' on ABC and ''lied through my teeth'' when he said the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged. ''It made me physically ill,'' Mr. Fitzsimmons said in an interview. ''I told my wife the next day, 'I can't do this again.' '' Mr. Fitzsmmons said that after that interview he stayed on the sidelines of the debate for a while, but with growing unease. As much as he disagreed with the National Right to Life Committee and others who oppose abortion under any circumstances, he said he knew they were accurate when they said the procedure was common.
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company http://www.nytimes.com/info/help/copyright.html

reply from: Hosea

good story yoda
bump


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics