Home - List All Discussions

Help for the children of aborted mothers?

by: equinox

I work with troubled kids. A teenage boy recently came to us. His problems began when his mother had an abortion eight years ago, suffered complications, and has been in a coma since then. He essentially lost his mother and a sibling because of the abortion. I am looking for specific information or a ministry to help him. I am aware of Rachel's Vineyard and Silent No More that help post-abortive mothers and fathers. What is there for the rest of the family? Is there anything besides generic grief counseling?

reply from: kd78

i haven't heard of anything like that, but it sounds like a good thing to start.

reply from: carolemarie

Any post-abortion program is set up to help all the people involved. But this kid needs grief counseling, he lost his mother....I would suggest a childrens counselor who deals with loss and death..... good luck!

reply from: nancyu

And his sibling carolemarie, you keep forgetting about the baby. You never will change will you.

reply from: carolemarie

Nancy, I don't know that he misses the baby. I do know he lost his mother and a grief counselor will explore all that with him, including the baby.
The whole situtation is sad, but post abortion healing programs are not set up to deal with the loss of a mother, they are all about the loss of the baby. That is why a grief counselor is my suggestion

reply from: sk1bianca

just make sure it's not the kind of "counselor" that will tell him "you shouldn't miss a 3 inch long unconscious undeveloped salamander looking embryo"...
i believe you americans put a little too much hope in counseling instead of God's healing power. that's why psychotherapy often gives short term results or proves to be completely useless. if i have a problem i go to my priest.

reply from: kd78

aren't clergy also trained in counselling, just not at the same level as psychologists or psychiatrists?

reply from: yoda

????
"Clergy" can refer to anyone who calls themselves a minister, preacher, reverend, or whatever.

reply from: rsg007

And his sibling carolemarie, you keep forgetting about the baby. You never will change will you.
It is utterly ridiculous that you think this boy misses his "sibling" in the same way or as much as he misses his mother. I doubt he even misses the baby at all. He knew his mother, he talked to her, she comforted him, they played together, she read to him, rocked him to sleep, they laughed, watched movies, and who knows what else. He never even saw the baby. This is one of the most incomprehensible parts or the prolife position--thinking that (most) people have the same kind of emotional connection/attachment to a fetus that they do to born people.

reply from: MC3

CaroleMarie:
You stated, "Nancy, I don't know that he misses the baby. I do know he lost his mother and a grief counselor will explore all that with him, including the baby."
The reality is that you don't know that at all. The "mental health" establishment in this country is so completely sold out to the abortion lobby that the vast majority refuse to recognize even the possibility that abortion might cause emotional damage to the mother. So clearly, they certainly are not going to recognize that possibility with a sibling.
Several years ago, we were involved with the parents of a 16-year-old girl who was being seen at a state mental facility because of ongoing suicide ideation. "Janie" had repeatedly told the counselors involved that she was depressed because of her abortion and that she, "...just wanted to be with my baby." In addition, it was known that this child's first suicide attempt was on the evening of the day she had her abortion. Despite this and other similar information, these counselors refused to deal with this because, as one of them later stated in a deposition, "...the best available scholarship on the subject proves that there is no link between induced abortion and emotional trauma." This woman went on to testify that, if there is any mental damage related to induced abortion, it is the result of what she described as "hysterical anti-abortion rhetoric" that causes women to "perceive" that they have done something wrong.
In a nutshell, here's what happened in this case: A normal 16-year-old girl with no history of mental problems has an abortion without her parent's knowledge and then attempts to kill herself less than 12 hours later. After at least two more suicide attempts, she is placed in a lock-down facility where she repeatedly tells the "mental health professionals" seeing her that she was depressed over her abortion. Yet the abortion was dismissed by these "experts" as a potential cause of her problems. "Janie" was kept in this facility for three months and then released. Less than a year later, she finally succeeds in killing herself.
We were providing litigation support to the parents of this child when they sought to bring a wrongful death suit against the state and these counselors. However, the attorneys involved eventually advised that the suit be abandoned because the inevitable result was going to be a summary dismissal by the court. They said the chance of this case ever being heard in a courtroom was effectively zero.
The problem they were encountering was that no expert witness could be found that would testify that these counselors had violated the minimum standard of medical care. Although several agreed, after looking at the victim's file, that there was no other rational conclusion but that the abortion is what led her to kill herself, the counselors' failure to treat this did not constitute malpractice since they were acting on what is accepted as "general knowledge" within the mental health community. In fact, one psychiatrist told us that he had often considered not seeing any patient who tells him that she has had a prior abortion. He said that it is nonsense to contend that abortion is not a potential cause of post-traumatic stress, but since that is his profession's official stance it can be dicey to treat such women. He pointed out that, because abortion is not accepted as a stresser, he could actually be seen as committing malpractice by acting on a patient's claim that she is despondent over having had one.
Over the years we have dealt with other episodes like the one described here. What we have learned is that, as card-carrying members of the pro-choice mob, the mainstream mental health community cannot be trusted in any situation involving abortion. Time and again, we have seen irrefutable proof that, like all of their pro-choice colleagues, these people would much rather just write-off the "Janies" of the world than allow any negative light to be cast on abortion.

reply from: kd78

i know what clergy is, yoda. my question was aren't clergy trained in counselling sometimes?

reply from: MC3

rsg007:
You stated, "This is one of the most incomprehensible parts or the prolife position--thinking that (most) people have the same kind of emotional connection/attachment to a fetus that they do to born people."
The problem is, you know good and well that it has never been part of "the pro-life position" that people have, or even should have, the same relationship to the fetus as to born people. Our position is simply that they are both living human beings and, as such, are entitled to the same legal protections.
You also state that, "It is utterly ridiculous that you think this boy misses his 'sibling' in the same way or as much as he misses his mother. I doubt he even misses the baby at all."
What you don't appear to grasp is that the emotional connections humans feel are not always the same even toward those who are born. For example, even in the case of parents, it is not at all uncommon for them to favor one of their children over their others, but that doesn't mean they see the lesser favored ones as less valuable or less deserving.
In other words, it is not necessary for this boy to miss his sibling in the same way he misses his mother. All that's necessary is for him to miss him to a significant degree. In one famous example of this, Elvis Presley's twin died at birth which means that he never had any sort of relationship with him at all. And we certainly can't argue that he had the same emotional connection to him as he did to his mother. As you said about this boy, Presley, knew his mother, he talked to her, she comforted him, they played together, she read to him, rocked him to sleep, they laughed, watched movies, and who knows what else. He never even saw the baby (his twin). However, Elvis Presley never made a secret of the fact that, for his entire life, he felt a profound and sometimes overpowering sense of grief and loss over the death of his twin brother.
In my own life, my wife and I lost our daughter, Jackie, as a newborn and it has been a loss that has haunted both of us ever sense. This feeling of loss persists, despite the fact that we never got to have the same kind of relationship with her that we have had with our daughter who is now nineteen.
We even see this as it relates to pets. One can experience tremendous grief over the death of a beloved dog or cat without the necessity that this loss be equal to that felt by the death of a parent. In short, grief is not a competition.
I would have thought that, even someone so cold-blooded that they could be pro-choice, would understand these concepts and, therefore, not make some of the idiotic and black-hearted statements you made above. I am reminded of an article I wrote many years ago in which I observed that the support of legalized abortion is likely a symptom of some sort of mental disease or disorder. The interesting thing is, you guys keep supplying the evidence I was correct. It is this observation that occasionally causes me to replace the loathing I have for what you people advocate with pity for you as unhealthy human beings. But, of course, before long you will say or do something abysmally despicable that snaps me out of it.

reply from: yoda

That was sort of my point.... even the qualifier "sometimes" presumes some sort of professional standard.... one which apparently does not exist in the area you mention.
Every religion has their own standards for certifying their ministers, and maybe there are a few that require training in some sort of counseling. But even at that, in many states there is no standard for calling yourself a "counselor". Here in my state, for example, all you need is a flat board and some paint........ and to be able to spell "counselor".
Personally, I would trust most ministers as "counselors" more than I would trust a professional counselor, simply because I don't think they are quite as subject to "peer pressure", as in the example Mark described. I think you're more likely to get the honest opinion of a minister.

reply from: kd78

basically my question was in response to sk1bianca. she said she goes to her priest when she has a problem.

reply from: Shenanigans

He may not have even been aware of the child or what an abortion was at the time, but chances are as he ages he will. We all give thought to "what ifs", what if you'd taken that job over your current one, what if you'd dated that guy instead of the one you're with, what if you'd bought the Ford instead of the Fiat, et cetera. Its only natural that the boy will at some point, give rise to the consideration of the sibling he had but was deprived of. He can experience grief based on what he could have had, as in the same way parents of a stillborn or SIDS baby do, they're not missing events or memories or even a personality of said child, they're greiving what they could have had, its a subtle difference, but no less damaging.
The concept of having an "emotional attachment" to a foetus by no mean deminishes the attachment to those of the born status, it goes without saying the child will be grieving for his mother in her current state. OF course, I do find fault with the Pro-Life movement when they give too much attention to the foetus at the expense of the mother. They are equal in value (or should be under the law).
My mother miscarried, if she hadn't, I'd have a brother who'd be a year younger then me. I often wonder what that woudl have been like, what he was like, what kind of dynamic he'd have brought to our family, would my younger sister, who's 18months younger then me have been adopted, probably not, which makes me wonder about what life she woudl have been given had my brother been born into this family. Its only natural for humans to consider what we could have had, even if it only existed for a brief moment in time.
No one can tell him how to feel, no matter how strange it may be to the rest of us.

reply from: sk1bianca

for orthodox christians it's more important the divine gift the priest has received from God, his knowledge of the christian faith and principles and his inner ability to counsel people rather than what we call professional training. not all priests can become confessors and counsel people. there's a special form or ordination for that.
rsg007, you have no idea HOW MUCH one can miss an aborted brother or sister...

reply from: carolemarie

which is why a grief counselor would be real help. We don't know what this child is feeling, which is the aim of counseling, to uncover the truth and find a way to cope with the loss and pain and have a happy healthy life.

reply from: fetalisa

Well Madeline Kara Neumann's parents put their faith in God and as a result, she died at the age of 11. Her parents now face a 25 year prison sentence for second degree reckless homicide, because withholding medical care from a child is just as abusive as withholding food or water from a child.
So the next time you decide to preach to others about relying on 'God's healing power,' you should at least be honest enough to warn parents they risk criminal charges and prison time if they do choose to rely on your invisible friend. It is a heinous CRIME of child abuse to withhold medical care from your child, simply because YOU would rather pray to fictional characters. The imbeciles this sweet child had for parents didn't even call an ambulance until she stopped breating, in spite of the fact she could no longer walk, talk, eat or drink. THAT's what waiting on Jesus brings you.
http://akamine2525.wordpress.com/tag/madeline-kara-neumann/

reply from: saucie

Well Madeline Kara Neumann's parents put their faith in God and as a result, she died at the age of 11. Her parents now face a 25 year prison sentence for second degree reckless homicide, because withholding medical care from a child is just as abusive as withholding food or water from a child.
So the next time you decide to preach to others about relying on 'God's healing power,' you should at least be honest enough to warn parents they risk criminal charges and prison time if they do choose to rely on your invisible friend. It is a heinous CRIME of child abuse to withhold medical care from your child, simply because YOU would rather pray to fictional characters. All this girl needed was insuling shots and praying to Zeus or the Tooth Fairy did NOT provide that.
http://akamine2525.wordpress.com/tag/madeline-kara-neumann/
Nazi troll aert.

reply from: fetalisa

ANYBODY can click on the link and see how these 'Godly' parents killed their child by waiting on the fictional character of Jesus to save their child, instead of getting her to doctors who could have easily saved her life with insulin. Why don't you address that point, particularly given how extremely concerned you claim to be regarding parents killing their children?

reply from: BossMomma

ANYBODY can click on the link and see how these 'Godly' parents killed their child by waiting on the fictional character of Jesus to save their child, instead of getting her to doctors who could have easily saved her life with insulin. Why don't you address that point, particularly given how extremely concerned you claim to be regarding parents killing their children?
While I agree it is stupid to pray instead of rush a child to a doctor for life saving medicine, I find it equally stupid to spit on someone's religion. You do not know whether Jesus is fictional, you don't know whether God exists or doesn't. I choose to believe in them both, however I also believe that God gave us doctors to work his healing art.

reply from: fetalisa

If the bible claims jesus said 'ask and it shall be given'
AND
these parents ASKED jesus to heal their daughter, based on what the bible said
AND
their daughter is now dead,
It seems to me we have ALL the information we NEED to know regarding the existence of jesus.
NOW, if we add into this the stories of talking animals found in the bible
AND
we consider the definition of the word 'fable' which is 'a short narrative which illustrates a moral point, and often using animals that act and speak as human
Our conclusions about religions and/or gods, based on what the bible says, become inescapable.
And when believers in this nonsense advise others to rely on god for healing, SOMEONE needs to point out that doing so leaves dead children and parents rotting in jail. If we DON'T point out that fact, we risk people finding themselves in the exact same boat, ie with dead children and rotting in jail.

reply from: lukesmom

Actually that girl IS healed and in the presence of God.
That said, I definantly do not agree with these parents as God is found in all of us. Doctors are technically God's hands and that girl could have been healed here on earth if her parents would have acted responsibly.

reply from: fetalisa

I could likewise claim she is healed and in the presence of the Tooth Fairy. You could no more disprove my claim than I could disprove yours.
EXCEPT, her parents were tried and convicted of withholding medical care, which led to her death. THAT IS FACT!
If that were true, then why is it that http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
They did ask responsibly. According to the bible, jesus said 'ask and it shall be given.' The parents asked. Jesus gave nothing. It is as if jesus doesn't exist at all.

reply from: leftsfoil

That's more than you might have given him.
By the way.. why are you still wearing that stupid graduation hat. You're supposed to take that off after your commencement pictures you know? What gives? Are you trying to convince us that you are an educated person? If that's it then I'm afraid it's not working so good. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable in a skunk skin hat? That would make more sense than that pretentiously goofy tassel hat you're wearing.

reply from: sk1bianca

fetalisa, if you ask for something, God will give it to you, but He won't put it in your bag... understand?
if someone gets sick we must pray for him AND go to the doctor. orthodox christianity preaches that very often a illness of the body is the result of an illness of the soul. so if you're sick you go and confess your sins (or call the priest if you're too sick to go to church), receive forgiveness and take the Holy Communion. this way your treat your soul first. after that you go to the doctor and treat your body.
orthodox christianity has nothing to do with the heretical fanatics you mentioned. God doesn't listen to their prayers.
you ask your mother to give you 100$. she gives you nothing. It is as if your mother doesn't exist at all...

reply from: kd78

fetalisa- why do you feel the need to rag on EVERYONE'S spiritual beliefs? i think it's terrible when people decide not to take their kids to doctors and just pray, but it doesn't mean that ALL people that pray are stupid and don't take their kids to the doctor.

reply from: fetalisa

As long as parents are jailed when the rely on invisible, fictional characters instead of doctors as a means of abusing their children, I will be happy. The parents right to appeal to invisible friends stops at the point where the child's rights to health and life begin.
Because even you know it is total foolishness to rely on jesus solely as the bible instructs you to do when it says 'ask and it shall be given.' If you knew those parts of the bible were true, neither of doctors nor insurance would be necessary. Since it ISN'T true, you know it is best to rely on doctors AND jesus, instead of solely relying on jesus.
Why do you support point so very clearly here? This little girl had Type 1 diabetes, ie congenital, ie, in the genes. It had nothing AT ALL to do with her soul and EVERYTHING to do with her DNA.
Talking to an invisible friend does not cure Type 1 diabetes, but insulin not only makes it manageable, but also would have allowed that little girl to live.
Then why do you suggest christians rely on doctors AND jesus, when in this case, only doctors would have actually kep this girl alive?
My mother is not invisible. jesus is.

reply from: fetalisa

The hair-brained religious ideas are at the bottom of the prolife argument. These hair-brained religious fantasies need to be exposed for exactly what they are. The studies demonstrably prove that prayer has no effect whatsoever. That means parents who withhold medical care and instead choose to have a conversation with invisible friends such as Zeus, the Big Bad Wolf or jesus are nothing beyond child abusers. The posted case proves the extreme danger of relying on invisible friends instead of turning to doctors who have well known, long-standing methods to treat diabetes.

reply from: BossMomma

If the bible claims jesus said 'ask and it shall be given'
AND
these parents ASKED jesus to heal their daughter, based on what the bible said
AND
their daughter is now dead,
It seems to me we have ALL the information we NEED to know regarding the existence of jesus.
NOW, if we add into this the stories of talking animals found in the bible
AND
we consider the definition of the word 'fable' which is 'a short narrative which illustrates a moral point, and often using animals that act and speak as human
Our conclusions about religions and/or gods, based on what the bible says, become inescapable.
And when believers in this nonsense advise others to rely on god for healing, SOMEONE needs to point out that doing so leaves dead children and parents rotting in jail. If we DON'T point out that fact, we risk people finding themselves in the exact same boat, ie with dead children and rotting in jail.
True, the bible does say ask and it shall be given when it should read ask and it shall be given if I feel you need it. I am not a biblical christian I am a spiritual christian. I believe true faith comes from the heart, not the man made books detailing a past civilization's take on it. I know that everything I have asked for I have recieved and it has furthered my faith.

reply from: fetalisa

Yet it REPEATS the 'ask and it shall be given' NUMEROUS times, without making the distinction.
I've never believed you were a literalist, based on your posts.

reply from: BossMomma

Yet it REPEATS the 'ask and it shall be given' NUMEROUS times, without making the distinction.
I've never believed you were a literalist, based on your posts.
The bible was written by man and is fallable, too many take it literally or to extremes.

reply from: sk1bianca

i just told you how MY faith, which i consider REAL christianity, handles physical illness and how it has nothing to do with those creeps who let their child die. i don't see what is your problem with praying. if you don't agree with it just mind your own business, don't mock other people's faith. we can live perfectly happy without knowing what an ignorant christian bashing freak you are...

reply from: fetalisa

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-prayer-prescription Those who don't understand this can end up with dead children. I thought PREVENTING dead children was important on this forum.
When the theists make claims that are PATENTLY FALSE, it is my duty to point out the falsehood, to prevent more dead children. I thought many on this board LIKED to prevent more dead children.
1. How does posting scientific FACTS, and providing the link so you can read it yourself, constitute 'ignorance?'
2. It has nothing to do with Christianity in particular. If one had posted one should pray to Allah or Vishnu, my points and links to back them up, would have been the same.
On a discussion forum where many seem to be horrified at 'baby killing' and 'child killing,' I would think the death of a child due to her parents' relying on appeals to invisible friends, which result in the death of the child, would be pertinent.

reply from: BossMomma

How can you claim to want to protect children when you wholly support their slaughter based on location and level of development? Abortion claims more children than any religion known to man.

reply from: fetalisa

Abortion doesn't kill children. Abortion kills ZEFs.

reply from: BossMomma

Abortion doesn't kill children. Abortion kills ZEFs.
And a ZEF is a child developing within the womb, not some seperate species. A human being is a person, for one cannot be a person without first being a human being. Abortion kills a child.

reply from: fetalisa

A ZEF is not considered a person within our law, because ZEFs LACK the traits of personhood. ZEFs have no consciousness, have no sentience, and have no mind. Children, even day old infants, have consciousness, have sentience and have minds.
A ZEF is a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person. We do not criminalize the killing of non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons in our society such as heads of cabbages or ZEFs. IF harm could be shown to result from killing the non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, then we might be inclined to criminalize such killings. However, given that 88% of all abortions occur by weeks 12-13, what is killed is mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious, not self-aware, so no harm results. That is not true were we to kill children or babies, who ARE self-aware, ARE conscious, ARE sentient and DO possess minds.
So you are free to PRETEND all you wish there is no difference between ZEFs and children. However, the differences are OBVIOUS to the rest of us and those differences are reflected in our law as to how we treat ZEFs as compared to children.

reply from: BossMomma

A ZEF is not considered a person within our law, because ZEFs LACK the traits of personhood. ZEFs have no consciousness, have no sentience, have no mind. Children, even day old infants, have consciousness, have sentience and have minds.
A ZEF is a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person. We do not criminalize the killing on non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons in our society such as heads of cabbages or ZEFs. IF harm could be show to result from killing the non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, then we might be inclined to criminalize such killings. However, given that 88% of all abortions occur by weeks 12-13, what is killed is mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious, not self-aware, so no harm results. That is not true were we to kill children or babies, who ARE self-aware, ARE conscious, ARE sentient and DO possess minds.
Actually we do criminalize it, Scott Peterson for example. Your excuse for condoning this slaughter is lack of sentience, a person in a vegetative coma is insensate and mindless yet they have rights. Law's change, at one time the unborn was seen as a baby, a human being, a person. Only since 1973 has abortion been legal, it was illegal for far longer so which law is right? The one that agrees with your frame of mind?

reply from: fetalisa

Fetal homicide laws have nothing to do with abortion, which is precisely why fetal homicide laws EXEMPT abortion from prosecution. All fetal homicide laws do is protect the woman's choice to carry to term. NO ONE has the right to supercede a woman's choice to carry a child to term.
Additionally, the warrants for Scott Peterson referred to Laci's death as a 'human being' while referring to the fetus as a 'fetus,' which means the warrants themselves do not support the point you made here. In other words, California law recognizes the differences between persons and fetuses whether you do or not.
That's but one part of it.
The rights of personhood are recognized at birth, which is why the rights of those in a vegetative coma are not in dispute.
The maternal death rates of abortion techniques in the mid to late 1800s are what led to abortion being outlawed, not concern for the life of ZEFs. If the maternal death rate from abortion was 80% today, abortion would still be banned.
Your assumption is abortion was banned in the past due to concern for the unborn. That is not the case. Abortion was banned in the past because it was deadly to women. It was not until abortion techniques became harmless that medical abortion could be legalized.

reply from: BossMomma

Fetal homicide laws have nothing to do with abortion, which is precisely why fetal homicide laws EXEMPT abortion from prosecution. All fetal homicide laws do is protect the woman's choice to carry to term. NO ONE has the right to supercede a woman's choice to carry a child to term.
.
Then why is it refered to as fetal homicide instead of simply distruction of private property? Homicide means a human being is unlawfully killed, the only difference between fetal homicide and abortion is legality. A human child is killed either way.

reply from: fetalisa

It is not homicide if the woman does not consent to a fetus using her uterus and her entire bodily resources in order to continue living, no more than it is homicide if I refuse you the use of my kidney, even though you will die without it. Forced organ donation does not exist in our law.
You do not have the right to decide a woman may not carry a ZEF to term. That is why fetal homicide laws exist. Why are they called 'fetal' homicide laws? It's because a person isn't killed. If a person was killed, it would simply be called 'homicide,' and no additional laws, nor qualifiers, would be necessary.
Abortion does not kill a child. Abortion kills a ZEF.

reply from: BossMomma

Fetalisa you have failed repeatedly in explaining just how an unborn child is not a child by hiding behind terms for a stage of development, or hiding behind laws. True or false, a fetus is the same species as the neonate?

reply from: fetalisa

Same species does not equal baby, child or person. Killing a 40 year old mother of three has consequences DRASTICALLY different than killing a ZEF and our law REFLECTS the different level of harm which results in both cases.
Tell me, what harm comes from killing a ZEF?

reply from: BossMomma

Same species does not equal baby, child or person. Killing a 40 year old mother of three has consequences DRASTICALLY different than killing a ZEF and our law REFLECTS the different level of harm which results in both cases.
Tell me, what harm comes from killing a ZEF?
The same harm that would come of killing the 40 year old mother of three, either way life goes on even though a humans life was ended prematurely and against the will of the individual.

reply from: fetalisa

The harm is not the same. If I had been aborted, none on the planet, including me, would have known the difference, whereas in the case of the murder of a 40 year old mother of three, a father loses a wife and three kids lose a mom.
Additionally, please explain how the will of a ZEF can be known, given ZEFs have no sentience, no consciousness, no self-awareness and no mind.

reply from: BossMomma

The harm is not the same. If I had been aborted, none on the planet, including me, would have known the difference, whereas in the case of the murder of a 40 year old mother of three, a father loses a wife and three kids lose a mom.
Additionally, please explain how the will of a ZEF can be known, given ZEFs have no sentience, no consciousness, no self-awareness and no mind.
If a fetus has no mind why do they respond to external stimuli even as early as 16 weeks? Why has science shown that a fetus can dream? You have no idea the level of sentience a fetus may or may not posess. All you know is that which agrees with you and that is all you are willing to accept.

reply from: fetalisa

That's autonomic response, not conscious response:
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain<----
In other words, the responses you mentioned originate in the spinal chord, NOT the brain. The same occurred with Terry Schiavo. Autonomic responses continued, even after her brain liquified.
Oh I can't wait to see the EVIDENCE which demonstrates dreaming is possible when the brain hasn't developed. Perhaps you have a link to the EVIDENCE which proves dreaming is possible with an undeveloped brain? (Good luck with this one! The human brain doesn't spring into existence, fully formed, at conception, but develops throughout gestation, but then again, these are the types of errors in logic you face when you pretend a person exists at conception.)
Actually, we are quite clear at the point when sentience occurs, or at least the lower boundary where sentience becomes possible:
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain
Now, given that 88% of abortions occur by weeks 12-13, how is it possible for all of those fetuses to have sentience, when sentience CAN'T exist prior to the 28th week, due to lack of developed nerve pathways?
Please feel free to refute the scientific FACTS I have presented. And to make it easier for you to REFUTE the evidence I have provided, should you so choose, I will even provide the qualifications for Dr. Mark Rosen, who I have cited here, including the link so anyone can read it for themselves:
http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/our_team/anesthesiologists.asp
(1) Professor and Vice Chairman of Anesthesia,
(2) Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences,
(3) Director of Obstetrical Anesthesia and
(4) Director of the Anesthesia Residency Training Program at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF).
Dr. Rosen graduated magna cum laude from the University of California Davis in both Zoology and Genetics, and magna cum laude from the UCSF School of Medicine. Dr. Rosen completed training in anesthesia and fellowship training in obstetrical anesthesia at UCSF (board certified), and has been a faculty member at UCSF since 1981.
Dr. Rosen restricts his practice primarily to anesthesia care for the pregnant patient, including anesthesia for obstetrics, surgery during pregnancy and for fetal surgery. Dr. Rosen has worked closely with Dr. Michael Harrison for the past eighteen years, both in the laboratory and in clinical care of fetal surgery patients. Dr. Rosen is available for consultation regarding anesthesia for fetal surgery through the UCSF Fetal Treatment Center.
Additionally, http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2008/02/09/the-first-ache-bioethics-beginning-of-life-matters/ In other words. Dr. Rosen pioneered the fetal anesthesia protocols in use all over this world and set the world standard, even to this very day.
Perhaps you care to argue with the good doctor? Or perhaps you believe the fetal surgeon who set the world standards for fetal anesthesia protocols is not qualified to comment on fetal sentience? Or perhaps you take some issue with his credentials which would lead us to reject his findings?
Now, what is the harm in killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF? How does that harm differ from killing a mindless, non-sentient head of cabbage?

reply from: BossMomma

If you can't differentiate between your species and a vegetable you're even more mixed up than I thought.
http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/ar
">http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/ar
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090413185734.htmticle1.htm

reply from: fetalisa

At no point have I claimed the unborn aren't human. What is the harm in killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF? How is that different from killing a mindless, non-sentient head of cabbage? Why are you avoiding the questions?

reply from: BossMomma

At no point have I claimed the unborn aren't human. What is the harm in killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF? Why are you avoiding the question?
The very fact that they are fellow human beings, it is not less harmful to kill one human being than it is to kill another based on level of development.

reply from: fetalisa

The results are drastically different. If a 40 year old mother of three is killed, a husband loses a wife and three kids lose a mother. What harm results from killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF? Why would we criminalize killing mindless non-sentient entities? We don't criminalize killing a mindless, non-sentient head of cabbage, so why criminalize killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF?
Saying 'it's human' isn't an answer, because the question is what harm results from killing that which is mindless and non-sentient?

reply from: BossMomma

The results are drastically different. If a 40 year old mother of three is killed, a husband loses a wife and three kids lose a mother. What harm results from killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF? Why would we criminalize killing mindless non-sentient entities? We don't criminalize killing a mindless, non-sentient head of cabbage, so why criminalize killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF?
Saying 'it's human' isn't an answer, because the question is what is harm results from killing that which is mindless and non-sentient?
That question has been answered already, twice. Picking and choosing which humans are people based upon location and development is rather Nazi-esque.

reply from: fetalisa

You have yet to demonstrate what harm results from killing mindless, non-sentient entities. All you have to say is 'it's human,' which does not demonstrate the harm of killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be heads of cabbages or ZEFs.
If your position is that abortion is morally wrong, it should be trivial to demonstrate the harm which results from killing mindless, non-sentient ZEFs, yet you can't or won't.
Until you can demonstrate the harm that results from killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be heads of cabbages or ZEFs, I have no reason to believe abortion causes harm and therefore no reason to believe abortion should be illegal.
Why criminalize that which causes no harm? As it is presently, the most we can say is abortion is a victimless crime, since what is killed is mindless, has no sentience, lacks a developed brain and so is no different than chopping a head of cabbage. So why criminalize it?

reply from: BossMomma

You have yet to demonstrate what harm results from killing mindless, non-sentient entities. All you have to say is 'it's human,' which does not demonstrate the harm of killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be heads of cabbages or ZEFs.
If your position is that abortion is morally wrong, it should be trivial to demonstrate the harm which results from killing mindless, non-sentient ZEFs, yet you can't or won't.
Until you can demonstrate the harm that results from killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be heads of cabbages or ZEFs, I have no reason to believe abortion causes harm and therefore no reason to believe abortion should be illegal.
Why criminalize that which causes no harm? As it is presently, the most we can say is abortion is a victimless crime, since what is killed is mindless, has no sentience, lacks a developed brain and so is no different than chopping a head of cabbage. So why criminalize it?
A fetus has a brain therefore it is not mindless, the brain is a functioning organ with god only knows what thought process so to call a fetus mindless and insensate is a lie pure and simple.

reply from: fetalisa

What proof do you have a mind can exist when the brain is not yet developed?

reply from: CharlesD

Not to be overly simplistic, but the death of a human being is the usual result of this. I know some people have a hard time getting their minds around that, but it really is that simple.

reply from: fetalisa

Please describe, WITH SPECIFICITY, the horrific and terrible consequences which are wrought on society by this death.

reply from: fetalisa

When you can pose an argument that relies on something other than utter nonsense, I will be more than happy to answer you. In the meantime, look up the definitions of 'child abuse' and 'reckless homicide' to educate yourself.

reply from: fetalisa

Immaterial and irrelevant given 88% of abortions occur by weeks 12-13 when sentience is nonexistent due to lack of a developed brain. None in their right mind would argue abortion should be legal up to the day before birth anyway, nor has anyone argued such should be the case in this thread.

reply from: fetalisa

Please describe, WITH SPECIFICITY, the horrific and terrible consequences which are wrought on society by this death.

reply from: fetalisa

An explanation isn't necessary unless one is an imbecile. If you kill me and tell the judge I wasn't a person, therefore you are not guilty, you go to jail anyway.

reply from: fetalisa

Please describe, WITH SPECIFICITY, the horrific and terrible consequences which are wrought on society by this death.

reply from: fetalisa

My claim is abortion causes no harm to society, which is why it should be legal. If you claim it should be banned, then you should be able to demonstrate the harm which results from abortion. What is the harm that results from killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be ZEFs or heads of cabbage? What are the terrible and horrific consequences to our society of killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF?

reply from: fetalisa

I do not see how abortion is harmful to society. Yet the prolife claim it is. I therefore ask what are the horrific and terrible consequences that result whenever a mindless, non-sentient ZEF is killed. The last time I raised this question, you claimed someone might decide I am not a person tomorrow, allowing me to be legally killed. I pointed out such had not happened in the 35 years since Roe was decided, nor had such happened in any western democracy where abortion was allowed. What else do you have? Or do you have anything else?

reply from: fetalisa

It is a trick question which assumes there are no differences between ZEFs and people. There are DRASTIC differences between ZEFs and people. Killing a 40 year old mother of three has DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT consequences than killing a ZEF. In the case of the 40 year old mother of three, a husband loses a wife and three kids lose a mom. What are the horrific and terrible consequences which result from killing a ZEF?

reply from: fetalisa

I get it. You have no horrific and terrible consequences which result from killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF via abortion. But then, how could you? The horrific and terrible consequences of killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF are no different than the horrific and terrible consequences of killing a mindless, non-sentient cabbage, which oddly enough, is also legal.

reply from: fetalisa

All you have to do is READ:

reply from: fetalisa

How can one be aware of horrific and terrible consequences when one lacks a developed brain, which means one lacks sentience and consciousness, etc? Had I been aborted, none of the planet would have known the difference including me, so what is the harm?

reply from: fetalisa

I will not respond to posts which beg me to belabor the blatantly obvious.

reply from: fetalisa

Hardly. Had I been aborted at 12-13 weeks of gestation, as is the case with 88% of ZEFs killed via abortion, none on the planet would have known the difference. The reason I would not have known the difference, is due to lack of sentience, which is due to lack of a developed brain.
Had I been aborted, you are arguing I would be harmed, even though I wasn't even aware of my own existence.

reply from: fetalisa

Were I to assume that, I would be insulting your intelligence. I know better. You are smarter than that.

reply from: fetalisa

I refuse to believe you are too stupid to not understand three children losing a mother to murder weakens society because it weakens the tribe.

reply from: fetalisa

Hardly. Had I been aborted at 12-13 weeks of gestation, as is the case with 88% of ZEFs killed via abortion, none on the planet would have known the difference. The reason I would not have known the difference, is due to lack of sentience, which is due to lack of a developed brain.
Had I been aborted, you are arguing I would be harmed, even though I wasn't even aware of my own existence. Where's the logic?

reply from: BossMomma

How can one be aware of horrific and terrible consequences when one lacks a developed brain, which means one lacks sentience and consciousness, etc? Had I been aborted, none of the planet would have known the difference including me, so what is the harm?
Are you claiming that every aborted fetus is anecephalic? The majority of abortions performed are on healthy fetuses that have a brain. Your constant reference to mindless non-sentient fetuses is an absolute lie and you need to admit it, at least to yourself.

reply from: fetalisa

The majority (88%) of abortions occur by weeks 12-13 when the brain is not fully developed, which is how we know sentience can not exist prior to week 28, if we are to believe the doctor who pioneered the world standards for fetal anaesthesia protocols.
Where is the proof that a mind can exist in an undeveloped brain when it is scientific FACT sentience can not exist prior to the 28th week? Where is the proof a mind can exist when sentience does not?

reply from: fetalisa

What are the terrible and horrific consequences of killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF, aside from taking the life of an entity that's not even aware it exists?

reply from: fetalisa

What is the impact on society? Why don't you answer the question?

reply from: fetalisa

I know why you refuse to answer the question. There are no other terrible and horrific consequences to talking the life of a mindless, non-sentient ZEF via abortion.
Anyone else care to answer the following question?
What are the terrible and horrific consequences of killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF, aside from taking the life of an entity that's not even aware it exists?

reply from: BossMomma

The majority (88%) of abortions occur by weeks 12-13 when the brain is not fully developed, which is how we know sentience can not exist prior to week 28, if we are to believe the doctor who pioneered the world standards for fetal anaesthesia protocols.
Where is the proof that a mind can exist in an undeveloped brain when it is scientific FACT sentience can not exist prior to the 28th week? Where is the proof a mind can exist when sentience does not?
You said fetuses, refering to all fetuses. At 12 weeks the brain is there, however the nerves are underdeveloped. However fetuses as young as 12 weeks have been seen sucking their thumbs. Justifying the killing by basis of brain function and sentience could justify the killing of those in a coma as they are just as sentient with just as much brain function.

reply from: BossMomma

How can one be aware of horrific and terrible consequences when one lacks a developed brain, which means one lacks sentience and consciousness, etc? Had I been aborted, none of the planet would have known the difference including me, so what is the harm?
Are you claiming that every aborted fetus is anecephalic? The majority of abortions performed are on healthy fetuses that have a brain. Your constant reference to mindless non-sentient fetuses is an absolute lie and you need to admit it, at least to yourself.
It's really not a relevant point to start with. It is an obvious diversion....
Bleh, haven't had my coffee yet, gimme a break yo?

reply from: fetalisa

Which is autonomic, not conscious response, as has been shown by the quotes of the doctor who pioneered the world standards for fetal anaesthesia protocols.
Then why hasn't that occurred even once in the 35 years since Roe was decided? Why hasn't that occurred in ANY western democracy where abortion is legal? And what evidence do you have which demonstrates constitutional rights are revoked when one lapses into a coma?

reply from: sk1bianca

you can find a better use for your time talking to a rock than talking to fetalisa...

reply from: fetalisa

How many times does the example of the murder of a 40 year old mother of three need to be pointed out to you?

reply from: fetalisa

Then we are clear. The only harm which results from abortion is the death of a mindless, non-sentient entity which is not even aware of its own existence, no different than chopping a cabbage, which oddly enough, is also legal.

reply from: BossMomma

Which is autonomic, not conscious response, as has been shown by the quotes of the doctor who pioneered the world standards for fetal anaesthesia protocols.
Then why hasn't that occurred even once in the 35 years since Roe was decided? Why hasn't that occurred in ANY western democracy where abortion is legal? And what evidence do you have which demonstrates constitutional rights are revoked when one lapses into a coma?
damn touch pad, replied before I could post lol. Already Texas hospitals can choose to allow a patient to die by removing life support without concent based on the family's ability to continue paying. http://medicalfutility.blogspot.com/2009/03/baby-ot-dies-after-life-support-removed.html

In trivializing human life you are playing God, deciding who is to live and who is to die, no human in this world should have that moral right to take an innocent life.

reply from: fetalisa

All you have to do is READ:
How does YOUR failure to READ my posts, constitute a failure on MY part?

reply from: BossMomma

All you have to do is READ:
How does your failure to READ my posts, constitute a failure on MY part?
Your argument is a dog that just wont hunt, it ain't going anywhere. The fact is NO human's death has horrific consequences for society as a whole. Every minute someone dies and yet we sit here blithely unaware as though nothing has happened at all. However it does not make the deaths any more or less wrong because the whole of society doesn't attend the funeral.

reply from: BossMomma

How many times does the example of the murder of a 40 year old mother of three need to be pointed out to you?
How does her death effect anyone beyond her family? Will the family around the block that doesn't even know her be effected?

reply from: fetalisa

How does the murder of a mother of three NOT impact society, leaving our entire society weaker since three children have one less caretaker?
In the case of the murder of a 40 year old mother of three, the consequences ARE horrific, since three children no longer have a mother. Such is not the case when a ZEF is killed.

reply from: BossMomma

How does the murder of a mother of three NOT impact society, leaving our entire society weaker since three children have one less caretaker?
In the case of the murder of a 40 year old mother of three, the consequences ARE horrific, since three children no longer have a mother. Such is not the case when a ZEF is killed.
How is society weaker for the loss of these children's mother? People die and new are born to replace them, such is the way of life. You still have no argument so give the dead 40 year old a break.

reply from: fetalisa

I know a woman whose life was forever altered for the worse after her mother died in a car accident when this woman was five years old.
ZEFs die and new are born to replace them, such is the way of life. Finally, we agree!
How odd it is to see you be so cavalier about dead, 40 year old mothers, without even a smidgen of sympathy for the motherless children, yet somehow, you still manage to find a dead ZEF to be horrific. You are prolife in the case of mindless, non-sentient ZEFs, but in the case of a murdered 40 year old sentient, fully and unquestionably conscious, sapient mother, all you have to say is 'people die and new are born to replace them.'
So much for being prolife. You just proved what I knew all along about the prolife and their so-called moral high ground. You very obviously value the mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious ZEF far more than you value the life of the sentient, fully and unquestionably conscious, sapient mother. Your morals disgust me.
I beg to differ. Why don't you give her a break instead of the ZEFs?

reply from: fetalisa

What if the unborn is to be quadriplegic? What if the unborn will turn out to be a rapist or serial killer? You have no way of knowing, so your argument here is nonsense. Addtionally, a 40 year old mother could well be hitting or about to hit the peak of her career, giving her far greater ability to contribute to society than the unborn.

reply from: fetalisa

She would know other people due to her social interactions in the world. Those people would be harmed due to the pain they felt at her death. The same is not true of a ZEF, who has no ability to interact with others at the level the 40 year old mother can.

reply from: fetalisa

I know a woman whose life was forever altered for the worse after her mother died in a car accident when this woman was five years old.
ZEFs die and new are born to replace them, such is the way of life. Finally, we agree!
How odd it is to see you be so cavalier about dead, 40 year old mothers, without even a smidgen of sympathy for the motherless children, yet somehow, you still manage to find a dead ZEF to be horrific. You are prolife in the case of mindless, non-sentient ZEFs, but in the case of a murdered 40 year old sentient, fully and unquestionably conscious, sapient mother, all you have to say is 'people die and new are born to replace them.'
So much for being prolife. You just proved what I knew all along about the prolife and their so-called moral high ground. You very obviously value the mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious ZEF far more than you value the life of the sentient, fully and unquestionably conscious, sapient mother. Your morals disgust me.
I beg to differ. Why don't you give her a break instead of the ZEFs?

reply from: fetalisa

You are the one who has yet to demonstrate the harm of killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be cabbages or ZEFs.
Every one of your posts is an attempt at diversion, rather than addressing the issues raised. You will have to take your con games elsewhere, because I won't play them.

reply from: fetalisa

Excuse me, but exactly WHO is trivializing human life?

reply from: fetalisa

Then what are the horrific and terrible consequences of killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF, other than the fact the mindless, non-sentient ZEF loses a life that it's not even aware that it has?
In other words, what are the horrific and terrible consequences of killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be cabbages or ZEFs?
Don't divert. Answer and enlighten instead.

reply from: fetalisa

If you refuse to answer the question, there is no need for you to post a response. What do you hope to accomplish by making post after post while ignoring the question posed? We all know why you won't answer it. You fool no one.
So to any aside from concernedparent:
What are the horrific and terrible consequences of killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF, other than the fact the mindless, non-sentient ZEF loses a life that it's not even aware that it has?
In other words, what are the horrific and terrible consequences of killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be cabbages or ZEFs?

reply from: BossMomma

I know a woman whose life was forever altered for the worse after her mother died in a car accident when this woman was five years old
So society is comprised of only one woman? I thought society was comprised of several unrelated members of a given community. Was the guy two blocks down from this woman horribly effected by her death? Was the neighbor across the street from her grief stricken? Society is not comprised of only the family members of the deceased 40 year old.

reply from: fetalisa

Society is a 'tribe' that is weakened when a child of that triobe permanently loses a caretaker.
Now, I answered your question so it's your turn to answer mine:
What are the horrific and terrible consequences of killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF, other than the fact the mindless, non-sentient ZEF loses a life that it's not even aware that it has?
In other words, what are the horrific and terrible consequences of killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be cabbages or ZEFs?

reply from: BossMomma

Society is a 'tribe' that is weakened when a child of that triobe permanently loses a caretaker.
Now, I answered your question so it's your turn to answer mine:
What are the horrific and terrible consequences of killing a mindless, non-sentient ZEF, other than the fact the mindless, non-sentient ZEF loses a life that it's not even aware that it has?
In other words, what are the horrific and terrible consequences of killing mindless, non-sentient entities, whether they be cabbages or ZEFs?
LOL Society is a tribe? Since when? Where do you live, a reservation? Four hours ago a funeral procession cruised down the main road by my house, nothing has changed about my day, I am uneffected, I didn't know the deceased, didn't know the family yet, if the deceased were murdered the killer would still be guilty of the crim committed. I have already answered your idiot question yet because it is not an answer you agree with you ignore it.

reply from: lukesmom

Lord, I love you, CP!

reply from: sk1bianca

in romania, since the legalization of abortion in 1989, an average of 250.000 babies are killed every year (1 million in 1990). that's A LOT for a country with 22 million people. our population is rapidly aging and decreasing, there are no more young people to support the pension ans social assistance system. there are more abortions than live births. and to think it's legal only up to 12 weeks...
there you have it! abortion harms society!

reply from: saucie

Of course it does, but the proaborts only care about this this day, this minute and themselves.
When it's their turn to collect....I hope they rot waiting.


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