Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uterus crushing a fetus.... isn't that by definition, an abortion? Why are we arguing for a man-made one versus a natural abortion? Is crushing a fetus by man better than by nature? Is there really a difference? I find the whole thing tragic... but it takes liberals to turn a tragedy into their own selfish ideological battle cry... how rare is it to have something like this...
Uterus crushing a fetus.... isn't that by definition, an abortion? Why are we arguing for a man-made one versus a natural abortion? Is crushing a fetus by man better than by nature? Is there really a difference? I find the whole thing tragic... but it takes liberals to make tragedy and make it their ideological call...
The argument is that a fetus that was pretty much nonviable needlessly suffered for 8 days. Which is what the law was supposed to prevent. The law was enacted with the argument that the fetus feels pain. So why subject a fetus that is going to die, a fetus that doesn't even have properly functioning lungs to needless pain?
Its a very simple argument. Even a conservative should be able to understand it. But then again they enacted this ideological pointless law....
You yourself state that that the difference between man vs. nature is irrelevent. So if the fetus is not going to survive, why cause it more pain?
Perhaps the state should add in a clause that gives the doctors some discretion for rare but documented cases like this.
And this is exactly why it is wrong for a room of men to legislate what a woman does with her body. Because of Nebraska state law, this baby was born deformed and suffered for 15 minutes before dying mercifully.
Well this is strange. How could there have been suffering for 15 minutes after birth yet there is no suffering 15 minutes before birth as with partial birth abortion?
Did the OP actually read the linked article? It's link takes one to Minnesota law, not Nebraska law. Link the actual Nebraska statues please or the foundation of your argument is suspect hyperbole at best.
This was answered, but see also the lik in post #71. The Des Moines Register looked at the mom's medical records (with her permission) and corroborated the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden
Firstly, you really shouldn't have to go to another state to get what is standard care for a medical condition.
Secondly, she wanted the baby; the only reason to induce was that the baby would not survive and she could end up dead or infertile due to infection. Both of these are incompatible with having more children, which the Deavers want.
Thirdly, have you looked at a map? Grand Isle, Nebraska is HOURS from any place where she could have the procedure done. South Dakota (the coathanger state) to the north, Kansas to the south (Dr. Tiller's clinic is closed due to terrorism), and the other states are significant travel to get to a large enough metropolitan area to find someone to induce. Not so easy.
404 miles to Denver, 403 to Cheyenne, Wyoming. I don't know what Wyo's abortion laws are. In Denver, you could get an abortion for her condition.
This was answered, but see also the lik in post #71. The Des Moines Register looked at the mom's medical records (with her permission) and corroborated the story.
404 miles to Denver, 403 to Cheyenne, Wyoming. I don't know what Wyo's abortion laws are. In Denver, you could get an abortion for her condition.
it should be illegal to force a woman in pain to drive over 400 miles to get medical care
The argument is that a fetus that was pretty much nonviable needlessly suffered for 8 days. Which is what the law was supposed to prevent. The law was enacted with the argument that the fetus feels pain. So why subject a fetus that is going to die, a fetus that doesn't even have properly functioning lungs to needless pain?
Its a very simple argument. Even a conservative should be able to understand it. But then again they enacted this ideological pointless law....
You yourself state that that the difference between man vs. nature is irrelevent. So if the fetus is not going to survive, why cause it more pain?
Perhaps the state should add in a clause that gives the doctors some discretion for rare but documented cases like this.
Suffered??? Excuse me, I thought the WHOLE premise about fetus was that they did not SUFFER in the uterus, thus cutting them up was okay... now you say they suffer? Which is it? Do you guys make up things as you go along? Which one is less painful being cut into pieces or being crushed... REALLY?
Suffered??? Excuse me, I thought the WHOLE premise about babies was that they did not SUFFER in the uterus, thus cutting them up was okay... now you say they suffer? Which is it? Do you guys make up things as you go along? Which one is less painful being cut into pieces or being crushed... REALLY?
The issue of when a fetus' nervous system is developed enough to feel pain is still in doubt, scientifically. However, the law in this case is predicated on the law's assertion that fetal pain is present at 20 weeks.
So the conservatives of the Nebraska state legislature would seem to be the people who are making things up.
Suffered??? Excuse me, I thought the WHOLE premise about fetus was that they did not SUFFER in the uterus, thus cutting them up was okay... now you say they suffer? Which is it? Do you guys make up things as you go along? Which one is less painful being cut into pieces or being crushed... REALLY?
a 6 week fetus is way different in development than an 8 month baby. the ability to feel pain before birth is debatable and if it can feel pain it is late in the pregnancy 26 weeks or more.
Well this is strange. How could there have been suffering for 15 minutes after birth yet there is no suffering 15 minutes before birth as with partial birth abortion?
Know thine facts! There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. In the very few cases of late-term abortion that are actually performed, the standard procedure is to stop the baby/fetus heart prior to the procedure, which in most cases is induction.
Know thine facts! There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. In the very few cases of late-term abortion that are actually performed, the standard procedure is to stop the baby/fetus heart prior to the procedure, which in most cases is induction.
Sure there is partial birth abortion, euphemisms may make you feel better, but the fetus, if it had the right, would differ.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
