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.
Where in the article does it say anything about the health of the mother? Where does it say anything about the mother's life being at risk? I don't see it anywhere. Therefore the need for an abortion is negated.
Health of the mother is mentioned here:
Quote:
She said her doctors consulted attorneys about exceptions in the law because of the risk of infection that might destroy her chances of ever getting pregnant again.
"What we wanted," she said, "was our labor induced so that I would go into labor and give birth to her and the outcome of her life would not have been different."
"My health was at risk, as well," she added. "We decided going forward it [premature labor] would be inevitable and we wanted nature to take its course. We were told we couldn't do that.
Deaver wanted to induce labor to try and save the child if possible, but the law would not let that happen. And if you did read the article, then it's quite callous of you to suggest that the risk of becoming infertile is not sufficient for you to be "anything about the health of the mother."
Where in the article does it say anything about the health of the mother? Where does it say anything about the mother's life being at risk? I don't see it anywhere. Therefore the need for an abortion is negated.
While the outcome would have been the same had she been induced, it's a matter of principle. When a family member becomes terminally ill, we don't euthanize them like a dog, we keep them comfortable and let them die a natural death. Why should it be any different for an unborn baby? It's not a matter of abortion, it's really a matter of euthanasia.
What I see here is shameless liberals in the media exploiting this woman's tragedy to advance their anti-life leftist agenda. Liberals truly are heartless creatures.
It's funny, for all the talk about how government death panels would decide who "needed" health care and rationing it out, you just pointed out the gaping hypocrisy of many who expressed that creed. Who are you to decide that, because the woman's life was at risk, there was no "need" for abortion? IMO, that is for the woman to decide for herself, she doesn't need opinions from others on when there is a "need" to induce childbirth.
You're probably right, the result would have been the same-- it was not a viable fetus. But maybe she didn't want to go through the trauma of having to go through childbirth and watching the baby gasp for air for 15 minutes. Maybe the pregnancy would have gone on longer and she would have had to watch a fully developed baby suffocate to death. Had it been induced earlier, it could have been stillborn and not had to go through suffering.
.....
What I see here is shameless liberals in the media exploiting this woman's tragedy to advance their anti-life leftist agenda. Liberals truly are heartless creatures.
On Dec. 8, Daniel delivered 1-pound, 10-ounce Elizabeth, who survived only 15 minutes outside the womb. Now, three months later, Danielle Deaver has contacted Planned Parenthood. She said that so far she is not contemplating a challenged to the law. "Part of how I am dealing with this is speaking out," she said. "I hope to help someone else who is going through this awful situation. ... I don't know at what point a baby feels pain. But if that is the argument for the basis of 20 weeks, how could they let my baby go through this?" "It was an awful thing we had to do," she said. "This should not have been news. It should have been between just my doctor, my husband and myself, privately, in his office." The Deavers have not taken a public stand on abortion, they said, and don't consider that to be the issue. "That's why this law is so frustrating," she said. "We don't want to say what our politics are. It doesn't matter and it's irrelevant."
Who are the heartless ones? Assuming the fetus could actually feel pain then the current law requires that the suffering continue until delivery occurs naturally. In this case, eight days of pain inside a uterus that was slowly crushing fetus.
Who are the heartless ones? Assuming the fetus could actually feel pain then the current law requires that the suffering continue until delivery occurs naturally. In this case, eight days of pain inside a uterus that was slowly crushing fetus.
What's really odd about this whole situation is that anti-life liberals constantly claim that it's not a person until it's born, than an unborn baby is "just a clump of cells" and can't feel pain to justify abortion, yet as soon as the argument becomes inconvenient, they claim the opposite, that is that an unborn baby is a person and can feel pain and that an abortion ends their pain and suffering. This just goes to show you the lengths that liberals will go to in order to justify baby-killing. First it's not a baby, but then when they feel like it, it is a baby an abortion alleviates its suffering. If this is not the epitome of liberal hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.
What's really odd about this whole situation is that anti-life liberals constantly claim that it's not a person until it's born, than an unborn baby is "just a clump of cells" and can't feel pain to justify abortion, yet as soon as the argument becomes inconvenient, they claim the opposite, that is that an unborn baby is a person and can feel pain and that an abortion ends their pain and suffering. This just goes to show you the lengths that liberals will go to in order to justify baby-killing. First it's not a baby, but then when they feel like it, it is a baby an abortion alleviates its suffering. If this is not the epitome of liberal hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.
My outlook here is that Republicans have been so single-minded in their attempts to restrict, if not outright outlaw abortion that they are drafting legislation too sloppily to take care of somebody like Deaver. This legislation is being drafted by people with no actual medical background, so it reflects a political judgment that leaves difficulties for other women seeking what would otherwise be legitimate medical procedures.
My outlook here is that Republicans have been so single-minded in their attempts to restrict, if not outright outlaw abortion that they are drafting legislation too sloppily to take care of somebody like Deaver. This legislation is being drafted by people with no actual medical background, so it reflects a political judgment that leaves difficulties for other women seeking what would otherwise be legitimate medical procedures.
As I said before, her life wasn't in danger? What good would an abortion have done her?
What I find truly sad is how many posters are so callous on here. Have any of you had to deliver a baby you knew was dying? The articles clearly state this mother and father did not want an abortion, they simply did not want their baby to suffer. They asked that she be induced, inducing a mother is not aborting a baby. The article also said the same thing had happened in an earlier pg, this time at 15 weeks and the doctors induced her that time.
As I said before, her life wasn't in danger? What good would an abortion have done her?
There is an increased risk of infection for the mother, anytime a woman's water breaks prematurely there is a risk of infection and usually doctors will try and deliver the baby.
What's really odd about this whole situation is that anti-life liberals constantly claim that it's not a person until it's born, than an unborn baby is "just a clump of cells" and can't feel pain to justify abortion, yet as soon as the argument becomes inconvenient, they claim the opposite, that is that an unborn baby is a person and can feel pain and that an abortion ends their pain and suffering. This just goes to show you the lengths that liberals will go to in order to justify baby-killing. First it's not a baby, but then when they feel like it, it is a baby an abortion alleviates its suffering. If this is not the epitome of liberal hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.
I'm fine with the concept of the mother making the choice in consultation with her physician and anyone else she chooses to consult with.
The reason the issue of pain is being raised in this case is that the justification for the current law is that the fetus can feel pain. Assuming that is the case then this fetus was in a lot of pain and the law prevented any attempts at relieving that pain.
An analogy would be denying someone a high risk heart surgery because the surgery itself might kill them. Without the surgery they are guaranteed to die shortly, but naturally. Only with the surgery do they have any hope.
In this case the fetus was slowly being killed in the fetus and any attempt to remove it from the fetus where denied because of the law.
As I said before, her life wasn't in danger? What good would an abortion have done her?
The article states that at the very least, her ability to ever have a child again was in danger. Inducing labor early so the child could be born and live as long as the child could have would allow 1) the child to be born at all; and 2) lower the risk that the mother might now be infertile.
They were not seeking an abortion, just an early inducement of labor. But the anti-abortion law passed in the state did not distinguish between the two. You seem to have trouble making that distinction as well.
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.
