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.
Plus, we all know that any woman who has carried a pregnancy to term before is 100% likely to carry her second pregnancy to term. Like, duh. Everyone knows that.
Plus, we all know that any woman who has carried a pregnancy to term before is 100% likely to carry her second pregnancy to term. Like, duh. Everyone knows that.
it's easy stuff really heck I can give birth and continue to work the crops without so much as a bottle water
I've never heard of a uterus "crushing" an infant and an internet search gave me no information on this "condition". She had already had a normal pregnancy and a healthy child so I am mystified about exactly what was causing her presumably healthy uterus to "crush" this second baby. Something doesn't sound right here. Also note this is a blog posting by someone other than the woman who lost this baby. Other than her water breaking early, there really isn't enough information in the article to tell us everything we need to know before coming to any conclusions.
Robb Deaver, an emergency room admission staffer, raced his wife to the hospital, hopeful when doctors told them the pregnancy was not necessarily over. Sometimes, women make more amniotic fluid, they said.
But the next day, an ultrasound showed little amniotic fluid around the baby and Danielle was confined to 24 hours bed rest.
Two days later, she consulted a perinatologist who diagnosed anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before a fetus has achieved viability.
Bolded text is your search term; it's the name of the condition that ended the pregnancy.
The following article contains more information. Apparently the father and mother spent some of the 8 days trying to save the pregnancy. She was also confined to bed rest trying to save the fetus. Their request was to induce delivery not perform an abortion.
Thanks for the link. The ABC article gives a much better explanation that the blog linked to in the OP. This is certainly a sad case. I'm thinking it might be time for Nebraska legislators to go back to the drawing board and find some other way to keep their constituents happy re: abortion.
I'm not saying it doesn't, but this is why we shouldn't have laws restricting access to abortion. Why does a room of mostly white men know what is best for a woman? I think women know what is best for themselves, and if they are wrong, this is a free country and they should at least have the option to make their own decisions. Why do we need nanny government telling a woman when she can have an abortion?
Oh noes...here goes the race card again TWICE IN THE SAME DAY!
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.
I dont mean this to be smart but was she a republican or conservative? People in this country vote against their own self interest all the time.
Thanks for the link. The ABC article gives a much better explanation that the blog linked to in the OP. This is certainly a sad case. I'm thinking it might be time for Nebraska legislators to go back to the drawing board and find some other way to keep their constituents happy re: abortion.
I disagree... why should constituents have any say in a woman's relationship with her uterus? I didn't realize that a woman's uterus was of any interest to the public. If her uterus causes constituents unhappiness, we've got big problems in Nebraska.
Many men are having fertility problems due to laptops overheating their testicles, but we certainly don't see government-restricted testicle temperature on the ballot anywhere
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.
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.
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.
heck I can give birth and continue to work the crops without so much as a bottle water 
