Nightangel - its very easy
to say you'd continue such a pregnancy but
I know women who have been as strong
minded as you (pro-life) yet faced with a
certain situation have aborted for reasons
similar to
this.
As have I.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2766 Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:18
online
Posted: 04-04-07 18:06pm
Birch
wrote:
I think they were in denial, and refused
to do anything about it because, like
purestgreen actually said, "That choice
takes away the feeling of guilt because it
is not your hand (or consent) that kills
your baby but the hand of God (or
nature)." They didn't want to be
proactive because they were selfish and
afraid. The
End.
birch they were not afraid. These are
people that walk in faith, that's
something that you can't realize because
you don't know god the way we do. They
were hoping for a miracle and there is
nothing wrong with that. I hope you
understand that there is people out there
that don't want to kill their babies.
Doesn't mean they are afraid, they just
don't like to do that.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-04-07 23:41pm
nightangel73
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
I think they were in denial, and refused
to do anything about it because, like
purestgreen actually said, "That choice
takes away the feeling of guilt because it
is not your hand (or consent) that kills
your baby but the hand of God (or
nature)." They didn't want to be
proactive because they were selfish and
afraid. The
End.
birch they were not afraid. These are
people that walk in faith, that's
something that you can't realize because
you don't know god the way we
do.
Woah, Woah, Woah.
You're presuming .w.a.y too much here.
First, no one said anything about fear.
She said they were in denial and that they
refused to make a choice because it can
take the feeling of guilt away. If you
refuse to make a choice, that is still a
choice (sorry to quote rush). And in this
particular case, the inaction resulted in
a live birth that was most assuredly
painful for the little girl. Their
choices since that time have been messed
up and it wouldn't surprise me if they and
their children won't need therapy for
many, many years to go. There is a
pattern to mourning and they have decided
not to follow it when really it's not
their choice. If you repress and refuse
to go through the process, you end up
having problems later on. This is
documented.
Secondly, just because we don't follow
your particular brand of "christianity"
doesn't mean that we don't have a
relationship with the divine or cannot
understand where another person on a
different path is coming from. It is arrogant
to assume and presume that your way is the
only way to believe and that only you on
this board know god or have faith.
Quote:
They were hoping
for a miracle and there is nothing wrong
with that.
Actually, yes there is.
There are people in this world, mostly
religious, who are "fatalists." Fatalists
believe that there is nothing they can do
to change things except to pray. When
their condition gets better, it is god's
will, not the medicine or the professional
care. When they die, it is god's will.
In this case, however, she put her own
life in danger knowing that there was no
hope. There has .n.e.v.e.r been a "miracle"
with this particular genetic defect. They
can hope all they want but it was still
negligent to keep the pregnancy, risk the
Woman's health and life, and then subject
the infant to about three hours of intense
pain before dying.
It can be
more compassionate to obtain an abortion
than to subject a child to intense
physical agony. It was a dangerous
thing to leave the pregnancy hoping for a
miracle. God has never grown someone's
limb back after it was removed even though
amputees pray for miracles constantly. There are some
things that God has never shown that s/he
can or will do and one of them is
save a fetus with this grave defect.
It was a stupid and indifferent decision.
Just as it
is compassionate to take someone off of
life support who is not able to come back,
it would have been more compassionate to
end the pregnancy before the fetus could feel
pain.She was well within her right to
make the choice that she did but that
doesn't mean that it is advisable for
other women to make the same
choice.
Quote:
I hope you
understand that there is people out there
that don't want to kill their babies.
Doesn't mean they are afraid, they just
don't like to do
that.
I hope you understand
that there are empathetic and
compassionate people that want to spare
their "babies" immense pain and suffering
if they can and thus, decide to abort
before the "baby" can even
feel pain.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2766 Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:18
online
Posted: 04-05-07 23:36pm
jenn_smithson
wrote:
It was a stupid and indifferent decision.
Just as it
is compassionate to take someone off of
life support who is not able to come back,
it would have been more compassionate to
end the pregnancy before the fetus could feel
pain.She was well within her right to
make the choice that she did but that
doesn't mean that it is advisable for
other women to make the same
choice.
Quote:
I hope you
understand that there is people out there
that don't want to kill their babies.
Doesn't mean they are afraid, they just
don't like to do
that.
I hope you understand
that there are empathetic and
compassionate people that want to spare
their "babies" immense pain and suffering
if they can and thus, decide to abort
before the "baby" can even
feel pain.
Jenn exactly at what fetal stage the fetus
feel pain? Then do you think it is okay to
have an abortion when the fetus is able to
feel pain? Do you care about the fetus
pain when it's being aborted? Or does the
pain only matter after born?
Now I will tell you this. I do would think
more humanae to abort if the baby is going
to live for years with very severe birth
defects. In the case of the preacher this
wasn't the case. The baby was just not
going to make it. This is more like a late
term miscarriage. Two hours of pain in the
comfort of a hospital with all proper care
and love? Oh how terrible! Better would
have been to give it death by crushing it
into pieces in the womb! Yes that sounds
more pretty. Please give me a break.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-06-07 01:23am
nightangel73
wrote:
jenn_smithson
wrote:
It was a stupid and indifferent decision.
Just as it
is compassionate to take someone off of
life support who is not able to come back,
it would have been more compassionate to
end the pregnancy before the fetus could feel
pain.She was well within her right to
make the choice that she did but that
doesn't mean that it is advisable for
other women to make the same
choice.
Quote:
I hope you
understand that there is people out there
that don't want to kill their babies.
Doesn't mean they are afraid, they just
don't like to do
that.
I hope you understand
that there are empathetic and
compassionate people that want to spare
their "babies" immense pain and suffering
if they can and thus, decide to abort
before the "baby" can even
feel pain.
Jenn exactly at what fetal stage the fetus
feel pain?
The current research
indicates a time period of between 22-25
weeks.
Quote:
Then do you
think it is okay to have an abortion when
the fetus is able to feel
pain?
As long as anesthesia is
provided prior to the abortion, yes.
.And, I
would like to add that abortions at 22-25
weeks, and after, are extremely
rare and are .a.l.l cases of
life/health endangerment to the
.woman. .women do .n.o.t wait
until more than half of their pregnancy is
gone to make their "therapuetic" or
medically unnecessary choice. These
pregnancies at this stage are wanted
and something has gone wrong.
.why am i,
and others, constantly explaining this
difference to you?
Quote:
Do you care about
the fetus pain when it's being aborted? Or
does the pain only matter after born?
See above. I believe
waiting until birth to watch your child
suffer and then die a painful,
.u.n.n.e.c.e.s.s.a.r.y death is not
the compassionate or responsible way to
deal with a severe defect or deformity.
More power to her, it's her choice, but I
think it was a medically ignorant choice
that caused the neonate unnecessary pain.
Quote:
Now I will tell
you this. I do would think more humanae to
abort if the baby is going to live for
years with very severe birth defects. In
the case of the preacher this wasn't the
case.
Uh, yes, it was. The
fetus had a genetic defect where the organs
develop .o.u.t.s.i.d.e the body
cavity. There is .n.o cure, there
is .n.o treatment. Upon birth, the child
would actually feel intense pain before
succombing to the defects and dieing.
.did
you even bother to read that actual
article?!?
Quote:
The baby was just
not going to make
it.
You are flat out .w.r.o.n.g. .why don't you
go back and actually read the article
before you make yourself look like a
bigger fool.
Quote:
Two hours of pain
in the comfort of a hospital with all
proper care and
love?
You continuously show yourself
to be completely ignorant of biology as
well as end of life practices and hospital
regulations.
Immediately after birth, the child would
have been taken to surgery where a doctor
would try to shove the organs into the
body cavity. Have you ever seen someone
try to put intestines into a body once
they've been spilled? It's nearly
impossible without cutting lengths of the
intestines out. During this, pain killers
would be administered but in very small
doses that wear off very quickly because
the hospital and doctors would not want to
be charged with unlawful euthenasia and
anesthesia, if administered incorrectly,
can and does kill people. More and more
pain killers would have to be administered
in intervals but the child would not have
the ability to "tell" anyone if the dosage
was enough or if she was still feeling the
pain of being alive in that state, let
alone the surgery.
All of that is contingent upon the parents
choosing to do what they can to treat her.
They could have denied treatment as being
too expensive or unnecessary because she
was going to die
regardless. My guess is that they did
deny treatment and simply watched her die
a very painful death, even with the
painkillers.
Quote:
Oh how
terrible!
Oh, it was. I can
assure you it was very terrible.
Quote:
Better would have
been to give it death by crushing it into
pieces in the
womb!
Yes, .b.e.f.o.r.e
pain could be felt!
Quote:
Yes that sounds
more pretty.
This is not about
aesthetics, this about compassion and
care. It would have been .m.o.r.e
compassionate to end the pregnancy before
pain could be felt than to force her to
suffer and die.
Quote:
Please give me a
break.
Why don't you give us
.a.l.l a break and actually
read what is posted .b.e.f.o.r.e you respond to
it.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2766 Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:18
online
Posted: 04-06-07 08:42am
jenn_smithson
wrote:
This is not about aesthetics, this about
compassion and care. It would have been
.m.o.r.e compassionate to end the
pregnancy before pain could be felt than
to force her to suffer and die.
I thought you pro-choicers thought it was
about the woman first. If she liked the
idea of giving death to the baby that way
she did then it's her body, her choice and
whatever feels right for the woman is what
she should do. I'm surprised you feel so
strong about the pain of this baby but
really don't feel compassionate about
giving a chance of life to millions of
perfectly healthy unborn babies being
slaughtered everyday.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-06-07 12:35pm
nightangel73
wrote:
I thought you pro-choicers
thought it was about the woman first. If
she liked
the idea of giving death to the baby that
way she did then it's her
body, her choice and whatever feels right
for the woman is what she should
do.
I will ignore your future comments
posted on this topic unless
you can prove that I have not supported
this woman's decision. .Please
point out where I have not given support
to her, said, several
times, that it is her
choice, and that she could do what
she wants.
I'll wait.
.If I give
you the unearned respect of reading
the drivel you post, you owe .a.l.l
of us the .s.a.m.e .l.e.v.e.l of
respect.
Quote:
I'm surprised
you feel so strong about the pain of this
baby but really don't feel compassionate
about giving a chance of life to millions
of perfectly healthy unborn babies being
slaughtered
everyday.
Because pain can be felt
at birth. At 8 weeks gestation, the time
when the vast majority of all abortions
are performed, no pain can be felt.
I care about pain and suffering which
there is too much of in this world.
If it can be knowingly avoided, then it
should and that includes .women who know
that they cannot give a decent life to
their children. Wanted children are well
cared for, unwanted children are
neglected, abused, and suffer needlessly. With an
abortion, that can be avoided.
And, once
again, I feel this decision was
medically ignorant and these people's
ignorance made the infant suffer needlessly. It would have
been far
more compassionate to end the
pregnancy before pain could be felt just
as it is more compassionate to take
people off of life support when they are
already gone and before they feel anymore
pain. .more power to her, it's her choice,
but I feel it was an indifferent and
callous choice.
And, contrary to your personal opinions
which are .n.o.t facts, I don't believe
that a fetus at 8 weeks is a baby or a
person. I have no qualms about .women
ending pregnancies that they cannot afford
or do not want before there are
.a.c.t.u.a.l children to be mistreated,
neglected, and abused.
As less humane as it may be, if I knew the
baby I was carrying had no chance of
survival, I would prefer to give birth
than abort (given that my health was not
in danger, of course) and let the baby die
naturally. I would avoid abortion as best
I could because it would always be the
last solution for me.
Kypros.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-06-07 13:23pm
Kypros
wrote:
As less humane as it may be,
if I knew the baby I was carrying had no
chance of survival, I would prefer to give
birth than abort (given that my health was
not in danger, of course) and let the baby
die naturally. I would avoid abortion as
best I could because it would always be
the last solution for me.
Kypros.
That's your choice, just as it is the
choice of pet owners to not euthanise
their pets and let them slowly and
painfully die.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2766 Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:18
online
Posted: 04-06-07 13:50pm
jenn_smithson
wrote:
And, once
again, I feel this decision was
medically ignorant and these people's
ignorance made the infant suffer needlessly. It would have
been far
more compassionate to end the
pregnancy before pain could be felt just
as it is more compassionate to take
people off of life support when they are
already gone and before they feel anymore
pain. .more power to her, it's her choice,
but I feel it was an indifferent and
callous choice.
See you contradicte yourself. You say more
power to her but at the same time you say
she did wrong and call her ignorant which
means you are not really supporting her
decision.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-06-07 13:57pm
nightangel73
wrote:
jenn_smithson
wrote:
And, once
again, I feel this decision was
medically ignorant and these people's
ignorance made the infant suffer needlessly. It would have
been far
more compassionate to end the
pregnancy before pain could be felt just
as it is more compassionate to take
people off of life support when they are
already gone and before they feel anymore
pain. .more power to her, it's her choice,
but I feel it was an indifferent and
callous choice.
See you contradicte yourself. You say more
power to her but at the same time you say
she did wrong and call her ignorant which
means you are not really supporting her
decision.
You don't understand the concepts here.
You have the right to do what you want.
However, this means you have the right to
make stupid choices.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2766 Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:18
online
Posted: 04-06-07 14:02pm
Eiri
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
As less humane as it may be,
if I knew the baby I was carrying had no
chance of survival, I would prefer to give
birth than abort (given that my health was
not in danger, of course) and let the baby
die naturally. I would avoid abortion as
best I could because it would always be
the last solution for me.
Kypros.
That's your choice, just as it is the
choice of pet owners to not euthanise
their pets and let them slowly and
painfully
die.
eiri pain and death are sure natural
things in life. You can't euthanize your
relatives when they are just diagnosed
with a terminal cancer so that they don't
suffer the cancer. People just go through
the cancer with all pain involved until
the end, then they die. That's just how it
is.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4159 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 04-06-07 15:17pm
nightangel73
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
I think they were in denial, and refused
to do anything about it because, like
purestgreen actually said, "That choice
takes away the feeling of guilt because it
is not your hand (or consent) that kills
your baby but the hand of God (or
nature)." They didn't want to be
proactive because they were selfish and
afraid. The
End.
birch they were not afraid. These are
people that walk in faith, that's
something that you can't realize because
you don't know god the way we do. They
were hoping for a miracle and there is
nothing wrong with that. I hope you
understand that there is people out there
that don't want to kill their babies.
Doesn't mean they are afraid, they just
don't like to do
that.
Fear is the driving force behind
religions, and therefore, decisions made
in the name of that religion is made
because of fear.
People are afraid of what happens after
death, and religions are born to give
people reason of hope. They are also good
control elements, & means to make
money, but I don't really want to get into
that.
I get that there are some people who
"don't want to kill their babies" just as
I get that it's hard to make the best
decision sometime, so it' easy to "leave
it in god's hands".
Hey, this scenario is a true example of
"not taking responsibility"!
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-06-07 16:07pm
nightangel73
wrote:
jenn_smithson
wrote:
And, once
again, I feel this decision was
medically ignorant and these people's
ignorance made the infant suffer needlessly. It would have
been far
more compassionate to end the
pregnancy before pain could be felt just
as it is more compassionate to take
people off of life support when they are
already gone and before they feel anymore
pain. .more power to her, it's her choice,
but I feel it was an indifferent and
callous choice.
See you contradicte yourself. You say more
power to her but at the same time you say
she did wrong and call her ignorant which
means you are not really supporting her
decision.
I said that in my
opinion it was a medically ignorant
decision. She can choose what she wants
and I .a.m supportive of all choice. Just
because I support her choice, it does
.n.o.t mean that I agree
with it.
I do .n.o.t agree with her decision
because I think it was medically ignorant,
indifferent, and callous. .more power to
her if that is her choice, i support her
choice. .I don't have to agree
with it or herald it as anything other
than what I think it is - medically
ignorant.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-06-07 16:08pm
Eiri
wrote:
nightangel73
wrote:
jenn_smithson
wrote:
And, once
again, I feel this decision was
medically ignorant and these people's
ignorance made the infant suffer needlessly. It would have
been far
more compassionate to end the
pregnancy before pain could be felt just
as it is more compassionate to take
people off of life support when they are
already gone and before they feel anymore
pain. .more power to her, it's her choice,
but I feel it was an indifferent and
callous choice.
See you contradicte yourself. You say more
power to her but at the same time you say
she did wrong and call her ignorant which
means you are not really supporting her
decision.
You don't understand the concepts here.
You have the right to do what you want.
However, this means you have the right to
make stupid
choices.
.t.h.a.n.k
.y.o.u!!
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-06-07 16:14pm
nightangel73
wrote:
eiri pain and death are sure
natural things in life. You can't
euthanize your relatives when they are
just diagnosed with a terminal cancer so
that they don't suffer the cancer. People
just go through the cancer with all pain
involved until the end, then they die.
That's just how it
is.
jesus tap dancing
christ.
.you
.c.a.n remove relatives from life support
in the cases of terminal illnesses, brain
death, and comatose states!!!!
While it is not injecting them with
something to cause their death you .a.r.e
causing their death by denying treatment!
There's not a lot of philosophical or
moral difference between the two for
people with active cerebral cortexes.
.It is legal. Thousands of people have to
make that decision every single day. We
have done it in my family and one day you
will more than likely face that decision
as well.
Birch
wrote:
I get that there are some
people who "don't want to kill their
babies" just as I get that it's hard to
make the best decision sometime, so it'
easy to "leave it in god's hands".
Hey, this scenario is a true example of
"not taking
responsibility"!
I couldn't have said
it better myself. Thank you!
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2766 Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:18
online
Posted: 04-06-07 16:28pm
jenn_smithson
wrote:
nightangel73
wrote:
eiri pain and death are sure
natural things in life. You can't
euthanize your relatives when they are
just diagnosed with a terminal cancer so
that they don't suffer the cancer. People
just go through the cancer with all pain
involved until the end, then they die.
That's just how it
is.
jesus tap dancing
christ.
.you
.c.a.n remove relatives from life support
in the cases of terminal illnesses, brain
death, and comatose states!!!!
While it is not injecting them with
something to cause their death you .a.r.e
causing their death by denying treatment!
There's not a lot of philosophical or
moral difference between the two for
people with active cerebral cortexes.
.It is legal. Thousands of people have to
make that decision every single day. We
have done it in my family and one day you
will more than likely face that decision
as well.
Birch
wrote:
I get that there are some
people who "don't want to kill their
babies" just as I get that it's hard to
make the best decision sometime, so it'
easy to "leave it in god's hands".
Hey, this scenario is a true example of
"not taking
responsibility"!
I couldn't have said
it better myself. Thank
you!
jenn i know you can take your relatives
from life support in a comatose state
(this was my brother case) but this is not
what i'm referring. I refer for person
.J.U.S.T diagnosed with a terminal cancer
(before the pain happens) not when they
are already in the death bed and have
already suffered all the pain. Do you
understand? Is it okay to euthanize
those?? Of course it is illegal just want
to get you to that point.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-07-07 23:15pm
nightangel73
wrote:
jenn i know you can take
your relatives from life support in a
comatose state (this was my brother case)
but this is not what i'm referring. I
refer for person .J.U.S.T diagnosed with a
terminal cancer (before the pain happens)
not when they are already in the death bed
and have already suffered all the pain. Do
you understand? Is it okay to euthanize
those?? Of course it is illegal just want
to get you to that
point.
It is not illegal everywhere nor is it
considered to be "wrong." You might want
to educate yourself on the Netherlands if
this topic interests you.
As to whether .i think it is "okay," the
answer is: it depends. Is that what they
want? If it is, then I am supportive of
people choosing to leave this world while
they still have the mental faculties to
choose that and so that they can
experience as pain free and dignified
death as possible. If it is not what the
.actual person wants for them, then it is
not okay.
I do believe that it is moral for people
to choose euthanasia or assisted suicide
before they suffer. Our societies current
position on the matter is antiquated and
will most likely change in the future.
|
Sunflower_pie81
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 5041 Location: to hell with this crap
Posted: 04-09-07 10:40am
Eiri
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
As less humane as it may be,
if I knew the baby I was carrying had no
chance of survival, I would prefer to give
birth than abort (given that my health was
not in danger, of course) and let the baby
die naturally. I would avoid abortion as
best I could because it would always be
the last solution for me.
Kypros.
That's your choice, just as it is the
choice of pet owners to not euthanise
their pets and let them slowly and
painfully
die.
why would you make a comment like this,
.Eiri? I don't think that you can compare
humans to cats and dogs. Aborting a
wanted child is not an easy decision...but
eh, i know you see things very
differently.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4159 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 04-09-07 11:29am
Sunflower_pie81
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
As less humane as it may be,
if I knew the baby I was carrying had no
chance of survival, I would prefer to give
birth than abort (given that my health was
not in danger, of course) and let the baby
die naturally. I would avoid abortion as
best I could because it would always be
the last solution for me.
Kypros.
That's your choice, just as it is the
choice of pet owners to not euthanise
their pets and let them slowly and
painfully
die.
why would you make a comment like this,
.Eiri? I don't think that you can compare
humans to cats and dogs. Aborting a
wanted child is not an easy decision...but
eh, i know you see things very
differently.
Not that I need to speak for .Eiri, but
perhaps she doesn't subscribe to the
egotistical, self centered belief that
humans are superior to all other forms of
life and that human suffering is "worse"
than any other creature suffering.
