“Pro-life” anti-abortion laws mean that women are denied abortions and watch their babies die.

The law worked as it was intended.”

Nebraska fully outlaws abortion after 20 weeks, even in cases where the baby will not survive after birth and the pregnancy is doomed. Danielle and Robb Deavers had such a pregnancy, and wanted to terminate it so that their baby wouldn’t suffer. They couldn’t, and Danielle had to continue the pregnancy and give birth. Then, they watched their baby die.

Danielle Deaver cradled her daughter, knowing the newborn’s gasps would slowly subside, and the baby would die.

Her baby tried desperately to inhale.

With her husband, Robb, at her side, Deaver sobbed, gently kissing her daughter’s forehead and hoping her baby wasn’t in pain. That fear – that the baby would suffer before its predestined death – compelled the couple to seek an abortion. But a new Nebraska law that limits abortion after the 20th week of gestation prevented her from getting one. The Iowa Legislature is considering a similar law.

A nurse at Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital in Hastings instructed the couple to closely monitor their daughter’s breathing so when it stopped the staff could accurately record the death.

The clock ticked.

At 3:15 p.m. Dec. 8, 1-pound, 10-ounce Elizabeth Deaver – named in memory of Robb’s grandmother – made one final attempt to breathe.

Her life struggle, 15 minutes outside the womb after 23 weeks and five days of gestation, was over.

“Our hands were tied,” Danielle Deaver said. “The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God. I feel like how to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should have been mine, and it wasn’t because of a law.”

“Pro-lifers,” including one Republican sponsoring a similar bill in Idaho, say this is a good outcome, and exactly how the bill is supposed to work:

“In life, amazing things happen,” Massie said, noting examples of when unborn children have beaten the odds of a dire medical prognosis. “I know it may be a one in a bazillion snowballs’ chance, but if I were that snowball, I’d want that chance.”

Amazing things do happen. And so do torturous, horrible and cruel things. What happened to the Deavers is the latter.

56 comments for ““Pro-life” anti-abortion laws mean that women are denied abortions and watch their babies die.

  1. March 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Once again, the pro-lifers come down squarely in favor of maximizing human suffering.

  2. Jesse
    March 7, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Sometimes I wonder if pro-lifers have ever been in the type of situation they ask of others. This just seems so extreme.

  3. AtheistChick
    March 7, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Makes me want to cry. :(

  4. Tapetum
    March 7, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    The number of commenters on that article who feel free to opine medically on a woman they’ve never met is really astounding. A lot of pro-lifers seem to seriously believe that no pregnancy is ever doomed or dangerous, and that if one goes badly wrong it could only be because the doctors or parents did something terrible.

  5. March 7, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    :(

    That is really, really sad.

  6. Lynnsey
    March 7, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    This perfectly illustrates how this is never a black-and-white issue and how it should NEVER be legislated. This is a decision that belongs to a woman with the good counsel of (as applicable) her family, her medical advisers, and her spiritual community.

    People get bent about “late-term abortions” all the time without knowing the facts: that the overwhelming majority of them occur because of catastrophic fetal defects or imminent threat to the life of the pregnant woman and that they were, again, overwhelmingly wanted pregnancies.

  7. March 7, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    I watched my niece born at 23 weeks to suffer the same way, except in her case it took 12 days. Her mother (my sister) and I will always be pro-choice. Of course, we already were, but that experience secured us in the knowledge that it is indeed the right thing.

  8. SomeonesMom
    March 7, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    If this baby had suffered for days or weeks before finally dying and finding peace would that too have been a “good outcome”? My heart breaks for that family, and my stomach is turned by the arrogant douchebags who make these heartless, undereducated decisions. And maybe that asshat would not want to be that snowball if his life was spent in bed, unable to walk, talk, breathe on his own, know his environment…. And on and on. A snowball DOESNT have a chance in hell. But he just might.

  9. Lauren
    March 7, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    The whole story is not being told. There is a lot that doctors can do to stop labor when your water breaks at this stage of pregnancy. My water broke at 22.5 weeks and with the help of several drugs, I was able to remain pregnant for another 7 weeks.

    The options are not “have an abortion” or “deliver your baby and watch her die.”

    This is not about a woman not getting a needed abortion, it’s a case of doctors not giving a woman the information she needs to complete her pregnancy in a way that ends with a living child.

    • March 7, 2011 at 5:59 pm

      Wow, Lauren, that’s amazing that because something happened to you, it must be possible for every other person on the planet! I’m so glad you know more about Danielle’s situation than both her and her doctors. Can you please be around when I’m pregnant? I find that people on the internet are WAY better at giving medical advice than actual doctors, and are better at knowing the best possible course of treatment for my condition than I am.

  10. Lynnsey
    March 7, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    In another article it says that she had to wait eight days after her water broke and the initial determination that there was no way to save the pregnancy. Eight days of waiting because of a stupid law. I can’t fathom it.

    This is the account from The Des Moines Register.

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110306/NEWS10/103060331/Her-baby-wasn-t-expected-live-Nebraska-law-banned-abortion?odyssey=mod|mostview

  11. Lynnsey
    March 7, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    Oops! That link that you already had that I completely missed.

  12. Cassie
    March 7, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    Lauren, did you bother reading the article? The danger was not premature labor. The baby had lost all of her amniotic fluid. Where did you go to medical school? Amazing how you could get a degree and pass your medical boards all within 30 weeks and have a baby at the same time.

  13. Paraxeni
    March 7, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    Heartbreaking. This is what happens when women are considered mere ambulatory wombs, and are denied the right to exercise control over their own bodies by the foetus-fetishists in the name of ‘life’. It is absolutely disgusting.

    These people should’ve been spared this torment, it’s inhumane.

    Anti-choice ‘logic’ frightens me.

  14. Lauren
    March 7, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    My water was also gone. My experience is as valid as hers. Further, my treatment followed management protocol for PPROM.

    My concern is that her doctors did not explore the possibility of giving her treatment that may have extended her pregnancy. Surely you can recognize that such information would be beneficial to someone who is facing losing a wanted pregnancy, right?

  15. Paraxeni
    March 7, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Oh and Lauren – do you offer your psychic medical services to everyone, or just grieving parents? It’s just that I have some tricky health stuff coming up, and as you are able to divine the outcome of any and all medical situations, I thought you might be able to tell me how it’ll turn out.

    Thanks in advance!

  16. Tony
    March 7, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    So, the exact same post is on Jill Stanek’s site, and predictably, the exact opposite reactions, except for Lauren.

    Whereas on this thread she phrased it as “it’s a case of doctors not giving a woman the information she needs to complete her pregnancy”, over there she phrased it as “I am beyond disgusted that this woman would push for other people to kill their children simply because she was either misinformed by her doctors (shame of them) or too weak to fight for her own child (shame on her).”

    Besides what Jill pointed out, I find the difference between the two phrasings on the two sites interesting. Of course, if it was simply a case of the woman being misinformed, decisions that she made based on that misinformation wouldn’t be her fault, would it? In fact, she’d be a huge victim and probably entitled to millions of dollars, or however much the doctor had! But what Lauren really thinks is that this woman is “whiny” to “too weak” to care for her child. Amazing.

  17. Lauren
    March 7, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    Yeah, I do think that a woman is being weak if she is told that there is something that can be done to save her child and she doesn’t bother trying. Guilty as charged.

    However, I think it is worse that a doctor would not give a woman the information that it is possible to save her child.

    Look, this woman is out there telling the world that there is nothing that can be done once your water breaks. If such “wisdom” prevailed 5 years ago, my son would be dead instead of outside playing t-ball.

    It is important for everyone to realize that membrane rupture is not a death sentence. If they *do* realize this, yet choose to set by and do nothing, sorry I don’t have much sympathy.

    • March 7, 2011 at 6:55 pm

      Lauren, that’s quite enough. You have no real idea of this person’s circumstances. What a terrible thing of which to accuse someone! Your experience is of course valid, but you’re using it to override someone else’s. You don’t know that what was medically possible for you was medically possible for her. You’re going on permanent moderation, and please don’t expect any further comments about how other people just don’t care about their children or are weak to get through.

  18. Tony
    March 7, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Lauren, if someone is going to be making medical decisions based on a story they read in the news, they have bigger problems than the scope of this discussion to begin with.

  19. Lauren
    March 7, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    This story is meant to affect policy. We are supposed to conclude that Nebraska’s law is unjust because of this case study.

    It is hard enough fighting for your child after a PPROM, especially when up against a hospital’s ethics board or a heartless insurance adjuster.

    If abortion becomes the accepted response to this situation, women like me will lose children they desperately want.

    Getting treatment to continue your pregnancy after PPROM is already a crap shoot. Stories like this, especially ones that don’t tell the other side, make it that much harder.

  20. Lauren
    March 7, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    Chally, my issue is that the other side of the story is not being told. None of these articles so much as mention that treatment is available for women facing this condition.

    We are left to assume that nothing can be done and that the child will be born horribly deformed and die 5 minutes later.

    This is not a fair examination of the issue. That’s my point.

    • March 7, 2011 at 7:06 pm

      Then you should have said that treatment may be available for some people instead of the awful and unwarranted things you’ve been saying.

  21. Diz
    March 7, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    Lauren, we all know that you’ve said terrible things about this woman and have a problem with following directions from the mods here, so maybe you can go and supervise said kid playing T-Ball outside instead of trolling every article you can on the internet and passing judgement on a woman you don’t know. This isn’t YOUR situation, stop making it about you and your crusade.

  22. AtheistChick
    March 7, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    Lauren, do we really need this case to conclude that Nebraska’s abortion law is unjust? This is just one example of the pain that this law has caused. Even without Danielle’s story, I think that most of us can agree that the law is patronizing and not in the best interests of women.

    Perhaps treatment is not available for women who go into labor/lose amniotic fluid early in the pregnancy. Or perhaps all women who have the option of treatment cannot afford it or do not wish to subject themselves to said treatment.

    “If abortion becomes the accepted response to this situation” … blah blah blah. How incredibly fucking patronizing. This attitude is nearly as bad as the law itself.

  23. March 7, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    Lauren’s still spewing crap in the mod queue, and so she has been banned. It would be great if we can move this discussion past what she’s been saying, for there will be no more of it. Don’t feed the troll.

  24. M Dubz
    March 7, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    A relative of mine lost a baby to exactly this condition about 3 and a half years ago. She was lucky enough to live in a place where abortions are legal, and she was able to obtain one and go on to have another healthy baby. She is a kickass mother who does amazing work for her sons. She told the family that when everything went down, that she had an instinct that something was going to go horribly wrong, and then it did. This amazing strong relative of mine knew her body and knew her pregnancy, and instinctively knew what was the best decision for her and her family. That such deep knowledge should be legislated away on a whim is, to me, deeply disturbing.

  25. JustDucky
    March 7, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    This is just another case of potential life being put ahead of currently existing life. That poor family would have had a lot of suffering, had they chosen to abort, but I’d wager it would have been considerably less if they hadn’t waited as long and held the child in their hands.

    My heart goes out to that family. Perish the thought that people get to make decisions, with their families and medical professionals, about what’s best for them and their loved ones.

  26. Bagelsan
    March 7, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    If this baby had suffered for days or weeks before finally dying and finding peace would that too have been a “good outcome”?

    It’d probably count as an “awesome outcome”. More excruciating = more moral, right? How are all the pro-lifers supposed to get into Heaven without a proper human sacrifice test of their fortitude? The whole point of that “Jesus” story was all about the delicious gruesome agony in which he slowly died, yeah? and nothing to do with how God doesn’t want any more human sacrifices, nope, that’s commie hippie talk. Also, please ignore everything Jesus said before the dying part ’cause all that “be nice to kids” and “don’t let people die in agony” shit sounded kinda gay, too.

  27. Verity Khat
    March 7, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    This was SO heartbreaking to read. If I had to watch a tiny half-formed child of mine gasp to death like a fish out of water I think it would break me. Permanently. Taking the choice to spare their child and themselves pain from the Deavers is flat-out cruel.

    (Thank you, Chally, for banning the troll. I thought I might vomit.)

    Here’s my ohmygodwhatareyouthinking?! question for Nebraska: exactly HOW close to death DOES the mother have to be before you’ll “allow” that late-term abortion, hmm? How many women are going to die from complications and infections because their frightened doctors didn’t remove their doomed fetus soon enough?!

    Fuckers. All of ’em. I’m getting to the point where I secretly want to start punching anti-choice nuts in the face. But they are human beings, and I should respect them… *sigh*

  28. Odin
    March 7, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    This is amazingly cruel. Forcing people to carry to term a pregnancy just so they can watch their much-wanted child suffocate to death is obscene.

    But it’s even _worse_ if we take some common anti-legal-abortion claims to be true. Legal abortion foes frequently claim that fetuses are people, and that fetuses can feel pain at least as early as the 20th week (in fact, in one article, a proponent of the law claimed that abortion would have caused pain). Putting that together… the Nebraska law requires that some people be born to a brief life of nothing but pain and suffering. All for the sake of the self-satisfaction of “pro-life” lawmakers.

    It’s a standard ethical dilemma to weigh the lives many against the suffering of a single individual, and depending on action or inaction or other factors, people have reasonable arguments for coming down on both sides.

    Only in the abortion debate do I see people seriously arguing that the tiniest hypothetical chance of a single life justifies the forced and avoidable suffering of many.

  29. eli bishop
    March 7, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    if you’re concerned about fetal pain, then you pass a law requiring late-term abortions to be done after an injection to stop the fetus’ heart. in fact, most late-term abortions ARE done this way.

    if, however, you want to outlaw abortion… you do exactly what nebraska did. as they said, it worked the way it was intended. they have no interest in fetal OR baby pain at all.

  30. Irene
    March 8, 2011 at 12:02 am

    One thing that really struck me was the commen in the article that sometimes people survive being born very, premature and go on to have normal lives – a snowballs chance in hell, but the speaker would want to have that chance were he that snowball.

    That idea is remarkably like a discussion of cancer patients as subjects of early trial treatments; undergoing grueling and often futile pain for the belief that one must try everything in order to be a good patient and to “prove” how much they love their families, that the patient would suffer so much for them. There are numerous people chiming in to say they’re in the 5% who were helped, and so these programs should continue. There seems to be a similar philosophy here, that by being truly virtuous and deserving ‘you will somehow have a miracle cancer cure’/’your premature child will live a full life’, with the same caliber of hate for those opposing.

    Both POV are insulting, because they assume someone removed from a situation can judge another persons choices. And both gt especially wrapped in the saintly expectations of motherhood…

  31. bluedancer
    March 8, 2011 at 12:05 am

    “I know it may be a one in a bazillion snowballs’ chance, but if I were that snowball, I’d want that chance.”

    Not that I’m saying anything original, I’m sure, but this kind of thing seems so incredibly self-centered. If I had a choice between dying painlessly, without ever gaining consciousness, or trying for the one-in-a-bazillion chance of surviving and thriving, knowing that I would almost certainly die anyway and cause others much extra suffering and grief… there’s no way I could possibly take the second option. There’s no way I would ever want to, even supposing that option didn’t involve me dying in pain.

    (And to turn it around, he’s not just putting this one fetus’s chance at survival ahead of the parents’ pain, he’s saying that a bazillion minus one people should have to endure this kind of scenario for the sake of the one child that might make it.)

    It seems weird, too, to automatically empathize with the child over the parents, but I guess this is one of the fundamental disconnects here — on a gut level, I just can’t understand prioritizing a fetus’ chance to be born over the suffering of conscious, already-existing people.

  32. March 8, 2011 at 12:29 am

    Oh, man, those poor parents, and that poor baby. That is utterly heartbreaking.

    I detest these people, these lying, two-faced, despicable sacks of shit, who would rather see this happen to bazillions of parents and children for the sake of one child who might make it. I detest these people who think that that choice should lie with the government, and not the family. It is so obvious that they really don’t give a fuck about the suffering of adult human beings, or of born children. That they could say that something that causes this kind of heartbreak is “working” exemplifies their savage, hateful worldview.

  33. Kristen J.'s Husband
    March 8, 2011 at 1:02 am

    It makes perfect sense, if you accept that pregnancy, suffering and death are all adequate punishment for having carnal knowledge. Also, if you think God punishes or tests YOU by making other people suffer and die.

  34. March 8, 2011 at 2:19 am

    I love my nephew with all of my heart. It’s wrenching to hear him cry because he bumped his head. If this had happened to him? If someone had forced this suffering on him? On my brother and his girlfriend, who’s like a sister to me? I can’t describe the rage I’d feel on their behalf. It’d be nothing to the rage I feel now.

    Cruel, heartless jackwagons.

  35. March 8, 2011 at 4:21 am

    Horrifying.

    My sister-in-law recently went through that. So yes. Horrifying is the only word I can come up with.

    Glad to know the Laurens of the world are on the case, though! Because every medical situation in the world is absolutely the same, and every woman like Danielle or my sister-in-law is either an ignorant fool or a barbaric murderess who doesn’t wish to fight for her child.

  36. March 8, 2011 at 4:40 am

    Hey, you know what would be really helpful on posts like this? A TRIGGER WARNING.

    Just in case anybody out there actually thinks Lauren is right with regards to MAGIC DRUGS that doctors can give to stop labor, I’d like to tell you that she is full of so much toxic shit that she should be declared a Superfund site.

    If that gets me moderated, well, fair enough, but given the way that women tend to blame themselves for every damned thing that happens during pregnancy (and society certainly lines up to help with the blaiming), I just feel that it’s important that the message gets out there: She’s wrong.

    There are drugs that doctors can give to TRY to stop labor, but a lot of the time, they just don’t fucking work. There is no magical cure all for preterm labor.

    I had multiple perinatologists (the doctors you see when your pregnancy has hit the Oh Shit stage) tell me that everything they do for preterm labor is a crap shoot. At the end of the day, if your body is determined to go into labor, there isn’t a goddamned thing they can do to stop it.

    They also told me that the “miracle babies” you hear about on the news? The ones that magically survive at 23 weeks? Those are cases of bad math, fuzzy conception dates and serious rounding up. Prior to 24 weeks, there is not enough lung function for survival. They told me this (repeatedly) because I went into preterm labor at 23 weeks and they stood next to my bed and said “There is no way we would even try to rescusitate them at this stage if your labor doesn’t stop.”

    It did and we’re all fine now, but I still have a touch of PTSD from…well, the whole goddamned pregnancy, so seriously, a trigger warning?

  37. karak
    March 8, 2011 at 5:09 am

    Ah, god. This is the reason I refuse to ever have biological children–because I’m terrified my high-risk pregnancy won’t be “risky” enough to allow me to end it if necessary.

  38. preying mantis
    March 8, 2011 at 9:49 am

    “In life, amazing things happen,” Massie said, noting examples of when unborn children have beaten the odds of a dire medical prognosis. “I know it may be a one in a bazillion snowballs’ chance, but if I were that snowball, I’d want that chance.”

    Because that one snowball is so wonderfully, fantastically precious that its potential survival justifies the needlessly horrific deaths of the 999,999,999,999,999. Dude’s not much for humility, is he?

    “There are numerous people chiming in to say they’re in the 5% who were helped, and so these programs should continue.”

    At least with an adult cancer patient, you have the option of sitting down, looking at the situation and saying “Fuck it, I’m not ready to die, I’ll take the 5% chance.”, and then changing your mind if you didn’t realize it was going to be that bad or the situation deteriorates for other reasons. The neonate has no concept of what’s going on–it’s just mindless and incomprehensible pain–and the law doesn’t allow for a parent who wants to try to change their minds if the situation takes a turn for the even-worse prior to delivery.

  39. SunlessNick
    March 8, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Legal abortion foes frequently claim that fetuses are people, and that fetuses can feel pain at least as early as the 20th week

    And if they think so, why aren’t they wondering how much pain the foetus suffered during those days without amniotic fluid? My sympathies lie with the woman, but if theirs lie with the foetus, they’re exercising them very selectively. Almost as if their position was more about hating women than loving babies.

  40. Politicalguineapig
    March 8, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Sunless Nick: From what I’ve seen of anti-choicers, most of them do hate women, and the loudest female antichoicers usually tend to have serious cases of self-loathing or rampant personality disorders.
    For the record, this is horrifying. And let’s not try to gloss over the outcomes: even if the infant survives (which is a total, utter and complete crapshoot) the parents will be paying thousands of dollars in medical bills throughout that child’s life. I know of a pregnancy where the amniotic sac ruptured early on- the little girl’s now a year old, but she had to have a lung transplant. Premature babies have a lot of health problems, and it annoys me to see people gloss over that.

  41. blondie
    March 8, 2011 at 11:24 am

    Either you trust women or you don’t. Dr. Tiller knew it’s as simple as that.

  42. William
    March 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    It makes perfect sense, if you accept that pregnancy, suffering and death are all adequate punishment for having carnal knowledge. Also, if you think God punishes or tests YOU by making other people suffer and die.

    And that, in a nutshell, is why the entire forced-birth/pro-choice argument comes down to separation of church and state. On one side of the aisle you have a small but vocal and well connected minority of moral tyrants who believe that their religious mores are so damned important that the government ought to use the force of law to require other people to obey them even if that means great personal suffering and death and have shown a willingness to use intimidation, harassment, bombings, and murders (for those of you who have trouble associating the word with light skinned folks from Western lands: terrorism). On the other side of the aisle are people who believe they have the right to decide what is done with their bodies. Nebraska’s legislators now have the honor of sharing a moral outlook that is distinguished form that of the Taliban only by being somewhat less honest.

  43. Vigée
    March 8, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    William:
    Nebraska’s legislators now have the honor of sharing a moral outlook that is distinguished form that of the Taliban only by being somewhat less honest.

    I kind of really love that line.

  44. Fellmama
    March 8, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    The law’s under consideration in Iowa, not Idaho.

    And people wonder why Red Staters get angry about being lumped together.

  45. Cactus Wren
    March 8, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    This is why I customarily refer to “pro-liars” — because that’s what they do. They LIE and LIE and LIE.

    Not very many months ago, I read an article (at Salon?) by a man who had supported his wife through a heartbreaking second-trimester abortion. Almost as soon as the article was up, someone had posted as a comment a wholly fictive account that boiled down to, “I’m so sorry to tell you this, but your wife’s doctors were wrong — I was working at that very clinic on that very day, and your baby would have been fine!”

    They lie. They lie and lie and lie. Some of the lies are so inept they’re funny (one that was posted on talk.abortion some years ago purported to be about a woman who got a pelvic exam in her seventh month and accidentally got a bubble of air in her uterus: for the remainder of her pregnancy, according to the story, she had to sleep sitting up because when she lay down the fetus kept her and her partner awake with its constant crying: it must be true or they couldn’t post it on Usenet, right?).

    Others are just bizarre: when MSNBC reported on the UK’s National Health Service recommending that 23- and 24-week superpreemies be given only palliative care, there was a frenzied chorus of, “What about my precious son, born at 22 weeks, who’s perfectly healthy and just graduated from college?” “So my sister, who was born at 19 weeks in 1954 (!!), shouldn’t have been given a chance?” (Interspersed, of course, with wild misinterpretations like, “So my daughter, born at 36 weeks, should have just been let die?” which had nothing to do with anything in the article.)

    Perhaps sometimes they don’t mean to lie. I can see how memory can be selective: how a doctor’s explanation of all the possible outcomes for a particular pregnancy, and all the options available to the parents, can over the years be remembered as, “The doctors told us our baby would NEVER speak or walk or move or recognize us! They TOLD us we HAD to have an abortion!”

    But, I think, very much of the time the lies are intentional. They are pro-lie. They lie, and they lie, and they lie.

  46. March 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Cactus Wren: “So my sister, who was born at 19 weeks in 1954 (!!), shouldn’t have been given a chance?”

    Pro-lie people (great term, btw, Cactus Wren) crack me up. (1) No way can a 19-week-old fetus survive today, in 2011; (2) I was born 6-weeks premature in 1959, and believe me, my parents and the doctors were concerned for me having been born at 32 weeks, and I did have sequelae. 19-weeks surviving in 1954? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    And yes, forcing a billion 22-week-premature fetuses to die an agonizing death from loss of amniotic fluid on the off chance that maybe perhaps one of them will survive is the height of cruelty.

  47. William
    March 8, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    And yes, forcing a billion 22-week-premature fetuses to die an agonizing death from loss of amniotic fluid on the off chance that maybe perhaps one of them will survive is the height of cruelty.

    But if theres a possibility my mother could have aborted me then maybe I wasn’t wanted and I simply cannot tollerate the potential narcissistic injury!!!! Also, Jesus says suffering is good or something, right?

  48. Azalea
    March 9, 2011 at 5:31 am

    Cactus Wren: right?).Others are just bizarre: when MSNBC reported on the UK’s National Health Service recommending that 23- and 24-week superpreemies be given only palliative care, there was a frenzied chorus of, “What about my precious son, born at 22 weeks, who’s perfectly healthy and just graduated from college?” “So my sister, who was born at 19 weeks in 1954 (!!), shouldn’t have been given a chance?” (Interspersed, of course, with wild misinterpretations like, “So my daughter, born at 36 weeks, should have just been let die?” which had nothing to do with anything in the article.)Perhaps sometimes they don’t mean to lie. I can see how memory can be selective: how a doctor’s explanation of all the possible outcomes for a particular pregnancy, and all the options available to the parents, can over the years be remembered as, “The doctors told us our baby would NEVER speak or walk or move or recognize us! They TOLD us we HAD to have an abortion!”But, I think, very much of the time the lies are intentional. They are pro-lie. They lie, and they lie, and they lie.

    Yeah those claims are bullshit (19 weeks? are they serious lol) but I think I would be ready to beat the living shit out of any doctor who just left me in a room with my dying child and did ABSOUTELY NOTHING while I sat there helplessly. If the parent doesn’t want any medical miracles performed, fine but making that decision FOR the parents to not d anything when there are options – futile or not, is bullshit and unjustifiable.

  49. valor
    March 9, 2011 at 10:13 am

    You know, it’s funny, because I am one of those snowballs, but to be perfectly honest, it makes me even more pro-choice. When my mother was pregnant with me, my prenatal tests showed that I had some rare birth defect that would result in a (short) life of extreme difficulty (I’m pretty sure I wasn’t expected to have a functioning brain at all). But my mom chose to have me anyway, because she would love me, even though I was an unplanned child. And to me, that says, my mom loves me, no matter what I do; she would love me if all I had was a brainstem.
    But, imagine if i was in Nebraska. Imagine the pressure and the worry, thinking that if she could have, she wouldn’t have taken the chance. Imagine how a child born in those circumstances would feel the need to be spectacular all the time to justify some kind of miraculous birth. I think it would be really, really painful. I don’t see the need to take that choice away from those mothers. i don’t see how you could ask it, much less demand it, of them.

  50. Theresa
    March 10, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Despite my opinion on the matter at hand, I find it interesting that many, though not all, of the pro-choicers here are commenting and saying all sorts of nasty things while that Lauren person (the only pro-lifer on the comment wall) was merely calling to question the fact that the article didn’t have one side of the information. She didn’t call anyone names, use profanity or anything like that, yet she is the one that both the author and the moderator chastize.

    For the record, I do not believe that you can force someone into making a decision. You choose what you choose and then at the end of your life you answer to your God. I don’t think anything in this life is just black or white, and I believe that God is understanding.

  51. Azalea
    March 14, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Theresa: Despite my opinion on the matter at hand, I find it interesting that many, though not all, of the pro-choicers here are commenting and saying all sorts of nasty things while that Lauren person (the only pro-lifer on the comment wall) was merely calling to question the fact that the article didn’t have one side of the information. She didn’t call anyone names, use profanity or anything like that, yet she is the one that both the author and the moderator chastize.For the record, I do not believe that you can force someone into making a decision. You choose what you choose and then at the end of your life you answer to your God. I don’t think anything in this life is just black or white, and I believe that God is understanding.

    Here is a more indepth article on the situation, where where it clearly shows that all options were exhausted.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/20-week-abortion-ban-nebraska-oklahoma-fetus-feel/story?id=13116214&page=2

  52. PrettyAmiable
    March 14, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Theresa, Lauren said this:

    “Yeah, I do think that a woman is being weak if she is told that there is something that can be done to save her child and she doesn’t bother trying.”

    What were you saying about angelic Lauren and her lack of name-calling? Oh you pro-lifers. You’re so faultless.

Comments are closed.