And that's why I'll never understand why people kill little babies who were not born yet...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

OK, so once the fetus is out it magically becomes a baby???

How does that happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people get so worked up about saving unwanted pregnancies. There are plenty of children and adults that are in need of saving; it just seems extravagant to expend such energy on a fetus.
That said, there has been a fair amount of misinformation in this thread. 22 wk babies can't breathe. If they do, the dates are off. In DC abortions are legal to 24 wks. However there is no medical facility willing to perform them. You can get a termination for medical reasons up until 22 wks. I know because I had one. And I would like to add that my baby's condition was not fatal, but would have caused him to suffer for the rest of his life. I chose to terminate because I could not give him the kind of life I wanted him to have. I do not regret my decision and I would never have allowed him to be adopted and spend his life suffering with another family.

You're wrong. There's plenty of documentation about 22 weekers surviving birth. If term can have a window of up to 6 weeks why viability can't?

There most certainly is not. You are misinformed and are spreading lies. There are a couple of isolated incidents of 23 weekers living and for the most part dying painfully within weeks. The lungs are simply too immature. Once you get past 24 or 25 wks you start to see more babies survive, but many don't. I really don't understand why ypu say viability must have ve a six wk window. Term is 38 wks, do you really think the last four months of pregnancy are unnecessary?

term is BETWEEN 38 and 42 weeks so we have a window of at least 4 weeks there. why when talking about viability you want to draw the line at 22 weeks? can't we have the same margin there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

OK, so once the fetus is out it magically becomes a baby???

How does that happen?

Looks like the va assembly has answered that to the contrarey

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"You do realize that the church goers who don't use contraceptives and the rhythm method are not going to abort."

This is so not true! I know so many church goers who have had abortions. They are women just like we are, and preachy as they might be, when they face difficult decision, they are still glad to have the option.

Yes. Some of the most pro-life families I know got abortions for their teen daughters. And then - here's the irony - the daughters go and have a bunch of kids after they get married in order to make up for their sin. Seriously, WTF?

And come to DCUM to preach. Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

omg this thread. Why do you people bother trying to convince anyone to change their views on this? It can't be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

OK, so once the fetus is out it magically becomes a baby???

How does that happen?

Looks like the va assembly has answered that to the contrarey

Yet another reason to live in DC or MD rather than VA. NoVa needs to secede quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

Not the PP but do you mind answering the question? when does the fetus become a child? In the case of this news report... when did that aborted fetus became a baby if ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[/quote wrote: So you never had an amnio that would make an actual diagnosis of Trisomy 18 and were counseled to terminate based on 2 screening tests? If that's the case, you had very poor doctors who didn't follow the standard of care.

I wondered about this too. Did the PP have an actual diagnostic test like CVS or amnio? It was 18 years ago so I don't know whether these tests were available at that time. I can't imagine any doctor recommending that a patient consider termination without an actual diagnostic test result.

This is 14:24. My mom had an amnio while pregnant with my sister 31 years ago. I'm not sure when CVS became available, but amnio was definitely an option 18 years ago.

Amnios were available, but the risk posed by having the procedure was high. Also, the testing of the amniotic fluid has come a long way in 5 years - let alone 20 or 30 years. Tests for gentic markers for many inherited diseases were not even made 30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/217397.page#2170100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people get so worked up about saving unwanted pregnancies. There are plenty of children and adults that are in need of saving; it just seems extravagant to expend such energy on a fetus.
That said, there has been a fair amount of misinformation in this thread. 22 wk babies can't breathe. If they do, the dates are off. In DC abortions are legal to 24 wks. However there is no medical facility willing to perform them. You can get a termination for medical reasons up until 22 wks. I know because I had one. And I would like to add that my baby's condition was not fatal, but would have caused him to suffer for the rest of his life. I chose to terminate because I could not give him the kind of life I wanted him to have. I do not regret my decision and I would never have allowed him to be adopted and spend his life suffering with another family.

You're wrong. There's plenty of documentation about 22 weekers surviving birth. If term can have a window of up to 6 weeks why viability can't?

There most certainly is not. You are misinformed and are spreading lies. There are a couple of isolated incidents of 23 weekers living and for the most part dying painfully within weeks. The lungs are simply too immature. Once you get past 24 or 25 wks you start to see more babies survive, but many don't. I really don't understand why ypu say viability must have ve a six wk window. Term is 38 wks, do you really think the last four months of pregnancy are unnecessary?

term is BETWEEN 38 and 42 weeks so we have a window of at least 4 weeks there. why when talking about viability you want to draw the line at 22 weeks? can't we have the same margin there?

Term is 36 weeks. I've had two complicated pregnancies, and the first one almost killed me. My first son was born at 36 weeks and not considered premature, but "early term" by the doctors.

Children born after 26 weeks (third trimester) have the best odds of surviving. But even those born at 26 weeks need massive amounts of medical intervention in order for them to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone even interested that the "genetic anomaly" that this Italian aborted for was a cleft lip and palate-something that easily treated with surgery.

Wow, where did you come up with that? Its not in any of the credible news stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people get so worked up about saving unwanted pregnancies. There are plenty of children and adults that are in need of saving; it just seems extravagant to expend such energy on a fetus.
That said, there has been a fair amount of misinformation in this thread. 22 wk babies can't breathe. If they do, the dates are off. In DC abortions are legal to 24 wks. However there is no medical facility willing to perform them. You can get a termination for medical reasons up until 22 wks. I know because I had one. And I would like to add that my baby's condition was not fatal, but would have caused him to suffer for the rest of his life. I chose to terminate because I could not give him the kind of life I wanted him to have. I do not regret my decision and I would never have allowed him to be adopted and spend his life suffering with another family.

You're wrong. There's plenty of documentation about 22 weekers surviving birth. If term can have a window of up to 6 weeks why viability can't?

There most certainly is not. You are misinformed and are spreading lies. There are a couple of isolated incidents of 23 weekers living and for the most part dying painfully within weeks. The lungs are simply too immature. Once you get past 24 or 25 wks you start to see more babies survive, but many don't. I really don't understand why ypu say viability must have ve a six wk window. Term is 38 wks, do you really think the last four months of pregnancy are unnecessary?

term is BETWEEN 38 and 42 weeks so we have a window of at least 4 weeks there. why when talking about viability you want to draw the line at 22 weeks? can't we have the same margin there?

Term is 36 weeks. I've had two complicated pregnancies, and the first one almost killed me. My first son was born at 36 weeks and not considered premature, but "early term" by the doctors.

Children born after 26 weeks (third trimester) have the best odds of surviving. But even those born at 26 weeks need massive amounts of medical intervention in order for them to live.

some docs say 36 others 37 and mine says 38. i'll ask again... if for term there's such discrepancy why people insist in being so stern about viability? doesn't this discrepancy exist also for viability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone even interested that the "genetic anomaly" that this Italian aborted for was a cleft lip and palate-something that easily treated with surgery.

Wow, where did you come up with that? Its not in any of the credible news stories.

It was linked to in the original news article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7652889/Baby-that-survived-botched-abortion-was-rejected-for-cleft-lip-and-palate.html

The 22-week infant was found breathing a day after the operation. He died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano, in southern Italy.

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans revealed that the foetus had a cleft lip and palate, according to reports in the Italian media. The condition is treatable with surgery.