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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the OP and we're not discussing choice here. I'm trying to discuss the way this procedure was held. If these children who are killed every day were considered real people and not "clump of cells" that can breath, feel pain, cold and hunger this would not have happened.

I'm also pro choice but we must find a way to make this right!


And you never answered my questions.

Oh, sure. That's why you picked this title for this craptastic, pointless troll-bait of a thread.

[Anonymous]

You do realize that the church goers who don't use contraceptives and the rhythm method are not going to abort.
Also there are communities that are very religious and practice abstianance. Abstiance would work if all the horny teeangers followed but they don't. The problem I have is the schools teaching them about contraceptives and making students feel like it's ok and have a green light to go have sex. If we are insistent on sex education through schools, they should also teach that it is wrong to have sex and risky.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am not sure that's true. People do all kinds of contradictory things. You know how many Catholics I know who had to get married becuse "birth control is against the church"???/ UM, so is premarital sex. Didn't stop them.

I agree it's less likely that a strident Catholic would have an abortion. But that's not a bet I'm willing to take, because the stakes are too high for everyone, woman and child and society.


As long as the chuch teaches that birth control is wrong, we are going to have many unwanted, but preventable pregnancies. Pregnancy prevention should be preached "until such time as parents are ready and willing to lovingly accept children" - to paraphrase part of the vows in a Catholic wedding as I recall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how most of these liberal open pro-choice women carry so much evil in their hearts. Kill, kill, kill. They'll fight to save rats in DC but not babies. SMH.

You know nothing about me, but if you want to say I'm evil because I believe in choice, go ahead. It really doesn't bother me. I am actually laughing at you.

It is your opinion that personhood begins at...conception I'm sure. Just LOL.

Not the PP you're quoting but when personhood starts?

When the child gets a birth certificate?

What about the baby in this story? Removed from the mother's womb alive, suffering pain, cold, hunger for DAAAAAAAAAAAAYS!!!! Was this little child a person or not?

You're heartless.

No one has answered that question. When? When is the "clump of cells" a baby? Viability gets earlier and earlier all the time. We hear stories of babies surviving at 22 weeks, some with no significant long term effects. Is that a person? Is it less of a person as long as it is inside the womb? No one would ever walk into a NICU and kill a baby born alive at 24 weeks. So when exactly is the baby enough of a baby to deserve protection? 12 weeks? 16? 22?..........

I don't have the answer to that question. And neither does anyone else.

Which is why I believe in CHOICE. It's up to you to decide for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly, I don't remember. I know that amnio was available back then. I don't remember it even being discussed. I didn't have to wait until she was born to learn that she was healthy. A later ultrasound revealed the cause: My dates were way off. From what I remember, cysts on the brain can be indicators of Trisomy 18. However, these cysts are normal up to a certain point. My daughter's ultrasound was completely normal for a baby of her gestational age. Unfortunately, the initial dating was incorrect. The blood tests were completely incorrect.

It's really important to remember that a lot of the routine tests that are offered now, were not offered when my older kids were born. Our oldest is almost 24. Our youngest is 9. I never had an ultrasound with my oldest. My daughter's ultrasound was only done when one of the blood tests showed abnormalities. When we found out I was pregnant with our youngest (Surprise!), it seems like I had an ultrasound at almost every appointment.

None of that changes the fact that I was counseled to consider terminating a perfectly healthy baby. No test is 100% reliable. And two screening tests showed problems that didn't exist. I know that most stories don't end like mine did. And I am so thankful that I had a healthy baby. I'm certainly not trying to make those who chose differently feel bad. I said earlier that on a different day, I might have made a different decision. I simply shared that I wish that the option to terminate had never been offered to me.

I find your postings very offensive. I also know that you have posted elsewhere on DCUM stating that your fetus was incorrectly diagnosed with trisomy 18: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/212201.page#2100432

You have every right to oppose abortion and to discuss your opposition to it. But to lie--and yes, it's a lie to either imply or state straight out that your fetus had a T-18 diagnosis--is really troubling. And to say you are "not trying to make those who chose differently feel bad"--no, what you are trying to do is get women to question whether their fetus REALLY has/had T-18, and whether, if they're considering termination, they risk terminating a healthy baby, as you claim to have been at risk of doing. That's abhorrent given that your own fetus never received a diagnosis, only two screening tests that are not reliable. Many women on the Expectant Moms forum here have posted about cysts on their baby's brain seen on an ultrasound, and most doctors these days do not consider these to indicate a trisomy disorder, though they can be associated with it--but most of those babies are just fine.

Share your opinion all you want but please stop embellishing your story as you have been.

Yes, no test is 100% reliable, like you say. But to compare the accuracy of the screening tests you had to an amnio (about 99.4% accurate) is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly, I don't remember. I know that amnio was available back then. I don't remember it even being discussed. I didn't have to wait until she was born to learn that she was healthy. A later ultrasound revealed the cause: My dates were way off. From what I remember, cysts on the brain can be indicators of Trisomy 18. However, these cysts are normal up to a certain point. My daughter's ultrasound was completely normal for a baby of her gestational age. Unfortunately, the initial dating was incorrect. The blood tests were completely incorrect.

It's really important to remember that a lot of the routine tests that are offered now, were not offered when my older kids were born. Our oldest is almost 24. Our youngest is 9. I never had an ultrasound with my oldest. My daughter's ultrasound was only done when one of the blood tests showed abnormalities. When we found out I was pregnant with our youngest (Surprise!), it seems like I had an ultrasound at almost every appointment.

None of that changes the fact that I was counseled to consider terminating a perfectly healthy baby. No test is 100% reliable. And two screening tests showed problems that didn't exist. I know that most stories don't end like mine did. And I am so thankful that I had a healthy baby. I'm certainly not trying to make those who chose differently feel bad. I said earlier that on a different day, I might have made a different decision. I simply shared that I wish that the option to terminate had never been offered to me.

I find your postings very offensive. I also know that you have posted elsewhere on DCUM stating that your fetus was incorrectly diagnosed with trisomy 18: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/212201.page#2100432

You have every right to oppose abortion and to discuss your opposition to it. But to lie--and yes, it's a lie to either imply or state straight out that your fetus had a T-18 diagnosis--is really troubling. And to say you are "not trying to make those who chose differently feel bad"--no, what you are trying to do is get women to question whether their fetus REALLY has/had T-18, and whether, if they're considering termination, they risk terminating a healthy baby, as you claim to have been at risk of doing. That's abhorrent given that your own fetus never received a diagnosis, only two screening tests that are not reliable. Many women on the Expectant Moms forum here have posted about cysts on their baby's brain seen on an ultrasound, and most doctors these days do not consider these to indicate a trisomy disorder, though they can be associated with it--but most of those babies are just fine.

Share your opinion all you want but please stop embellishing your story as you have been.

Yes, no test is 100% reliable, like you say. But to compare the accuracy of the screening tests you had to an amnio (about 99.4% accurate) is laughable.

Well said PP! It appears, though, that her entire story is a lie - 3 weeks ago the Trisomy was first detected on a "routine ultrasound", but today she tells us it was found on a "concerning blood test" and "ultrasounds weren't done as routinely." Shame on you for lying to push your pro-life agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You do realize that the church goers who don't use contraceptives and the rhythm method are not going to abort.
Also there are communities that are very religious and practice abstianance. Abstiance would work if all the horny teeangers followed but they don't. The problem I have is the schools teaching them about contraceptives and making students feel like it's ok and have a green light to go have sex. If we are insistent on sex education through schools, they should also teach that it is wrong to have sex and risky.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am not sure that's true. People do all kinds of contradictory things. You know how many Catholics I know who had to get married becuse "birth control is against the church"???/ UM, so is premarital sex. Didn't stop them.

I agree it's less likely that a strident Catholic would have an abortion. But that's not a bet I'm willing to take, because the stakes are too high for everyone, woman and child and society.


As long as the chuch teaches that birth control is wrong, we are going to have many unwanted, but preventable pregnancies. Pregnancy prevention should be preached "until such time as parents are ready and willing to lovingly accept children" - to paraphrase part of the vows in a Catholic wedding as I recall.

Religious churchgoers absolutely do get abortions. In fact, they get them at rates that are not significantly less than the population as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the OP and we're not discussing choice here. I'm trying to discuss the way this procedure was held. If these children who are killed every day were considered real people and not "clump of cells" that can breath, feel pain, cold and hunger this would not have happened.

I'm also pro choice but we must find a way to make this right!


And you never answered my questions.

Oh, sure. That's why you picked this title for this craptastic, pointless troll-bait of a thread.

WTF is your problem????

[Anonymous]

...

You do realize that the church goers who don't use contraceptives and the rhythm method are not going to abort.
Also there are communities that are very religious and practice abstianance. Abstiance would work if all the horny teeangers followed but they don't. The problem I have is the schools teaching them about contraceptives and making students feel like it's ok and have a green light to go have sex. If we are insistent on sex education through schools, they should also teach that it is wrong to have sex and risky.

Um, what? See, this is what I was pointing out. Teens are going to have sex; it isn't 'wrong' and it doesn't need to be 'risky' if they are well-educated and properly informed. We can't hide our heads in the sand and pretend that they are going to listen to adults preaching at them. They have hit puberty and that means they are physically capable; it is our role as parents and adults to give them the education so they are mentally prepared as well.

[Anonymous]

Abstiance would work if all the horny teeangers followed but they don't.

Therefore, abstinence does NOT WORK.

Or, what this PP:

Um, what? See, this is what I was pointing out. Teens are going to have sex; it isn't 'wrong' and it doesn't need to be 'risky' if they are well-educated and properly informed. We can't hide our heads in the sand and pretend that they are going to listen to adults preaching at them. They have hit puberty and that means they are physically capable; it is our role as parents and adults to give them the education so they are mentally prepared as well.

said.

[Anonymous]

As someone who got abstinence only education in a public school (Bible belt), I can tell you unequivocally it DOES NOT WORK. Teenagers were having sex left and right and the misinformation in the class was unbelievable. We were told that contraceptives aren't really effective and that we should just pray a lot and not have sex. Great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who got abstinence only education in a public school (Bible belt), I can tell you unequivocally it DOES NOT WORK. Teenagers were having sex left and right and the misinformation in the class was unbelievable. We were told that contraceptives aren't really effective and that we should just pray a lot and not have sex. Great.

This is why out-of-wedlock births, STDs, and other problems are so much higher in Red State America. At least the adults get to feel a frisson of moral rectitude. Meanwhile, their kids are the one's paying the price. And of course, since conservatives are incapable of empathy, they never think such policies are a problem until, inevitably, it's their kid. At which point they double down on the same failed policies.

Just crazy.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What if a diagnosis was missed prenatally, and discovered at birth? Would you give your newborn a lethal injection to the heart then? Or is it only compassionate when your child is still inside your body?

This. And also, what if the diagnosis made prenatally was wrong. We were advised to consider terminating a pregnancy after prenatal testing revealed Trisomy 18. We were told that it was unlikely our daughter would be born alive. And that if she were, she would probably die within her first weeks of life. We were counseled to terminate to avoid putting our daughter through unnecessary pain.

They were wrong. I delivered a perfectly healthy baby. That baby is now 18. She is a national merit scholar who just received a full academic scholarship to college. Medicine isn't perfect. I can't help but remember that we considered ending the pregnancy. I am pro-life. But I will say that it is really easy to be pro-life when you aren't faced with the choice. I wavered on my pro-life stance and considered abortion after the diagnosis. I am thankful every single day that we chose to continue the pregnancy. I honestly wish I hadn't even been offered the choice.

I am a PP who had an abortion in the second trimester due to fatal prenatal diagnosis. Your heart injection question doesn't make any sense - do you understand what fatal means? My baby was malformed with misplaced and missing organs. She lacked lung tissue - so she would not have been able to breath.

To the other poster - I am very glad your daughter is healthy, alive, and thriving. However, you have to understand that many people have a much different reality and there isn't always a happy ending. Your wonderful outcome doesn't negate that other people's babies are fatally sick. Of course doctor's can be wrong - most intelligent people get numerous opinions and have additional testing before making a decision to terminate.

[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.

Pro-choice previous poster in the thread and I think that is an incredibly effed up reason for having a 22 week abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you feel bad, why not start a group to adopt unwanted babies? If you can guarantee adoption for unwanted babies, I'm sure they'll be less abortions.

But I think we all know that won't happen. People harp about saving babies, but nobody wants to take care of them after "saving" them.

And for people who claim to be "pro-life" and illegalize abortions... What are you going to do with the women who want to get an abortion? Throw them in jail? Fine them? (most of them are poor women).

Best solution is to keep it legal, offer counseling to avoid it, and every effort to support the mother during and after (if she changes her mind) birth (through childcare, food, education).

If America offered free childcare, birth control, and reproductive education to every women AND MEN, we could eliminate abortions that's not needed due to medical reasons.

I'm surprised you aren't aware of this, but there are hundreds of thousands of families in America attempting (and waiting) to adopt a baby. In fact, there are waiting lists in this country to adopt Down Syndrome (and other disabled) babies. There are even lists to adopt older babies. The only available children to adopt right now are those who are older (6 or 7 years old) and most, sadly, have serious issues.

There is absolutely no such thing as an "unwanted baby" in this country.

No unwanted babies? Um, except, evidently, "those who are older (6 or 7 years old) and most, sadly, have serious issues." Such as some of the babies that many families have opted to abort when they realize the catastrophically expensive care that they babies would require, the pain they would experience in their lives? So those children with their "serious issues" are, in fact, unwanted babies?

Oh, they're not "babies" anymore once they're children? Golly. I guess all those big hearted folks just chomping at the bit to adopt have somewhat more rigid standards than they initially let on. Thousands of children waiting for foster care and adoption, people. You've proven the pro choice argument from this perspective, so, congrats, you win the day!