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

^ that.

I don't have the energy for this, but you go girl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Sorry, OP - you're full of it. Look at the title of the thread - it has nothing to do with bad medical practice and everything to do with choice. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Anonymous wrote:OP again. How many times I'll have to repeat. I'm not here discussing choice. I posted this thinking about bad/irresponsible doctors. What part of my posts you didn't get???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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????

My problem is people who pick horrific situations that, frankly, have nothing to do with the right to choose (and everything to do with shoddy doctors failing to provide the appropriate standard of care) and using them to yank on people's heartstrings by calling them "little babies who were not born yet" so that they can not-so-slyly advance their own pro-life agenda.

OP here. You're holding only one phrase against me when during the whole thread I explained what my point was. You want to fight go find someone else.

Oh, come off it, OP. Look at the bolded text. It's not just the title. You're just begging to have the "fetus" vs. "tiny tiny baby humans" fight, and you picked this awful example of doctors abdicating their responsibilities to instigate it. You're an instigator. Own it.

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?

Wrong.

Twenty-five percent of babies born at 23 weeks survive now. Fifty percent of babies born at 24 weeks. I'm the poster whose daughter was born at nearly 23w.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/04/27/extreme_preemies/?page=full
at least half of babies born at 24 weeks survive. He explained that at the Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center (like most of the specialized newborn intensive care units in Boston), about one-quarter of babies born at 23 weeks survive.

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.

New poster here. My friend's baby was born at 22w and 6 days, and now she's a healthy six-year-old. No learning disabilities either, which is pretty incredible. She had a rough start to her life, obviously, but now she's thriving. She beat the odds - 25 percent of babies born then survive.

There's a reason that no medical facility in DC will perform an abortion at 23 or 24w - babies are viable at this point and can survive outside the womb. In fact, more than fifty percent of babies born at 24w survive nowadays. And their odds get better and better all the time thanks to incredible advances in healthcare. Within ten years, babies born at 20w will be able to survive.

It's quite possible that the woman whose child was aborted/killed here did have her dates off by a week or two, which is very common. Which is probably more reason for doctors to be more cautious about performing abortions so late in pregnancies.

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?

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You. The trisomy18 mom. You are horrible! How dare you continue to post your "no test is 100% accurate" and my baby is healthy on a board after 2 women so bravely shared their heart wrenching experiences. Are you just wanting women that you don't even know, second guess their decisions and wonder "what if" over and over again? That is just cruel. You do not know what these women (and those of us with similar experiences but not brave enough or strong enough to post about it) went through. For some, it weighs on us every single day and for some of us, we struggle with our decision and wonder what if. How in the world do you think your post helps in any way? And don't make me vomit by saying you don't want others to go through what we did, because it is just as painful to hold your baby until she dies. There is absolutely no good coming out of your story. Shut up already and just go away.

Anonymous wrote: Sorry, OP - you're full of it. Look at the title of the thread - it has nothing to do with bad medical practice and everything to do with choice. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Anonymous wrote:OP again. How many times I'll have to repeat. I'm not here discussing choice. I posted this thinking about bad/irresponsible doctors. What part of my posts you didn't get???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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????

My problem is people who pick horrific situations that, frankly, have nothing to do with the right to choose (and everything to do with shoddy doctors failing to provide the appropriate standard of care) and using them to yank on people's heartstrings by calling them "little babies who were not born yet" so that they can not-so-slyly advance their own pro-life agenda.

OP here. You're holding only one phrase against me when during the whole thread I explained what my point was. You want to fight go find someone else.

Anonymous wrote: Sorry, OP - you're full of it. Look at the title of the thread - it has nothing to do with bad medical practice and everything to do with choice. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I <3 you, PP! Will you be my valentine?

Sorry, OP - you're full of it. Look at the title of the thread - it has nothing to do with bad medical practice and everything to do with choice. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Anonymous wrote:OP again. How many times I'll have to repeat. I'm not here discussing choice. I posted this thinking about bad/irresponsible doctors. What part of my posts you didn't get???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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????

My problem is people who pick horrific situations that, frankly, have nothing to do with the right to choose (and everything to do with shoddy doctors failing to provide the appropriate standard of care) and using them to yank on people's heartstrings by calling them "little babies who were not born yet" so that they can not-so-slyly advance their own pro-life agenda.

OP again. How many times I'll have to repeat. I'm not here discussing choice. I posted this thinking about bad/irresponsible doctors. What part of my posts you didn't get???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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????

My problem is people who pick horrific situations that, frankly, have nothing to do with the right to choose (and everything to do with shoddy doctors failing to provide the appropriate standard of care) and using them to yank on people's heartstrings by calling them "little babies who were not born yet" so that they can not-so-slyly advance their own pro-life agenda.

We've done a good job as a society getting the word out about things that are important to us. Friends don't let friends drive drunk. Click it or ticket. Back to sleep. I can't think of a handy phrase about car seats, but do you know anyone who doesn't use one?

Granted we can't have a law enforcement aspect with sex, but we can get the word out. Birth control. Condom every time. Make it cheap, easy and shameless. A no brainer. If you are not trying for a baby, there is NO way you would ever have unprotected sex.

Anonymous wrote:

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????

My problem is people who pick horrific situations that, frankly, have nothing to do with the right to choose (and everything to do with shoddy doctors failing to provide the appropriate standard of care) and using them to yank on people's heartstrings by calling them "little babies who were not born yet" so that they can not-so-slyly advance their own pro-life agenda.