I'm not a doctor, so I'm not entirely clear on why that loss of amniotic fluid makes this circumstance different from other babies born this premature, but everything I can find so far indicates that that IS the case.
Again, just because two things have something in common, such as premature delivery, DOES NOT mean they are the same. Loss of amniotic fluid means the developing fetus will be compressed by the uterus at all times of development, which only causes more deformations.
So I'm left with wondering why the doctors didn't think this was a clear-cut case of "danger to the life and health of the mother", which is included in the Nebraska abortion law.
Because it wasn't. Mom wasn't in any immediate danger. I recommend you do a little googling on the term preeclampsia. It will serve as a contrast to this situation and make light of your appropriate question.
YYou throw Oregon in there minus one major fact, and that is any one who wants to end there life can ask for it. Matter of fact, anyone any ware who wants to end there life can do so. They have a choice.
Not legally they don't. If you try to end your life you get incarcerated for it. Oregon residents can't just ask for assisted suicide. They must be suffering from a terminal illness, as this baby was. Did you look up the term double effect yet?
You are clear that you advocate abortion as birth control
Oh I am? Amazing how anti-choice people always take rational arguments and make ridiculous extremist zealotry out of it. Where did you EVER see me state abortion should be used as birth control? Try not to look like a straw man moron when discussing ethics.
I wouldn't believe the Right telling you the baby was viable without independent confirmation. They also said Terry Scheivo could come back because people come back from comas. This was a lie because she was a flat liner and no one has EVER come back from that. As logical as Rush Limbaugh usually is even when I disagree with him (typically social issues or the wars), he gave a Terry Schlievo is alive and could revive speech so devoid of reality it was worthy of being a DNC press release.
This is all very insightful. Medicine RELIES on legitimate outcomes, not impossible long shots. You will never see a surgeon perform an operation just because it has a 0.001% chance of working. Ever. This was a non-viable situation. Any out of context reactions to a "what if" question answered by the doctor should not be held as valid possibility.
From my link:
Research dating back to the 1980s and earlier has consistently shown induced labors more often end in cesarean section, forceps deliveries, serious infections, and greater complications for both mother and baby.
Women get epidural anesthesia more frequently when labor is induced, indicating that induced labors may be more painful.
Epidural anesthesia, for those who don't know, involves a shot directly into the spine. I shouldn't have to tell anyone how potentially dangerous that can be.
Other articles I have read suggest that inducing labor can produce contractions so strong that they result in the placenta tearing loose from the uterine wall.
And ALL of that wonderful research from over three decades ago is in relation to full term labor, NOT severely pre-term inductions. Again, you have this bad habit of making false comparisons and attempting to apply inapplicable information onto this situation.
The option is to not kill the baby early when it's going to die naturally, when there is absolutely no reason to kill it early.
Some people are interested in reducing unnecessary suffering. As you said, it's going to die anyway. That leaves two options: 15 minutes of asphyxiation, or preventing the suffering early. The end result is the same. Why would you subject any baby to the former? What is the benefit? Oh that's right, you don't answer any questions.
And thank you for clearing up that the mother's desires are the only factor to take into consideration.
Once again you claim to have read that in both my and Care's point. I have yet to see where either of us state that. Which logical fallacy is that?
It is only rare because any birth that early is rare to begin with, so naturally those that survive would be even rarer... but it does happen. Your claim that "nothing could be done" is just as unsupported as my asking the question "why was nothing done?"...
"My" claim that nothing could be done is the doctor's claim that nothing could be done. The entire field of neonatology is dedicated to this exact topic. Early births are not rare, and that field knows exactly how to deal with situations WHEN THEY CAN. Clearly that wasn't the case.
