facist law forces mom to give birth just to watch the child die 15 minutes later

[gekaap]

That's a good example. Blah, blah, blah.

God damn you are more dense than lead. I've been handing you the REAL grounds on which you should be arguing this entire thread. Instead, you continue on with the same BS. Your car takes unleaded and you keep pumping the diesel. Go read this post.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.


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?


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.



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.


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.


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.

I don't doubt the child likely would have died with even the best care, but others that "should have died" didn't and in this case they didn't even try. So yeah, it does raise a question or two. Relatively speaking early births are not rare, but births at 22 or 23 weeks are. Your intellectually dishonest deflection is noted.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Exactly. I have a cousin who was probably going to die after being born. She had SEVERAL problems. Her Diaphram didn't devlop right and all of her intestines were up in her chest cavity, causing her lungs to under develop. They didn't expect her to make it after being born. BUT, they did surgery in the womb to help her after birth. Then she had several surgeries as soon as she was able. She will likely have more, but she survived!

I don't think either of you two realize THERE WERE NO OPTIONS AVAILABLE. It is a rare case for ANY baby to survive that early, let alone when they don't have functional lungs. You who demand something be done: show me what options were available. You know nothing of medicine yet claim to have some insight into this case that there were options. So what were they? Provide them or just stop this ridiculous line of reasoning.

And you are an expert? 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?"...

which by the way is not a claim but a question.

It is not an expert. She just thinks she/it is.

 

[JimH52]

The story gives no indication of a scientific diagnosis that could identify a medical problem that would cause a baby to die within 15 minutes of birth. They operate on babies in the womb these days. They could perform a Cesarian at 22 weeks. I smell a big fat liberal rat in this story.

Of course you do. You also probably watch FOX 24/7.

 

[BenNatuf]

The story gives no indication of a scientific diagnosis that could identify a medical problem that would cause a baby to die within 15 minutes of birth. They operate on babies in the womb these days. They could perform a Cesarian at 22 weeks. I smell a big fat liberal rat in this story.

Of course you do. You also probably watch FOX 24/7.

Perhaps you have a study showing that his watching FNC 24/7 (which would be impossible unless he also doesn't sleep) has an effect on the medical condition of realy early pre term babies?

 

[BenNatuf]

That's a good example. Blah, blah, blah.

God damn you are more dense than lead. I've been handing you the REAL grounds on which you should be arguing this entire thread. Instead, you continue on with the same BS. Your car takes unleaded and you keep pumping the diesel. Go read this post.

Since you've got it all figured out maybe you should go read this post

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3415862-post329.html

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Thank you for coming late to the party and posting this nice drive-by ad hominem.

BTW, I just noticed...Care is not a proponent of killing babies BEFORE their time, which implies she's ok with killing them when they're time is up...or when someone determines it's time.

So she's just a proponent of killing babies, period, I guess.

You who so ridiculously calls everything a logical fallacy are completely blind to your own. In this thread alone you yourself have propagated the following:
Fallacy of Sweeping Generalization
Ad hominem
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Ignorance
Affirming the Consequent
Denying the Antecedent
Slippery Slope Argument
Fallacy of False Causes
Straw Man

You continue to grossly warm the stance of others, and when called on it, claim the other person is just making an ad hominem attack. You may have learned what each fallacy means, but you clearly fail in debate and logical thinking. Hold yourself to the same standards and avoid the fallacies in your own writing. Then start pointing fingers. Until then, ignorance and idiocy is no excuse.

Do you ever utter a non-logical fallacy? Please reference one real argument that wouldn't earn you a big fat "F" if it was written down and submitted in a paper....

I have referenced my arguments multiple times, and am happy to do so again since you either seem to continually miss them or they go over your head:
* The patient and doctor should decide what to do in cases like this
* Abortion should have been available in this situation to reduce the suffering of the baby

Things YOU have claimed Care and I have said which we have not and do not believe, also known as straw man arguments you repeatedly make:
* All babies should die if not perfect
* Imperfect babies are abominations
* Pro-choice proponents want to butcher babies
* Everyone will eventually die so doctors can kill them at any time

Do you need me to continue rubbing your nose in your own filth? Why don't you go whine about something that isn't actually the topic some more. Or will you just continue to make up ridiculous arguments and claim other people said them instead?

I've been handing you the REAL grounds on which you should be arguing this entire thread.

You've been giving grounds on which YOU want to argue the thread. My point still remains that abortion, not simply induced labor, ought to have been available in this situation. This is an argument you STILL haven't addressed, as you seem to be too busy trying to tell me how to argue your point.

I don't doubt the child likely would have died with even the best care, but others that "should have died" didn't and in this case they didn't even try. So yeah, it does raise a question or two. Relatively speaking early births are not rare, but births at 22 or 23 weeks are. Your intellectually dishonest deflection is noted.

Except you're making broad sweeping generalizations of cases you know nothing about. You either don't know what the term "intellectually dishonest" means or are suffering from it yourself by pointing that finger. This is still a straight forward issue: an ENTIRE FIELD of medicine is developed to understand what circumstances of premature delivery are viable and how to best save such babies. The fact that the doctor before AND after the delivery still had nothing they could do for the baby should clue you in to the fact that you're still wrong.

IF you are dumb enough to claim that the doctors could have done something for THIS baby in THIS circumstance, then by all means provide the procedure. Tell us in your infinite wisdom what specifically could have been done. Just spare me listening to more of your crap insistence that some magical treatment was withheld as a delivery room full of highly trained and experienced medical staff negligently looked on and let the baby die. Put up or shut up.

 

[gekaap]

Since you've got it all figured out maybe you should go read this post

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3415862-post329.html

o_0 I already responded? I had made a typo initially, said "opponent" when I meant to say "proponent."

 

[gekaap]

You've been giving grounds on which YOU want to argue the thread. My point still remains that abortion, not simply induced labor, ought to have been available in this situation. This is an argument you STILL haven't addressed, as you seem to be too busy trying to tell me how to argue your point.

Dude, you're becoming detached from reality. So now you're arguing that there should never be a law that prohibits late term abortion?

You're not getting it. Yes, there are problems with the law. But you're arguing that there are problems because what the mother went through was unpleasant. That's completely irrelevant and is missing what really matters. The law deviates from the time standards articulated in Roe v. Wade (22 weeks, whereas this law goes with 20 weeks) for the state's ability to regulate late term abortion, and invokes a new standard (the fetus experiencing pain) which has not be recognized as a valid standard, nor is the application of that standard as the law so does, readily accepted throughout the medical community.

 

[Immanuel]

You've been giving grounds on which YOU want to argue the thread. My point still remains that abortion, not simply induced labor, ought to have been available in this situation. This is an argument you STILL haven't addressed, as you seem to be too busy trying to tell me how to argue your point.

Dude, you're becoming detached from reality. So now you're arguing that there should never be a law that prohibits late term abortion?

You're not getting it. Yes, there are problems with the law. But you're arguing that there are problems because what the mother went through was unpleasant. That's completely irrelevant and is missing what really matters. The law deviates from the time standards articulated in Roe v. Wade (22 weeks, whereas this law goes with 20 weeks) for the state's ability to regulate late term abortion, and invokes a new standard (the fetus experiencing pain) which has not be recognized as a valid standard, nor is the application of that standard as the law so does, readily accepted throughout the medical community.

STH is definitely not my favorite poster, but, he (I think he is a he) did not make the claim that there should never be a law against late term abortions. He clearly stated that in this case that should have been an option.

I've been handing you the REAL grounds on which you should be arguing this entire thread.

You've been giving grounds on which YOU want to argue the thread. My point still remains that abortion, not simply induced labor, ought to have been available in this situation. This is an argument you STILL haven't addressed, as you seem to be too busy trying to tell me how to argue your point.

Immie

 

[BenNatuf]

I don't doubt the child likely would have died with even the best care, but others that "should have died" didn't and in this case they didn't even try. So yeah, it does raise a question or two. Relatively speaking early births are not rare, but births at 22 or 23 weeks are. Your intellectually dishonest deflection is noted.

Except you're making broad sweeping generalizations of cases you know nothing about. You either don't know what the term "intellectually dishonest" means or are suffering from it yourself by pointing that finger.

Except of course that I specifically said births THAT early are rare (which would be 23 weeks in the context of the conversation) and you countered that early births were not rare.

So which is it? Were you meaning 23 weeks and just flat out lying?

or

Were you meaning early as in up to anytime before 40 weeks and being intellectually dishonest?

has to be one or the other.

This is still a straight forward issue: an ENTIRE FIELD of medicine is developed to understand what circumstances of premature delivery are viable and how to best save such babies. The fact that the doctor before AND after the delivery still had nothing they could do for the baby should clue you in to the fact that you're still wrong.

Wrong about what? I asked a question about why they did nothing. Apparently you inferred an answer which would be YOUR mistake. You also have NOTHING but the fact they they did nothing to show they "could do nothing" which is a logical falacy itself. Doing nothing is not evedence that nothing COULD be done.

IF you are dumb enough to claim that the doctors could have done something for THIS baby in THIS circumstance, then by all means provide the procedure.

If you are too stupid to tell the difference between a statement and a question I can't help you.

Tell us in your infinite wisdom what specifically could have been done. Just spare me listening to more of your crap insistence that some magical treatment was withheld as a delivery room full of highly trained and experienced medical staff negligently looked on and let the baby die. Put up or shut up.

Why was medical care witheld?

^^^that, dumb ass... is a question.^^^



Maybe instead of smarterthanhick you should have named yourself dumberthanstump.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Dude, you're becoming detached from reality. So now you're arguing that there should never be a law that prohibits late term abortion?

Can you point to a SINGLE sentence where I stated that? Just one. Do you have ANY support behind making that ridiculous argument? Immie and I almost always completely disagree on topics, but she has the integrity to stick to her own beliefs instead of attributing false ones to others. She's right in her previous post.

But this seems to be the running theme of people in this thread who agree with the events that took place: anyone against us should be wrongly portrayed as exaggerated monsters regardless of what points are actually being made.

But you're arguing that there are problems because what the mother went through was unpleasant.

Still false. I have told you that you are harping on the least significant of the three negative outcomes of this situation repeatedly in previous posts. You can't seem to get over the fact that you're still wrong, it seems. As I've mentioned before, we can completely overlook the physical and mental affects this had on the mother, pretending it is completely inconsequential, and the third issue still remains: a baby suffered asphyxiation for 15 minutes unnecessarily. This continues to be the main and strongest issue you ignore.

 

[gekaap]

As I've mentioned before, we can completely overlook the physical and mental affects this had on the mother, pretending it is completely inconsequential, and the third issue still remains: a baby suffered asphyxiation for 15 minutes unnecessarily. This continues to be the main and strongest issue you ignore.

I've already said multiple times that the fate of the baby does not justify active euthanasia. It's not ethical. You say I'm ignoring that point, yet I've been clear on it multiple times already.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Dude, you're becoming detached from reality. So now you're arguing that there should never be a law that prohibits late term abortion?

Can you point to a SINGLE sentence where I stated that? Just one. Do you have ANY support behind making that ridiculous argument? Immie and I almost always completely disagree on topics, but she has the integrity to stick to her own beliefs instead of attributing false ones to others. She's right in her previous post.

But this seems to be the running theme of people in this thread who agree with the events that took place: anyone against us should be wrongly portrayed as exaggerated monsters regardless of what points are actually being made.

But you're arguing that there are problems because what the mother went through was unpleasant.

Still false. I have told you that you are harping on the least significant of the three negative outcomes of this situation repeatedly in previous posts. You can't seem to get over the fact that you're still wrong, it seems. As I've mentioned before, we can completely overlook the physical and mental affects this had on the mother, pretending it is completely inconsequential, and the third issue still remains: a baby suffered asphyxiation for 15 minutes unnecessarily. This continues to be the main and strongest issue you ignore.

Did you watch the video ? Would that have been better ?

 

[BenNatuf]

As I've mentioned before, we can completely overlook the physical and mental affects this had on the mother, pretending it is completely inconsequential, and the third issue still remains: a baby suffered asphyxiation for 15 minutes unnecessarily. This continues to be the main and strongest issue you ignore.

I've already said multiple times that the fate of the baby does not justify active euthanasia. It's not ethical. You say I'm ignoring that point, yet I've been clear on it multiple times already.

Well, since you are a proponent, and you know how all the arguments should be made...

you should have no problem with this

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

 

[gekaap]

And since we're talking about people ignoring things, you've ignored the point I brought up about how there's nothing in all of this that actually affirms that it's the LAW AS WRITTEN that stopped the doctors from inducing labor. Inducing labor is not a form of late term abortion. You have yet to justify that jump.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

As I've mentioned before, we can completely overlook the physical and mental affects this had on the mother, pretending it is completely inconsequential, and the third issue still remains: a baby suffered asphyxiation for 15 minutes unnecessarily. This continues to be the main and strongest issue you ignore.

I've already said multiple times that the fate of the baby does not justify active euthanasia. It's not ethical. You say I'm ignoring that point, yet I've been clear on it multiple times already.

Well, since you are a proponent, and you know how all the arguments should be made...

you should have no problem with this

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

STH does not care . It feel that RU486 should be ground up into Flintstones multivitamins for little girls and sold at Wal-Mart.

 

[gekaap]

Well, since you are a proponent, and you know how all the arguments should be made...

you should have no problem with this

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

I'm not sure where you're trying to go.

 

[BenNatuf]

And since we're talking about people ignoring things, you've ignored the point I brought up about how there's nothing in all of this that actually affirms that it's the LAW AS WRITTEN that stopped the doctors from inducing labor. Inducing labor is not a form of late term abortion. You have yet to justify that jump.

Who? If you meant this toward me I've never said that. What I've said is it appears the hospital used some pretty questionable legal reasonning to decide not to induce labor. It appears to me from the story that the woman and the doctors wanted to, but were told they couldn't on what appears to be pretty shaky legal grounds. Which appear to me to have been more of an exercize in CYA.

 

[gekaap]

Who? If you meant this toward me I've never said that. What I've said is it appears the hospital used some pretty questionable legal reasonning to decide not to induce labor. It appears to me from the story that the woman and the doctors wanted to, but were told they couldn't on what appears to be pretty shaky legal grounds. Which appear to me to have been more of an exercize in CYA.

No, not you. That was directed to STH.