My cousin had a baby with trisomy 18. Her baby lived 3 days. It was 3 days she cherished and would never regret .
Even though we're on opposite sides of the spectrum here, I have to agree with you that calling someone who doesn't terminate a trisomy 13 or 18 pregnancy "selfish" is a little much.
My sister also chose to carry a baby to term who was "incompatible with life." She didn't do it because she was selfish but because she held on to every last shred of hope that maybe things weren't as dire as they seemed and something could be done for him.
These are heart wrenching, emotional decisions that should be made in the privacy of our homes and in consultation with our doctors. Roe v. Wade protects that right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
I don't think I would have made the same choice as my sister and that should be my choice to make. Especially when it's a choice made out of the same love and compassion.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
My cousin had a baby with trisomy 18. Her baby lived 3 days. It was 3 days she cherished and would never regret .
Even though we're on opposite sides of the spectrum here, I have to agree with you that calling someone who doesn't terminate a trisomy 13 or 18 pregnancy "selfish" is a little much.
My sister also chose to carry a baby to term who was "incompatible with life." She didn't do it because she was selfish but because she held on to every last shred of hope that maybe things weren't as dire as they seemed and something could be done for him.
These are heart wrenching, emotional decisions that should be made in the privacy of our homes and in consultation with our doctors. Roe v. Wade protects that right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
I don't think I would have made the same choice as my sister and that should be my choice to make. Especially when it's a choice made out of the same love and compassion.
I didnt call anyone selfish. wrong poster
I know you didn't. I was agreeing with you but referring to Amy, who said it was the most selfish thing she thought someone could do.
I quoted you because I thought you were responding to the same thing I was.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
My cousin had a baby with trisomy 18. Her baby lived 3 days. It was 3 days she cherished and would never regret .
Even though we're on opposite sides of the spectrum here, I have to agree with you that calling someone who doesn't terminate a trisomy 13 or 18 pregnancy "selfish" is a little much.
My sister also chose to carry a baby to term who was "incompatible with life." She didn't do it because she was selfish but because she held on to every last shred of hope that maybe things weren't as dire as they seemed and something could be done for him.
These are heart wrenching, emotional decisions that should be made in the privacy of our homes and in consultation with our doctors. Roe v. Wade protects that right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
I don't think I would have made the same choice as my sister and that should be my choice to make. Especially when it's a choice made out of the same love and compassion.
This is exactly the point.
People seem to think as though women flippantly make the choice to abort. It's as if they equate it with deciding to grab a candy bar in the check out lane. I personally know women who have had abortions, and some who have considered but chose to keep babies. None of them made the choice without a lot of thought into the decision.
75% of women who chose to abort do so for financial reasons. Perhaps if pro-lifers truly care about these babies, they would do work to ensure all families have equal access to health care, food, quality child care, living wage, etc. Instead of preaching about their religious beliefs and how women are murdering innocent babies for convenience. Because if you have children already, as a majority of women seeking abortion do, and you are worried about feeding those babies, the last thing you need is a sanctimonious lecture about life.
And so far not one pro-lifer has addressed my questions about what to do if mother's life is in danger, such as an ectopic pregnancy. Or who decides what immediate danger is. And who is going to be responsible for care of children of the women injured/killed in back alley abortion clinics that inevitably spring up when it's outlawed.
The absolute best way to reduce rate of abortion is through economic equality. More poor people seek out abortions because they do not have the resources to provide for more children, and do not have adequate access to health care to reliably prevent pregnancy. Instead of focusing on removing further access to health care/abortions, pro-lifers should be expanding programs to help people get out and stay out of poverty. That will reduce abortion rate without denying rights to women. Instead all I hear about from the right is how welfare, food aide, ECE, etc are horrid programs that need to be slashed/burned. And women should just keep their legs closed, then they wouldn't have a need for planned parenthood. It's incredibly frustrating to say the least.
That's unfortunate, considering someone with actual personal experience in this post demonstrates otherwise.
Amy- thank you. For some, unless you are faced with circumstances that would require you to ponder what you would do, it's hard to put yourself in someone elses shoes. Not all are blessed with perfect pregnancies, as I now know.
The issue is not what you would do in the situation of being faced with a poor prognosis at 20+ weeks, but with having the OPTION to proceed with a pregnancy the way you- the Mother- sees fit. Under the bill an abortion/termination at 20 weeks would only be allowed if there is a "profound and irremedial congenital anomaly" as one that will "result in the
death of the infant not later than minutes to hours after birth", which would exclued conditions that are not 100% fatal for the baby.
This is unconstitutional per Roe v. Wade- which held that women have the right to
abortion up to the point of viability, and that viability can only be determined
by a doctor on a case-by-case basis and not at any fixed gestational point.
I get there are some who still feel there is only 1% of us who have had to suffer through a termination for medical reasons and this bill should be allowed to pass. I get there are some who will always consider this a black and white issue even when there are many shades of grey. But it's really simple- it should be a womans choice.
As poster Booger Bear said- just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean we should have a law against it. Everyone should be entitled to their freedom to make their own decision, not one handed to them by the government.
I have no desire to get in the middle of this debate, but I wanted to clarify that to the best of my knowledge and my DH's knowledge (who has been following this since he is a physician in Texas), the law does not require a woman to continue to carry a pregnancy at risk to her health/safety.
My understanding is that this law does not prohibit the baby from being delivered. It just prohibits an abortion which is a different medical procedure than delivering the baby. Therefore, if the Mother's life is in danger, the baby would be delivered. Obviously, at approx. 20 weeks and before, this pretty much does equal death. My understanding is that generally they do not take life saving measures to save the baby until about 21-22 weeks. (The reason I know this is because I was hospitalized with PTL contractions at about 20 weeks and then later developed severe pre-e. I actually had an OB who was insisting on taking my baby for my health when I really did not want that...luckily, my MFM doctor agreed with me and just put me on hospital bedrest.)
I was curious so I asked my DH how many 20+ week abortions/terminations he had seen. He said that in his 14 years of medical practice, only one--but then clarified it was not an abortion. It was a trisomy situation and the baby was delivered and passed away.
Additionally, I have a friend who is a few years older than I am who has a daughter who was pregnant. They learned the baby had a condition that was incompatible with life and, additionally, continuing to carry the baby was putting her daughter in jeopardy. I don't know all of the details, but I know she was on Medicaid and the doctors wanted to conduct an abortion--I'm guessing maybe it is easier or cheaper... At any rate, they had to call around/look around, but they did find a hospital who accepted Medicaid and would deliver the baby as opposed to aborting the baby so she was able to hold the baby and say good-bye. For them, they felt like it was the right choice for her daughter and I think it also helped her daughter and everyone else to grieve, too.
On the separate issue of carrying a baby once being told it will not survive - I really don't think we can pass judgment until we have BTDT. I have a friend (my college suitemate) who was told at the 20 week a/s that her baby had no kidneys and would die after birth. Got a second and third opinion. Like me, she lives here in Houston which has the largest medical center in the world--so she had the access to the best ultrasound machines. All of the experts agreed the baby had no kidneys and would not survive. She chose to continue to carry the baby. At some point a couple of months later (once the baby was larger), they had another ultrasound and there were two very small kidneys. That baby is now 2. Obviously, her story is the rare exception...in her view (and my own), a true miracle. But, really, my only point of even telling this last story is to say that I don't think that a Mother who chooses to carry a baby when being told it will not live always does make the wrong choice. Yes, stories like my friend's story are rare, but by the same token I think that some women have to do this for their own peace of mind. They have to do everything they can. I would never, ever, ever judge a woman who felt she could not carry a baby who had a condition that was incompatible with life, but I also don't think it is fair to judge one who does.
Ultimately, I don't know much other than it is surely a situation I would not want to find myself in and my heart grieves for any woman who is faced with such a hard decision.
Edit: typos
IF DX: DOR & Fragile X pre-mutation carrier
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54
2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4; BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
Re: How do you feel about what's going on with Texas?
Even though we're on opposite sides of the spectrum here, I have to agree with you that calling someone who doesn't terminate a trisomy 13 or 18 pregnancy "selfish" is a little much.
My sister also chose to carry a baby to term who was "incompatible with life." She didn't do it because she was selfish but because she held on to every last shred of hope that maybe things weren't as dire as they seemed and something could be done for him.
These are heart wrenching, emotional decisions that should be made in the privacy of our homes and in consultation with our doctors. Roe v. Wade protects that right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
I don't think I would have made the same choice as my sister and that should be my choice to make. Especially when it's a choice made out of the same love and compassion.
I would too. I don't find it noble to put a child through that.
I know you didn't. I was agreeing with you but referring to Amy, who said it was the most selfish thing she thought someone could do.
I quoted you because I thought you were responding to the same thing I was.
This is exactly the point.
People seem to think as though women flippantly make the choice to abort. It's as if they equate it with deciding to grab a candy bar in the check out lane. I personally know women who have had abortions, and some who have considered but chose to keep babies. None of them made the choice without a lot of thought into the decision.
75% of women who chose to abort do so for financial reasons. Perhaps if pro-lifers truly care about these babies, they would do work to ensure all families have equal access to health care, food, quality child care, living wage, etc. Instead of preaching about their religious beliefs and how women are murdering innocent babies for convenience. Because if you have children already, as a majority of women seeking abortion do, and you are worried about feeding those babies, the last thing you need is a sanctimonious lecture about life.
And so far not one pro-lifer has addressed my questions about what to do if mother's life is in danger, such as an ectopic pregnancy. Or who decides what immediate danger is. And who is going to be responsible for care of children of the women injured/killed in back alley abortion clinics that inevitably spring up when it's outlawed.
The absolute best way to reduce rate of abortion is through economic equality. More poor people seek out abortions because they do not have the resources to provide for more children, and do not have adequate access to health care to reliably prevent pregnancy. Instead of focusing on removing further access to health care/abortions, pro-lifers should be expanding programs to help people get out and stay out of poverty. That will reduce abortion rate without denying rights to women. Instead all I hear about from the right is how welfare, food aide, ECE, etc are horrid programs that need to be slashed/burned. And women should just keep their legs closed, then they wouldn't have a need for planned parenthood. It's incredibly frustrating to say the least.
Amy- thank you. For some, unless you are faced with circumstances that would require you to ponder what you would do, it's hard to put yourself in someone elses shoes. Not all are blessed with perfect pregnancies, as I now know.
The issue is not what you would do in the situation of being faced with a poor prognosis at 20+ weeks, but with having the OPTION to proceed with a pregnancy the way you- the Mother- sees fit. Under the bill an abortion/termination at 20 weeks would only be allowed if there is a "profound and irremedial congenital anomaly" as one that will "result in the death of the infant not later than minutes to hours after birth", which would exclued conditions that are not 100% fatal for the baby.
This is unconstitutional per Roe v. Wade- which held that women have the right to abortion up to the point of viability, and that viability can only be determined by a doctor on a case-by-case basis and not at any fixed gestational point.
I get there are some who still feel there is only 1% of us who have had to suffer through a termination for medical reasons and this bill should be allowed to pass. I get there are some who will always consider this a black and white issue even when there are many shades of grey. But it's really simple- it should be a womans choice.
As poster Booger Bear said- just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean we should have a law against it. Everyone should be entitled to their freedom to make their own decision, not one handed to them by the government.
I have no desire to get in the middle of this debate, but I wanted to clarify that to the best of my knowledge and my DH's knowledge (who has been following this since he is a physician in Texas), the law does not require a woman to continue to carry a pregnancy at risk to her health/safety.
My understanding is that this law does not prohibit the baby from being delivered. It just prohibits an abortion which is a different medical procedure than delivering the baby. Therefore, if the Mother's life is in danger, the baby would be delivered. Obviously, at approx. 20 weeks and before, this pretty much does equal death. My understanding is that generally they do not take life saving measures to save the baby until about 21-22 weeks. (The reason I know this is because I was hospitalized with PTL contractions at about 20 weeks and then later developed severe pre-e. I actually had an OB who was insisting on taking my baby for my health when I really did not want that...luckily, my MFM doctor agreed with me and just put me on hospital bedrest.)
I was curious so I asked my DH how many 20+ week abortions/terminations he had seen. He said that in his 14 years of medical practice, only one--but then clarified it was not an abortion. It was a trisomy situation and the baby was delivered and passed away.
Additionally, I have a friend who is a few years older than I am who has a daughter who was pregnant. They learned the baby had a condition that was incompatible with life and, additionally, continuing to carry the baby was putting her daughter in jeopardy. I don't know all of the details, but I know she was on Medicaid and the doctors wanted to conduct an abortion--I'm guessing maybe it is easier or cheaper... At any rate, they had to call around/look around, but they did find a hospital who accepted Medicaid and would deliver the baby as opposed to aborting the baby so she was able to hold the baby and say good-bye. For them, they felt like it was the right choice for her daughter and I think it also helped her daughter and everyone else to grieve, too.
On the separate issue of carrying a baby once being told it will not survive - I really don't think we can pass judgment until we have BTDT. I have a friend (my college suitemate) who was told at the 20 week a/s that her baby had no kidneys and would die after birth. Got a second and third opinion. Like me, she lives here in Houston which has the largest medical center in the world--so she had the access to the best ultrasound machines. All of the experts agreed the baby had no kidneys and would not survive. She chose to continue to carry the baby. At some point a couple of months later (once the baby was larger), they had another ultrasound and there were two very small kidneys. That baby is now 2. Obviously, her story is the rare exception...in her view (and my own), a true miracle. But, really, my only point of even telling this last story is to say that I don't think that a Mother who chooses to carry a baby when being told it will not live always does make the wrong choice. Yes, stories like my friend's story are rare, but by the same token I think that some women have to do this for their own peace of mind. They have to do everything they can. I would never, ever, ever judge a woman who felt she could not carry a baby who had a condition that was incompatible with life, but I also don't think it is fair to judge one who does.
Ultimately, I don't know much other than it is surely a situation I would not want to find myself in and my heart grieves for any woman who is faced with such a hard decision.
Edit: typos
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge: