It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Again I never said that they would not, just that mortality is very small that is a fact, and those that do even with all the care in the world will be in a nightmare of medical expenses due to medical problems, for a parent that care that should to be a problem and all, after all motherhood and parenthood when planned should be a 24 hour job regardless of age until adulthood, go back and read into the post with information about the 22 and 25 weeks fetuses.

And again this a thread on an aborted fetus, "The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled." However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die.
.




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
The pro life, propaganda stories doesn't stop to amaze me, have fun and keep living in lala land with anti abortion rhetoric.

what a joke.


With all the cute littler stories Fetuses will not need an uterus to grow and live anymore, God will provide with artificial uterus so the sinners will not kill the littler fetuses.

Deny ignorance don't spread it.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Sorry but you are wrong.


Originally posted by marg6043
Reality check,

Any new born under 23 weeks born alive, will eventually die of complications, new borns born at 25 weeks most likely will be under intensive care for months before be able to leave the hospital and due to the weak and under develop lungs and organs they will most likely suffer health problems through their lives.


You did say they will die. If born under 23 weeks.

Again I never started a post in the thread that was anti-abortion until another did. I admit that after that I did post some and was even intrigued by some of the ideas some others posted. Not sure I fully agree but I do understand their train of thought.


Here is a hint for you though on posting. Bolding and underlining a large part of your post does not do much more than annoy the reader.

Raist



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


What pro life propaganda are you referring too?

Nothing but facts have been posted link wise in this thread to date.

Oh and as you reminded me. The thread is about an unfortunate fetus that survived unfortunately for him for nearly two days after a failed attempt of a legal abortion (because this would not happen if they were legal).

Raist



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Wow, did you read anything I wrote. Medical problems, medical expenses mortality rate, every thing you wrote was all wrong. My source? First hand experience. During my daughters stay I saw more than a few 22-23 weeks come and go in the level III NICU. some even as old as 6 months but that's because they had been born to parents on drugs which is a another story. Not one of these babies died and the only ones who had any real complications where born to drug addicts.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Okay I’ll give you something to chew on for a bit.

The doctor and any other staff involved should face murder charges. After all the baby was born at that time and still alive.

Actually the mother should as well for her callous mistreatment of life this never would have taken place. After all like it or not the baby/fetus was alive while in the womb.

Raist


Edit for grammar.

[edit on 4/30/10 by Raist]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
The chances of a child born at this age (22 weeks) surviving and being "normal" are slim, but still possible. Many have great problems, blindness, developmental delay, paralysis, unable to digest food among many other problems.... , more often than not they child will die.

That is reality.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I never said there might not be problems but they should still have that chance to live.

Answer me this though.

Was the baby/fetus alive or dead before the procedure took place?


Again there is no need to bold and underline things. It does not make things any more or less true by doing so. That is reality as well.
Raist


Edit to add. By the way you do see where you said they will eventually die don't you? It is right there in your post and the quote I have posted. You are wrong.

[edit on 4/30/10 by Raist]

[edit on 4/30/10 by Raist]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The chances of a child born at this age (22 weeks) surviving and being "normal" are slim, but still possible. Many have great problems, blindness, developmental delay, paralysis, unable to digest food among many other problems.... , more often than not they child will die.

That is reality.

Where ever you got your information, it needs to be updated. That is very outdated information. The now have steroid shots that can be given to mature the lungs, both in-utero and after birth. This clears up the problem of blindness which come from being on long term ventilation. Developmental delays are because well, even though they are lets say 3 months old technically they are still negative 1 month old. If you judge them by their chronological age yes they are delayed but if you judge them by their adjusted age they are fine. paralysis is caused by vaginal birth, since always do c-sections now unless it is absolutely to late that eliminates most cases of paralysis. As far as food digestion goes, true some have that problem but they have predigested formulas and it usually clears up at around 1 yr of age. Of course most of these babies can still tolerate breast milk.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
my dad is a doctor. he is also a christian. one day he was asked to perform an abortion for a young couple, and being against abortions, he lied and told them "its too late for me to abort the baby". so she had the child, and absolutely fell in love with it, and came back to the office with the little one to thank my dad for not going through with it. babies have a heartbeat and closed circulatory system seperate from the mother with a different blood type than the mother has anywhere from 13 to 21 DAYS after conception. in other words, before the girl misses her next period and begins suspecting that she is pregnant, her baby has a beating heart.

i cannot support abortion, there is the easy choice, and then there is the right choice. i cannot pretend to know what it is like to be a single teen and pregnant without knowing who the father is, but please, have the baby and put it up for adoption.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoothyKnight
Late-term abortions are always awful and shouldn't generally be allowed, but personally, I wouldn't want a disabled child either. If its disability is severe, I think I would spare it the miserable life it would lead. I don't mean to sound heartless.

[edit on 4/30/10 by MoothyKnight]


i almost kind of agree with you. i'm 100% against abortion, don't get be wrong, but honestly? if i were to get in an accident tommorow and be paralized from the neck down, i would try to kill myself (though don't ask me how i'd do it). i don't want to live in a severely broken body, but that would be my choice. i can't choose that for someone else.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Heartbeat is silly. life begins when the chemicals that make life begin to make it possible: conception. That is the moment life begins, because that is the moment, biologically, that life begins. Personhood, persons, organs working, etc etc are all nonsensical definitions of life. Go with Science. Organisms begin when their traits begin. That is when the genetic code is created and functions.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by anon72
 


Heartbeat is silly. life begins when the chemicals that make life begin to make it possible: conception. That is the moment life begins, because that is the moment, biologically, that life begins. Personhood, persons, organs working, etc etc are all nonsensical definitions of life. Go with Science. Organisms begin when their traits begin. That is when the genetic code is created and functions.


i also agree, there is no debate about it. abortion is legalized murder. the definition of death is based on scientific data, so should the definition of life, it only makes sense. though it is suprising just how fast the baby gets a heartbeat.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


wow. That is what I am thinking. The doctors, they are the ones who perform the procedures. Why? Why are they cool with the beginning of life and when it begins or rather-shouldn't be stop/terminated/ended etc.

To me, it just goes against what doctors are to do-Save lives. So, why aren't they saying it begins when the starting chemicals meet etc?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
my dad is a doctor. he is also a christian. one day he was asked to perform an abortion for a young couple, and being against abortions, he lied and told them "its too late for me to abort the baby". so she had the child, and absolutely fell in love with it, and came back to the office with the little one to thank my dad for not going through with it.


It worked out okay for that woman but it's not his place to be making major life choices for patients. You sound proud of him yet he took it upon himself to change his prosition from doctor to priest/moral counsel.. not only that if he was christian yet ignored her right to free will. I can appreciate that she is glad she didn't have an abortion but your father was in the position of trust as a medical practitioner and it was NOT his decision to make. If he felt morally compromised he sould have just referred her to another doctor or made his moral views clear before accepting her as a patient. Ultimately it was very unprofessional.

Ontopic. My personal opinion is that the doctor should be charged with malpractice and perhaps manslaughter.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by riley]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
You know....

I find abortions absolutely disgusting, I don't understand how a woman who's life is not on the line could ever stick a tong up her womb and rip a living "what ever" from her body, and then get all the baby pieces scraped out with metal spoon. A lot of women go through a lot of emotional trauma over just loosing a Baby yet there are others who just scoop them out like ice cream into oblivion, it's insanity.

Whats even more mindbogglingly is the doctor that makes a living off of doing this....

My dog recently had 8 puppies, I have had this dog since she was a pup and she has always been so playful and goofy until she had her pups. The absolute natural love this flea bitten mutt had for her pups, the seriousness that she instantly developed and the tenderness and care she provided was amazing to watch.

How a damn Dog could be more human than some women makes my heart sink....


I'm not going to judge a woman's choice, I just don't understand it. I can only hope never to be a part or have anything to do with an abortion because once you have done it you can't take it back...

Again I think placing a baby in a basket and leaving it at a good persons door step and running the bell should be a legal option if abortion is....

The good thing is more babies are not aborted and get to enjoy a the simple things in this cruel world, like this little guy.




Ha, ha, ha.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by Izarith]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
This…..


Originally posted by marg6043
Reality check,

Any new born under 23 weeks born alive, will eventually die of complications, new borns born at 25 weeks most likely will be under intensive care for months before be able to leave the hospital and due to the weak and under develop lungs and organs they will most likely suffer health problems through their lives.



Has already been proven to be false, it was proven so on page one. Any child born under 23 weeks will not eventually die of complications.

It is ignorance like this that keeps the idea out there that children do not matter. This is why this baby was allowed to suffer for nearly two days. The idea that they are unimportant and will die anyway. They will not die eventually, they do have a chance of survival no matter how slim it is we give that chance to every other human being on the planet. If we are not worried about saving the lives of babies because their chances are slim we should end all life support on everyone. There is no difference. We support adults and children every day that cannot live without life support, why are we pulling the plug on babies who cannot live without their life support?


Still no one has answered a question I have been asking.

Is the baby/fetus alive or dead before an abortion?


Raist



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Freedom of choice was in the freedom to have sex. Unless that is violated, consequences are consequences. Abortion should only be for rape and incense, and even then under heavy criticism and speculation. There are those who have complications and for which technology does not yet exist to help them. Thus it is obvious to save one life rather than lose both.

With all that said, my body my choice is a horrible lie. Your body your choice to have sex. A fetus is its own body and self, and deserves the choice to live or not on its own decision when older. Forcing some moral code or assuming your life will suck without money or resources is nothing short of cultural and ideological imperialism. Worst, it encourages a care free society that, as our current time shows, leads to epic failure.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by riley
 

With all that said, my body my choice is a horrible lie. Your body your choice to have sex.

Wow another "moral" person who think the concept of free will shouldn't apply to a pregnant women.

Regardless people have already used that non argument already trying to find a moral loophole so they can justify deeming a pregnant woman's wishes as NA and treating her body as merely a uterus on life support. The whole idea of surgically raping a woman so she can't get pregnant again is very, very sick (it's why I bothered with this thread I tried ignoring it) and it is NO BETTER than the taliban cutting off the hands of hungry thieves or killing women for having babies out of wedlock.

..I notice there's no mention the fathers getting vacectomies for aborted pregancies. Why is that? because pregnancy is all the woman's fault? :shk:

If people are going to continue responding to me try my last post it is actually ON TOPIC. I'm getting sick of pro-lifers using it as a segway to post misoginist propoganda and I have NO interest reading justifications on surgical rape. IT IS SICK and I'm not going to change my mind on that no matter how many people say "but she chose to have sex..".

[edit on 1-5-2010 by riley]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 



First again there is no rape involved in the idea. The thought was if you wanted this you get this as well. It is a choice. We like choices don't we?


Actually we have a society that has it both ways now.

The father has no say in the abortion issue but the father also has to pay child support.

I being a father full time do not need to pay support as I am here full time.

But there are those who are fathers who would not want to be yet they have to pay support, because the woman wants the child. In the same instance a woman who does not want a child can abort it without any say by the man who might want a child. That makes the current set up unfair to the father of the child.

But as said above if the woman does not have sex (with a man who also will not get sex) will not be put into the situation to begin with.

Where is the man’s say on the child? Takes two to tango no?


Raist



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join