'I was raped'

[C Hamilton]

Ce Ce wrote:

<quoted text>
No I have not, and I am so sorry for the people who have been raped, my heart goes out to them.
What I'm trying to say is if through that horrible experience, pregnancy does occur, as hard as it may be, is to have the child, and don't abort. If conception has taken place through this horrifying act, then for some reason this child is meant to come into this world.

Nonsense.....from someone who's been there.

[Ce Ce]

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>Nonsense.....from someone who's been there.

Sorry Hamilton to hear that. At the same time I stand strong in my beliefs, and hope that other's out there will make the right decision if that situation occurs with them!!

[MSO4]

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>Nonsense.....from someone who's been there.

You seem to use the word rape as a badge of honor. And act as if anyone else's opinion does not mean crap. Using your logic unless your a soldier you should not critique the war in Iraq.

[celeron]

Pro Life JP Freeman wrote:

<quoted text>
My Boy lived 1 hour with no help. No incubator Nothing. The baby cried? I heard one resident comment "I did not think a fetus at 21 week could cry like that" I will post the whole story of my son Joseph brief life. Let me add Babies have survived at 21 weeks and I think Joseph would have if they just tried. I thought you were pro choice? What happen to my Wife and I, we had no choice. The same laws that give choice to kill do not give choice to live. Bitter, you bet I am because it happen twice My daughter Anne again a brief life a cry then death. No amount of therapy will make that pain go away. Did they die in vane? No because I know of 3 debates I had that ended up with Babies born. I must admit many more have died. I will hold my babies in heaven. If you are suffering guilt from an abortion or if you have lost a baby try reading "I'll Hold you in Heaven" by Jack Hayford

Sir I don't mean to sound insensitive because this seems to be a very hard topic for you to objectively comment on because of your pain, but have you and your wife undergone any type of genetic testing? There seems to be so much more going on here. I pray that GOD gives you peace.

[Ami STL]

Pro Life JP Freeman wrote:

<quoted text>
My Boy lived 1 hour with no help. No incubator Nothing. The baby cried? I heard one resident comment "I did not think a fetus at 21 week could cry like that" I will post the whole story of my son Joseph brief life. Let me add Babies have survived at 21 weeks and I think Joseph would have if they just tried. I thought you were pro choice? What happen to my Wife and I, we had no choice. The same laws that give choice to kill do not give choice to live. Bitter, you bet I am because it happen twice My daughter Anne again a brief life a cry then death. No amount of therapy will make that pain go away. Did they die in vane? No because I know of 3 debates I had that ended up with Babies born. I must admit many more have died. I will hold my babies in heaven. If you are suffering guilt from an abortion or if you have lost a baby try reading "I'll Hold you in Heaven" by Jack Hayford

There is no way a 21 weeker can live outside the uterus. None have done so in documented history, and technology cannot compensate for the inadequacy of the human development process at that point.
The most humane and sensitive thing that can be done in the tragic case of a baby born at that age is to keep them comfortable until their time comes.
They can cry a bit or breathe briefly, but they cannot live at 21 weeks outside of the uterus.

I'm sorry for your loss and you sound very upset. Doctors who deliver the fatally premature often encounter angry family members who wish their children saved. Doctors don't have the tools. Science does not have the tools. We just have not come that far.

[C Hamilton]

MSO4 wrote:

<quoted text>You seem to use the word rape as a badge of honor.

Care to explain that?

MSO4 wrote:

Using your logic unless your a soldier you should not critique the war in Iraq.

No, using my logic one should not be critiquing a soldier's RESPONSE to being in armed conflict in Iraq. Critiquing the war itself is different.

[stupidblock-spf1 00]

Ce Ce wrote:

<quoted text>
No I have not, and I am so sorry for the people who have been raped, my heart goes out to them.
What I'm trying to say is if through that horrible experience, pregnancy does occur, as hard as it may be, is to have the child, and don't abort. If conception has taken place through this horrifying act, then for some reason this child is meant to come into this world.

Could you elaborate on the reason you perceive? I would guess you're saying that god makes rape happen for children to be conceived. I have a couple of friends who were the product of rape and who are venomously pro choice. Did you know that a rapist can sue for parental rights? Not only are some people arguing that a woman is at fault for rape, now there are those saying that she should continue her pain and carry the child of her rapist. Wow, seems like more of a punishment for the initial rape.

[Cpetr13]

Women don't care what you have to say, Suck THAT up.

sara wrote:

Abortion is a total disreguard for life. She blatently took a sibling away from her son, and looking back, she will realize that she has taught her son to treat life with disrespect and ignorance-taking it whenever it's convenient. She was a walking contradiction wearing the shirt pregant-she says by doing this "Some babies are worth it and some simply are not. This one's lucky!".
Discusting.....
This is an atrocious way of life and bein pro-life (which every LIVING HUMAN BEING should be-because wer'e alive...)I am discusted by people like Jennifer Baumgardner. Taking lives and being paid for it is twisted and the human race is in an evil decline because if it. God doesn't care if you were raped, neither does the baby within. Have your baby and suck it up.

[Cpetr13]

No, honey, that was a mirror. Now put the tubes back in and lay down.

Harry Plopper wrote:

I saw her with t t-shirt that said "I am brain-dead"

[Cpetr13]

Women don't have to gestate a fetus if they don't want to; they aren't jut baby machines for your convenience.

VERY few premies at 21 months will survive even with the use of machines. It's interesting that you say you respect life but feel free to threaten or even attack doctors who refuse to administer futile treatment. You dont' say what the problem was with your daughter, but like it or not, the merciful thing to do with a premie that cannot survive is to let them pass relatively painlessly. Hooking them up to machines from very orifice is not mrciful nor will it do any good.

Thre is nothing responsible in bearing a child you do not want nor plan to raise yourself.

Pro Life JP Freeman wrote:

<quoted text>
The Problem is Women are destroying someone elses body. My avatar is my son Joseph 21 weeks from conception. He lived 1 hour. Yes he could have been legally aborted, killed, Yes Murdered. The same laws that permit abortion killed my son Joseph and also killed my daughter Anne. 3 other babies including a set of twins all borned alive had medical help until their death. Joseph and Anne did not. Why The same laws that permit abortion to judge viability Took my wifes and I choice away. Some Choice I had to watch them die as I beg for help. I truely know the feeling of rape. I a 6'2' Male that was a solid 220 lbs was helpless I should of grab the doctor by the throat and told him I'll rip your heart out if you do not try to save them. I cried and beg not once but twice. The other times I made my feeling known and the hospital and the doctors agreed before there was any sign of trouble.Yes you have the right to do anything you want with your body. Apparently right now you can destroy someone elses body to. All because you or someone like you can not use birth control (note each partner should use it) Accept responsibility

[Cpetr13]

Medically, viability is defined as the point at which th4e fetus could survive outside of the womb without heroic measures. Not just a chance to survive, but the definite ability to do so.

A 21-week-old fetus has virtually no chance of surviving, and almost no chance of survival without life-long neurological or developmental problems. The lungs in particular are rarely close enough to full development to sustain life, and the surfactants needed for respiration are not in place. I think it is cruel to tell someone that their 21wo fetus has a better chance of suv9ival than it does; it certainly is not biologically viable.

TheTimeIsNow wrote:

<quoted text>
I see where you're coming form. Right now viability is defined by the point where the baby has a 50% chance of survival. I think it should be at the point where the baby stands any chance of survival, and the earliest where there's a remote possibility of survival is 21 weeks, so I think at that point yes they should have to try to save them.
And yes I agree it's 2 bodies. But I disagree with you that abortion should be illegal. You see as long as the fetus is in the woman's body it is living off of her body and her nutrients. Forcing the woman to keep it in there makes her a slave to the fetus. It's her body and just like she has the right to revoke consent to a part of a man's body being inside of her she also has the right to revoke consent to the body of any person no matter how it got there to be in there.
Once it's possible for the fetus to survive on its own then I think if she wants to revoke consent it should be delivered alive and they should try to save its life. Someday there will be ectogenesis and they'll be able to do this at any stage of the pregnancy. However, I still think then abortion should be permitted before there is brain function. Once there's brain function, not a fully developed brain but some brain function then I think it's safe to say it's a person since it is beginning its first very primitive thoughts which it has the potential to build on from there and expand to more complex thoughts as it gets older. It's not at that point yet, but saying therefore it's not a person is like saying therefore a newborn baby is not a person, since newborn babies haven't reached the complexity of thought that makes a person.
However, before there's brain function it really is just a glob of tissues. Something without brain function can't feel pain whether physical or psychological. So, embryos should still be abortable.

[Cpetr13]

Since there is no god, everyone has a perfect right to play god in their own life.

Ce Ce wrote:

<quoted text>
ABSOLUTELY!!!
To be raped would be devastating, but if a pregnancy occurs in that situation, to abort is playing God, and no one should have the right to take another life. Life is a gift, and everyone deserves a chance at it!!!

[Cpetr13]

Victims of rape do not think it is a badge of honor, but they are no longer willing to play weepy victim on a don't ask, don't tell basis.

As for the war, it is being funded with my tax dollars, and that, along with the 1st amendment, gives me every right to complain about it. Individuals, on the other hand, have the right to privacy.

MSO4 wrote:

<quoted text>You seem to use the word rape as a badge of honor. And act as if anyone else's opinion does not mean crap. Using your logic unless your a soldier you should not critique the war in Iraq.

[TheTimeIsNow]

Cpetr13 wrote:

Medically, viability is defined as the point at which th4e fetus could survive outside of the womb without heroic measures. Not just a chance to survive, but the definite ability to do so.
A 21-week-old fetus has virtually no chance of surviving, and almost no chance of survival without life-long neurological or developmental problems. The lungs in particular are rarely close enough to full development to sustain life, and the surfactants needed for respiration are not in place. I think it is cruel to tell someone that their 21wo fetus has a better chance of suv9ival than it does; it certainly is not biologically viable.
<quoted text>

The lung problem is actually why scientists don't see the earliest point of possible survival moving back any further than 21 weeks or actually 21 1/2 weeks to be precise. I suppose it should depend on the baby. If the lungs really aren't developed enough that it has even the slightest chance of survival then don't try to save it.

But if there's the slightest chance unless the baby will definitely be a complete vegetable, not just disabled but a complete vegetable with no ability to communicate then they should try to save it. Disabled people are still people.

I still support the woman's right to remove the fetus at any stage of pregnancy. Just when there's any chance of survival the doctors should try to save the baby.

[Tell-It]

Ce Ce wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Hamilton to hear that. At the same time I stand strong in my beliefs, and hope that other's out there will make the right decision if that situation occurs with them!!

What is the "right" choice varies person to person and isnt up to you to decide.

[Ami STL]

TheTimeIsNow wrote:

<quoted text>
The lung problem is actually why scientists don't see the earliest point of possible survival moving back any further than 21 weeks or actually 21 1/2 weeks to be precise. I suppose it should depend on the baby. If the lungs really aren't developed enough that it has even the slightest chance of survival then don't try to save it.
But if there's the slightest chance unless the baby will definitely be a complete vegetable, not just disabled but a complete vegetable with no ability to communicate then they should try to save it. Disabled people are still people.
I still support the woman's right to remove the fetus at any stage of pregnancy. Just when there's any chance of survival the doctors should try to save the baby.

I don't believe there is ANY documented case of a 21 weeker surviving. The earliest documented survivor of premature birth was that Florida girl a year or so ago and she was born at 22 weeks 6 days.
Not a single 21 weeker has survived because their internal organs cannot sustain life, even with mechanical assistance. They literally do not have lungs at that age. They have lung buds, but no ability at all to breathe independently or even with a machine for longer than minutes.

[TheTimeIsNow]

Ami STL wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe there is ANY documented case of a 21 weeker surviving. The earliest documented survivor of premature birth was that Florida girl a year or so ago and she was born at 22 weeks 6 days.
Not a single 21 weeker has survived because their internal organs cannot sustain life, even with mechanical assistance. They literally do not have lungs at that age. They have lung buds, but no ability at all to breathe independently or even with a machine for longer than minutes.

Actually, 21 weeks and 5 days is the earliest survived premature birth. Not only that but he's perfectly healthy. http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/st...

If there's a chance they should take the chance. There are biological reasons why before 21 weeks it's not only unlikely but absolutely impossible to save a baby. At 21 weeks it's only unlikely, but the baby can possibly survive. They should try what they can, but remind the parents that the chances of survival are extremely slim.

[Cpetr13]

Okay, so a woman is pregnant and miscarries at 21 weeks. The ftus is not dead at birth but the woman doesn't want it to have to live with potentially crippling physical or neurological disorders, nor does she want it to be on life support unless they can promise it will live and thrive.

The doctors ignore her requests and keep it alive, resulting in a severely-retarded, epileptic baby who will probably not live to see puberty. Who is then responsible for the upkeep and upbringing of this baby?

TheTimeIsNow wrote:

<quoted text>
The lung problem is actually why scientists don't see the earliest point of possible survival moving back any further than 21 weeks or actually 21 1/2 weeks to be precise. I suppose it should depend on the baby. If the lungs really aren't developed enough that it has even the slightest chance of survival then don't try to save it.
But if there's the slightest chance unless the baby will definitely be a complete vegetable, not just disabled but a complete vegetable with no ability to communicate then they should try to save it. Disabled people are still people.
I still support the woman's right to remove the fetus at any stage of pregnancy. Just when there's any chance of survival the doctors should try to save the baby.

[Cpetr13]

And if the parents don't want to take up the resources, time, and money to try t save a virtually unsalvageable premie?

TheTimeIsNow wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, 21 weeks and 5 days is the earliest survived premature birth. Not only that but he's perfectly healthy. http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/st...
If there's a chance they should take the chance. There are biological reasons why before 21 weeks it's not only unlikely but absolutely impossible to save a baby. At 21 weeks it's only unlikely, but the baby can possibly survive. They should try what they can, but remind the parents that the chances of survival are extremely slim.

[Ce Ce]

Cpetr13 wrote:

Since there is no god, everyone has a perfect right to play god in their own life.
<quoted text>

Prayer is needed here for this dude!!!