This is why I support late term abortions

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

Her baby wasn't expected to live, but Nebraska law banned abortion


Danielle Deaver cradled her daughter, knowing the newborn's gasps would slowly subside, and the baby would die.

Through tear-blurred eyes, she looked her daughter over for physical defects.

Deaver, 34, of Grand Island, Neb., wanted to see something, anything to validate the news doctors delivered eight days before: Her baby had virtually no chance of survival. And if she lived, she would be severely disabled.

What Deaver saw was perfection: A tiny but beautiful child. Ten toes. Ten fingers. Long eyelashes.

Her baby tried desperately to inhale.

With her husband, Robb, at her side, Deaver sobbed, gently kissing her daughter's forehead and hoping her baby wasn't in pain. That fear - that the baby would suffer before its predestined death - compelled the couple to seek an abortion. But a new Nebraska law that limits abortion after the 20th week of gestation prevented her from getting one. The Iowa Legislature is considering a similar law.

A nurse at Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital in Hastings instructed the couple to closely monitor their daughter's breathing so when it stopped the staff could accurately record the death.

The clock ticked.

At 3:15 p.m. Dec. 8, 1-pound, 10-ounce Elizabeth Deaver - named in memory of Robb's grandmother - made one final attempt to breathe.

Her life struggle, 15 minutes outside the womb after 23 weeks and five days of gestation, was over.

"Our hands were tied," Danielle Deaver said. "The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God. I feel like how to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should have been mine, and it wasn't because of a law."


Years of trying to conceive

The Deavers' path to the Hastings hospital is a story of faith and persistence in their desire to have children.

Danielle and Robb met in 2002 at a karaoke bar in Grand Island, Neb. Danielle attempted to set up Robb with one of her friends. But Robb, the son of rural Nebraska dairy farmers, was attracted to the bubbly matchmaker instead.

They dated for about a year and talked almost immediately about having children. She was 27 and he was 33 when they married.

"Conversations that would scare most people away, we chose to have because we weren't 20," Danielle said.

They married in a Methodist church in St. Paul, Neb., a compromise between his family's Presbyterian roots and her Episcopalian denomination.

Soon after the wedding, they began trying to have children. Three pregnancies ended in miscarriages.

One was particularly devastating. The pregnancy was progressing so well that a doctor told them to go home and paint their baby room: They were going to be parents. She miscarried after the 16th week.

In 2007, when Danielle became pregnant again, Robb, a hospital emergency room admissions staffer, felt an intuition that everything would be OK this time.

Danielle, a registered nurse, felt anxiety the entire pregnancy, fearful that even a cough or hiccup would cause her to miscarry. But on May 18, 2008, she gave birth to a healthy baby boy, Alex.

Danielle Deaver calls all children, and specifically Alex, her active 2-year-old, "God's greatest gift."

"It's everything I had hoped and dreamed it would be and more," Robb Deaver said.



Joy turns to devastation

In June 2010, Robb and Danielle began trying to have another child. Danielle found out in August she was pregnant.

After telling immediate family, the couple took a picture of Alex in his blue booster seat with a poster reading "FUTURE BIG BROTHER" and posted it on Facebook.

"I was the one this time that was like, 'Hey, I've done this once. I'm a pro,' " Danielle said. "I didn't worry about anything."

Then came Sunday, Nov. 28, as Danielle and Robb were tucking Alex into bed. Danielle's water broke.

Robb rushed his wife to the hospital. Doctors told the couple the incident didn't mean the pregnancy was over. It was possible Danielle's body could make more amniotic fluid, and the baby would be all right.

"I said, 'OK, what do we need to do? Do I need to stand on my head for the next four months? Whatever it is I need to do,' " Danielle said.

But the next morning, an ultrasound showed hardly any amniotic fluid around the baby. Danielle spent the next 24 hours on bed rest, scared to move. She saw a perinatologist in Omaha on Tuesday, Nov. 30.

A perinatologist is an obstetrical specialist often involved in caring for pregnancies that have a high risk for complications. The Deavers' hearts sank when they heard the perinatologist's first words: about hope for subsequent pregnancies.

Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before a fetus has achieved viability.

Without amniotic fluid around the fetus, the infant would likely be born with contractures, a shortening of muscle tissue that causes an inability to move limbs. Because the skull of the fetus was still soft, the muscles in the mother's uterus would likely cause deformities to its face and head. It also was unlikely the baby's lungs would develop beyond the 22-week stage, when Danielle's water broke.

"Even if we did carry the pregnancy further, and we decided to try heroic measures with ventilation and stuff, she may not even have the anatomy to maintain" life, Danielle said. "You have to have the anatomy to have the ventilator help."

The couple talked about bed rest, fluid replacement, steroids and any other idea they could imagine to save the pregnancy.

"I've said through this ordeal that I don't want to be a person that doesn't believe in miracles, but I think that day my hope was gone. I had none left," Danielle said.

They asked the perinatologist a question no parent wants to ask: At what point do parents who are willing to do anything to save a child turn selfish by putting the child through what seemed to them like torture?

There was no clear-cut answer.

There was less than a 10 percent chance their child would have a heartbeat and be able to breathe on its own. There was an even smaller chance - estimated at 2 percent - that the baby would ultimately be able to perform the most basic functions on its own, such as eating.

Robb and Danielle, left alone in an exam room, held each other and discussed what to do. They just couldn't see the logic in exhausting painful, expensive medical procedures after being told they had almost no chance to save their baby's life.

They decided: There are worse things than death.

"So (the perinatologist) came in, and we said we'd just like to put an end to this nightmare and can you help us. She said, no, she can't," Danielle said.

The perinatologist said Nebraska's abortion law, which had been in effect less than two months, would not allow Danielle to terminate her pregnancy because her baby still had a heartbeat and because her own life was not immediately jeopardized.

The couple went home to wait, brokenhearted. They acknowledge they could probably have gone to another state to terminate the pregnancy. Danielle said she felt intense stress and wasn't strong enough emotionally to deal with an unfamiliar place and doctors she hadn't met.

Eight days later, Danielle went into contractions, and baby Elizabeth was born to her 15-minute life.



Doctor acted on legal advice

Danielle Deaver gave The Des Moines Register permission to review her medical records, which confirmed her account of the pregnancy.

Dr. Todd Pankcatz, her primary physician in Hastings, said he asked several attorneys to review the law to see whether he could fulfill the family's request to terminate the pregnancy.

It was possible that Danielle, who complained of intense pain during the last few days before birth, could have been suffering from an infection. However, it is debatable whether the possibility of an infection could have been used as the legal basis to move forward with an abortion, Pankcatz said.

Because of the uncertainty, Pankcatz said he was advised not to fulfill the family's request.

"This is an untested case law," Pankcatz said. A case could be pressed as a way to contest current abortion law, or "if somebody saw this in a way that could potentially further their political career," his lawyers told him.

"There were criminal charges that I would potentially face by intervening in a pregnancy like this," Pankcatz said.

Physicians who break the law face felony charges that could result in five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Leanne Parker, Danielle's mother, arrived at the hospital soon after Elizabeth, her first granddaughter, died. She held the infant's body while saying goodbye to the child she never knew.

"So many of these people that are behind this law have never gone through anything like what our family has gone through," Parker said. "It's just an unreasonable law."



Abortion limits in Iowa

Iowa Republican lawmakers have proposed several bills to further restrict abortion in Iowa. House File 5 mirrors the Nebraska law.

One of the most aggressive anti-abortion legislators who supports House File 5, Rep. Glen Massie, R-Des Moines, said Elizabeth Deaver deserved the chance that Nebraska's law gave her.

"In life, amazing things happen," Massie said, noting examples of when unborn children have beaten the odds of a dire medical prognosis. "I know it may be a one in a bazillion snowballs' chance, but if I were that snowball, I'd want that chance."

Other anti-abortion lawmakers agreed that Deaver's doctor acted appropriately to maintain the pregnancy.

"You have to take into account the life of the child and the life of the mother," said Rep. Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, a board member of Iowa Right to Life and author of House File 5. "It's that basic foundation. You have two lives there."

The author of the Nebraska law, Speaker Mike Flood, a Republican and attorney from Norfolk, maintained last week that the law worked in the Deavers' case.

"Even in these situations where the baby has a terminal condition or there's not much chance of surviving outside of the womb, my point has been and remains that is still a life," Flood said.

Consider impact, pair pleads

Danielle and Robb Deaver describe themselves as private people who have never been politically active. Before December, they weren't aware of the Nebraska abortion law, they said.

Their interview with the Register was the first time they'd spoken publicly about their daughter's death.

Politicians "put words out there like the 'partial birth abortion act.' Well, gosh, nobody wants a partial-birth abortion," Danielle said. "That sounds so gruesome, but that's not what this was about. Our situation got lumped in with that."

The Deavers have contacted Planned Parenthood of the Heartland but have not determined whether they will pursue a case to challenge the constitutionality of the Nebraska law. Because Planned Parenthood does not provide abortions after the 20th week, it would not likely have legal standing to bring a case. Because the Deavers' situation is resolved, they may no longer have standing either.

For now, the Deavers say speaking out is a form of therapy. It's also a way to push states like Iowa to consider the ramifications of a broadly written law like Nebraska's.

Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, called the Deavers courageous.

"I think those that hear her story will be very, very moved," June said. "Hopefully some of them that are on this reckless stampede against a woman's right to decide with her doctor what is in the best interest of her health and well being - I hope they will hear her words and listen to her."

The three-month anniversary of Elizabeth's birth and death is Tuesday. Her cremated remains are in an urn in the family's house, next to pictures and other mementos of her life.

"I get so frustrated. I just think if they (lawmakers) thought about their daughter, their sister, their mother, their wife being in this situation, they would never want them to go through that," Danielle Deaver said.

Source


This is why I support a woman being able to choose to have a late term abortion. This woman's life wasn't in danger, nor was she a victim or rape or incest, so she had to be forced to watch her baby suffer and asphyxiate to death, all the while knowing such suffering could have been prevented.

This is about giving people a choice. This couple decided not to put their baby through so much suffering, and the law prevented them from exercising that choice. This was an extremely traumatic and emotional situation, and a very difficult medical decision, and I feel that the law has no place in it.

If a woman in such a situation decides that the very slim chance for her fetus to survive is worth the pain, then that's her choice to make. This couple didn't have a choice and that is absolutely wrong to me. Medical decisions should not be legislated or forced onto people.

What do you think? Did this woman have a right to an abortion? Is wanting to prevent the practically inevitable suffering of the baby a good enough reason for abortion?

Comments

[chickendelight.livejournal.com]

This is why I can't call myself 100% pro life. I think wanting to prevent the practically inevitable suffering of a baby is the only 'good enough' reason for abortion.

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

That sort of attitude makes you even more pro-life in my eyes.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

What do you think?
I think abortion is something best left up to the people, since everything is a judgment call and legislation isn't amenable to providing the proper grounds for such judgment calls.

Did this woman have a right to an abortion?
I don't tend to view it as an issue of rights- just an issue of letting people make the right decision when it is warranted and just.

Is wanting to prevent the practically inevitable suffering of the baby a good enough reason for abortion?
Yes.

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

I think abortion is something best left up to the people, since everything is a judgment call and legislation isn't amenable to providing the proper grounds for such judgment calls.

Well said.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I'm crying now.

In 1962, my parents were living in Athens where Dad was stationed as a courier for nuclear bomb codes at the Athens Courier Transfer station. Mom was pregnant with twin boys, and at Dad's previous duty station in Germany, she had been given thalidomide in the first trimester....the very year the drug was withdrawn.

The first twin miscarried at almost 7 months while Dad was in Turkey. The doctors, lacking today's technology, could not investigate the condition of the second baby in any meaningful way. They put Mom on immediate bed rest for the next two months as she desperately hoped that the baby would be okay.

My older brother was born full term with no arms, one leg and a massive hole in his heart -- he died within minutes and was whisked away without my mother, under sedation, being allowed to even look at his face. He's buried in Greece -- in an unmarked grave.

I keep thinking about late term abortion bans and the consequences for women who are not in medical danger but whose pregnancies are essentially doomed. I think about what would have happened under such a law for my mother today -- thankfully, there is no thalidomide given to pregnant women, and maybe, just maybe, my brother's heart defect could be repaired in utero today...but if not, Mom would go through the last months of pregnancy with two options: hide in her house mourning or walk about the world visibly pregnant and die a little inside every time a well meaning stranger approached her with a kind smile to ask if she knew if she were having a boy or a girl.

And I cannot help but conclude that these laws increase human suffering.

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

I am sorry to have made you cry, but I feel that sharing these stories are important. It puts a face to the people who suffer under these laws and, hopefully, proves to the people who support them that these laws cause needless suffering.

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

Also, that story is heartbreaking and I'm sorry such things ever happen.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry for your suffering. Thank you for sharing this story. Its very moving.

[qnetter]

Apparently, increasing human suffering is an acceptable cost of improving the afterlife, to some.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

This left an enormous bitter lump inside my chest......... =(

[teleens-journal.livejournal.com]

I'm so sorry for your family's loss. Thank you very much for sharing this.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

And p.s.

These statements:

"In life, amazing things happen," Massie said, noting examples of when unborn children have beaten the odds of a dire medical prognosis. "I know it may be a one in a bazillion snowballs' chance, but if I were that snowball, I'd want that chance."

Other anti-abortion lawmakers agreed that Deaver's doctor acted appropriately to maintain the pregnancy.

"You have to take into account the life of the child and the life of the mother," said Rep. Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, a board member of Iowa Right to Life and author of House File 5. "It's that basic foundation. You have two lives there."

The author of the Nebraska law, Speaker Mike Flood, a Republican and attorney from Norfolk, maintained last week that the law worked in the Deavers' case.

"Even in these situations where the baby has a terminal condition or there's not much chance of surviving outside of the womb, my point has been and remains that is still a life," Flood said.



Makes me see through a fog of red mist.

"We put you through psychological torture so you could have the honor of holding your baby at the moment of her death -- and that's a good thing."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Your restatement of what you quoted is an amazing work of propaganda and misdirection.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

When my doggie, who is twenty, has enough, I am allowed to end his life in a way that minimizes suffering. Its my duty, in fact.

I don't see why that morality changes if its a human being.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

It isn't even about human beings. Normal, every-day ethical judgment gets thrown out the window when it comes to abortion, for some reason. Normally prudent people are hijacked but some overriding principle that is never applied in any other situation. It's just weird.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

What do I think? I think the state of Iowa should be sued for causing the suffering.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Doctors can be wrong. There have been people who were told that their baby wouldn't live more than a few days, and they've been alive for many years. Medical science is still barbaric. If the woman hadn't been told that the baby would die, would she have considered aborting? Preventing her from killing another life on the basis of possibly incorrect information is a good thing. This is an example of the irrationality of extreme abortion advocates.

Is wanting to prevent the practically inevitable suffering of the baby a good enough reason for abortion?

No.

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

Preventing her from killing another life on the basis of possibly incorrect information is a good thing.

Oh? And do you have statistics on how often doctors are wrong?

When a child is in an accident and is in a coma or brain dead, though still technically alive, a parent has the right to decide to pull them off life support, even though there may be a "chance" they may still wake up. How is this any different from that scenario?

It is not up to you to decide what is a "good thing." If a woman doesn't want to have to go through the pain of giving birth to a baby she knows will suffer and die in her arms, then you have no right to force her to do so merely because you feel it's morally superior and "a good thing."

This is an example of the irrationality of extreme abortion advocates.

It's not extreme to not want people to suffer needlessly. I'd say it's extreme to let and want people to suffer needlessly because "it's a good thing."

[speciesofspaces.livejournal.com]

Abortion should be safe, legal and private, and any attempts from the government and outsiders regarding abortion should operate within those three guidelines and be solely restricted to making the situation that gives rise to abortion rare.

I realize we are all justifying why this woman and her fetus "deserved" a late-term abortion. And yes the facts are extremely compelling.

However, this woman and her fetus deserved a late-term abortion because the woman and her medical providers made that choice. There should be no further debate on the merits of whether this choice should be permitted. It's really not our business to justify, excuse, argue the merits or otherwise gawk at this family's tragedy. And I find it disgusting that discourse about abortion so often gets drug down to such a level.*

(*Not blaming anyone here personally and I hope nobody feels attacked. This is a discussion group, the facts are stunning, I get it!)

[bex.livejournal.com]

I really appreciate this comment. I feel like the facts of this story are a plea to emotion - undoubtedly, this woman's situation is heart-wrenching and illustrates the real consequences of outlawing abortions, but using her story as an example is dangerous to the pro-choice cause, too. The minute we start squabbling about who is justified in seeking an abortion, we begin to erode the fact that it is a medical decision and should be between a woman and her doctor. This is why there are "unclaimed" populations of women in the abortion debate - sure, some women need abortions because they were raped, victims of incest, or are carrying a fetus that will not survive outside the womb. Those are easy women to fight for. What about the others, the women who do seek multiple abortions and fail to practice safe sex, or women who do seek late-term abortions because they didn't get their shit together ahead of time? Those women are hard to fight for, but we need to remember them and remember to claim them and not deny their existence, because they have just as many rights as women like the one in this story. I worry that they get lost and that their experiences are not seen as legitimate, and then pro-lifers point them out and the pro-choicers stand around saying "Uhmmm, we don't have figures on that and that's not important anyway! What about the rape and incest?!"

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

A nurse at Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital in Hastings instructed the couple to closely monitor their daughter's breathing so when it stopped the staff could accurately record the death.

Why didn't the hospital do ANYTHING to try and aide the baby? This seems like negligence to me.

[bex.livejournal.com]

What are they supposed to do? She likely had no lung function to speak of, so ventilators/other breathing assistance won't do shit - you have to have more lung development for that kind of treatment. She was woefully premature, had been without amniotic fluid for a week, and was never going to make it. The humane thing to do would've been to allow an abortion earlier, but instead she was delivered and essentially drowned.

[anadinboy.livejournal.com]

you know women, they hate children that embarrass them in front of the other moms at the school gates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amazonia. here in uk you can have an abortion if your child has a hare lip.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

[needs citation]

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

so you support late term abortions only in extreme cases or for any reason?

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

Me? Any case. To me, a woman has the right to decide when she wants to abort.

[teleens-journal.livejournal.com]

What do you think?

I think that the rights of the born outweigh the rights of the unborn, 100% of the time.

Did this woman have a right to an abortion?

It's her body that the potential life was living in, so YES.

Is wanting to prevent the practically inevitable suffering of the baby a good enough reason for abortion?

This question pisses me off, though my rage is not directed at you, OP. No, it pisses me off because of this idea that there must be 'good reasons' for a woman to choose to stop allowing a potential life to continue to grow inside of her.

And that's all a fetus is, a potential life - otherwise why is it considered 'bad luck' not to tell anyone that you're pregnant until after the 13th week? And let's not forget that even some full-term pregnancies are stillborn.

A fetus is not alive until it takes its first breath. Until then, it is completely dependent upon the woman who is carrying it, whose status as a person should not be in question.

And that's what this "debate" does. It takes a woman, who is alive and breathing, and attempts to turn her into less than a person. From my POV, anyone who is pro-life believes that women are second-class citizens who do not have complete autonomy over their bodies and who are only fit for procreation once the sperm hits the egg.

Keep in mind, as this case shows, not every pregnancy ends happily and every woman risks her life carrying a child to term. This is something else that the pro-life crowd likes to gloss over - pregnancy is DANGEROUS. It's less dangerous than it used to be, but there is still a risk of DEATH from complications when one gets pregnant and no one should be forced to risk their lives on the basis of what COULD be.

This woman was FORCED to continue a pregnancy that was no longer viable. And re-reading the article, I wouldn't call an abortion at the stage when she would have had it 'late term', but that's me.

To me, it's late term when the fetus has a CHANCE of survival outside of the womb - this child had none and yet they FORCED the woman to continue the pregnancy. And setting aside how much she suffered when the child was outside of her body - how much did she suffer when it was still within her? How much did every movement hurt her, knowing that when that baby was born, she was only going to suffer?

"Even in these situations where the baby has a terminal condition or there's not much chance of surviving outside of the womb, my point has been and remains that is still a life," Flood said.

By the strictest definition, cancer is also alive and yet no one has any qualms about killing tumors with radiation. And yet again, a fetus is only a POTENTIAL LIFE.

Bottom line: either a woman has 100% control about what she does with her body, no matter at what point in the pregnancy she is (and yes, I'm taking it THAT far because the woman's life has to come first), or she's a second-class citizen, a broodmare with no rights over her body whatsoever.

Neigh.

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

No, I agree with you. There have just been people on this community who said they couldn't imagine a scenario when a woman would need to have a late term abortion when her life wasn't in danger... so I wanted to show them this. I feel it's important to put a face to the suffering, and show that there are real and terrible consequences to these idiotic laws.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

If a baby is born with painful or disfiguring birth defects, do the parents have a right to euthanize it? I don't see the difference between killing a baby before or after birth.

As for suffering ... abortion literally rips a baby apart, piece by piece. How is being held why you struggle to breathe, probably aided by palliative drugs, less painful than that?

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

First off, as someone who's into breath play, asphyxiation can take a really long time and be agony. This baby took 15 minutes to die, I can not even imagine.

Second, if a child is in an accident and left brain dead, the parents do have the right to decide whether or not to keep them on life support.

Third, this caused unnecessary suffering not only in the baby, but also in the parents. The state took away this couple's choice when it came to the medical decision. That should be a choice between them and their doctor, period. The law has no place there.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

To be truthful, I've never given much thought to late-term abortions even though I have supporting women having an abortion for any other reason in the early term.

But having read this, and being a parent myself, I can only imagine the terrible distress the parents must have gone through as their child died unnecessarily in this agonizing fashion.

If you want to convince people, you should definitely keep posting this.

I can't say I'm totally convinced, because its a complex issue, but this has definitely given me much to think about.

[teleens-journal.livejournal.com]

Add an exemption for extremely probable child death, and suddenly this issue doesn't pop up, and assholes who would callously throw away life late in a pregnancy, for some strange reason (the monster of monsters out there) would be singled out even better.

And what do we do with them once they're singled out? Do we force them to stay pregnant? Force them to have the child, take it away and then lock them up for being, as you say, 'monsters'? What do we do with the child? For all of those who say that there are millions of people who are willing to adopt, there are millions of kids in the system who never get homes.

Personally, I find full term abortion (i.e. past 36-38 weeks) icky, but my personal opinion doesn't change that it's not my body.

At some point, we have to decide as a society what the role of women is in it and what rights they have (or cease to have) when a sperm hits an egg.

Someone upthread called pregnancy an 'inconvenience', but I've known women who were nearly killed by it and women still die in childbirth every day. At what point do the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the person who is serving as its life support system?

I no longer argue about this in terms of how the child came about - that argument shames women for sex and implies that they don't have rights over their own bodies and sexuality.

For me this issue is very, very simple:

Is a woman a person or a broodmare? Or does she start out as a person when the sperm first hits the egg and gradually becomes a broodmare the longer she serves as an incubator?

At what point is the fetus more of a person than the woman carrying it?

To me? When said fetus takes a breath and is no longer dependent upon the mother's body 100% for survival. At that point, someone other than the woman can assume responsibility for the care and maintenance of said baby . Until then, it's her body and her body alone.

[anadinboy.livejournal.com]

you all talk as if women only have 1 abortion in a lifetime. Some women are on their 6th,7th,8th abortion . These women are mentally ill and should be at the very least sterilised. The doctors are taking advantage of these mad women.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

[needs citation]

[aannnndy.livejournal.com]

At that stage, no. The fetus would have been removed by way of a D & E,since D & X has been outlawed. While I am against all late term abortions, I actually have much less of a problem with a D & X (known as a "partial birth abortion") than a D & E. A D & X is much less gruesome and would actually cause less pain for the fetus. Anyway, the fetus would basically removed limb by limb by forceps and a currette (yes I have actually watched a late term abortion procedure). Then the fetus would have been disposed of as medical waste. I personally feel it is best to let the fetus pass naturally if still alive, but gravely ill. If it is dead, then yes it should be removed immediately as if left in it could cause an infection.

About the suffering thing. Being ripped out limb from limb would sure cause a lot of suffering! The whole fetus's can't feel pain tid bit can not apply here as this fetus was born 8 days after the parents wanted a termination. Meaning the fetus can not magically be free of pain during an abortion that would have happened 8 days before this supposed suffering. Personally I would rather lay gasping for air in a warm blanket than be ripped a part by steel instruments.

Also, the idea of a life of suffering is subjective. Most able bodied people think those who are disabled "must be suffering!". That is not the case. Same with people who think those with Down Syndrome "must be suffering!". Far from it! Many people with Down Syndrome are loving and enjoying life, yet 80% of fetuses diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. The excuse the parents make? "We want to prevent our child a life of suffering!"

[teleens-journal.livejournal.com]

Their bodies, their choice.

Being ripped out limb from limb would sure cause a lot of suffering!

You're the second person to use this sort of horrifying imagery in this post, to try and evoke the terror of a cute little infant being torn apart and I'm going to say to you what I said to them - people die horribly every day, in wars, in car accidents... The difference is THEY ARE ACTUALLY PEOPLE and not POTENTIAL PEOPLE.

Honestly? I care more about the suffering of the parents than the suffering of a fetus that was going to die anyway. And before you say it - there was no chance of this child surviving. My proof? SHE DIDN'T SURVIVE. And the way she wound up dying caused these parents incalculable grief. Losing a child is horrible no matter how it happens, but the mother should have been allowed to choose to have the procedure she felt would make it least horrible for her.

She was denied that right, denied the right to stop being an incubator because the life she was trying to bring into the world was no longer viable. Those who passed the laws that stopped her from exercising that right should be ashamed of themselves.

As for the parents who abort a child with Down Syndrome - again, their bodies, their choice. People have a right to choose what they wish for their bodies, their children and their lives as a whole.

Your entire attitude here comes across as incredibly judgmental and completely lacking in empathy for the parents - you know, the people who are already people? As opposed to potential people, which is all that a fetus is until it takes a breath.

Not every pregnancy ends in a happy ending. In fact, there's substantial evidence that most fertilized eggs never become people, not to mention that full-term stillbirths happen every day.

The rights of the born must outweigh the rights of the unborn, otherwise women will never be anything but broodmares in this society.