http://thestir.cafemom.com/pregnanc...e=outbrain&utm_content=outbrain&quick_picks=1 the article says 'this isnt' about abortion'...but it IS. If this woman had let nature take it's course, the baby would be alive still...and she could have given the other one up for adoption if she didn't want to deal with the medical problems it had. The proabortion crowd with it's "Abortion is safe! Safer than pregnancy!" makes abortion seem such a simple easy thing. It's not.
LOL. The sick fetus had a serious heart condition. It would have died almost immediately after being born. This story is old, we have heard about it and the investigation is continuing. Yes, its sad, and I feel for the doctor involved, but mistakes happen. Of course, as soon as this story came to our attention, we had a bunch of lifers insisting the sick baby should have been born and suffered until it finally passed away - because we know that while lifers care so much about the pain and suffering of the unborn, they don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about a baby suffering after its birth.
Well, one thing is for sure, if nature had been allowed to take its course and she was allowed to give birth to the twins, there would have been no mistaking which one was sick and which was healthy. Hence, no screw up.
Unless the sick twin would kill the healthy twin. I don't think anyone believes it isn't anything but an awful mistake.
Pregnancy with multiples is high risk. Why shouldn't a woman reduce the risk to herself and her other fetus? The following article is just too long to post, and the list of complications too long, this will give you a start: http://www.multiplebirthsfamilies.com/articles/pre_q1.html A multiple birth pregnancy is automatically called "high risk"...... While any pregnant woman might experience some concerns during her pregnancy such as gestational pregnancy diabetes, anemia (water retention and subsequent swelling), vaginal bleeding, preeclampsia (rise in blood pressure, sudden weight gain, water retention) and kidney infection, there remain other possible concerns in a multiple pregnancy and the following looks at some of these possibilities..... Of course the higher the number of babies she is carrying, the earlier and greater the pressure on her cervix. It is not unusual for Mom to be put on bed rest and/or be required to spend some time in a tilted bed (tredelenburg position), with the lower body elevated above the head, relieving pressure on the pelvic floor. Placental Problems This is the most common reason for complications and bleeding after the 20th week of pregnancy. A condition called abruptio placenta occurs when the placenta partially detaches from the uterus before delivery. This may result in some bleeding and some abdominal pain. With placenta previa, the placenta can implant low in the uterus, partially or completely covering the cervix. Placenta previa presents as painless bleeding and because the placenta is covering the cervix, a c-section may be necessary. This situation is more common in multiple pregnancies owing to the increased number and/or size of placentas present. .....
Only God has the right to make these decisions of life and death. All of the people in this story are being punished for trespassing on God's perogatives.
Right and fire and sulfur and (*)(*)(*)(*)ation and all that good stuff. We all should be grateful that we have good Christians to remind us of the loving forgiving and compassionate God.
Sure, because making a baby suffer outside the womb is a lot better than allowing it to 'suffer' during an abortion.
Use of antibiotics saves lives, guess we shouldn't do that but leave it in God's hands. No life-saving surgery, let God do it. No disease preventing inoculations, let God take them. Only one hundred years ago, the average life expectancy was 47 years, today the expectancy is 78. Why did God decide to allow people to live 31 years longer?
Does that mean God decided that both babies were meant to die? What were they being punished for do you think?
Yay! More emotional drivel! Fact is, the entire procedure was unnecessary. And the unnecessary procedure winded up killing 2 babies instead of one. The mother and the doctor deserve their misery on this.
Answer the question. Once it was born, the sick baby would have suffered in pain until it finally died. Is that suffering acceptable to you? For someone who claims to care about babies, I wonder why you would be okay with allowing a child to suffer outside the womb.
So glad to hear you say that! Does that mean that you no longer believe that everyone should be ale to shoot teenagers because they "look suspicious?" Or because they play loud music?" Or because they may want to steal your television?
The MOTHER deserves the misery of losing both her children because a doctor made a mistake?? How very CHRISTIAN of you.....and misogynistic...oh , wait those two things are the same... - - - Updated - - - Why do you have a photo of a young girl next to your ID?
If you're going to bring this to the table, at least have something to back it up with on WHY we should take your deity's alleged power into consideration for real world events. I think it's fine to have religious beliefs, and if you want to believe there's a God somewhere condemning us all to hell for being pro-choice, power to ya. But when you take the next step, and start taking away power from real living people and giving it to beings who aren't here and have given absolutely no indication that they even exist, you're crossing a couple of lines. This is why it is absolutely foolish at the highest level to base secular government policy and law on subjective religious beliefs. There's no way to verify that the basis of those beliefs is even real. It's like me saying "No drinking milk in the evenings because it will slow the rotation of the Earth" and then expecting you to take it on faith. If there are no standards, anyone can say anything and none of it can be dismissed. Every time someone says something, anything, no matter how completely foolish it may be, we would have to accept it. For example, a criminal who commits a crime because he says God told him to would need to be let out of prison. Who are we to challenge God's commands and since we can't prove that God DIDN'T say that, we better err on the side of caution, right? You might say God wouldn't do that, but you don't know that at all. Not the slightest bit. If you're going to take God's existence on faith, you're going to have to accept the rest of what that implies as well. You can't say God exists, but that he would never do something like that. If you can't even establish the existence of the first claim(that God exists), there's no way you can dismiss the existence of the second claim(he commanded this person to commit a crime). That is one reason that religion does not belong in politics at all. One of many.
