I don't see an abortion group so I am posting it here, please move it if in wrong place

[Maraya1969]

I saw this on FB and didn't even watch it after I heard that this woman supposedly survived an abortion at 6 1/2 months. Then I went to look up when abortions could be provided and I'm not sure I've gotten the answer. Then I was on a forum and I read that old thing that my mother told me where they take live babies and put them in a closet to die.

Does anyone know the truth or falseness of this video? And of that thing my mother told me about leaving babies to die. I can't believe how that could possibly be true because if a baby is born alive it is a person and letting it die sounds like murder to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

[no_hypocrisy]

1. For future reference

Topic Forums (on top of Latest Threads page)

Either "Choice" or "Womens Rights" to post topics as the one you offered.

[inna]

18. .

delete

[droidamus2]

2. Not true

Okay I am a man and never dealt with an abortion situation but here is what I know. By Roe V Wade I believe what the court said (I paraphrase) in the 1st tri-mester a woman has an absolute right to an abortion, in the 2nd and 3rd trimester the state has more interest and right to limit the availability of an abortion. Because of the 2nd and 3rd trimester some states do attempt, some successfully, to limit those types of abortions. Availability is also limited in many places do to lack of physicians willing to do them. Technically abortions can be provided up to the point the woman goes into labor (?) but as I understand it 3rd trimester abortions are rare and usually deal with the health of the mother or major problems with the fetus. As to the myth that your mother stated of leaving babies to die that is an obvious scare tactic pushed by the extreme anti-abortion forces. I can state with certainty that it does not happen.

[HockeyMom]

4. Ordinary care versus Extraordinary care

This is what this is about. You are right that a hospital cannot just leave it all alone to die. HOWEVER, the most they can do is feed and hydrate. Any other medical procedures would be considered "extraordinary" care. The parent/parents would have to agree and sign their consent for that. In the case of an abortion, the birth mother would have to. At this early stage, this baby would very likely require more medical procedures to survive. If the woman refused her consent, again, they could not do this unless they appointed a legal guardian to do so. That would require going to court, etc. There have been cases of this happening, and not just with babies surviving abortions, but with babies born with severe disablities and the parents refused "extraordinary" measures.

Just as adults can refuse any and all medical treament, including life saving treatments, parents as legal guardians of their children can determine their treament too. Again, unless courts intervene.

[droidamus2]

11. thanks for the explanation

I think that is still different from the idea of 'they just leave em in a closet to die' which might lead you to believe that a delivered, viable baby is being put in the position as a post birth abortion. It is along the same lines as the rightwing taking a very rare 3rd trimester procedure and making in to a cause and trying to lead people to believe it is a common procedure. Personally in the case of serve disabilities a big questions as to whether the baby will survive I see as the same thing that happens on the other end of life keep them as comfortable as possible and let nature take its course.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzteris]

31. my sister was in nursing training in the 60's

I remember her telling us that in the "nursery" - certain babies would have to be "thumped" to make them breathe every so often. The ones that were really impaired and were in pain, going to die, live a short of life of nothing but causing pain and enormous expense for their families, then - sometimes nurses would "just forget" to thump them. It was the moral thing to do.

[REP]

40. In a closet. Oh how pathetic and sad, for something that never happened

But if you really believe that, I've got this great land opportunity I want to let you in on. Actually, it's a bridge and it's perfect for you.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

I'm pretty sure that if I had tried to refuse NICU care to my babies when they were born they would have just been whisked off without my consent and I would have been relieved of my parental rights soon thereafter.

I believe that your statement is really only applicable to babies born in the grey area of viability; around 22-24 weeks gestation. Even then, in many cases, the baby will be treated aggressively over the objections of the parents.

[Maraya1969]

5. I have trouble believe that this woman survived an abortion

as she said. The doctor wasn't even there so who could administer the saline? She said he came in afterward.

[pipi_k]

3. Here is what I found on the issue...

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/surgicalabortions.html


I looked around at the site a bit and it seems to be neutral on the topic of abortion. The information appears to be just that...information without intent to influence a decision in any direction.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[notadmblnd]

7. Turn off Glenn Beck and drag your mother away from the television

[AnArmyVeteran]

24. Beckkk also said Ibama was going to open 'baby harvesting centers' for their organs.

Anyone who believes beck is insane or 100% ignorant.

[Warpy]

8. It's utter bollocks

No physician would do an elective abortion at that stage of gestation without a compelling reason, like anencephaly or imminent death of the mother if it were not performed. In the latter case, it is a premature birth, not an abortion, as every attempt is made to save a viable fetus, even one on the very edge of viability. In this case, the fetus was well past that point.

Planned Parenthood doesn't do late term abortions at their clinics here and I suspect it's the same in Australia. Late term abortions require a lot more expertise than early abortions and there are many more potential complications.

This poor silly cow just got her information wrong. There was no attempt at abortion. What likely happened was that an hysterical 17 year old girl was deemed enough of a suicide risk that early labor was induced and she was born prematurely.

I don't know who told her this cock and bull story, but I hope they find cause to be ashamed of themselves at some point. This is shameful.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

51. and my work here appears to be done ;)

"deleted subthread" -- unfortunate since there was actually a fair bit of worthwhile discussion there.

But not even a tombstone for our friend Raspberry, it seems! Gone, all gone ...

edit - nope, here we are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=239606



Like all anti-choicers. Misogynist right-wingers, to a one.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

59. Another one off my 'buddies' list. I sure can pick 'em :)

[uppityperson]

78. thanks for the notice.

[rug]

9. It happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldenburg_Baby

[Warpy]

15. Not in the US

A fetus past the age of viability is considered to be a person in its own right unless it is a non viable fetus with anencephaly or some other extreme birth defect that would cause it to die shortly after birth.

A fetus delivered alive is kept alive. The parents are offered the option of terminating parental rights.

[iverglas]

19. no, it really absolutely is not

A fetus past the age of viability is considered to be a person in its own right


No such thing, period.

In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state had an interest in "the potentiality of human life". It did not require the sate in question to prove the nature of that interest, and it did not itself state what that interest was.

It then held that the state was entitled to legislate in certain ways (e.g. prohibit third-trimester abortions) in order to protect that interest. Such legislation voiolates women's rights, but the Court did not state what the justification was for that violation.

The Court explicitly stated that a fetus is NOT a person. No court in the U.S. has ever said otherwise. The bullshit "fetal homicide" laws in U.S. states are therefore all framed in ways that treat a fetus AS IF it were a human being, or that treat the intentional termination of a pregnancy (by someone other than the woman or a physician) AS IF it were homicide.

The more recent refinement to the limitation in Roe v. Wade, "viability" rather than third trimester, is a fiction used to further interfere in women's exercise of rights.

No one knows whether a fetus is viable. Full-term fetuses fail to survive delivery all the time, for a whole host of reasons. A fetus prior to delivery is only ever hypothetically viable. Viability itself can only be determined after the fact: if the fetus survives delivery, it was viable.

And if it survives delivery, it is a human being and a person for all purposes of the law.

[Warpy]

20. Medically, it is

Legally, it has to survive the birth process.

[iverglas]

26. sorry

Neither "human being" nor "person" are medical terms.

Neither medicine nor science defines those terms.

"Human being" status is determined by human consensus, in human society, and refers to members of the human group. Human rights, which belong to human beings, are held by members of that group.

Human beings are entities that are born, alive and human. Any other definition would be a nonsense.

"Person" is the status of a human being under the rules of organized human groups, i.e. laws. That status has never been accorded to a fetus. One very good reason would be, again, that this would simply be an impossible nonsense. If a fetus were a human being / person, abortion for any reason whatsoever would be homicide, and none of the classical excuses/justifications (e.g. self-defence) would apply.

Your Supreme Court explicitly stated this in Roe v. Wade, which, sadly, most people who discuss U.S. abortion laws have never actually read.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

(with citations omitted)

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

[uppityperson]

45. Medically, there is no such thing as "a person in its own right". Legally perhaps but not medically.

[Warpy]

47. The doctor states he has two patients when a woman

has gestated beyond the viability stage (and even before, if it's a wanted pregnancy).

What would you call it?

[uppityperson]

48. What doctor?

What doctor says "I have 2 people in their own rights" when dealing with a pregnant woman?

[REP]

65. A woman says she has a bun in the oven; doesn't make her a baker

Anyone can say whatever they like, but the patient is the one who is being spoken to.

[iverglas]

66. "if it's a wanted pregnancy"

And that will be the key condition.

If a woman wants her doctor to treat her fetus like a patient, then she (the doctor) will. It doesn't make the fetus a patient, let alone a person, any more than me treating my cat like a person does.

[uppityperson]

75. Have I told you recently how much I appreciate you?

[iverglas]

76. nah

But that would be because of my extended absence. ;) It's a lot more fun playing with other people's genealogy on line than routing the anti-choice brigade at DU. Not that it isn't fun doing that, of course!

And of course I appreciate the good feminists (and other smart and sane and decent people) who keep up the good fights at DU. Especially now that they're in much shorter supply.

Can't join you at the feminists group these days because I'm not paid up -- and that is not a hint for my previous benefactor (I just can't deal with paypal, makes me nuts trying to remember what I'm supposed to do every time), because I'm here for a good time but not likely a long time this time. So just say hello to 'em for me!

[iverglas]

21. Did you intend to be deceitful

or was it just accidental? Did you think no one would actually click?

Oldenburg Baby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2010)

This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (September 2009)

Maybe this works in some high school somewhere in the U.S. ...

[WinkyDink]

23. Yeah, a home- school!

[mzteris]

33. nonsense

homeschoolers - liberal ones - are taught to read and think critically!!!

[rug]

44. You might try a few clicks before typing.

[mzteris]

73. is this supposed to mean something?

:shrug:

[rug]

43. Did you intend to deny this happened?

This is the neutrality dispute. The underlying facts do not seem to be in dispute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oldenburg_Baby

Neutrality dispute

Compared to the German version this article seems extremely biased towards a pro-life position. For example the article fails to mention the mother's preexisting condition of mental instability and her threat to kill herself should the abortion be denied. It also makes it seem as if the mother killed herself solely because of the events following the failed abortion. Also the time frame given ("the procedure took place less than four hours later") seems highly unlikely, isn't cited anywhere and gives the decision for abortion yet another negative spin.

Or try your hand at German.

www.Tim-lebt.de

[iverglas]

49. and now from the actual "article"

... Tim, a child born with Down Syndrome ...

Tim was born prematurely (in the twenty-fifth week of pregnancy) ...

His brain, eyes, and lungs were badly damaged; he exhibited autistic tendencies; and he underwent many operations in the first years of his life.

In the 25th week of pregnancy -- i.e. not yet 25 weeks' gestation (by LMP, one assumes). Do we know the survival rate even for infants without genetic disabilities delivered before 25 weeks in 1997?

Brain, eye and lung damage -- is there any evidence to support an allegation (that one assumes is being made) that this damage resulted from lack of medical attention? Again, are you familiar with the common disabilities suffered by infants delivered before 25 weeks? In case not: these are precisely what they are. They are commonly associated with the use of oxygen to support the infant's underdeveloped respiratory system, and I would assume, myself, that once medical attention was delivered, oxygen was used. Too bad the wiki "article" doesn't provide facts like that.

Here's one for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth

Most children even if born very preterm adjust very well during childhood and adolescence. As survival has improved, the focus of interventions directed at the newborn has shifted to reduce long-term disabilities, particularly those related to brain injury. Some of the complications related to prematurity may not be apparent until years after the birth. A long-term study demonstrated that the risks of medical and social disabilities extend into adulthood and are higher with decreasing gestational age at birth and include cerebral palsy, mental retardation, disorders of psychological development, behavior, and emotion, disabilities of vision and hearing, and epilepsy.

... The autistic savant Derek Paravicini was born at 25 weeks. The oxygen therapy given during his time in a neonatal intensive care unit rendered him blind and affected his developing brain, resulting in his severe learning disability. Furthermore Paravicini developed autism.

A lot of the anti-choice brigade assumes they're talking to stupid people. That makes them all the more fun.

[colinmom71]

54. Thanks, and some comments....

Quoting iverglas here - "In the 25th week of pregnancy -- i.e. not yet 25 weeks' gestation (by LMP, one assumes). Do we know the survival rate even for infants without genetic disabilities delivered before 25 weeks in 1997?"...

Actually yes. Between 1990 and 1999, the general survival rate for "normal" micro-preemies born at 24-26 weeks was about 30%, depending on maternal/fetal health and pre-natal care access. Keep in mind that this is just a recording of preemies who survived past birth (born alive/with vital signs).

After birth, stats showed that about 25 - 33% of these preemies died in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) due to complications from preterm birth (brain hemorrhages, respiratory arrest, NEC, take your pick)... Oh, and after being released from the NICU, about 10% of the surviving babies would die before their first birthday due to lingering issues from preterm birth...

As for that Wikipedia article you quoted, I can only say the first sentence quoted is crap. "Very preterm" children are far more likely to have permanent, debilitating issues that impede their ability to be well adjusted through their childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Yes, survival rates have improved over the last two decades (even somewhat better than the 1990's era I mentioned above). However, the rates of morbid injury (disabilities and lingering health issues) have not really changed. Even today in 2010, a baby born at 24 weeks stands at least a 50/50 chance of acquiring a severe, lifelong disability (blind, deaf, CP, etc.), even if the mom had the best available prenatal care... Like I did.

In 1995, my son was born at 24 weeks and he had NONE of the general complications expected for a micro-preemie in the NICU even today (no brain bleeds, no outstanding respiratory issues beyond being premature, no NEC, etc...). He should have had one of the best prognoses within the group of micro-preemies born that year. And yet, he has *every* problem quoted in bold text above except for epilepsy (much to the confusion of his doctors over the years - What can I say? He doesn't like to be predictable).

Unfortunately, the anti-choice brigade actually IS culling the crowd of the ignorant to further it's cause. They love to play the card of micro-preemies surviving at early gestation periods (23-24 weeks), but they NEVER address the problems that happen after those babies survive. You never see them helping take care of a family struggling to meet the expensive care needs their disabled child has. You NEVER see them lobbying to increase public services budgets to accommodate the extraordinary needs such families have. So, all the idiocracy sees is little 1 lb. babies can survive and therefor abortions are wrong...

It's a dangerous trap to fall into.

[iverglas]

55. and to you too

However, the rates of morbid injury (disabilities and lingering health issues) have not really changed. Even today in 2010, a baby born at 24 weeks stands at least a 50/50 chance of acquiring a severe, lifelong disability (blind, deaf, CP, etc.), even if the mom had the best available prenatal care...

And there's a reason for that.

The respiratory system at that gestational age simply is not developed enough to support the neonate. That isn't a matter of care, it's a matter of fact. It may be that some methods will be developed to support the respiratory system after delivery at that developmental stage that does not cause the disabilities the methods now used cause, that you cite. But at present, the simple fact is that there is a line in fetal development before which a neonate will not survive, and around which it is highly unlikely to survive without severe disabilities as a result either of the prematurity or of the care provided itself.

You didn't ask, but I'm sorry to hear of your own experience. Yes, the best-laid plans and best-cared for pregnancies can go awry. Had my little sister not been in a big modern urban hospital 12 years ago, she would have died in labour, when her fetus's head was simply too big for the fetus (now my niece) to be delivered vaginally. All the doctors and midwives and scans had not predicted that problem. The woman in the next room would have bled to death from an episiotomy were it not for all the blood pumped into her. And a friend's niece did die that same year of a postpartum haemorrhage -- in western Africa, a reminder that most women in this world don't have access to the life-saving medicine we take for granted, for both women and babies.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. Sorry to hear about everything you and your son have been through.

and about how the "pro-lifers" exploit that sort of situation to push their own agenda.

I was wondering if you've ever encountered the blog The Preemie Experiment? It's run by another micropreemie mom and explores many of the issues and dilemmas around the treatment of such early babies.

As I've come to learn more about these issues, I've realized how incredibly fortunate I was that my babies made it to a relatively advanced gestational age.

[rug]

56. That is an unlinked artiicle.

Please do post the link because the question is not whether he was born prematurely but whether the birth is the result of an abortion.

Facts do not lead one to assume the audience is stupid, it's the willfully ignoring of facts.

[iverglas]

67. good lord

It is excerpted from the wiki article to which YOU LINKED.

Surely the name in the passages excerpted should have been your first clue.

It just isn't wise to treat your interlocutors as if they are morons. Really.


Facts do not lead one to assume the audience is stupid, it's the willfully ignoring of facts.

:wtf:

Whatever your pretence or assumption that your audience is stupid might be based on, it's your problem and results from nothing anyone else has said or done.

Now how 'bout you stop ignoring facts? Viz.:

the question is not whether he was born prematurely but whether the birth is the result of an abortion

The issue is that the wiki "article" to which you link purports to show that the disabilities the individual suffers were a result of NEGLECT when a live delivery occurred subsequent to an attempted abortion.

YOU made that claim. The claim is NOT supported by any evidence.

You made the claim by replying "it happens" to the statements in the OP:

"they take live babies and put them in a closet to die"
"that thing my mother told me about leaving babies to die"

YOU said "it happens". YOU offered the "Oldenburg Baby" link as proof.

That link proves NOTHING, except that a very pre-term delivery resulted in a disabled individual, one who suffers from disabilities commonly associated with very pre-term delivery, and in fact most commonly associated with the TREATMENT given to very pre-term infants. There is one brief unsubstantiated claim in that article that no medical care was given for a period after birth, and I for one need better evidence than that, and also better evidence that whatever was done was not consistent with medical consensus on best practices in such situations.


The very most you could have proved was that IT HAPPENED, in one instance, in 1997, in Germany.

"It happens"? Nope.

[rug]

69. Then you shouldn't dishonestly truncate the post.

The birth occurred "as the result of a failed late-term abortion procedure."

Despite your frantic gesticulation, the fact of the matter is that, very rarely, live births do occur from failed abortions.

That is a raw fact.

It doesn't establish that laws outlawing abortion are therefore wrong or are therefore right.

It's a fact. Deal with it.

[iverglas]

70. you might want to watch your mouth

There's an object lesson in this thread.

You posted a link to the wiki "article", and then a post with more about it, from the Talk page.

I replied with excerpts from the article. Are you, or is anyone else, incapable of clicking on the original link to read the full (if terse) thing?

YOUR CLAIM was that pre-term deliveries resulting in live births subsequent to an attempted adoption, where the neonates are left to die without medical care, "happen".

You offered the Oldenburg baby case as proof. My post was equal or better proof that the claim is false -- ALL of the disabilities suffered by the individual in question are virtually certainly the result of either the pre-term delivery or the medical care actually given.

Perhaps your own terse "It happens" wasn't intended to be a claim that abortions sometimes result in live births and the infants thus delivered are denied medical care and left to die. And yet that is what the actual subject of the OP was, and that was what the questions in it were about. So if that wasn't what you meant to be saying, you did a damned lousy job of saying what you meant.


the fact of the matter is that, very rarely, live births do occur from failed abortions

Actually, the fact seems to be that there may be credible evidence of it having happened in one or two or maybe even a handful of cases we don't know about, not in this century.

What I'm really wondering is what your point is. Did you have one?

[REP]

64. Eye, heart problems are common in Trisomy 21, and autism is not uncommon with it

Lung problems are very common in premature neonates.

Those with Trisomy 21 have poor motor and language skills, and may not begin to walk until they are 3 years old. While most have IQs in the moderately mentally retarded range (35-50), a number of individuals have scores in the severe range (under 35).

[iverglas]

52. now, how about an answer from rug?

.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. Don't be cruel, allow him a litle time to mourn his comrade-in-arms. -nt

[rug]

58. Care to expand on that?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

60. No.

[rug]

61. I'm not surprised.

[Scout]

62. nothing to expand on, if you don't "get it" you never will ... but i think you do n/t

[rug]

63. Well then, tell me what comrade-in-arms I'm mourning.

Unless, of course, you popped up just to disseminate hollow snark.

[Scout]

77. i'll explain it since you seem dense....

your TOMBSTONED comrade in arms, Raspberry.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

68. snork

[rug]

57. You have it above.

I was busy today speaking to a man in jail accused of child rape. Spin that how you wish.

[Starry Messenger]

10. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

:banghead:

[blondeatlast]

30. You said it. nt

[ProudDad]

14. We need a LOT more birth control of EVERY type

or the Earth will not survive as a viable environment for air-breathing mammals...

This is the wrong argument -- a straw man for the anti-choice neanderthals...

Thanks to the heroin fix of cheap fossil fuels humans have overshot the carrying capacity of the Earth by about 5 billion individuals.

We need universal birth control on demand and empowerment of women to use it or kiss your ass goodbye...

[iverglas]

16. you've seen the link to the "Lobby"?

You found this forum, but you couldn't find the two that have been mentioned? (Under Groups, there is also the "Pro-Choice" group, but somehow I think that might not have been what you were looking for.)

Not enough traffic in the forums in question, maybe ...

I'm trying to figure out what you're asking here.

How did you happen to run across that video at YouTube?

How could you manage not to find information about "when abortions could be provided"?

And why are you so keen to know all this?

[Hekate]

37. All good questions, iverglas

Some people walk into a room with wide innocent eyes to ask a question, yet they hold matches in one hand and lighter fluid in the other.

Hekate

[iverglas]

38. (see my edit to post 43)

typo fixed

I now don't think the OP is one of those people, myself personally. And I think actually she may have been a bit intimidated by responses here -- that's just my take from a quick look at some of her earlier posts.

But to Maraya1969 -- I hope you've seen here just how many people are waiting to pounce on and exploit genuine innocence when they see it, and try to delude innocent people with falsehoods and propaganda. Even here at DU. That's how the anti-choice brigade works, and why so many of us hate them so passionately and try to debunk the falsehoods whenever we see them.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. I don't know anything about this woman, but I'm definitely skeptical.

She's a big fan of G.W. Bush, so she obviously only values the lives of some fetuses. She's perfectly okay with the mass slaughter of Iraqi fetuses.

FWIW, I do not think that it should be legal to abort healthy fetuses that have reached the point of viability. So if her story is true, than I disagree with what was done.

BTW, I don't know about 30 years ago, but I do know that now it is not permissible to allow a viable baby to die if it comes out alive following an abortion.

[WinkyDink]

22. OFGS...A CLOSET?! Yes, there are NO OTHER MEANS of DISPOSAL .

Good grief.

[REP]

41. Magic baby-killing closet by Stryker Med

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. It's absolutely impossible to survive an abortion.

One might survive an abortion attempt, but never an abortion. By its definition, it precludes survival.

It amazes me (no, not really, it doesn't) how the rightwing are so capable of finding "survivors" of all sorts - whether it be "abortion" survivors, gay agenda survivors, "liberal parent" survivors...

mostly they just make shit up and find people willing to lie (or who are so mentally fucked up themselves that they don't even realize they're lying).

[noel711]

27. How old are you Maraya?

do you remember all the fights we endured in the '60s and '70s to move the
passage of Roe vs Wade? The shaming in the media? The namecalling from the
far right? We were called manhaters, and not real women; we were derided by
religious authorities (as we are now)...but we kept on fighting for a
woman's right to control her body...

Have you ever had a friend or roommate to had to endure the torture
of an illegal abortion? Especially those young women whose bodies were
damaged due to unsafe,unsanitary procedure...

Have you ever worked at an abortion clinic, or worked in a clinic for
pregnant teens who didn't know they were pregnant?

Have you ever worked with young teens in crisis after rape?

Or worked with women who deeply wanted a baby, and were told the
child was badly afflicted with birth defects and wouldn't last the
day if the child made it to full term?

Or women who were told that giving birth would kill them?

Until you've walked those paths, be very careful to what you see
or hear, or believe. The truth is out there, but it is covered up by
those who want to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.
As what you see or hear from well intentioned people or the internet,
just consider it a slanted view. And... in many cases the internet is the king of lies.

Anyway, cut to the chase, the path to reproductive freedom was hard fought;
those who oppose our freedom are still manipulating the dialog to turn
control over to special interests. There are and will be lies and distortions
to go back in time. And if they go back in time,and repeal Roe v Wade,
and make us all slaves of patriarchy, we will not submit;
we have the knowledge, we have the support,
we have the women power to do what we need to do.

No... 'babies' are not left to die. If a women wants to terminate her
pregnancy, and she must go into labor, and deliver the unwanted fetus
vaginally, if the child can breathe in its own, it is considered viable,
and given the care it needs to survive. There are (or there should be)
plenty of Right to LIfe 'christians' who are eager to adopt orphans.

[Hekate]

34. +1973

[iverglas]

29. The video is of Gianna Jessen

Googling her name alone, and reading the first text site in the search results, would have got you your answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen

Footnote 1 on that page:

An Overview of Abortion Laws", http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf


Jessen apparently survived a relatively late-term saline abortion in 1977 (a technique that has not been used in the west for many years now).

Is this some reason to interfere in women's right to determine the outcome of their own pregnancies?

Not that I can see.


edit

I've looked at a bit of Maraya1969's posting history and might cut her a little slack.

Others in this thread, nope.

[ismnotwasm]

36. There is a woman at work

Reading the book on that case, some sort of biography. She leaves it laying around a lot, to be seen I'm sure. I ignore it. I'm thinking about leaving around a copy of a book or two from MY collection.

[Warpy]

50. I used to add my copies of The Nation to the stack of

rubbishy women's magazines in the nurses' lounge at work.

I got a few converts, too.

[REP]

39. I thought it'd be her - thought her 'survived saline abortion' story had been debunked

Gotta go - today is my Sunday Funday ManiPedi and Abortion.

[iverglas]

42. She's certainly a useful tool

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/09/bornalivetruth-org/abortion-survivor-would-have-been-protected-under-/

(with useful links there about that particular controversy)

The bills' supporters said it gave added emphasis to laws already on the books, deterring the death of abortion survivors from neglect. One of the bills' strongest supporters was a nurse, Jill Stanek, who said she had witnessed infants left to die in dirty utility rooms. Abortion-rights proponents, on the other hand, said the legislation was a back-door attempt to stop legal abortions.

Illinois already had a law on its books from 1975 that said if a doctor suspected an abortion was scheduled for a viable fetus — meaning able to survive outside of the mother's body — then the child must receive medical care if it survives the abortion. The new laws didn't distinguish between viable and nonviable, meaning that an infant of any age that survived an abortion should receive care.

Obama did vote against the laws, by voting no or present on the bills. (In Illinois, a present vote has the same weight as a no vote.) But because of the older law, Jessen is wrong when she says "if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here." According to the medical records provided by the organization that produced the ad, Jessen was born at 29 weeks, which would have been a viable pregnancy and subject to the older Illinois law requiring that she receive medical care. So it's not correct to say that Obama opposed that.

... We know Jessen is speaking somewhat figuratively here, but the fact is that someone born under similar circumstances in Illinois would have been protected under the law. Obama has said he supported the existing law and felt it provided sufficient protection for abortion survivors like Jessen. We rule her statement False.

[Hekate]

32. I suggest you inform yourself with FACTS by going to...

... the Planned Parenthood Federation of America website. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ They have an abundance of information about reproductive health, the law, medicine, and education.

Incidentally, abortion is only about 5% of their services. Education and health care is what drives them.

Here is their Fact Sheet page
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/politics-policy-issues/fact-sheets-reports-32754.htm
with the following topics:

Fact Sheets & Reports
Abortion

Abortion After the First Trimester
Anti-Choice Claims About Abortion and Breast Cancer
The Difference Between Emergency Contraception and Medical Abortion
Emotional Effects of Abortion
The Facts Speak Louder than "The Silent Scream"
Medical and Social Health Benefits Since Abortion Was Made Legal in the U.S.
Mifepristone: Expanding Women’s Options for Early Abortion
Roe v Wade: It’s History and Impact
Birth Control

Ulipristal Acetate — A New Emergency Contraception Pill
Emergency Contraception — History and Access
The Difference Between Emergency Contraception and Medical Abortion
Griswold v Connecticut — The Impact of Legal Birth Control and the Challenges that Remain
A History of Birth Control Methods
The Pill — A History
The Truth About Condoms
Miscellaneous

Major U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Reproductive Health and Rights (1965—2007)
Margaret Sanger — 20th Century Hero
Opposition Claims About Margaret Sanger
Profiles of 15 Leading Anti-Choice Organizations
History of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood by the Numbers
Planned Parenthood Services
Pregnancy

Pregnancy and Childbearing Among U.S. Teens
Reducing Teen Pregnancy
Relationships

Relationship Abuse, Intimate Partner Violence, & Domestic Violence Threatens Individuals and Society
Sex & Sexuality

The Health Benefits of Sexual Expression
Masturbation — From Stigma to Sexual Health
Sexuality Education

Abstinence-Only Programs
America’s Family Planning Program: Title X
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)

HPV — The Most Common Sexually Transmitted Virus

[supernova]

35. Wow, we haven't had a good old abortion fest

in a while.

Why, just the other day I got pregnant and decided to abort it because... it didn't go with my outfit. Imagine that. Horrible, horrible use of my body.

[uppityperson]

46. There is no "abortion group" but there is a "choice" forum, link here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=217

[Capitalocracy]

71. In that video she calls herself God's daughter

and says you shouldn't mess with her because her father runs the universe.

[Crunchy Frog]

72. It looks like there's been a pizza delivery since last time I was here.

One with raspberry topping.