[*Firefly*]

Ellie, there are medications that can be administered to alleviate pain for "the living". Unfortunately, babies (until what is "currently" accepted as "sentience" by SOME doctors), inutero don't have this option (administered pain medication).
[/b]

You'd let your baby suffer in huge amounts of pain because your too proud to accept that an abortion might end their suffering?
Thats EXACTLY how it sounds.

[Banned-Mommieof3]

[*Firefly*]

You'd let your baby suffer in huge amounts of pain because your too proud to accept that an abortion might end their suffering? (assuming your doctor would not administer pain relief)
Thats EXACTLY how it sounds.
[/b]

You said some doctors won't administer it. If you knew your doctor would not give your baby pain relief would you still have the baby. And if you look i said assumnig they wont.

Also that post was very patronising im very aware what pain relief is. It seems you didn't read my post.

[Cereal Killer]

I truly believe that babies have souls, and I truly believe that they are able to experience. With pain medication, I do believe there is quality, and even if there is not, we are not to decide for them (the babies) what is and what isn't.[/b]

So you think there is a quality to life for an infant that must have pain medication to endure its survival? I know when my Pappaw was dying of Cancer and had to have morphine just to get through the last few months of his survival, again it was not living, there was no quality to his existance. We couldn't even hug him because the Cancer had spread so much that the slightest movement put him in excruciating agony. The last few months of his life consisted of laying in bed, hooked to a morphine pump, just trying to get through it, and praying for death. He could not bathe himself, he could not go to the bathroom, he could hardly move. The pain medications gave him no quality to his life, they helped numb him just enough to sleep through what was left in his time on earth.

Some may say "well who are YOU to decide what a pregnant woman must go through (emotionally, spritiually, physically, etc.) in pregnancy?". My answer: I find it much different to decide that someone has a right to life indefinitely (as in the case of outlawing abortion...giving the right to life to the baby), in comparison to the right to death indefinitely (as in the case of legal abortion). So that's my answer! lol.[/b]

I really don't understand what you mean, at all.

[Banned-Mommieof3]

Ellie, there are medications that can be administered to alleviate pain for "the living". Unfortunately, babies (until what is "currently" accepted as "sentience" by SOME doctors), inutero don't have this option (administered pain medication).
[/b]

You'd let your baby suffer in huge amounts of pain because your too proud to accept that an abortion might end their suffering? (assuming your doctor would not administer pain relief)
Thats EXACTLY how it sounds.
[/b][/quote]

You said some doctors won't administer it. If you knew your doctor would not give your baby pain relief would you still have the baby. And if you look i said assumnig they wont.

Also that post was very patronising im very aware what pain relief is. It seems you didn't read my post.
[/b][/quote]

Ellie, you didn't read MY post. It won't be administered in THE UNBORN. IT WOULD be administered to the "already living" aka born. Get it?

What was uncalled for was the "too proud" comment. You didn't read my post correctly, and you seemed to not understand it, so I tried to clarify it for you, not patronize you.

[Banned-Mommieof3]

Ellie, you edited you question...if you look, my quote of yours is different than your edited quote.

You'd let your baby suffer in huge amounts of pain because your too proud to accept that an abortion might end their suffering? (assuming your doctor would not administer pain relief)
Thats EXACTLY how it sounds.[/b]

This must have been edited (the bolded).

Here is my quote of yours:

You'd let your baby suffer in huge amounts of pain because your too proud to accept that an abortion might end their suffering?
Thats EXACTLY how it sounds.[/b]

See?


And again, you are still reading my post wrong. They don't administer it to THE UNBORN (until around 26 weeks I believe...maybe it is 24 weeks). So they don't get the medication in ABORTIONS...but they would if they were born alive. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

Edited to correct grammatical errors.

[*Firefly*]

I just spoke to my mum. I asked her that if she discovered while pregnant with me that I would be born with an illness that would mean I would only live for a few hours and those few hours would be spent with me being in agonising pain what would she do? Keep me and let me be born in pain or terminate the pregnancy?

My mother loves me. But she without question would have terminated her pregnancy. She said to me "It was bad enough when you were born and you were in pain but it could be fixed and you coud then have a normal life, but if I knew you would have no quality of life that you would be in such pain then I could not have brought you into this world. To me that would have been selfish and wrong. I have no right to make you suffer.

She then went on to say how obsessed everyone is over right and wrong when really its down to the individual. Look at how many starving orphaned children there are in the world already? How many kids are in care and unwanted by their parents? Thats no quality of life. People need to look after the people already here before they even contemplate bringing more unwanted children into the world. Its just not fair on them.

[Banned-Mommieof3]

I asked her that if she discovered while pregnant with me that I would be born with an illness that would mean I would only live for a few hours and those few hours would be spent with me being in agonising pain what would she do? Keep me and let me be born in pain or terminate the pregnancy?[/b]

God, Ellie....you NEED TO READ MY POSTS CORRECTLY. Christ.....

I could see if you just didn't understand a concept...but I DIDN'T say WHAT YOU THINK I SAID...and you seem to refuse to accept that by not RE-reading my post.

[*Firefly*]

my answer is in the above post. I think its cruel to drag out a life that has no quaity to it. especially seeing is that pain would be inside the womb also.

I read it perfectly but the pain felt would be inside the womb too and if they cant administer pain relife to the baby inside the womb then that baby is living in agony.

[Banned-Mommieof3]

my answer is in the above post. I think its cruel to drag out a life that has no quaity to it. especially seeing is that pain would be inside the womb also.

I read it perfectly but the pain felt would be inside the womb too and if they cant administer pain relife to the baby inside the womb then that baby is living in agony.[/b]

No, you said that I was "too proud". You said that I said babies born wouldn't be administered pain relief and that I am just "too proud" to let them die by abortion.

They are not in pain (like, struggling to breathe, etc.) while inutero. The mother breathes for them, eats for them, etc.

If they were born, they would suffer possibly, hence the reason for pain management medications such as morphine.

Pain is felt when a baby is being ripped apart. During the abortion. They are not struggling to breathe, eat, or any other "vital" functions inutero because the mother provides that. That is not to say that they wouldn't feel being ripped apart.

Again, it runs a little deeper than "pride issues" for me. And you of all people should know that.

[*Firefly*]

If the baby has something wrong with it beyond breathing eating etc then the pain can be felt by the baby in the womb.
I agree with my mother.

[Banned-Mommieof3]

If the baby has something wrong with it beyond breathing eating etc then the pain can be felt by the baby in the womb.
I agree with my mother.[/b]

Are you saying the less serious medical problems should be aborted? The most serious birth defects (IMO) would be those associated with the vital areas of living, i.e. breathing, eating, etc. The less serious would be things like Down's, cleft palate, etc. Should these abnormalities be aborted because they do not involve pain with breathing, eating, etc.???? I am not even sure if they DO experience pain with these abnormalities while inutero (though I am sure they don't with the serious abnormalities involving breathing, eating, etc. It would cause pain in those incidents, because the mother provides for these functions).

[*Firefly*]

Are you saying the less serious medical problems should be aborted? The most serious birth defects (IMO) would be those associated with the vital areas of living, i.e. breathing, eating, etc. The less serious would be things like Down's, cleft palate, etc. Should these abnormalities be aborted because they do not involve pain with breathing, eating, etc.???? I am not even sure if they DO experience pain with these abnormalities while inutero (though I am sure they don't with the serious abnormalities involving breathing, eating, etc. It would cause pain in those incidents, because the mother provides for these functions).
[/b]

A child that has a condition that can be treated and that will mean the child has a good quality of life then no. I had a "birth defect" and I was "fixed" and i have lived a "normal" life. If they are going to die because of the condition and be in pain then I think this is an instance where I would have to abort... I couldn't live knowing my child was in constant agony inside me and that I couldn't relive the pain. Even if they didn't I still would abort. I wouldn't risk them being in pain because the medication didn't work for whatever reason. To ME is would be protecting my child from the pain. Of course I wouldn' terminate a healthy child (or a child with a condition that is livable).

Downs comes in different severities and if the condition was proved to be at a level that was unmanagable then I would abort.

[Isabellamom]

The less serious would be things like Down's, cleft palate, etc[/b]

I personally think dowsn is far more serious than you contend:

While some kids with DS have no other health problems, others may experience a host of medical issues that require extra care. For example, half of all children born with DS also have congenital heart defects and are prone to developing pulmonary hypertension (high blood pressure in the lungs). A pediatric cardiologist can monitor these types of problems, many of which can be treated with medication or surgery.

Approximately half of all kids with DS also have problems with hearing and vision. Hearing loss can be related to fluid buildup in the inner ear or to structural problems of the ear itself. Vision problems commonly include amblyopia (lazy eye), near- or farsightedness, and an increased risk of cataracts. Regular evaluations by an audiologist and an ophthalmologist are necessary to detect and correct any problems before they affect a child's language and learning skills.

Other medical conditions that may occur more frequently in children with DS include thyroid problems, intestinal abnormalities, seizure disorders, respiratory problems, obesity, an increased susceptibility to infection, and a higher risk of childhood leukemia. Fortunately, many of these conditions are treatable.[/b]

these might be treatable, but i know i cannot be the only here who knows of one or more DS babies that died very young due to their condition.

This idea of what is serious to one person is not to another is a big issue in the abortion debate. Who am I to say what is "serious" and what isn't wehen it comes to things like this.

[*Firefly*]

And mostly a DS baby will never be able to live by themselves. They will always need help. - not that this is a reason to abort them but it does make life alot harder.

[Banned-Mommieof3]

So you think there is a quality to life for an infant that must have pain medication to endure its survival? I know when my Pappaw was dying of Cancer and had to have morphine just to get through the last few months of his survival, again it was not living, there was no quality to his existance. We couldn't even hug him because the Cancer had spread so much that the slightest movement put him in excruciating agony. The last few months of his life consisted of laying in bed, hooked to a morphine pump, just trying to get through it, and praying for death. He could not bathe himself, he could not go to the bathroom, he could hardly move. The pain medications gave him no quality to his life, they helped numb him just enough to sleep through what was left in his time on earth.

I really don't understand what you mean, at all.
[/b]

First bolded:
I am sorry that you have experienced this. It's a touchy subject. All I can say is that this is what I believe. I believe there is meaning to life, regardless how it is lived, i.e. disability (severe or mild - physically, mentally, emotionally, etc.), consciousness (unconscious or conscious and everything in between), etc. etc. etc. etc. My ex was on life support for two months. He had encephalitis and both viral and bacterial meningitis (I actually think that the bacterial part caused the encephalitis). I am almost positive he was on pain meds during this time. Finally, two months later he woke up. I believe there was a reason for him to stay in that state. My nanu had brain cancer, and suffered two years also battling cancer. But I still think there was a reason for it. Please do not think I am being dismissive, as that is most certainly not my intent. It's just how I feel.

To the second bolded statement:
What I am saying is that I do not think we have (or should have anyway) a right to state who should and who should not live, based on factors such as disability, abnormality, and/or the parent's wishes. I think that the unborn are included in this.

But I could see where someone might say: Well, how can you state that women do not have the right to abort? The difference to me, is that abortion is stating who can and who cannot live (and I believe the baby to be a fully fledged living being worthy of life), while being against abortion (outlawing it, specifically) is stating that EVERY life is a worthy life, and that everyone is entitled to it.

So to me, abortion takes away rights (or "choice", though "rights" IMO is more accurate), while outlawing GIVES rights (or "choice").

I am much more comfortable in deciding that everyone (including baby) has a right to life indefinitely. Outlawing abortion supports this.

I am not comfortable in deciding those who have the right to death indefinitely (specifically babies).
Legal abortions support this.