Ladies in distress
The ladies who wrote the comments below (selected for family-friendly content) are upset. In fact, these ladies are all upset about the same thing. No, there hasn’t been a terrorist attack, a hurricane, an earthquake, a tsunami, an invasion by a foreign army, or a military coup threatening to round up soccer moms and send them to concentration camps. Without peeking, can you guess the source of their distress?
“Terrifying.”
“There are no words … this scares me to death.”
“I’m shocked, horrified, and dismayed.”
“I’m absolutely terrifed.”
“I feel so degraded right now.”
“Oh, dear God. We all knew this was coming, but it’s appalling and terrifying all the same.”
“This is absolutely sickening.”
“It is sobering to know just how much they hate us.”
“It’s just horrifying.”
“This sickens me as well.”
“I really can’t stand it.”
“Dark days, these.”
“I find this whole thing appalling … this whole thing sickens me.”
“What they are doing is condoning murder.”
“This is a complete disgrace.”
“I’m actually crying as I write this. I just can’t believe it.”
“I also nearly cried when I heard this.”
“I cried too. The feeling of living in a country that would blatantly disrespect my privacy, health, and rights like this is sickening.”
“There are more of us than there are of them, babe. We WILL prevail.”
“I am in tears because other women may have to fight to stay alive because of the [bleep] [bleep]ing stupid mostly white men that run this country.”
“I feel so overwhelmed with anger … that I have to call in my closest friends and have them take turns listening to me vent.”
25 Comments »
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Yes, its horrible and a disgrace that they are no longer allowing that method of murder. Oh well…I have been silenced. That’s their way. If you don’t agree, your a troll. If you dare argue, or have a different view, your banned. Too bad they cant be banned :) But partial abortion can be! I only hope one day all abortion will be. Maybe then, women would not be as promiscuous, and thus wouldnt need the easy out. Or more women would trust that God will prevail one way or another if they would only give Him the chance.
Hello Mary. Sorry you got banned, but I think the conversation over there (what little there was of it) is spent anyway. Drop in anytime!
I suppose one positive is that the crazier these women get, the fewer unwanted pregnancies there will be.
“I suppose one positive is that the crazier these women get, the fewer unwanted pregnancies there will be.”
LOL. You would think!
Way to look on the bright side.
I had to laugh when one of Cecily’s commenters on one of the other threads said, “there are more of us than there are of them!” I don’t know if that’s true or not. It seems to me that the country is pretty evenly divided on this one. Yet, as the conservative pro-life folks have more offspring than the pro-abortion side, it doesn’t take a genius to see what the result of that will be!
Way to take the high road guys. I thought Christianity was about turning the other cheek and tolerance to your enemies.
People like you, and the one who made comments about women’s craziness not producing more children are what give Christians a bad name.
Jessica,
Actually, it’s about loving your enemies, not “tolerance”. A distinction that gets lost these days.
And of course, you’re right. The enemies of Christians can be as vile and insulting as they like. We’re supposed to be loving. Now, keep in mind that loving means willing and acting for the good of the other — not “playing nice and not making waves.”
So, if you read the Gospels (which I highly recommend), you’ll see that the same Jesus who commanded “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek” also had some pretty tart words at times. I don’t see anything above nearly as bad as calling the Pharisees a bunch of poisonous snakes and rotting corpses.
I guess Jesus gives Christians a bad name, too.
And yeah, none of us measure up to Him. Too often, we give in to the temptation to snark back. On the other hand, sometimes love means pointing out the absurdity. Refusing to shout out “Hey, don’t drink that, it’s poison!” isn’t “tolerance”, it’s unlove.
Just keep in mind that you’re complaining that Christians don’t measure up to the standard that the other side doesn’t even pretend to uphold.
peace,
“privacy health rights” was the giveaway.
are what give Christians a bad name
…and their desire to crush the skulls of their own or someone else’s children is usually what gives “liberal secularists” a worse one.
I think the point here is not whether we think it is a good idea to “bring more children into the world” (I’ve always wondered where else we are supposed to keep them) but what we do with the ones already here. If a woman is pregnant, the child is here, look it up in any highschool science text. Christians are not the only ones with the injunction thou shalt not crush babies’ skulls to preserve the convenience of the mother, but for some reason we are the only ones willing to be called nasty names to uphold the principle.
let me guess…the supreme court’s banning of infanticide? am i close? amazing how anything can be twisted…
oh Elena, how right you are! I have oft thought that the liberal humanists will soon abort all of their constituents!
thou shalt not crush babies’ skulls to preserve the convenience of the mother
excuse me, don’t you mean “to preserve the LIFE of the mother”? I can’t think of very many women who get halfway (or more) through a pregnancy and then change their minds about having a baby.
We’re not talking about those idiots who get knocked up on prom night, folks. We’re talking about women whose pregnancies are killing them. What alternative do you propose for that wee conundrum? That both lives are lost?
Melanie,
Actually, no: we are not talking about the LIFE of the mother with partial-birth abortion. I have never seen any indication that this is other than an elective procedure.
I’ll give you an opportunity to correct me. Let’s make this conversation a bit more reality-based. Can you provide data to show what the usual waiting period is for the PBA procedure? (Hint: if you find it, and the answer is “more than a few minutes to an hour”, then we’re not talking about a life-saving medical emergency procedure …)
But I do have a simple solution for the “wee conundrum” you’ve proposed of “women whose pregnancies are killing them, with a fetus at the development stage where a partial-birth abortion takes place. It’s called “inducing labor”. It happens all the time. If that is too risky for the life and health of the woman, there’s another alternative available. It’s call a “ceaserian section”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
Both of these procedures have the effect of removing the fetus from the woman’s body, and ending the pregnancy that you say is threatening to kill her.
And you end up with a baby whose skull is not crushed as a bonus.
What’s the problem with that? Unless the crushing of the skull and delivery of a dead baby is the actual desired medical outcome?
So, my challenge to you, Melanie, or any other supporter of the supposed necessity of crushing the skulls of infants in order to save lives, is this:
Identify for me a single medical condition where a PBA is (1) necessary to save the woman’s life, and (2) less risky than either induced labor or a c-section.
No fair answering part (1) without part (2) also.
Failing that information, I will continue with my belief that the real desired outcome is the baby with a crushed skull, and the “life of the mother” verbiage is just the rationalization provided to disguise and salve that brutal fact.
peace,
Zach asks some good questions. I asked similar ones on my blog and not surprisingly , no one bothered to try and answer them. Perhaps I will have better luck here.
Some say that Cesarean sections are not a good choice in these type of life or death situations where only a partial birth abortion would suffice, because C-sections are more invasive and may interfere with the womans’ ability to have more children.
But if that is true, why are C-sections the one of the most commonly performed surgery in the United States? Why are some doctor’s even promoting the idea of women only have C-sections instead of vaginal birth under the umbrella of being “better” for the mother? And isn’t there also a risk with the D and X procedure in forcibly dilating the cervix? Isn’t there also the risk of infection, or harming the cervix and/or uterus with surgical instruments?
And if the D&E is so rarely performed anyway as many pro-abortion proponants have said, then wouldn’t the C-section be a safer option anyway since so many more physicians know how to do it and perform it hundreds of times a year?
I have heard some say that women will die if this procedure is unavailable. How many women died before this procedure was available? Do we know that these women would have been saved by a D&E instead? What are the statistics to prove that after the D&E procedure was developed and implemented that the maternal mortality improved?
If there are no guarantees, then how can all of these pro-abortion pronponants keep saying that the partial birth abortion (D&E) is lifesaving? Where is the guarantee that it absolutely will save the life of the mother each and every time it is used, especially when by their own statistics it is used so rarely that I wonder how anyone could have developed anywhere near the proficiency at it that average OB/GYN has with C-section! What about the associated risks of infection, damage to the cervix, uterus or other structures! The way they make it sound we have finally reached panacea folks- a risk free, infection free, blood-loss free procedure with no side effects, risks or potential complications!
I also don’t get this complete trust of the medical community where standard of care in just regular childbirth has been driven by fear of malpractice and compensation rates! Which brings me to another question, if the D&E is coded and reimbursed at a lesser rate than the Cesarean, I wonder how that will affect the recommendations of the doctors?
Weighing in on the PBA debate. Seems to me this is a question of fact: the Supremes based their decision on the notion that the PBA is a needlessly cruel medical procedure which is never (hardly ever?) medically required as other more humane procedures would be sufficient, whereas the other side asserts that there are occasions where the procedure would be safer for the mother than other procedures (thereby answering Zach’s (1) and (2) positively). Not sure where the expert evidence is on this (Rach seems to have some expert knowledge?), but one woman was given the latter view by her doctor:
“My doctor believed–given my particular circumstances–that it would be better for both my short term and long term health to not cut open my body if at all possible. My health was in a precarious state, and the option of a medical termination was the fastest, safest, and least complicated procedure to use. It also preserved the health of my uterus for future pregnancies. Also, my doctor (you know, the man in the room with me, the one with a medical degree and my chart in hand? that guy) knew that inducing me, with my insanely high blood pressure, would be likely to cause me to have a stroke.”
I have nothing but sympathy for this woman, and her story seems to give credence/support for the latter view. It would otherwise be too horrible to think that there would exist women in their second/third trimester who would wilfully engage in a needless, monstrous procedure to kill their child, with no sound medical basis.
That same lady also said:
“No one, ever, should have to choose between their own life and the life of their child. I have to say I am so grateful that I live in a state where I didn’t have to choose to deliver the surviving baby. I was able to have a dilation and extraction instead. I’m not sure I would have had the strength to meet the surviving baby only to watch it die. In fact, I’m sure I don’t have that strength.”
It’s call a “ceaserian section”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
Why yes, Zach, I have. In fact, I had to have one when I delivered my son two years ago. I was effectively disabled for six weeks afterward, and I was healthy going into the operating room.
You see, a C-section is major abdominal surgery. It makes you feel like crap, even if there was nothing medically wrong with you when you needed to have one. However, if your bodily functions are shutting down due to pre-eclampsia, you’re not a good candidate for major surgery. There are many situations where doctors will opt not to operate because to operate will cause more harm than good.
But I’m with Jeff here — I don’t think dialogue is possible, because I find it heartbreaking that none of you seem to care about women.
But I’m with Jeff here — I don’t think dialogue is possible, because I find it heartbreaking that none of you seem to care about women.
Hey Jessica? Melanie just called me names. Are you going to lecture her about taking the high road? I’m waiting.
I find it heartbreaking that you can equate major surgery and “feeling like crap for six weeks” with killing a child.
So there.
Now, care to try again without the namecalling?
peace,
Melanie, I am a woman, a mother, I have had three C-sections, three vaginal births and I deliverfed a stillborn son. I deeply care about women of course, but I also care about babies. I think C-section in most cases would be the best option, but in options where that is not possible, in a second trimester pregnancy I support delivering the baby via the D&X procedure, without deliberately puncturing the skull. Instead delivering the baby as outlined in the procedure including the head, and then wrapping the baby and giving it palliative care. I also support peri-natal hospice to support the parents as they say hello and goodbye to their babies and making memories of the brief time they have together.
What namecalling? The unedited version of my post DID engage in namecalling, but I was trying to keep it civil. And in no way did I equate feeling like crap for six weeks with killing a child — you are simply engaging in rhetorical slippage to suit your own ends in debate. That’s bad argument, my friend, and petty to boot (still not calling names).
Elena, I am in total agreement with your solutions, and I appreciate you taking the time to communicate them. See, I am pro-choice, but I also think that D&E (with skull puncture) is a grotesque procedure (and I also disagree strongly with using abortion as birth control, but I think that’s a systemic cultural problem in a country that thrives on ignorance and eschews education). I think it’s unnecessary, and I would be okay with the PBA ban if there were a health exception for the mother. That’s all.
And since I’m taking my PhD comps on Thursday, I really should get back to my work.
Melanie,
Let me try again.
As a mother, I ask you to think for a moment how deeply offended you’re going to feel if I attribute your position to “you just don’t care about babies.”
Now, yes – my chromosomes read “XY”. But I just happen to have a mother, sisters, a wife, and a daughter, not to mention friends. Some of whom are (gasp!) women.
I’m no less offended than you would be.
So I ask you again, would you like to try without the namecalling?
peace,
(not sure if this is still active or not since people seem to be commenting in the future)
The blog that these comments are coming from is an excellent example of what Zach Frey asks. Women in Cecily’s position have the problem that their blood pressure is skyrocketing…therefore inducing contractions or doing major abdominal surgery would be very risky for her stroking out. The child/fetus is causing the blood pressure to rise as well so you can’t leave it in the uterus till it dies without the same risk of stroking out. (And remember that the one living twin was only 20wks and not viable) If the mother decides she’s unwilling to risk the dangers of any of the three above options then there are basically two other options, D&E and D&X. D&E being the more common procedure where the dilation is less and the child/fetus is dismembered in the uterus and then sucked out. However, generally in cases where the uterus is weak and the mother would like to try again to have a child, then D&X or PBA is used as there is less sharp instrumentation used inside the womb.
Now, you might say – correctly – that the PBA bill would allow Cecily to abort because her life is at risk. BUT remember that she’s already in the hospital. A stroke wouldn’t necessarily kill her. Her kidney’s were failing, but again…she’s in the hospital with access to dialysis. So would she die? Certainly not necessarily. But kidney death and multiple strokes would certainly have a negative affect on her HEALTH. But guess what! The PBA bill doesn’t allow health to be considered. Just death.
And of course, this bill stops NO abortions, just makes the doctor use a method that may not be the best choice for the few women that would other be given a PBA. And why? Because its “gruesome”. But what makes PBA more gruesome then D&E? D&E is the one where the child/fetus is literally ripped apart.
So that is why I’m horrified by this bill. No abortions stopped, legislators deciding that women aren’t allowed to have the safest procedure available, and the precedent that only “life” matters, not “health” (no mention what percentage risk of death must be achieved – Did Cecily hit that threshold? Who decides this?).
The blog that these comments are coming from is an excellent example of what Zach Frey asks. Women in Cecily’s position have the problem that their blood pressure is skyrocketing…therefore inducing contractions or doing major abdominal surgery would be very risky for her stroking out.
I just had an RN quoting an OB on my blog who said that in conditions where it is crucial to get the baby out to prevent stroke, C-section is the fastest easiest way to go and the one that most OBs would choose.
However, generally in cases where the uterus is weak and the mother would like to try again to have a child, then D&X or PBA is used as there is less sharp instrumentation used inside the womb.
I’ve read conflicts on this too. The forcible dilation of the cervix can make damage the cervical integrity and make carrying to term in the next pregnancy more uncertain. In fact, the blogger over at Hyperemesis Gravidarum blames her abortion on her incompetent cervix and the problems she had in subsequent pregnancies.
Now, you might say – correctly – that the PBA bill would allow Cecily to abort because her life is at risk. BUT remember that she’s already in the hospital. A stroke wouldn’t necessarily kill her. Her kidney’s were failing, but again…she’s in the hospital with access to dialysis. So would she die?
If you go into the archives, there was 24 hours or so between the time of diagnosis and delivery of the babies. That throws up a lot of red flags in my mind as to why something wasn’t done sooner. And also why a procedure that requires dilation instead of an immediate C-section wasn’t performed.
And of course, this bill stops NO abortions, just makes the doctor use a method that may not be the best choice for the few women that would other be given a PBA. And why? Because its “gruesome”. But what makes PBA more gruesome then D&E? D&E is the one where the child/fetus is literally ripped apart.
Which gives me even more questions as I listed above. Dilation isn’t risk free and since it isn’t performed that often why isn’t the more common C-section which most Obs are very proficient to perform considered the best option. It is of course, unless you are trying to prevent a live birth.
So that is why I’m horrified by this bill. No abortions stopped, legislators deciding that women aren’t allowed to have the safest procedure available,
I don’t think any one has established that it is the safest procedure available.
1. It still compromises the cervix.
2. Same risks of infection and injury
3. Requires more time to perform.
4. Fewer done so fewer OBs as proficient in performing them as the C-section.
I don’t think it has been established that is is the “safest” by a long shot.
Elena at (16), I did read that; also, fairly recently, she then said, in one of those funny turnarounds of emotion, that she’d suffered overwhelming grief over the realisation that she hadn’t had that chance to meet the surviving baby and say goodbye. Completely and utterly heartbreaking. I think your views at (19) concerning palliative care and peri-natal hospices are spot on.
I don’t know if this thread is dead, but I found it of interest in reading Cecily’s blog that (as far as I can tell) her babies were conceived via assisted reproductive technology – and in my personal experience both as an RN in L&D and as a CNM, there is an extraordinarily high rate of pregnancy complication in babies conceived in vitro – even if it is a singleton pregnancy.
When we bypass what might be a safety measure (natural conception or the impossibility thereof) I think that we add to the risks inherent in pregnancy – normally a healthy and life-promoting condition (for the mother – women who have given birth decrease their statistical risk for both breast and ovarian cancer). Pregnancy does carry the risk of complications, but so does crossing the street. ‘
Much of medicine and midwifery consists of making judgement calls about the relationship between the benefits and the risks. And you can’t go back and try doing it differently once you’ve made a choice.
However, most of the time I have seen moms with severe medical problems in pregnancy, it has been possible to deliver their babies alive (if extremely premature) and then to attempt to keep them alive or alternatively to provide comfort care as they are dying from their prematurity or other problems. I would be very hard pressed to think of a scenario where a difficult induced abortion would be the medically safer scenario than an induced birth or a cesarean. I could be wrong – I only have 22 years experience in the field and there is probably a lot I still haven’t seen.