Social Abortion story - thing we didnt know

[PainIsLIfe]

This was a shocker to us, it all ended great, but heres the story short:

• A good friend of mine got pregnant with her husband.
• Doctors said child is gonna have problems - it showed on all tests they did, birth is going to be a risk for both mother and child, and child is definetly going to have anomalies - its a "risk pregnancy" and complications are bound to happen.
• They finally decide to have an abortion - but now its too late, they cant find a doctor willing to do it in Croatia, they have to go to Slovenia. Things get complicated and she eventually gives birth here
• Child born is ABSOLUTELY FINE. Perfect young boy, healthy, not a single problem
• Doctors explained that their test, like every other tests, cannot be 100% accurate
• Doctors also explained that in last week of pregnancy its known that womans body does the final adjustions and solves alot of potential problems with the child, adding that many of todays "problems" are a product of modern medicine being able to detect stuff.

So now were happy, celebrated, lil Leo is now 2 months old still shows no problems and smiles alot

I had no idea this could happen, but they talked to doctors after and found out its not that uncommon ( turns out exact thing happend to other couple they know ) with alot of problems child is supposed to have based on tests done during pregnancy, that they "solve themselves" in the last days of pregnancy. Also noted alot of todays "problems" are a product of modern medicine being able to detect such "abnormal" things.

Anyway, thats the story, just to put things in perspective. We were all shocked, none of us know this could even be a possibility.

Cheers!

Great news. Side note Tim Tebow's mom was told the same thing about him and grew up to win a Heisman.

 

[Andy Capp]

This was a shocker to us, it all ended great, but heres the story short:

• A good friend of mine got pregnant with her husband.
• Doctors said child is gonna have problems - it showed on all tests they did, birth is going to be a risk for both mother and child, and child is definetly going to have anomalies - its a "risk pregnancy" and complications are bound to happen.
• They finally decide to have an abortion - but now its too late, they cant find a doctor willing to do it in Croatia, they have to go to Slovenia. Things get complicated and she eventually gives birth here
• Child born is ABSOLUTELY FINE. Perfect young boy, healthy, not a single problem
• Doctors explained that their test, like every other tests, cannot be 100% accurate
• Doctors also explained that in last week of pregnancy its known that womans body does the final adjustions and solves alot of potential problems with the child, adding that many of todays "problems" are a product of modern medicine being able to detect stuff.

So now were happy, celebrated, lil Leo is now 2 months old still shows no problems and smiles alot

I had no idea this could happen, but they talked to doctors after and found out its not that uncommon ( turns out exact thing happend to other couple they know ) with alot of problems child is supposed to have based on tests done during pregnancy, that they "solve themselves" in the last days of pregnancy. Also noted alot of todays "problems" are a product of modern medicine being able to detect such "abnormal" things.

Anyway, thats the story, just to put things in perspective. We were all shocked, none of us know this could even be a possibility.

Cheers!

Good for them. Beautiful story. It doesn't alter the fact that anecdotes aren't worth a fuck.

How about we talk about underserved (poor, mostly black in places like Georgia and Florida) communities having high maternal mortality rates? There are actual stats to prove that.

What is the proportion of people who ignore this kind of advice and it turns out poorly for them? Any idea?

 

[fedorthegoat777]

This was a shocker to us, it all ended great, but heres the story short:

• A good friend of mine got pregnant with her husband.
• Doctors said child is gonna have problems - it showed on all tests they did, birth is going to be a risk for both mother and child, and child is definetly going to have anomalies - its a "risk pregnancy" and complications are bound to happen.
• They finally decide to have an abortion - but now its too late, they cant find a doctor willing to do it in Croatia, they have to go to Slovenia. Things get complicated and she eventually gives birth here
• Child born is ABSOLUTELY FINE. Perfect young boy, healthy, not a single problem
• Doctors explained that their test, like every other tests, cannot be 100% accurate
• Doctors also explained that in last week of pregnancy its known that womans body does the final adjustions and solves alot of potential problems with the child, adding that many of todays "problems" are a product of modern medicine being able to detect stuff.

So now were happy, celebrated, lil Leo is now 2 months old still shows no problems and smiles alot

I had no idea this could happen, but they talked to doctors after and found out its not that uncommon ( turns out exact thing happend to other couple they know ) with alot of problems child is supposed to have based on tests done during pregnancy, that they "solve themselves" in the last days of pregnancy. Also noted alot of todays "problems" are a product of modern medicine being able to detect such "abnormal" things.

Anyway, thats the story, just to put things in perspective. We were all shocked, none of us know this could even be a possibility.

Cheers!

Great, congrats!! I personally know one person this same thing happened to and my wife knows someone else. If a doc told me, my wife, or kid, was going to die for sure, I'd be worried, but also tell em to suck it.

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Wow. Thank God... Sometimes things happen for a reason. I'm happy for the family.

 

[IamStryker]

They should explain to the child someday that our societies obsession with abortion almost killed him.

 

[IamStryker]

Lol no, the 14th Amendment would prevent “euthanizing” a child that has been born, simply because the parents choose to.

The point was on the rationale.

 

[BFoe]

The point was on the rationale.

The rationale doesn’t make any sense though, is what I’m saying. You would not be able to deprive that hypothetical child of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That’s what the 14th Amendment says.
This is the exact point that is different, constitutionally speaking, between a fetus and a child.

 

[IamStryker]

The rationale doesn’t make any sense though, is what I’m saying. You would not be able to deprive that hypothetical child of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That’s what the 14th Amendment says.
This is the exact point that is different, constitutionally speaking, between a fetus and a child.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the point being made. I'm going to post it again here,

"Of all the arguments the pro choice movement uses, "The child's quality of life will be poor" might be the worst (especially when it comes to birth defects, down syndrome, etc as being "more likely" by the markers used in prenatal testing). I mean, by that rationale why wouldn't parents simply be allowed to opt to kill their newborn AFTER it was born if they see the baby has down syndrome?"

The point is that this rationale for killing children in the womb would still apply to recently born children. Wait, are you saying that the 14th Amendment is the only reason people dont support this? Without it people would find euthanizing newborns acceptable?

 

[giusti825]

Cool story, bro.

 

[Crawler89]

Congrats to them and that's great to hear.

But we would hear and all be saying something different if it was the opposite and they didn't have the chances

And that's the entire point really

 

[BFoe]

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the point being made. I'm going to post it again here,

"Of all the arguments the pro choice movement uses, "The child's quality of life will be poor" might be the worst (especially when it comes to birth defects, down syndrome, etc as being "more likely" by the markers used in prenatal testing). I mean, by that rationale why wouldn't parents simply be allowed to opt to kill their newborn AFTER it was born if they see the baby has down syndrome?"

The point is that this rationale for killing children in the womb would still apply to recently born children. Wait, are you saying that the 14th Amendment is the only reason people dont support this? Without it people would find euthanizing newborns acceptable?

There’s hundreds of millions of people in the US, I can’t speak to what they all find acceptable or unacceptable. I’m speaking to what is constitutional or unconstitutional.
I suspect though, that most people find some stark differences between a developing fetus and a fully born human child—so I think the odds of a constitutional amendment passing which allows one to kill their children in certain instances are probably pretty slim.

I understand that you or some other people see no difference between a fetus and child, but a whole lot of people—including, you know, a wide variety of scientists and medical professionals—do.

 

[IamStryker]

There’s hundreds of millions of people in the US, I can’t speak to what they all find acceptable or unacceptable. I’m speaking to what is constitutional or unconstitutional.
I suspect though, that most people find some stark differences between a developing fetus and a fully born human child—so I think the odds of a constitutional amendment passing which allows one to kill their children in certain instances are probably pretty slim.

I understand that you or some other people see no difference between a fetus and child, but a whole lot of people—including, you know, a wide variety of scientists and medical professionals—do.

I can respond to the above as well but again being unconstitutional or not is not relevant to the point being made. If quality of life can justify killing it in the womb then that exact same reasoning can still be used after its born. I expect some nonsensical mental gymnastic though to try to make it make sense.

Abortion became political. People can tell themselves it's not a person, it's not self aware, it doesnt feel pain but they all know it's killing a human being. They all know the life began and then was ended.

 

[BFoe]

I can respond to the above as well but again being unconstitutional or not is not relevant to the point being made. If quality of life can justify killing it in the womb then that exact same reasoning can still be used after its born. I expect some nonsensical mental gymnastic though to try to make it make sense.

Abortion became political. People can tell themselves it's not a person, it's not self aware, it doesnt feel pain but they all know it's killing a human being. They all know the life began and then was ended.

“Life” was there before conception. Is sperm not life? But it’s not a person. It could potentially be one at some future time, but it isn’t one. A fetus is also not a person. It will become one. The vast majority of people who support abortion rights don’t support murdering 5 year olds (for example) for any reason, and certainly not because you think their life could be hard.

I’m not trying to engage in mental gymnastics, I just truly don’t grasp what point you’re trying to make. You think idea you already don’t like could be used to justify another idea you don’t like? Your afraid of some dystopian future where the majority of Americans pass a constitutional amendment to make child murder ok? Slippery slope something something?

YOU feel there is no difference between a fetus being aborted 5 minutes after implantation, and a 5 year old child being drowned.
WE respectfully disagree. This rationale you speak of literally hinges on the fact that a fetus is not a child or person, but rather is fundamentally different from one. So NO, the same rationale doesn’t apply. At all.

 

[IamStryker]

“Life” was there before conception. Is sperm not life? But it’s not a person. It could potentially be one at some future time, but it isn’t one. A fetus is also not a person. It will become one. The vast majority of people who support abortion rights don’t support murdering 5 year olds (for example) for any reason, and certainly not because you think their life could be hard.

You know better than this. A sperm is not an individual human being. Trying to compare the two is pure ignorance.

I’m not trying to engage in mental gymnastics, I just truly don’t grasp what point you’re trying to make. You think idea you already don’t like could be used to justify another idea you don’t like? Your afraid of some dystopian future where the majority of Americans pass a constitutional amendment to make child murder ok? Slippery slope something something?

I dont get why you keep talking about the constitution. The point being made was basically a thought experiment. It's pointing out that one line of logic being used can justify something else that wasn't initially being argued.

YOU feel there is no difference between a fetus being aborted 5 minutes after implantation, and a 5 year old child being drowned.
WE respectfully disagree. This rationale you speak of literally hinges on the fact that a fetus is not a child or person, but rather is fundamentally different from one. So NO, the same rationale doesn’t apply. At all.

Not correct. There are differences. Just like there are big differences between a toddler and an adult. There is more development, more relationships, more self awareness etc. What they have in common though is both are living hunan beings. That is what makes it immoral to kill any young human being no matter at what stage of development.

No, the rationale being discussed is the idea that if a fetus is going to live a bad life because of a debilitating illness then that makes it ok to euthanize it to prevent that hard life. If that is the argument then it can be easily applied to newborns. Now people like you are not going to use that argument. You are going to jump to other things like personhood or sentience. Those are different arguments though.

 

[BFoe]

You know better than this. A sperm is not an individual human being. Trying to compare the two is pure ignorance.

I didn’t say it was a human being, and you didn’t talk about a human being either. You said “life.”

I dont get why you keep talking about the constitution. The point being made was basically a thought experiment. It's pointing out that one line of logic being used can justify something else that wasn't initially being argued.

Well there’s not much thought put into this “thought experiment.” The whole rationale of abortion is that a developing fetus is not immediately a person, with constitutional rights. It develops into one; it becomes one. Until that occurs, the mother’s constitutional rights supersede the fetus’s. You are trying to claim that the same logic can be used on a human being who is born, but it cannot. Once born, there’s no question they are a person, with constitutional rights.

Not correct. There are differences. Just like there are big differences between a toddler and an adult. There is more development, more relationships, more self awareness etc. What they have in common though is both are living hunan beings. That is what makes it immoral to kill any young human being no matter at what stage of development.

No, the rationale being discussed is the idea that if a fetus is going to live a bad life because of a debilitating illness then that makes it ok to euthanize it to prevent that hard life. If that is the argument then it can be easily applied to newborns. Now people like you are not going to use that argument. You are going to jump to other things like personhood or sentience. Those are different arguments though.

“Morally” is what I’m referring to. From your POV, there is no moral difference whatsoever between aborting an embryo 5 minutes after implantation, and forcibly drowning a kindergartner. If you think there is a moral difference because of development, then it sounds like you’re a lot closer to being pro choice than you think.

So again, this logic cannot “easily” be applied to newborns lol. Because there’s no question they are persons, with rights. The same is not true for fetuses. Im not sure why we are still going in circles about this extremely relevant point.

 

[IamStryker]

I didn’t say it was a human being, and you didn’t talk about a human being either. You said “life.”

I know. I mistakenly thought you would know what I meant.

Well there’s not much thought put into this “thought experiment.” The whole rationale of abortion is that a developing fetus is not immediately a person, with constitutional rights. It develops into one; it becomes one. Until that occurs, the mother’s constitutional rights supersede the fetus’s. You are trying to claim that the same logic can be used on a human being who is born, but it cannot. Once born, there’s no question they are a person, with constitutional rights.

No. None of that was part of the original argument. It was about that specific justification for abortion. People who are pro abortion use a multitude of arguments. Some don't even mind agreeing that it is a human life but the mother's life supercedes its own and she can kill it because of her bodily autonomy.

“Morally” is what I’m referring to. From your POV, there is no moral difference whatsoever between aborting an embryo 5 minutes after implantation, and forcibly drowning a kindergartner. If you think there is a moral difference because of development, then it sounds like you’re a lot closer to being pro choice than you think.

Your first point needs more nuance. Drowning a five year old is more horrific. The context of it gives it other moral issues that are not a part of abortion. What I said about morality is that the reason abortion is immoral is because it is a living human being. The differences in development do not change that.

So again, this logic cannot “easily” be applied to newborns lol. Because there’s no question they are persons, with rights. The same is not true for fetuses. Im not sure why we are still going in circles about this extremely relevant point.

You are adding arguments that were never made. Not sure why you arent getting that. The specific rationale can easily be applied to newborns. So if this was a person's only rationale for abortion it could be applied to newborns right? Of course.

Anyone who dehumanizes a fetus by saying it isnt a person has no need of the above argument that it has a disability so killing it is a good thing.

 

[BFoe]

I know. I mistakenly thought you would know what I meant.

All good. I knew what you were getting at, but there’s a major distinction between just “life,” and personhood. That distinction is important.

No. None of that was part of the original argument. It was about that specific justification for abortion. People who are pro abortion use a multitude of arguments. Some don't even mind agreeing that it is a human life but the mother's life supercedes its own and she can kill it because of her bodily autonomy.

Well sure. I mean, it certainly contains human DNA. What it doesn’t have in the early stages of development, is rights. That’s why the mother’s life supersedes the fetus’s, as you mentioned. If someone believed that wasn’t the case, yet was still somehow ok to terminate a pregnancy just because they think the fetus would grow up to have a tough life, that would be a very poor and very puzzling argument to me.

Your first point needs more nuance. Drowning a five year old is more horrific. The context of it gives it other moral issues that are not a part of abortion. What I said about morality is that the reason abortion is immoral is because it is a living human being. The differences in development do not change that.


You are adding arguments that were never made. Not sure why you arent getting that. The specific rationale can easily be applied to newborns. So if this was a person's only rationale for abortion it could be applied to newborns right? Of course.

Like I said, if that was the person’s only rationale, their rationale wouldn’t be very rational. It doesn’t make sense.

What you said is interesting to me: “more horrific”? What doesn’t that mean? Is there some Scale of Horrifyingness you are applying?
Here’s the thing. Pro-lifers claim that abortion is murder, starting at conception. If someone finds out they are pregnant at the earliest opportunity,and schedules an abortion the very next day, you should view that as 1st degree murder, shouldn’t you? It’s premeditated. Now let’s say a kid spills his milk or whatever, psycho mommy freaks out and drowns him in the heat of the moment. That would be 2nd degree murder.
Yet, here you are claiming that the drowning is worse because it’s “more horrifying,” whatever that means. Doesn’t seem very ideologically consistent to me.

 

[IamStryker]

Well sure. I mean, it certainly contains human DNA. What it doesn’t have in the early stages of development, is rights. That’s why the mother’s life supersedes the fetus’s, as you mentioned. If someone believed that wasn’t the case, yet was still somehow ok to terminate a pregnancy just because they think the fetus would grow up to have a tough life, that would be a very poor and very puzzling argument to me.

Yes it's a very bad argument which is where the critique came from. If you believe a fetus is just an unimportant bundle of you cells then there is no reason to use a "it's going to have a bad life argument".

As I'm sure you know by now I think the unborn should have the same right to life as those who are born. Huge difference between having human DNA and being an actual human being.

Like I said, if that was the person’s only rationale, their rationale wouldn’t be very rational. It doesn’t make sense.

Yeah that's the point. It's a gross and immoral way to justify abortion which is apparent when you take it to its logical conclusion.

What you said is interesting to me: “more horrific”? What doesn’t that mean? Is there some Scale of Horrifyingness you are applying?

I would think this would be obvious. Killing people who are aware, feel fear amd pain, have emotional attachments, is going to be different than killing the unborn that can not cry and beg and such. This is actually a big reason why so many think abortion isn't a big deal. I saw a pro abortionist just the other day arguing that it's ok to kill it because it won't know its being killed. It's much easier for people to justify.

Here’s the thing. Pro-lifers claim that abortion is murder, starting at conception. If someone finds out they are pregnant at the earliest opportunity,and schedules an abortion the very next day, you should view that as 1st degree murder, shouldn’t you? It’s premeditated. Now let’s say a kid spills his milk or whatever, psycho mommy freaks out and drowns him in the heat of the moment. That would be 2nd degree murder.
Yet, here you are claiming that the drowning is worse because it’s “more horrifying,” whatever that means. Doesn’t seem very ideologically consistent to me.

I didnt say it's worse. I get there are differences. But none of it changes that they are both human lives. My life and your life did not start when we were born. Our lives started in the womb.

I find the pro life side to be more consistent. The abortion side has to find some arbitrary and inconsistent point to say oh now its immoral to kill it. Or you have to say abortion is always good at any point up to birth which most people can easily see is wrong.