TOTALLY GEEKED!

Blankie · Guru

RE: I Had To End My Pregnancy To Save My Life

Ohfour · Hooker

Blankie wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
JPT wrote:
So she waits until she delivers via surgery, where it's a given she'll stroke out, probably die or be severely disabled. You guys are sweet. Life begins at conception, but it ends (for women, in your eyes) at birth.

I really would wonder if you were in the same situation what you would have chosen. Always great to be that armchair quarterback...
She could have had a C-section that very day. It happens all the time.
There is NO WAY I would saline abort my child. I wish someone could show her how it feels...
How do you know that? Were you a doctor in 1989?
I highly doubt a C-section was possible then for a patient in kidney failure. A C-section is major surgery, and might have killed her. Then would you be satisfied with both mother and baby dying?
Doctors are obligated to save the life of the mother first.
She did what her doctor and her husband advised to save her life.

She could have asked if that was an option. That would have been my very first thought.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

How do you know she didn't? I doubt very highly the article contained every detail of the medical discussion with her doctor. And her husband was a doctor as well - he would know that answer.

This is the classic case of "except in cases to save the mother's life".

TrudyML · Guru

I am sure there are things like conversations, consults, etc. that haven't been included in the story.

voiceofreason · Guru

And how do you know she didn't?

Ohfour · Hooker

If she wanted to garner sympathy (the point of this article) then she should have included that very important part of the conversation.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Friday 23rd of January 2015 02:02:06 PM

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

You'd think the "or I'd die" part would pretty much cover that.

Scooby · Newbie

I'm wondering why her husband didn't notice something earlier? She asked him about it but he brushed her off. Maybe if they had realized it earlier? I don't know if anything could have been done then either.

I feel so badly for her. To have to make the terrible decision after feeling that child move within her must have been agonizing.

I don't believe in abortion except in cases of incest of if the mother's life is in danger. This falls in line with that IMO.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

I don't think the point of the article was to garner sympathy at all. She was telling a story about a tragic time in her life. The fact that your first reaction was to condemn her and not feel the tiniest bit of empathy for her...well...it says a lot.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Did anyone read my post?
I did the math. She was 23 to 24 weeks along. Yes, the shot was available in 1989 for the baby's lungs. My DH's cousin received it in 1988 for her micro-preemie and it worked. Yes, it was a very new drug at that time, but it was available. It was an option that wasn't even discussed in the article.

Ohfour · Hooker

Meh...too many people want empathy for killing their child. I'm jaded. IMO, This story is just another attempt to validate abortion.

voiceofreason · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
I don't think the point of the article was to garner sympathy at all. She was telling a story about a tragic time in her life. The fact that your first reaction was to condemn her and not feel the tiniest bit of empathy for her...well...it says a lot.

I agree.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

just Czech wrote:
Did anyone read my post?
I did the math. She was 23 to 24 weeks along. Yes, the shot was available in 1989 for the baby's lungs. My DH's cousin received it in 1988 for her micro-preemie and it worked. Yes, it was a very new drug at that time, but it was available. It was an option that wasn't even discussed in the article.

In order to take the baby, they would have had to induce labor or do a C-section, neither of which would have been medically sound with the mother in kidney failure and at such risk for stroke/heart attack/etc.

Why is everyone so quick to second guess the decision of her doctors and the parents who did NOT want to lose their child? That makes no sense. Do you really think if there was a safe way to do this, she wouldn't have done it?

voiceofreason · Guru

The whole "it happened to my friend and worked out" argument is ridiculous. Let's see, it happened to my friend and it didn't work out. Which argument holds more weight? I'll help ya out. NEITHER. Because we don't know **** about this poor woman. Jfc. Empathy people!!!!!!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
just Czech wrote:
Did anyone read my post?
I did the math. She was 23 to 24 weeks along. Yes, the shot was available in 1989 for the baby's lungs. My DH's cousin received it in 1988 for her micro-preemie and it worked. Yes, it was a very new drug at that time, but it was available. It was an option that wasn't even discussed in the article.
In order to take the baby, they would have had to induce labor or do a C-section, neither of which would have been medically sound with the mother in kidney failure and at such risk for stroke/heart attack/etc.
Why is everyone so quick to second guess the decision of her doctors and the parents who did NOT want to lose their child? That makes no sense. Do you really think if there was a safe way to do this, she wouldn't have done it?

Are you new here?

Because, sadly, many of the posts do not surprise me.

flan

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

I had pre eclampsia in 1988. Protein was 4+ from about my 5th month. BP was 190/110. Nothing worked. I was on bed rest for 4 months. I went to the doctor every week. They never put me on meds but I ended up in the hospital a few days before my due date and then had a c-section when the meds they finally put me on didn't work. I was very fortunate that I didn't have a stroke or kidney failure. I lost 30 pounds of water weight the first 3 days after DD was born, that's how swollen I was. I was only 22. I am so glad I wasn't faced with that decision.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Mellow Momma wrote:
I don't think the point of the article was to garner sympathy at all. She was telling a story about a tragic time in her life. The fact that your first reaction was to condemn her and not feel the tiniest bit of empathy for her...well...it says a lot.

Good luck getting anyone to listen. I already said something similar. I see it as a tribute to her child. After all these years, the love still shines through.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Southern_Belle wrote:
I had pre eclampsia in 1988. Protein was 4+ from about my 5th month. BP was 190/110. Nothing worked. I was on bed rest for 4 months. I went to the doctor every week. They never put me on meds but I ended up in the hospital a few days before my due date and then had a c-section when the meds they finally put me on didn't work. I was very fortunate that I didn't have a stroke or kidney failure. I lost 30 pounds of water weight the first 3 days after DD was born, that's how swollen I was. I was only 22. I am so glad I wasn't faced with that decision.

So am I.

{hugs}

flan

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Ohfour wrote:
Meh...too many people want empathy for killing their child. I'm jaded. IMO, This story is just another attempt to validate abortion.

But this article was not about all those people. It was about one very specific person and her situation. To load all those other people's issues onto her and condemn her for their choices is wrong.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

TODAY the chances of survival of a 23 week old fetus is only 10%, and if they do survive, they are likely to be severly handicapped all their life.

The doctors THEN had to save the mother's life.

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

Lawyerlady wrote:
TODAY the chances of survival of a 23 week old fetus is only 10%, and if they do survive, they are likely to be severly handicapped all their life.

The doctors THEN had to save the mother's life.

And she was only 20 weeks.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Ed, Flan and anyone else who is waiting to see what I have to say to Ed's little challenge.

I was under constant care because in 1994 the doctor's were concerned that I had this.

I also had other extreme health issues develop while pregnant.

My first thought was never about me. I first thought was always, always, always about my baby and making sure they had the chance to live.

Was I ever told that I may need to have and abortion to save my own life? Not directly. But there was a lot of talk about my quality of life and my ability to maintain the pregnancies.

I found out I was pregnant with C the day I found out I had pre cancer cells on my cervix.

I went through months of screenings and tests and was told that if I had cancer I would have to let the baby go.

No. I wouldn't either. Because the baby was going to be born. Even if I died.

So I know a little of what it is to be in a situation where the pregnancy could stop my own life.

And that is why I said I could honestly say I would die first.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

flan327 wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
I don't think the point of the article was to garner sympathy at all. She was telling a story about a tragic time in her life. The fact that your first reaction was to condemn her and not feel the tiniest bit of empathy for her...well...it says a lot.

Good luck getting anyone to listen. I already said something similar. I see it as a tribute to her child. After all these years, the love still shines through.
flan

Agreed. The fact that she wanted to continue on with the pregnancy despite the fact that there was only a 10% chance of her survival says a lot. Aborting that baby is the last thing she wanted. And she chose to end his life by stopping his heart and putting him to sleep instead of putting him through the trauma of a birth he wouldn't survive and have him gasping for air in his underdeveloped lungs...is that the way he should have gone? Because we treat sick dogs better than that.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lily,

THIS baby would NOT have survived...so now they are BOTH dead.

flan

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Lawyerlady wrote:
just Czech wrote:
Did anyone read my post?
I did the math. She was 23 to 24 weeks along. Yes, the shot was available in 1989 for the baby's lungs. My DH's cousin received it in 1988 for her micro-preemie and it worked. Yes, it was a very new drug at that time, but it was available. It was an option that wasn't even discussed in the article.
In order to take the baby, they would have had to induce labor or do a C-section, neither of which would have been medically sound with the mother in kidney failure and at such risk for stroke/heart attack/etc.
Why is everyone so quick to second guess the decision of her doctors and the parents who did NOT want to lose their child? That makes no sense. Do you really think if there was a safe way to do this, she wouldn't have done it?

The doctor had to give her (OP) drugs regardless. An evacuation of the womb requires the use of drugs.

Something just does not sound right with this line of reasoning.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

lilyofcourse wrote:
Ed, Flan and anyone else who is waiting to see what I have to say to Ed's little challenge.

I was under constant care because in 1994 the doctor's were concerned that I had this.

I also had other extreme health issues develop while pregnant.

My first thought was never about me. I first thought was always, always, always about my baby and making sure they had the chance to live.

Was I ever told that I may need to have and abortion to save my own life? Not directly. But there was a lot of talk about my quality of life and my ability to maintain the pregnancies.

I found out I was pregnant with C the day I found out I had pre cancer cells on my cervix.

I went through months of screenings and tests and was told that if I had cancer I would have to let the baby go.

No. I wouldn't either. Because the baby was going to be born. Even if I died.

So I know a little of what it is to be in a situation where the pregnancy could stop my own life.

And that is why I said I could honestly say I would die first.

In other words, your situation was nothing like hers and it occurred half a decade after hers. By all means then...judge on !! Lol

ridiculous

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
Lily,

THIS baby would NOT have survived...so now they are BOTH dead.

flan

That is not an absolute. Miracles happen every day.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lily,

THIS baby would NOT have survived...so now they are BOTH dead.

flan
That is not an absolute. Miracles happen every day.

No, actually they don't.

flan

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

just Czech wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
just Czech wrote:
Did anyone read my post?
I did the math. She was 23 to 24 weeks along. Yes, the shot was available in 1989 for the baby's lungs. My DH's cousin received it in 1988 for her micro-preemie and it worked. Yes, it was a very new drug at that time, but it was available. It was an option that wasn't even discussed in the article.
In order to take the baby, they would have had to induce labor or do a C-section, neither of which would have been medically sound with the mother in kidney failure and at such risk for stroke/heart attack/etc.
Why is everyone so quick to second guess the decision of her doctors and the parents who did NOT want to lose their child? That makes no sense. Do you really think if there was a safe way to do this, she wouldn't have done it?
The doctor had to give her (OP) drugs regardless. An evacuation of the womb requires the use of drugs.
Something just does not sound right with this line of reasoning.

When the eacuayed her uterus the pregnancy was already ended. And no, you don't have to have any drugs to evacuate a uterus. It can be done without any anesthesia of any kind.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Mellow Momma wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Ed, Flan and anyone else who is waiting to see what I have to say to Ed's little challenge.

I was under constant care because in 1994 the doctor's were concerned that I had this.

I also had other extreme health issues develop while pregnant.

My first thought was never about me. I first thought was always, always, always about my baby and making sure they had the chance to live.

Was I ever told that I may need to have and abortion to save my own life? Not directly. But there was a lot of talk about my quality of life and my ability to maintain the pregnancies.

I found out I was pregnant with C the day I found out I had pre cancer cells on my cervix.

I went through months of screenings and tests and was told that if I had cancer I would have to let the baby go.

No. I wouldn't either. Because the baby was going to be born. Even if I died.

So I know a little of what it is to be in a situation where the pregnancy could stop my own life.

And that is why I said I could honestly say I would die first.
In other words, your situation was nothing like hers and it occurred half a decade after hers. By all means then...judge on !! Lol
ridiculous

Winner winner...whatever you want for dinner!

flan

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lily,

THIS baby would NOT have survived...so now they are BOTH dead.

flan
That is not an absolute. Miracles happen every day.

So she should roll the dice and find out if she is the lucky recipient of a miracle or not? The alternative is death. Seriously?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Mellow Momma wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Ed, Flan and anyone else who is waiting to see what I have to say to Ed's little challenge.

I was under constant care because in 1994 the doctor's were concerned that I had this.

I also had other extreme health issues develop while pregnant.

My first thought was never about me. I first thought was always, always, always about my baby and making sure they had the chance to live.

Was I ever told that I may need to have and abortion to save my own life? Not directly. But there was a lot of talk about my quality of life and my ability to maintain the pregnancies.

I found out I was pregnant with C the day I found out I had pre cancer cells on my cervix.

I went through months of screenings and tests and was told that if I had cancer I would have to let the baby go.

No. I wouldn't either. Because the baby was going to be born. Even if I died.

So I know a little of what it is to be in a situation where the pregnancy could stop my own life.

And that is why I said I could honestly say I would die first.
In other words, your situation was nothing like hers and it occurred half a decade after hers. By all means then...judge on !! Lol
ridiculous

You are right. I have no idea what it is like to have to face the real possibilities of continuing a pregnancy that could result in my death.

What am I thinking?

voiceofreason · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lily,

THIS baby would NOT have survived...so now they are BOTH dead.

flan
That is not an absolute. Miracles happen every day.

So she should roll the dice and find out if she is the lucky recipient of a miracle or not? The alternative is death. Seriously?

The lucky recipient of a miracle...bwahahahaha!!!!!

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Pre cancerous cells on your cervix is nothing...let me repeat...NOTHING like having such high blood pressure that you will stroke and kidney failure. The situations are not comparable. Try as you want...they are separate and not equal.

Ohfour · Hooker

voiceofreason wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lily,

THIS baby would NOT have survived...so now they are BOTH dead.

flan
That is not an absolute. Miracles happen every day.

So she should roll the dice and find out if she is the lucky recipient of a miracle or not? The alternative is death. Seriously?
The lucky recipient of a miracle...bwahahahaha!!!!!

Now who's being a non-empathetic b1tch?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Ya'll go ahead. Advocate the death culture.

"What ifs" always seem to be on the negative side with you people.

What if she had continued 2 weeks and delivered the baby?

What if the baby had survived?

What if she didn't have any thing happen to her?

What if, what if, what if.

What ifs don't always end with gloom and doom.

voiceofreason · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
voiceofreason wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lily,

THIS baby would NOT have survived...so now they are BOTH dead.

flan
That is not an absolute. Miracles happen every day.

So she should roll the dice and find out if she is the lucky recipient of a miracle or not? The alternative is death. Seriously?
The lucky recipient of a miracle...bwahahahaha!!!!!
Now who's being a non-empathetic b1tch?

Wtf?

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

voiceofreason wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lily,

THIS baby would NOT have survived...so now they are BOTH dead.

flan
That is not an absolute. Miracles happen every day.

So she should roll the dice and find out if she is the lucky recipient of a miracle or not? The alternative is death. Seriously?
The lucky recipient of a miracle...bwahahahaha!!!!!

When good things happen, from "miracle babies" to football victories it's "God's will!praise God!" When hurricane Katrina hit i didmy hear anyone saying "it's a miracle! It's God's will!" I find it funny God is only around for the good stuff like miracle babies. The same God was in the room when this woman got the horrible news that her pregnancy was killing her.

voiceofreason · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
voiceofreason wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lily,

THIS baby would NOT have survived...so now they are BOTH dead.

flan
That is not an absolute. Miracles happen every day.

So she should roll the dice and find out if she is the lucky recipient of a miracle or not? The alternative is death. Seriously?
The lucky recipient of a miracle...bwahahahaha!!!!!
When good things happen, from "miracle babies" to football victories it's "God's will!praise God!" When hurricane Katrina hit i didmy hear anyone saying "it's a miracle! It's God's will!" I find it funny God is only around for the good stuff like miracle babies. The same God was in the room when this woman got the horrible news that her pregnancy was killing her.

RIGHT! I wonder if those little starving Ethiopian children are entering the miracle lottery by praying to the same God that is allowing them to be little starving Ethiopian children?

Ohfour · Hooker

WTF are you talking about? A miracle by definition is a welcome and happy event. Katrina was neither. Maybe you need to work on your vocabulary a bit?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Mellow Momma wrote:
Pre cancerous cells on your cervix is nothing...let me repeat...NOTHING like having such high blood pressure that you will stroke and kidney failure. The situations are not comparable. Try as you want...they are separate and not equal.

I guess you missed the part where I said they though I had preeclampsia. I was developing toxemia. My BP was at stroke level for the last 4 months of my pregnancy. I couldn't stand up with feeling like my head and heart was going to explode. While it wasn't preeclampsia, it was serious. Serious enough to talk about taking the baby before it was viable. I refused.

And you were not in that doctor's office with me being told I had to choose between freezing my cervix or dying. Yes. That was my only two options being presented.

I ask "what about the baby". The doctor says, "the fetus is collateral damage".

That is what it is considered. Collateral damage. A baby.

But thanks for minimizing it for me.

I was 23. Being told I would die if I continue.

Did I have a bad oncologist? Yes.

Oh well. Ya'll go ahead and sympathize with the death culture if you want. I wont do that. Murder is murder.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Ohfour wrote:
WTF are you talking about? A miracle by definition is a welcome and happy event. Katrina was neither. Maybe you need to work on your vocabulary a bit?

The point is you can't give God the credit for the good stuff and not the bad as well. God created the situation whereby the pregnancy was killing her. To say she should have just prayed and waited for a miracle sets aside the fact that God put her in the situation to begin with.

The OP did the best she could with info she had. I hope writing this article gave her some feeling of closure. She is clearly still mourning the baby as any mother would. To think she had other options that she chose to ignore in order to take the easy way out is simplifying a complicated situation.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

lilyofcourse wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Pre cancerous cells on your cervix is nothing...let me repeat...NOTHING like having such high blood pressure that you will stroke and kidney failure. The situations are not comparable. Try as you want...they are separate and not equal.
I guess you missed the part where I said they though I had preeclampsia. I was developing toxemia. My BP was at stroke level for the last 4 months of my pregnancy. I couldn't stand up with feeling like my head and heart was going to explode. While it wasn't preeclampsia, it was serious. Serious enough to talk about taking the baby before it was viable. I refused.
And you were not in that doctor's office with me being told I had to choose between freezing my cervix or dying. Yes. That was my only two options being presented.
I ask "what about the baby". The doctor says, "the fetus is collateral damage".
That is what it is considered. Collateral damage. A baby.
But thanks for minimizing it for me.
I was 23. Being told I would die if I continue.
Did I have a bad oncologist? Yes.

Oh well. Ya'll go ahead and sympathize with the death culture if you want. I wont do that. Murder is murder.

So it WASN'T pre-eclampisa like the OP. Ok. So again, not the same situation. Thanks for clarifying that it was not like the OP.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Oh...and your kidneys were working and not totally failed like the OP. So again, nothing like the Op.

Ohfour · Hooker

Mellow Momma wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
WTF are you talking about? A miracle by definition is a welcome and happy event. Katrina was neither. Maybe you need to work on your vocabulary a bit?
The point is you can't give God the credit for the good stuff and not the bad as well. God created the situation whereby the pregnancy was killing her. To say she should have just prayed and waited for a miracle sets aside the fact that God put her in the situation to begin with.

The OP did the best she could with info she had. I hope writing this article gave her some feeling of closure. She is clearly still mourning the baby as any mother would. To think she had other options that she chose to ignore in order to take the easy way out is simplifying a complicated situation.

God doesn't always put people in bad situations, most of the time (and I'm not saying this is one of those), the bad comes from people's poor choices, not from God.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

"The same God was in the room when this woman got the horrible news that her pregnancy was killing her"

Yes. And she could have called out to Him and let Him have His way.

Does that mean the baby would have lived? I don't know. God's will is not for us to understand. His timing is not for us to understand.

Could He have saved both of them? Yes.

We will never know now, will we? Because this woman, who claims she didn't want to kill her baby, did just that.

Is there a place for medicine? Yes. God gave us the ability, mentally and physically, to use medicine for our good.

I believe in going to the doctor and that doesn't mean I don't think God has left us.

I also believe that choosing to take an unborn life is not what God would want.

Ohfour · Hooker

Mellow Momma wrote:
Oh...and your kidneys were working and not totally failed like the OP. So again, nothing like the Op.

They had not totally failed. It was probably, but to say they had already failed is inconsistent with the OP...

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Ohfour wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
WTF are you talking about? A miracle by definition is a welcome and happy event. Katrina was neither. Maybe you need to work on your vocabulary a bit?
The point is you can't give God the credit for the good stuff and not the bad as well. God created the situation whereby the pregnancy was killing her. To say she should have just prayed and waited for a miracle sets aside the fact that God put her in the situation to begin with.

The OP did the best she could with info she had. I hope writing this article gave her some feeling of closure. She is clearly still mourning the baby as any mother would. To think she had other options that she chose to ignore in order to take the easy way out is simplifying a complicated situation.
God doesn't always put people in bad situations, most of the time (and I'm not saying this is one of those), the bad comes from people's poor choices, not from God.

Sometimes it does come from poor choices. This was not one of those times. Waiting for a miracle is just silly and in her case a death sentence. In my opinion, God sent the doctor to treat her and save her life.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

So if you have to choose between your life and that of your child, you will choose your life every time.

Defend all you want. But this baby did not have to die like that.

The mother did not have to kill it.

It wasn't an absolute she would die. It wasn't 100% that anything would happen.

But once she had a "what if" it was certain she was going to kill her baby.

TrudyML · Guru

Opening this thread is becoming a poor choice.