Nebraska anti-abortion law has predictable results

Oh. My. God.

I think I'm going to come back to this and comment later when I have more time to process.

Thanks for posting.

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

regdog said:

What really angers me is Flood saying "It's still a life." A life that was born too early with no chance of survival and had to suffer in vain to breathe.

Click to expand...

It was not a probability of zero. The probability may have approximated zero, but there is a difference between finite and infinite.

IMHO, this isn't the case that will get the law changed. That will be the case where the mother dies or winds up in a vegetative state because of the restrictions the law puts on families and care givers.

GeorgeK said:

It was not a probability of zero. The probability may have approximated zero, but there is a difference between finite and infinite.

Click to expand...

It is possible that for this specific baby it was zero. An average 22nd weeker might have a specific probability of survival. A specific fetus however might have a zero chance.

NO abortions and damn the consequences is all these types care about.

It's infuriating.

GeorgeK said:

It was not a probability of zero. The probability may have approximated zero, but there is a difference between finite and infinite.

Click to expand...

Some people, myself included, might be more concerned with the less than 2 percent chance the baby would ever "function on even the most basic level." That's a pretty bleak statistic, and it's much more complicated than a risk of death. Death is final and absolute. If I were the parent, I would choose certain death over nearly-certain minimal function for my child, because that's what I would want someone else to choose for me.

I understand a lot of people would disagree with my perspective there. I'm happy to agree to disagree as long as each couple can choose for themselves what they believe is best for their family.

Holding a dying infant for fifteen minutes has to be terribly traumatizing. My heart goes out to the parents in a big way.

Sen. Mike Flood will probably never understand the torment these parents went through...he's happy legislating from on high about the morals of their situation as HE sees them. What an ass.

The fact he was holding the baby indicates that the medical team didn't feel it was warranted to make any efforts to try and support life. So basically they put the parents through 10 terrible days for the same outcome.

Monkey said:

Holding a dying infant for fifteen minutes has to be terribly traumatizing. My heart goes out to the parents in a big way.

Sen. Mike Flood will probably never understand the torment these parents went through...he's happy legislating from on high about the morals of their situation as HE sees them. What an ass.

Click to expand...

What frightens me is that we've already seen the extreme end of the anti-abortion spectrum: There are murderers who specifically target abortion clinics and specialists.

We haven't really seen the extreme end of the pro-abortion spectrum, to my knowledge, and I'm afraid of who their targets would be.

I know little of the American health care system, other than my brief brushes, so I'm sure this is a silly question.

But why couldn't they have just gone to another hospital in another state? Couldn't the doctors have referred her out of state to another facility that could have performed the abortion?

I know that in Canada, WAY back when I was little, even though abortion is/was legal there were cases of abortions being performed under the guise of D&C's, where the doctor and family all wanted the same result but without the actual title on the medical record.

Again, I know little about the system so apologies in advance for seeming stupid.

(yes, I know that they shouldn't HAVE HAD to go to another state, but I'm just asking)

veinglory said:

It is possible that for this specific baby it was zero. An average 22nd weeker might have a specific probability of survival. A specific fetus however might have a zero chance.

Click to expand...

This was a planned pregnancy with obviously a mother under prenatal care. Elizabeth, "looked perfect," and was simply born too early. I've taken care of patients who were born at 22 weeks and ultimately were productive members of society. A miracle is at its worst, a success beyond the technology of the time. Miracles do happen. This was by no means a zero chance scenario...unless the reporter forgot to mention something like, "oh yeah, she didn't have a liver..."

Sarah Madara said:

Some people, myself included, might be more concerned with the less than 2 percent chance the baby would ever "function on even the most basic level." That's a pretty bleak statistic, and it's much more complicated than a risk of death. Death is final and absolute. If I were the parent, I would choose certain death over nearly-certain minimal function for my child, because that's what I would want someone else to choose for me. I understand a lot of people would disagree with my perspective there. I'm happy to agree to disagree as long as each couple can choose for themselves what they believe is best for their family.

Click to expand...

So then for you, your personal cutoff for survival odds are 2%, where less than a 2% chance of complete recovery means somebody should pull the plug sooner than later if you are ever unable to answer for yourself?

That's an interesting way to approach it. Putting it in D&D terms, what saving roll is so low that the player is not allowed to roll?

Sheryl, (sorry due to connection speed I can't quote right now) the answer is they could. On the other hand it is possible that the mother's health was unstable enough that they thought a transfer was unsafe. Obviously she could in that instance sign out against medical advice, but might subsequently go critical in the meantime and die in transit. I think that that's the scenario that Williebee was referring to.

Monkey said:

Sen. Mike Flood will probably never understand the torment these parents went through...he's happy legislating from on high about the morals of their situation as HE sees them. What an ass.

Click to expand...

The really disgusting part is he won't even try to understand. People like him are only focused on NO ABORTIONS. Wyoming has a representative just like Flood. As soon as the legislative committee turns down his bill, he places another with minor wording changes. He and I've exchanged several emails and he has the same thought processes: NO ABORTIONS and the fallout of suffering be damned. ... And I totally agree with the remainder of your quote.

GeorgeK said:

So then for you, your personal cutoff for survival odds are 2%, where less than a 2% chance of complete recovery means somebody should pull the plug sooner than later if you are ever unable to answer for yourself?

That's an interesting way to approach it. Putting it in D&D terms, what saving roll is so low that the player is not allowed to roll?

Click to expand...

If I'm ever unable to answer for myself, I'll want my family to weigh the quality of life I'm likely to have against the odds of complete recovery and decide what they feel is best, based on their own feelings and what they know of me. It wasn't a less than 2% chance of complete recovery. It was a less than 2% chance of basic function. And that doesn't say what the most likely survival scenario is - severe mental retardation? Completely vegetative state? Different people will make different choices.

If I faced certain death without a potentially life-saving surgery, and the surgery had a 98% chance of leaving me with severe brain damage and needing full-time care for the rest of my life, I would choose death.

No, a baby can't make that choice. Some parents will believe that anyone who can't make the choice to die should always be given every chance to live. I believe that sometimes parents have to make tough choices for their children, doing what they believe in their hearts to be best.

Sorry, I don't know D&D

Sarah Madara said:

If I'm ever unable to answer for myself, I'll want my family to weigh the quality of life I'm likely to have against the odds of complete recovery and decide what they feel is best, based on their own feelings and what they know of me. It wasn't a less than 2% chance of complete recovery. It was a less than 2% chance of basic function. And that doesn't say what the most likely survival scenario is - severe mental retardation? Completely vegetative state? Different people will make different choices.

If I faced certain death without a potentially life-saving surgery, and the surgery had a 98% chance of leaving me with severe brain damage and needing full-time care for the rest of my life, I would choose death.

No, a baby can't make that choice. Some parents will believe that anyone who can't make the choice to die should always be given every chance to live. I believe that sometimes parents have to make tough choices for their children, doing what they believe in their hearts to be best.

Click to expand...

That's the thing about medicine. The odds don't mean anything when it comes to the individual. Probably any physician with at least 10 years of practice will have encountered at least one patient who defied all the odds...normal babies with abnormal amniocenteses, waking up from comas, learning to walk again after a major stroke... The odds are meaningless, yet that's all we have to work with many times. Some people want that one in a million chance. Some people will say to pull the plug if their odds are less than 1 in 50.

The really sticky situations are, what if the family says pull the plug, or abort, and someone else refuses and the patient doesn't die, but instead lingers for years costing millions. Who pays?

Sarah Madara said:

Sorry, I don't know D&D

Click to expand...

Role playing games (not just D&D, but I guess it's the most widely known)are a nice way to get people to think of alternate scenarios.

Bartholomew said:

What frightens me is that we've already seen the extreme end of the anti-abortion spectrum: There are murderers who specifically target abortion clinics and specialists.

We haven't really seen the extreme end of the pro-abortion spectrum, to my knowledge, and I'm afraid of who their targets would be.

Click to expand...

That's because the extreme end of the pro-abortion spectrum believes that any woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason, with little to no cost, while the extreme end of the anti-abortion spectrum believes that any abortion, for any reason, at any time during gestation, is murder.

Many people believe in committing murder to prevent the murder of an innocent. It's pretty straight-forward logic if you accept the original premise.

But it would take truly twisted logic to go from "I believe all women should be able to make this choice for themselves" to murder. Even killing a politician wouldn't make sense, because that would hurt rather than help their case, politically. The extreme end of the pro-choice movement has absolutely no beef with women who want to keep their babies.

Monkey said:

But it would take truly twisted logic to go from "I believe all women should be able to make this choice for themselves" to murder. Even killing a politician wouldn't make sense, because that would hurt rather than help their case, politically. The extreme end of the pro-choice movement has absolutely no beef with women who want to keep their babies.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm probably at the extreme end (of pro-choice), and I'm fond of saying I would defend Michelle's Duggar's right to have another kid every year just as vehemently as I'd defend her (or anyone else's) right to abort.

Bartholomew said:

We haven't really seen the extreme end of the pro-abortion spectrum, to my knowledge, and I'm afraid of who their targets would be.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's such a thing as a pro-abortion group.

Synovia said:

I don't think there's such a thing as a pro-abortion group.

Click to expand...

Pro-life and Pro-choice are terms spin-doctors made. Point in fact, the groups are for or against abortion.

Bartholomew said:

Pro-life and Pro-choice are terms spin-doctors made. Point in fact, the groups are for or against abortion.

Click to expand...

Uh... no.

There are people who feel abortion is wrong and would never consider having one themselves, but still support a woman's right to choose.

I think cheating on your girlfriend is wrong but I wouldn't support a law against it. Not everyone thinks their personal morals should be entirely codified into law.

Bartholomew said:

Pro-life and Pro-choice are terms spin-doctors made. Point in fact, the groups are for or against abortion.

Click to expand...

Baloney. More authoritarian "if you're not for us, you're against us" claptrap.

I'm firmly pro-choice, but personally anti-abortion unless the mother is in danger. Just as I'm pro-choice when it comes to both legal and "illegal" drugs, food, gambling, prostitution, and damn near anything you can name; that doesn't mean I feel I personally need to indulge in those options. It means I believe each person should have the freedom to make those decisions themselves.

People who are against the drug war aren't pro-cocaine, or pro-heroin, or pro-grass. They are pro-choice.

All things not prohibited are required has not yet become the legal standard.

There is some truth to Bart's comment, though.

"Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" labels are, in fact "spin". They are an attempt to put a positive image on a generalized group label.

"Pro-choice" as popularly known in the US, doesn't reflect an individual's points of view on drug usage.

"Pro-Life", as used by the protesters we see on television, isn't intended to reflect their views on hunting, the death penalty, or eating chicken.

Expanding them to cover such things (as I have done in the past) may, or may not expose the errors in the labels.