Salon writer admits embellishing abortion story
UPDATE, 7:20p: Don’t look now, Mikki, but my NewsBusters cross post on your embellished abortion story just made Drudge…
4:34p: Last week for our Quote of the Day Carder posted an excerpt from the Salon piece, “Abortion saved my life.”
The writer, a blogger named Mikki Kendall (pictured right), was relaying her 1st person account of supposedly nearly hemorrhaging to death because a hospital doctor refused to perform the one procedure that would save her life, an abortion. Here was the quote Carder pulled:
I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.
The story headline:
Quoting Kendall from her article:
- “The doctor on call didn’t do abortions. At all. Ever. In fact, no one on call that night did.”
- “A very kind nurse risked her job to call a doctor from the Reproductive Health Clinic who was not on call, and asked her to come in to save my life…. The doctor who didn’t do abortions was supposed to have contacted her (or someone else who would perform the procedure) immediately. He didn’t.”
- “I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.”
- “My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway.”
- “My husband had told them exactly what my regular doctor said, and the ER doctor had already warned us what would have to happen. Yet none of this mattered when confronted by the idea that no one needs an abortion.”
Kendall was clearly accusing a doctor of standing by to let her bleed to death because he opposed abortion, right?
For several reasons I doubted the veracity of Kendall’s story (see the 1st comment on my blog and my comments at Salon on 5/27 at 8:30a, 11:23a, 11:33a, 12:32p, and 12:37p ).
There were many red flags. But the biggest was Kendall’s claim that a doctor was willing to let her bleed to death after she presented with placental abruption, because he knew treatment would result in her baby’s death, a nonviable 20-weeker. This made no sense, particularly knowing nontreatment would ensure both the mother and baby died.
I asked why hadn’t Kendall sued? Why didn’t she name both the hospital and doctor? I concluded my comments at Salon by writing the publication was negligent for posting Kendall’s story without fact-checking and should retract it.
Pro-aborts went on to slam me with their standard fare of slurs, nor did Kendall handle the criticisms very well. She blogged on May 27 that pro-lifers were “motherf***ers” and threatened, “I’m not a nice girl, and you’re about to see that.”
Then, on May 29, still aggravated by “the comments and emails that are flooding my inbox,” Kendall blogged:
Some say I should name and shame the doctor that refused to do the procedure. If I knew why he refused I might have done just that, but since I know that there are many possible reasons that he did not do it? I’ve left him to deal with the internal procedures in place.
Excuse me? Kendall’s entire Salon story was built upon her accusation that a heartless, negligent, anti-abortion doctor was willing to let her hemorrhage to death rather than provide a life-saving abortion.
And she has now admitted her story was a big, fat, fabricated lie.
Now will Salon retract? (And Amanda Marcotte?)
[HT for Kendall’s blog posts: Carder; photo of Kendall via her “Angry Black Woman” Facebook page]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Where did she admit it was a lie? Is there a link? (Did I not see it?)
I don’t think “embellishment” means what you think it means.
Game on.
Where did she admit that she was lying?
“Do’s: Criticize ideas, not people.”
Great job of standing up for your principles there, Ms. Stanek. *golf clap*
You are so desperate to continue to live in your fantasy world where doctors do not ever do wrong, that you are willing to twist her words to fit it.
I have been following all the comments on the story and one thing is clear: people would rather believe a woman is lying about a medical emergency that almost cost her her life due to the fact that her doctor did wrong, than believe that a doctor would willingly, deliberately do wrong.
Are you all so convinced that doctors are saints that you’d rather villify her all over the web than allow even the tiniest doubt about doctors’ sainthoods into your heads?
She clearly lied. It is not criticism to point out falsehoods. She said he did not perform the abortion because he was pro-life. Then she says she doesn’t know why he wouldn’t do it. That is where the lie is. Perhaps the doctor thought he could save them both, we will probably never know since the story was inaccurate. I am sorry for what happened to this woman, but for the woman to attack the Dr for being Pro-life, when in fact, she didn’t know what the reasoning was, is disingenuious and she is using the tragedy of her baby to make a statement for killing children. No Doctor would ever let a woman die when the baby was dying too because they are Pro-Life. That just plain doesn’t make any sense.
Huh? If she is now admitting that the story was fabricated, that is embellishment (and fraud). If there are huge ‘facts added to the story’ for hysteria, that’s embellishment.
But I don’t see a retraction here – only that she has no real idea why the doctor does not perform abortions. I personally think that she was having a medical issue – and abortion was not the solution, even though she asked for one. She is not a medical doctor, and could not know what she needed, exactly. Even if a procedure resulted in the child’s death, as long as the intent was not to kill she child, that is not an abortion.
I’m not sure what to make of the headline.
I’m not taking sides but I thought I’d help people with the rhetorical structure of the writer’s argument.
1. Mikki said she knew exactlly why the doctor refused to perform the procedure: He did not do abortions, ever.
2. Then she says: “If I knew why he refused I would have [sued, taken action]”
So, either Miki knows why the doctor refused her care — he does not believe in abortion under any circumstance — or, Miki is aware that he may have refused care for any number of reasons other than his beliefs about abortion. Both cannot exist simultaneously.
Um Corine, Jill lost her job because she blew the whistle on doctors who left a born, live baby to die. I hardly think you can accuse her of thinking doctors can do no wrong.
BTW, grow up. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would question the story of Ms. Kendall. It doesn’t make sense and if it doesn’t make sense its more than likely not true.
LOL How can you expect people to take you seriously when you make these types of allegations? Did you not CLEARLY READ where Mikki stated the following:
“I don’t know if his objections were religious or not.”
I’ll be blogging my response to this asinine article -_-
<em>Excuse me? Kendall’s entire Salon story was built upon her accusation that a heartless, negligent, anti-abortion doctor was willing to let her hemorrhage to death rather than provide a life-saving abortion.
And she has now admitted her story was a big, fat, fabricated lie.</em>
Where? You’re calling her a liar, but where’s the lie? Is there some reason why you can’t actually explain your point? Or are you content to simply make pointless, illogical slurs and call it a day? (And — “fabricated lie”? What, as opposed to a prefab lie?) Her accusation didn’t speculate as to the doctor’s motives. You’re the one calling the doctor “heartless”, not her. So doesn’t that make <em>you</em> the embellisher/fabricator/liar?
NO hospital at all, ever would let an unaffiliated doctor come in to their ER and perform any procedure on a patient.
dorisjean, that’s what I’m seeing as well.
If I almost lost my life due to someone’s negligence, I’d be suing. I don’t care what the perceived motivation would be for not performing the only procedure that could save my life. Mikki, if your story is true, you need to sue this doctor to protect others from suffering at his hands. Instead, it appears that what’s happening is that this story is being used to vilify pro-lifers as evil people who just want to see women die. Energy could be used to rid the medical profession of this guy, but instead it’s just been politicized.
Corine – You are close, but it is not about the doctor. Many, many, many times on this blog you will see certified legal doctors get slammed and discredited because the main population of this blog can’t get over the legal medical procedure part of abortion.
No, what she is doing is the driving force behind the anti-choice movement… Shame the women. I read through this article twice and I still don’t see the Gotcha Admission Jill is talking about.
When you boil their argument down it always comes back to “Whores who have abortions are murderers” and it is a pretty sick argument. Here this mother of two almost dies because this doctor has a issue with saving her life and automatically “She is a liar!” and “There is never a need for an abortion!” This very story blows apart two of their main talking points so better discredit the victim before anyone listens to her….
Kristen, I’m plenty grown up, thank you very much. What was that about attacking ideas and not people again? Yeah, didn’t think that was a rule that was stringently enforced here.
Mikki stated she knew the doctor was pro-life, Elizabeth. You unfortunately seem to be conflating religion with being pro-life.
Claim: “he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.”
Truth: “If I knew why he refused I might have done just that, but since I know that there are many possible reasons that he did not do it?”
Fact: Kendall intentionally slandered a doctor. She used this slander as a big black mark on the reputation of the pro-life organization.
My baby sister died at 8.5 months from placental abruption. I take offense personally to Kendall’s argument that her life was at risk due to pro-life ideology. Kendall is flaunting the death of her child to further her own political agenda. It’s shameful.
“I don’t know if his objections were religious or not.”
This is a nonanswer to the question Jill asked. It doesn’t matter WHY the doctor objected. Mikki can (and should) still sue the doctor and the hospital if they were content to let her placental abruption go untreated.
Jill’s question is very valid. Mikki knows why he refused to treat her — she stated in the original article that it was because he refused to perform abortions, ever.
So why is Mikki now saying that she does not know why he refused to treat her?
When someone repeatedly changes their story when called on their inconsistencies, it’s a sign that they may not be telling the truth.
Oh, yes, Biggz. It all comes back to the “whores” bit. Right. *eyeroll* The only one making that argument is YOU, buddy.
dorisjean summed up quite well, I believe, the point of this post:
1. Mikki said she knew exactlly why the doctor refused to perform the procedure: He did not do abortions, ever.
2. Then she says: “If I knew why he refused I would have [sued, taken action]”
So, either Miki knows why the doctor refused her care — he does not believe in abortion under any circumstance — or, Miki is aware that he may have refused care for any number of reasons other than his beliefs about abortion. Both cannot exist simultaneously.
Doctors make judgement calls all the time it is not medically necessary to perform an abortion. The only reason anyone cared about this story is because she claimed the doctor would not do an abortion due to his pro-life beliefs. And then she admitted she did not know why he would not do the abortion, so she is basically saying she has no idea whether or not he is pro-life. Therefore, she lied.
Corine I believe it was your post that said:
You are so desperate to continue to live in your fantasy world where doctors do not ever do wrong, that you are willing to twist her words to fit it.
What was that about attacking ideas and not people? Yeah, thats what I thought.
I cannot believe how much you guys are missing the whole point to this story…
She is not taking shots at anti-choicers.
The story is not about a bad doctor.
The only point this story is trying to demonstrate for you is this “Abortion is sometimes necessary and in some circumstances they can save a woman’s life”
That is it. End of story. No other motives in this story. Stop being so defensive. She is not attacking you or your movement.
The story is not about a bad doctor.
Oh, really? How do you figure that one?
Well Biggz, its hard to get the point of the story when she says one thing and then says something completely different the next paragraph. If nothing else she might need to work on her writing skills.
OMG!!! She just says she knows he does not do abortions ever, not why he doesn’t. She even states that there are several reasons that he might not do them and she refuses to speculate as toward what the reason is. She barely even touches on that point. The main thrust of the story is that abortion can save lives and they are sometimes necessary.
Biggz, abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life, and this fact has been attested to by many, many physicians as well as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.
The sad fact is, it’s often the easiest solution as well as the most cost-effective (in terms of avoiding a potential lawsuit), which is why doctors who don’t care about their unborn children often advocate for it.
Moreover, Mikki’s story is inconsistent in that abortion is not a treatment for placental abruption, and no doctor (pro-life or otherwise) worth his/her salt would refuse to treat a patient with a placental abruption, regardless of his/her views on abortion. You should do some research on this condition and you’ll see why so many of us are confused by several details of Mikki’s story.
Kristen – Where did she say that the doctor refused because he was anti-choice? Where did she say it was his beliefs at all. She states she doesn’t know why he wouldn’t do it just that he wouldn’t.
Jill,
Nikki is a medical first. Placental abruption that went untreated and the mother survived. Let’s get this written up in a journal.
Nikki says:
“I’m not a nice girl, and you’re about to see that.”
I don’t think that anyone here ever thought you were, Nikki. Be careful to keep that temper in check, lest you run afoul of civil or criminal law.
The headline to her article, and the whole point to Mikki’s original article was that the doctor refused to perform an abortion because he was pro-life.
Now she says she doesn’t know why he didn’t perform an abortion.
That’s the lie, as already stated above.
I didn’t think that it was nice to accuse her of lying in the first place. Many of us decide not to sue people and that doesn’t mean nothing bad happened or that we lied. I think that her account of most of what happened is probably just as she really does remember it. But the crucial point is: Did the doctor tell her that he wouldn’t treat her because he was pro-life?
Or – might it have been that the doctor had seen this presentation previously and that with bed rest, the outcome had been good for the previous patients and their children?
That may not be it because then why didn’t he either admit her to a bed or send her home for bed rest. She remained at the emergency room, so we don’t know. Did she ask for an abortion because she was a doctor self-diagnosing? I don’t think so because she hasn’t claimed to be a doctor.
It sounds, from her follow up post, that she asked for an elective abortion because she didn’t want to go on bed rest because she didn’t think she had the resources to do so.
That being said, it pains me as a pro-life activist that other people claiming to be pro-life would write nasty emails to a woman. Way not to win someone over. However, we can all get a little snarky here on the interwebs and maybe we can all learn a lesson from this.
Kirsten, the fantasy here is that Mikki is, must be, must needs be, lying.
There are no internal inconsistencies in Mikki’s story. The doctor did not do abortions ever. He did not do an abortion on Mikki because he did not do abortions ever. As to his internal reasoning _why_ he does not do abortions ever, that no one can know.
However, anyone who refuses to perform abortions _ever_, is firmly in the camp that terms itself “pro-life”. It is the very definition of the camp that terms itself “pro-life”.
Biggz, her statement was the ENTIRE QUOTE that was originally featured for QOTD.
I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.
Those were Mikki’s exact words in the original Salon article.
Proponents for freedom of choice talk a lot about protection of the health and the life of the mother, but they don’t really make clear what that means. Anti-abortionists have been very successful in painting an image of women choosing to have abortions because they are carrying a child with Downs Syndrome or because they don’t like the sex of the baby, but they are careful to avoid to discussing what is really meant by maternal and fetal health. They probably don’t really understand what the concept means.
Dr. Papa deals specifically with high-risk pregnancies. Patients are referred to her by their OB-GYN’s because of conditions that threaten the life or health of the mother or the baby. Dr. Papa discussed the case of one thirty-year-old woman, both of whose parents had a history of heart attacks. This woman, herself, had a heart attack in which her cardiac tissue was damaged. She desperately wanted to have her baby, but after careful examination and many diagnostic tests, Dr. Papa determined that she could not carry the child to viability without a high probability of her own death. Suddenly this poor woman and her husband were plummeted into a world where, instead of choosing baby names and nursery furniture, they were making a date to be admitted to the hospital for a medically necessary abortion.
Another woman was found to have severely enlarged arteries near the heart, a condition of which she was unaware before she became pregnant. She, too, underwent a medically necessary abortion even though she, too, really wanted to have her baby.
In another case, it was determined that the baby lacked a cranium– it did not have a brain. The woman had a choice of carrying the child to term, knowing that it would die shortly after birth, or having an abortion.
Dr. Papa deals with cases such as this every day, and she says that it has been a major challenge to work out the ethical issues with the hospital at which she performs the abortions. She is a member of the hospital Ethics Committee, and they have wrestled with the issue of nurses who do not feel they can, in good conscience, provide care to a woman who comes in for an abortion. They’ve also dealt with anesthesiologists with the same reservations. There have been times when Dr. Papa has admitted a woman to the hospital for an emergency abortion and found that there was no anesthesiologist on duty who would agree to provide services to the woman, so not only did the poor woman undergo what was probably the most horrible ordeal in her life, but she had to do so without even the benefit of pain medication. Depending on the shift, they may have nurses who refuse to provide care- Dr. Papa talked about one time she and the patient arrived at the hospital and there was not a single nurse on duty who would provide nursing care for the woman.
Corine, I’m confused how you can say there are no inconsistencies when Jill, and many others, have pointed out several — the first and most obvious being that abortion is not a usual or standard treatment for placental abruption.
No Ninek – The title of the article was “Abortion saved my life” not “anti-choice doctors suck” Take your slant off of your reading and you will see the article as it is written….
And Biggz, for every sob story Dr. Papa offers (who is he, by the way, and can you provide any sources?), there’s another one by a pro-life doctor that tells how, with careful management, women with similar if not identical conditions were able to successfully carry to viability if not term and deliver their babies whole and alive.
The main reason Dr. Papa encourages his patients to abort is probably to protect his own butt. He doesn’t want to get sued for malpractice if the mother dies, so instead he recommends the death of the baby.
Joanna – It says because he won’t do them ever but not why he won’t do them. Could be lots of reasons besides anti-choice. You are putting words in her mouth.
Biggz, I WAS QUOTING HER WORDS FROM THE ARTICLE SHE WROTE!
How am I putting words in her mouth if I’m quoting her words?!
http://www.swimmingkangaroo.com/blog/2006/03/what-do-doctors-mean-by-medically.html
Joanna – Dr. Papa is a woman.
Also you are putting words in her mouth by jumping to conclusions. She never says the doctor is anti-choice. No where not once. You are jumping to that conclusion on your own.
Despite her headline to the contrary, Mikki admitted in her first story that she was simply speculating about the whole thing. She said that the hospital told her that the delay was simply an honest mix up but she “knew” that the real reason was that the doctor just didn’t want her to have an abortion. She gave no evidence for this theory of hers, but she presented it as a fact.
Now she’s backing away even further.
I’m not seeing any inconsistency here. Nowhere in the original Salon article does she make the claim that the doctor is pro-life or morally opposed to abortion. She simply states that this particular doctor refuses to do abortions. Later clarifying that she doesn’t know the exact reason why he doesn’t do abortions does not indicate that she embellished any part of the original story.
Biggz, you are putting words in Joanna’s mouth by saying the doctor is anti-choice. Joanna didn’t say that. No where not once.
Oh, and funny story, Dr. Papa was my high risk OB. (I found out after the fact that she was pro-abortion. My mom saw her speaking at a Planned Parenthood event…what a tangled web!Edit: Oh, apparently it was that specific planned parenthood event that Biggz links. SUPER tangled web, indeed!)
Anyway, even she, a self proclaimed abortion supporter, recognized that my placenta abruptia was not a reason for abortion.
JoAnna, did you even read Mikki’s original article instead of just the quotes Jill gives to support her own opinions?
Lauren – Is she backing away from her non statement or is she trying to bring your and Jill’s focus back on what the story was about in the first place THAT ABORTIONS CAN SAVE WOMEN”S LIVES!
And even though Dr. Papa said your circumstances did not require an abortion she is clearly making the case that they are medically necessary in some cases. If you know Dr. Papa then you know I am not making this stuff up.
Where did she admit that she lied?
This is classic misdirection on Jill’s part. Let’s make a fake argument about a non fact so everyone will ignore the real facts of the story that go against a couple of mainstay Anti-choice talking points…
Oh, I can vouch that there is a real Dr. Papa, and she really did say those things.
Here’s the problem though, Biggz, pro-lifers do not question the fact that terminating a pregnancy is sometimes necessary. What we question is the necessity of killing the child when these terminations occur post-viability. In the cases that Dr. Papa mentions, the question that needs to be asked is if those women could have had preterm c-sections or preterm induced labor, thus giving their children a chance (however small) of life.
Obviously there are some cases where absolutely nothing can be done to save the child’s life (ectopic pregnancy for example) but why must the child be killed if pregnancy termination is required post or near viability?
The story was about vilifying a doctor who refused to perform an abortion. Mikki also stated, “My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway.” Did this doctor actually “decide” on the worth of her life being less than her child’s? Clearly, Mikki is being accusatory toward this (apparently negligent) doctor, who can’t give his side of the story. She is stating this doctor did not value her life and she is writing with a dehumanizing tone toward her unborn child.
In any case, I still don’t understand why this man isn’t being sued for negligence toward a patient.
I broke this news in the comments section of Salon. Pro abortion has attacked me repeatedly, not the issues I raised, but me personally. No one commenting in that thread has addressed the inconsistencies from a professional standpoint in favor of the pro abortion folks. No one, Never. It has digressed from topic now, to the typical ad hominem attacks according to the pro abortion playbook. So now I’m just playing with the pro abortion folks who have trolled their own cause. Just for clarification here are the issues.
Mikki was in the throes of a spontaneous missed abortion.
Abortion did not save her life, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) was threatening her life.
Doctors can opt out of training in abortion procedures (in this case a D&E)
Doctor on call could have performed a c-section to save her life (not the baby, who due to blood loss was already dead if story is to be believed), but apparently she did not want that (also in her blog) He may not have been pro life at all.
Nurse wouldn’t lose her job for finding a doctor trained to do a D&E, Nurse would have lost her job for letting Mikki bleed to death.
Mikki stated herself that she doesn’t know why first doc refused.
Mikki was suffering from a spontaneous missed abortion due to placental abruption. Removing the fetus was appropriate to prevent her from bleeding to death.
If she was that close to death, and worried about her children at home, why would she wait for a physician to come to hospital to perform a D&E instead of having an emergency c-section (less risk)?
And the one I can’t figure out is, why did she almost die in the Emergency Room (like it says in the title of her post)? Did she run back down there for some reason? ;)
Just waiting to see how her story will change next.
Here’s a little clue:
The doctor isn’t being sued, because he didn’t do anything negligent, because the story is fallacious fabrication to bolster support for the abortion on demand industry. Now whether or not Mikki actually thinks she had an abortion that saved her life is subject to questioning. If a doctor that worked in an abortion clinic came over and did the D&E, then she would have a vested interest in leading a ‘writer’ to believe that an abortion had just saved her life, so ”tell all your friends, because we don’t want abortion to go away, do we?” Follow the money.
Lauren – you are wrong. According to JoAnna, abortion never saves women’s lives and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. We can all carry our healthy babies to term and be strong enough to birth the ones that won’t surviver outside of the womb. Right, JoAnna?
Lauren – Joanna said “Biggz, abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life, and this fact has been attested to by many, many physicians as well as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.”
Adair said “Doctors make judgment calls all the time it is not medically necessary to perform an abortion.”
and many other time have i heard people on this blog say “There is no such thing as a medically necessary abortion…
Death is never an absolute, but what kind of risk should we expect pregnant women to take? Obstetric hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide, and Mikki’s case seems especially alarming because it occurred before the 3rd trimester. There’s the possibility that Mikki could have elected for the C-section and been fine, but there’s also the very real possibility that invasive surgery could have intensified her hemorrhaging, sent her into shock, and ultimately killed her. It’s happened to plenty of women in the past, but unfortunately people can’t speak from the grave, making it so much easier for prolifers to point their fingers at this woman and cry “murderer.”
Kay, not to speak for Johanna, but I believe that she meant that “post viability abortions are never necessary.” This is a true statement.
If Mikki were past viability (she says 5 months, so it’s a bit ambiguous. Does she mean 20 weeks or 24 weeks? Obviously, in terms of viability, that’s a big difference!) would it have been possible to deliver her child alive? According to Mikki, her child was alive, despite the partial abruptia. Was a c-section possible? Was there time to give Mikki steroid shots in order to help her baby’s lungs develop? We’re just not getting the full story.
Where did Kendall’s photo come from as I couldn’t find it on either the Salon piece or her blog? Why was it necessary for Jill to publish the picture? Now it can be used on those disgusting anti-choice “dead or alive” posters. Nice.
Megan, c-sections are indicated in cases of placental abruptia that are presenting with uncontrolled maternal hemorrhage. A vaginal delivery, or a 2nd term abortion, are both more likely to result in uncontrollable bleeding than an emergency c-section.
It honestly appears that your blog posting (here) is more fabrication than Kendall’s. I’ve read them both, including Kendall’s follow up blog, and I don’t see a lie in hers. But you claim it is “big, fat, fabricated lie”, but have shown no evidence of that.
1. Jill lost her job for whistleblowing? Since the investigation didn’t produce any proof or indication of wrong-doing, it would seem she got fired for lying about/ defaming the hospital she worked for. Maybe she quit? I don’t really feel like looking into it.
2. The question ‘why didn’t she post their names?’ strikes me as indicative of a common ideological difference between many (READ: NOT ALL) anti- choice persons and many (READ:NOT ALL) pro-choice persons. I, like many other pro-choicers, would not feel comfortable posting someone’s name if I thought said person might then be stalked and harassed for something they have a legal right to do or refuse to do.
Although the aforementioned retaliatory activity is less common on ‘our’ side of the debate, I think her decision not to name the doctor is admirable.
3. I don’t think calling people ‘mother fuckers’ is very nice, so I’ll give you that.
Here’s the managment for the condition: Notice that abortion is not mentioned, and that c-section is considered often necessary to manage maternal bleeding.
Here’s what the doctors should have done with Mikki came to the hosptial:
Begin continuous external fetal monitoring for the fetal heart rate and contractions.
Obtain intravenous access using 2 large-bore intravenous lines.
Institute crystalloid fluid resuscitation for the patient.
Type and crossmatch blood.
Begin a transfusion if the patient is hemodynamically unstable after fluid resuscitation.
Correct coagulopathy, if present.
Administer Rh immune globulin if the patient is Rh-negative.
Vaginal Delivery
This is the preferred method of delivery for a fetus that has died secondary to placental abruption.
*The ability of the patient to undergo vaginal delivery depends on her remaining hemodynamically stable.*
Delivery is usually rapid in these patients secondary to increased uterine tone and contractions.
C-Section
*Cesarean delivery is often necessary for fetal and maternal stabilization.*
While cesarean delivery facilitates rapid delivery and direct access to the uterus and its vasculature, it can be complicated by the patient’s coagulation status. Because of this, a vertical skin incision, which has been associated with less blood loss, is often used when the patient appears to have DIC.
The type of uterine incision is dictated by the gestational age of the fetus, with a vertical or classic uterine incision often being necessary in the preterm patient.
If hemorrhage cannot be controlled after delivery, a cesarean hysterectomy may be required to save the patient’s life.
Before proceeding to hysterectomy, other procedures, including correction of coagulopathy, ligation of the uterine artery, administration of uterotonics (if atony is present), packing of the uterus, and other techniques to control hemorrhage, may be attempted.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252810-treatment#aw2aab6b6b1aa
CC- Great point on the picture situation! I’m sure you’ll get a slew of comments like ‘Oh please, anyone can do a google search!’ Regardless, yuck.
If equating a D&E abortion on a nonviable fetus with throwing live cats and dogs, destined for euthanasia, into a wood chipper, is nasty, so be it. There are a lot of nasty truths about abortion that “pro-choicers” prefer to ignore. My argument with Mikki’s story was the premise that abortion saved her life. If she had taken another option that was offered to her, she could have titled it “A C-Section Saved My Life” and given the child some dignity in death. As women we should be encouraging one another to respect and value our womanhood, the wonderful potential we have to give life and finally the individual life we do bear for a short time in our bodies. Deliberately destroying innocent human life is always evil.
Here’s another Emergent Management list (this time if the woman is being managed by the ER)
Emergency department (ED) care depends on the stage of gestation and the severity of symptoms. The following steps should be performed:
Closely observe the patient
Administer supplemental oxygen
Continuous fetal monitoring
Administer IV fluids
Perform aggressive fluid resuscitation to maintain adequate perfusion, if needed
Monitor vital signs and urine output
Crossmatch 4 units of packed red blood cells; transfuse, if necessary
Perform amniotomy to decrease intrauterine pressure, extravasation of blood into the myometrium, and entry of thromboplastic substances into the circulation[5]
Immediately deliver the fetus by cesarean delivery if the mother or fetus becomes unstable
Treatment of coagulopathy or DIC may be necessary
With regard to the last item, above, some degree of coagulopathy occurs in about 30% of severe cases of placental abruption. The best treatment for DIC as a complication of placental abruption is immediate delivery.[6]
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/795514-overview#aw2aab6c10
Ah yes, Jill Stanek poster Lauren ends all debate on the issue with extensive research from Medscape.com. Her publication on management of 2nd trimester placental abruption is forthcoming in the New England Journal of Medicine. She is welcome to answer any questions from health care practitioners, as well as patients who suffer hysterectomies after delivering babies destined never to leave the NICU. She’ll have textbook knowledge and a compassionate hug ready for when she explains why pregnant women are morally compelled to risk their health, lives, and future reproductive capacity to sustain human life in its most nascent form.
Do you dispute any of the information I posted, Megan?
Specifically, do you dispute that an emergency c-section is indicated when the mother has become unstable?
Whores who have abortions are murderers” and it is a pretty sick argument.
Biggaz, would you please tell us who on this site called women who have abortions “whores” or “murderers?”
Hi Marcus, would you like to point to where Jill has lied about the case? I know it’s hard to actually argue a position. However, someone as daring and edgy as you must be (I mean, you cussed in a blog post!) must certainly poses the intellect necessary to bring the pro-life cause down to it’s knees.
Where has she erred?
Marcus, I hope your mother is proud of you.
see ya Marcus
I had a Stage 2 placental abruption with our third child. My baby was okay after she was born, but her heart rate went very high. I was told I lost at least 2 pints of blood before surgery. There are three ”stages” of placental abruption. In stage three, the baby is dead and the mother’s life is at risk as well. Simply having an abortion wouldn’t stop the bleeding. I was 33 weeks and had to have an emergency C-section. Is there anything that says how far along she supposedly was or what was the stage of her alleged placental abruption? I just find her story…lacking credibility.
Maria, she claims that her child was alive, but that she was hemorrhaging to the point of needing two full blood transfusions.
Jill,
I don’t doubt you, but can you please point out to me where she admitted that she lied? Several of us have asked. If I’m missing something, I’m sorry!
And Mods or somebody, please can we get rid of that vile and profane comment from Marcus? Please?
aren’t they supposed to investigate late term abortions?
because they can only be done if the mother is 100% in need?
im not sure of us laws.
it came up in a google search so i’m not stateing it as fact just asking.
“She is welcome to answer any questions from health care practitioners, as well as patients who suffer hysterectomies after delivering babies destined never to leave the NICU.” Snarky, much?
Our local hospital’s NICU has a 98% recovery rate. I had three C-sections, which were no big deal. I would imagine some abortion procedures were just as traumatic as that, if not moreso if the uterus was perforated or some other mistake was made.
I dispute your absolute assurance, applying medical recommendations for wanted, viable pregnancies to this one woman’s situation. You’re applying the norm to what seems to be a unique case–at the very least, she experienced abruption early the second trimester, not the third, when it typically occurs. What else? She could have ben anemic. Hypertensive. Or things could just have been more extreme, for inexplicable reasons. Who knows? If you don’t have an MD, how are you qualified to make sweeping claims about the necessity of a certain procedure?
Jill lost her job for whistleblowing? Since the investigation didn’t produce any proof or indication of wrong-doing, it would seem she got fired for lying about/ defaming the hospital she worked for. Maybe she quit? I don’t really feel like looking into it.
Ashtar, I’m pro-choice and have been “here” on and off for a few years. There was a lot about Jill’s experiences back then, and I accept that what she says about that one hospital and the occurrences there are true.
I also don’t think you would really disagree with how she felt about babies that were outside of the womb, and not being cared for, I sure don’t. I don’t agree with Jill’s position on abortion, but once born, a baby not only has personhood attributed to it, but in this country it’s a citizen, and pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike agree that it should get some care (almost without exception, anyway).
Wow, Jill – you sound positively giddy about the Drudge thing. Because that’s what Jesus would do…
What a hulabaloo! Let’s see what we can actually glean from what’s actually quoted:
Initially Kendall is purported to have said “I don’t know if his objections were religious or not”
Now she is saying “If I knew why he refused I might have done just that, but since I know that there are many possible reasons that he did not do it?”
I don’t see any discrepancy.
And now the Drudge report has lifted Jill’s piece and put it up with no additional information or comment.
So isn’t this just another anti-choice beat-up?
This headline seems embellished. Mikki didn’t recant her story in the slightest.
Are you saying that her abortion was not medically necessary to save her life, or are you saying that she didn’t have one? I’ve seen both arguments here. The piece you all seem to be missing is that in this particular instance, the fetus wasn’t going to be viable. No, it was not possible to deliver her baby alive.
And if you’re claiming this wasn’t medically necessary, why on earth would she go through a very high risk pregnancy only to have an abortion by choice? No one would do that.
Biggz et al:
The direct killing of a human child is never necessary, medical emergency or not. I refer you to the website of the Association of Pro-Life Physicians (bolding mine):
“When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.
Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.”
For more information, please see the article Abortion and Double Effect.
CC, as Jill clearly stated on both posts, the picture of Kendall came from her “Angry Black Woman” Facebook page. Try reading to the end of the post next time.
Corine, yes, why? Have you read Jill’s comments, especially the ones where she points out the inconsistencies in Mikki’s story?
Megan says “Or things could just have been more extreme, for inexplicable reasons. Who knows?”
I’ve been searching medical journals for hours and I have yet to find a single mention of abortion being the most appropriate (or even an appropriate) solution to a second trimester placental abruption. Everything I have read has indicated that the more severe the maternal hemorrhage, the greater the indication for a c-section and hysterectomy.
In fact, according to an article I found by late term abortionist Dr. Hern, the presence of placental abruption can result in an embolism forming after the procedure. It seems that an abortion in this particular scenario is actually more dangerous than it would be in general.
I’m curious as to how someone can be proud to be featured on the same site that is touting a book about ‘Obama’s True Identity’. I’d be embarrassed, to say the least.
” The piece you all seem to be missing is that in this particular instance, the fetus wasn’t going to be viable. ”
That still doesn’t answer the question as to why she would undergo a more dangerous procedure (the abortion) when the safer course of action was to have a c-section. If her bleeding was as severe as she stated, she would not be a candidate for a vaginal delivery even if her child had already died.
Was her situation as dire as she was led to believe? Could her pregnancy have been expectantly managed?
Was she requesting the abortion despite the fact that she knew that her pregnancy could have been expectantly managed? Did she refuse the c-section? There are just a lot of question here.
Doug- No doubt about it, a baby outside of the womb should certainly be cared for. The story she told of the baby with Downs is horrifying and awful, to be sure. Is it true? That I can’t answer, because I wasn’t there. From what I understand, there is no substantiating evidence. Again, that doesn’t meant it didn’t happen. Do I think it happened based on Jill’s reputation of embellishing and sensationalizing for the purpose of getting more attention/scaring people into agreeing with her? Ehhh…
Ashtar, could you please quote where Jill said she was “proud” to be featured on Drudge? I’ve looked all over her post and can’t seem to find it.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Is there one iota of medical documentation anywhere? Why was her pregnancy high risk? Who diagnosed the abruption? How did Mikki know she was experiencing an abruption when she woke from her nap? A pregnant woman may bleed for a number of reasons, or no apparent reason. I’ve read this woman’s account and it has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Keep in mind that people can SAY anything, OK? Perhaps Mikki sincerely believes this happened to her. Perception is everything. Documentation may tell an altogether different story.
Sooo, for all you PC folks who think those of us who question Mikki’s account are heartless, fine. Show me the documentation that verifies her account and I’ll sing a different tune.
Oh and let us know when Mikki plans to file a lawsuit. Certainly she wants to spare another woman such appalling incompetence.
Ashtar, the hospital never claimed that it didn’t do induced labor abortions. Nor did it claim that some of the children who were delivered via induced labor abortions did not survive for a period of time. The only thing they claimed was that these children, who they admit were born alive and survived for a significant period of time, were not actually viable. The law only required that viable children born after an abortion be given care.
They don’t dispute what Jill says, they just dispute that they technically broke the existing law.
UPDATE, 7:20p: Don’t look now, Mikki, but my NewsBusters cross post on your embellished abortion story just made Drudge…
Seems a little gloat-tastic and obnoxious to me, but it could just be that her style is inherently bratty. Regardless, I stand by my assertion that people should be embarrassed to be featured on that site. You may as well write for the Weekly World News.
Ashtar,
Drudge generates more links than any other single site. Being linked by him is a guarantee that your article will receive substantial attention. Even if you disagree with his politics completely, it is beneficial to have him send traffic your way.
That may be your opinion, Ashtar, but it is inaccurate to state that Jill is “proud” when she never said anything of the kind other than to note that a high-traffic site had picked up the story.
Lauren gives an accurate picture. Without grabbing a medical journal, if a pregnant pt. came in with hemorrhaging, First order of business would be to obtain IV access, and administer fluid bolus, while someone else is applying EFM, to monitor contractions and assess fetal heart rate. After making the assessment that pt. was losing as much blood as Mikki states she was, omeone else would be getting the doc in house, or whoever was on call. They wouldn’t say, “the pt. is hemhorraging, she needs an abortion, they would tell the doc to “come NOW” and he would come. Someone else would put in a call to radiology for a stat sono to determine the extent of the abruption (if there was time and the patient was stable) and the primary nurse would be prepping for an emergent c/section in case that became necessary. Labs would be drawn and ordered STAT. The OR, presumably on the unit, would be opened. This would all be happening in about the first 15 minutes after she was hot footed up to labor and delivery by the ED because they don’t want to keep a pregnant woman there any longer than they have to. Mode of delivery would be vaginal if possible, c/s would be next. D&E wouldn’t even be an option. All through this I’ve been trying to give Mikki’s story some benefit of the doubt, but there’s no way. The only thing that would remotely come close is that she had a small abruption to start with, that progressed over the “hours” she was there. 20 weeks is at a point in a pregnancy where doctors will make every effort to preserve a pregnancy, which is what most mothers insist upon. I don’t know, was she asking for an abortion when she hit the door?
Hi Justlookingon,
Another possiblity would be a low lying placenta which I experienced with my third pregnancy. Until my 5th month I experienced terrifying episodes of heavy bleeding and clots. I was told to get my feet up and come in only if the bleeding did not subside, which it did every time. As the pregancy progressed the placenta moved up in the womb and the bleeding subsided.
I was at risk for miscarriage. The doctors wanted to give me every opportunity to carry to term, which I did. Even as a medical professional this was frightening to me. An OB nurse friend of mine pretty much shrugged it off! Don’t worry about it, it happens often, it’ll clear up by the 5th month or so. She was right.
I wonder if this may have been Mikki’s situation. While frightening to her it may not have been the life threatening situation she assumed it was. I still want to know where the “abruption” diagnosis came from. I only read of it when Mikki awoke from her nap and she assumed this was causing her bleeding.
Hi Mary.
You’re right, a large amount of bleeding also can be caused by placenta previa. Sometimes they resolove, sometimes they don’t. If they come in bleeding, the effort is made to stabilize the bleeding, and buy more time for the baby. Maybe Mikki was just tired of having a high risk pregnancy, and was demanding an abortion. Also might be why doctors were refusing. Of course this is all speculation. I don’t suppose we will ever know the real story.
Little Z,
If you are going to comment, you had better put that lying in check. Specifically, I refer to the following:
“When you boil their argument down it always comes back to ‘Whores who have abortions are murderers’ ”
That’s a grotesque and vile lie, and you know it. This blog is about advancing arguments by airing facts. I suggest that you stick to arguing the facts. Any more grotesque distortions such as this will be taken down immediately.
You’re getting desperate, LittleZ
Hi justlookingon,
I suspect if I went to the ER during one of my episodes of heavy bleeding, the doctors and staff would have tried to ride it out, so long as the pregnancy was viable and there was no threat to my life. If I had demanded an abortion or some kind of medical intervention, it would have been refused. This may have been Mikki’s situation. It may have gotten to the point with Mikki that surgery was necessary, the pain she describes may wll have been premature labor, which I was also at risk for. Transfusions may have been necessary as her bleeding could have suddenly and unexpectedly become excessive, a risk I also had to be concerned about. While a very frightening and upsetting experience for her, as I said perception is everything, I seriously doubt her life was ever at serious risk and that her condition was closely monitored throughout her hospital stay. Also, a D&C, which apparently was the procedure she had, may have been done if her pregnancy was not as advanced as she thought. Also, she may have passed the fetus and the D&C was used to completely empty the uterus and control the bleeding.
The more I think of it JLO, the more convinced I am this may have been the scenario.
Mary
I believe that after medical expertise that communication is probably one of the most important factors in medical care. It not only protects a patient from medical error but it also can be used to reassure an individual’s spirit.
Mary:
She says in a post on her blog, that they did a sono, and found no amniotic fluid, and she also mentions being in labor. Pain often accompanies abruption. Bottom (sad) line, 20 weeks with ruptured membranes, bleeding, contractions….not good for baby – and no physician would let a patient die to save a 20 week fetus. I agree (and stated that earlier in my comments at Salon) that she was probably terrified and magnifying everything that was taking place. Regardless of expressions of sympathy, the pro abortion drones will accuse us of hating merely because we find her story incredible. What kind of mother would try to gain political traction based on such a sad story?
They don’t dispute what Jill says, they just dispute that they technically broke the existing law.
Correct. And they wouldn’t have installed “comfort care rooms” as was reported and as were photographed if they had not been doing these types of abortions fairly routinely.
hi myrtle miller,
A good point. I know I viewed my doctor as indifferent to my concerns and fears, even my OB nurse friend wanted me to put sock in it after a while. But then they did not see this the way I did. My OB nurse friend saw this condition all the time and women went to term uneventfully.
Perhaps communication with Mikki was very poor. What was a terrifying experience for her was another day at the coal mines for the hospital staff.
That is why I would want to see documentation, not just her word she had an”abruption” which I am beginning to doubt.
Hi justlookingon,
She may have also been experiencing a missed abortion, retaining the fetus while her uterus is trying to expel it. When working the ER I saw women in shock from these situations and of course they were rushed to surgery. Again, do we know this was a placental abruption? What we assume to be the pain of abruption could have been the pain of contractions. I have heard women scream in agony when miscarrying.
Again, reviewing the documentation would clear up a lot of speculation.
“What kind of mother would try to gain political traction based on such a sad story?”
That’s the part that really bothers me. I just don’t understand why losing your child would make you want to go out and fight for the “right” for other women to kill their children. It just doesn’t make sense.
HI lauren,
It make sense to me, I’m sorry to say. This woman has a political agenda and this personal tragedy will help fuel it. People do it all the time. I was a battered wife, you don’t have to be a victim. My child was killed by a drunk driver, I will fight for stricter laws. etc. etc. What better way to stir up emotion and outrage?
One thing I’ve never understood about the pro-choice / pro-life debate is this: why have we let a Supreme Court decision establish the basis for the debate? No, I’m not arguing 10th Amendment (states’ rights) or anything like that. I’m just saying, if abortion has been defined as a woman’s right by Roe v Wade, shouldn’t the legislatures be doing something to codify that “right” into a workable, legal framework?
I’m not a lawyer, nor a very good debater, but let me offer an example in a different tangent. Some states and the federal government allow capital punishment to be imposed for certain crimes. When an accused person is found guilty in such a case and is sentenced to death, a whole set of legal hurdles must be cleared — usually over many years — before the sentence is carried out. The defendant usually has a whole legal team, sometimes working pro bono because of their opposition to capital punishment, to represent his interests in the various appeals and arguments. In some cases, an elected official like the state governor has the power to commute the sentence. In other words, there is a whole lot of work done to make sure that the interests of the criminal are protected, even after he has been found guilty of the crime.
In the case of abortion, who represents the interests of the baby? Clearly, the mother who is seeking an abortion has a conflict of interest with the baby, by definition. But, the pro-choice position necessarily places the “right” of choice above the right of the baby to live — a right that is expressly claimed to be an essential human right granted by the Creator in our Declaration of Independence.
Now, there may be cases where the mother’s life truly is at risk. But, who can make that decision rationally? Shouldn’t there be some legal mechanism to evaluate the risk to the mother in balance with the rights of the unborn baby and possibly even other parties, like a father?
Has this ever been tried?
Biggz @ 5:27 says: Kristen – Where did she say that the doctor refused because he was anti-choice? Where
Here is where she says it:
“My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway.”
How else can you possibly take that statement? After all, us anti-choicers think everyone is worth less than a fetus (that is going to die or not) according to all the enlightened pro-aborts such as yourself.
So how’s everybody doing tonight?
Good thanks carder, and you?
Mighty fine, Reality. Glad you joined us.
Just checking in, making sure no one needs stitches.
Looks like things are “normal”.
Carry on.
Good night.
I’m confused, I’m pro-life and I’ve been following this closely. But where is the fabrication? With all due respect it seems like you’re working very hard to discredit the OP.
@ DR
From what I understand, it comes from the fact that Mikki stated first that the reason the doctor didn’t perform the necessary procedure on her was because he “didn’t do abortions, ever”, but now Mikki is claiming that she doesn’t know why the doctor refused to perform the necessary procedure on her. Or something to that effect.
Personally, I’m just wondering why Mikki won’t release the name of the hospital.
Actually the piece above states that she initially said “I don’t know if his objections were religious or not”.
Then it says that she later said “If I knew why he refused I might have done just that”
Both statements amount to the same thing.
She discredits herself in her own blog. She first tells us the doctor refused to treat her because he didn’t do abortions, “ever” (villifying him for being pro life) Then she says in her blog, that she doesn’t know why he refused. Her story is unbelievable from medical perspective unless there was an endless cascade of inept decision making from many nurses and doctors the night she came in. At the minimum she is embellishing her story to fit her pro abortion bias.
Or, the other scenario – we are all just a bunch of pro life zealot haters who won’t leave this poor woman in peace after she experience such a tragedy and just felt compelled to share it on several liberal blogs on the www, without political bias or agenda. :)
Mary – when I commented on her story, I was applying her diagnosis of placental abruption to be conciliatory and maybe give her a little benefit of the doubt. I thought perhaps she was experiencing a missed abortion d/t the placental abruption, which is why I asserted that abortion did not save her life, but [the spontaneous] abortion was actually threatening her life. Like I said – I don’t suppose we will ever know what happened.
“My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway.”
like i said earlier im pretty sure I read that it states some where on a site about law that all doctors are banned from doing late term abortions. unless it is the only way to save the womans life.
they are supposed to be reported and investigated to make sure it was not done falsely.
if this is true and the doctor who did it was found wrong her whole story would be blown wide open.
also
this doctor may have refused because it wasn’t needed and didnt want to loose his practice
i dont know if this is true i’m not from the states and don’t know my fact or fiction on us laws
I do know that no matter how much i have searched I have never found information on an abortion being needed.
Here it is again, for reality and DR.
“My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway.”
And don’t forget the thesis for her entire post which was contained in the first paragraph.
“what I’m really concerned about is the idea that anyone besides a pregnant woman should have a say in what she does with her body after finding out she’s pregnant.”
That’s all well and good justlookingon, but it doesn’t change the two statements I have cited. Besides, she’s right.
Megan
This is in response to your 7:03 post:
This is from the Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin site:
Cesarean delivery is performed for most cases of placental abruption and emergency delivery may be need if hemorrhage occurs. Severe blood loss may require a blood transfusion.
And from the ProLife OB/GYNS AAPLOG
Placenta previa can be potentially catastrophic to both mother and baby, as it carries the risk of unpredictable sudden, severe hemorrhage, necessitating emergency C-section as life saving treatment.
I did a little research but didn’t see abortion offered as a safer medical alternative. Could you please site your sources? Thanks.
Theres a site where people can ask questions and the pro-life OB/GYN association will posts their answer but I forgot to write the site down and could not find it. Hopefully you can because if you have a question they will answer it intelligently. I think you will appreciate their insight.
” Besides, she’s right.”
Based on what evidence?
“what I’m really concerned about is the idea that anyone besides a pregnant woman should have a say in what she does with her body after finding out she’s pregnant.” – what ‘evidence’ do you want? The fact that neither me, the law or tommy timtam has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”
I was speaking more to the first line quoted, but myy point is that there is absolutely no evidence, save Mikki’s speculations, that anyone in the hospital acted in a way that limited her choices.
The hospital said that there was a delay in getting the second doctor because of a miscommunication. That says absolutely nothing about the first doctor’s willingness to perform the abortion. Mikki says that she “knows” the real reason was because he just wanted her to die rather than have an abortion. She doesn’t say what she’s basing this very serious claim on, nor does she explain why the abortion was medically necessary.
Lauren
She could have been suffering from PTSD when she accused the doctor of wanting her to die rather than have an abortion. And everything I’ve read recommends a C-Section in cases of placenta abruption. But I’ve posted a question on the ProLife OB/GYNS AAPLOG to see if there is ever an exception.
Megan
This is a site with a lot of good information and you can also ask questions. I’ve asked if an abortion is ever safer than a C-Section in the case of placenta abruption. So I’m waiting to see what they say. The site is ProLife OB/GYNS AAPLOG
Ah, ok lauren. We were at slightly crossed purposes there.
I just read her account of what happened I guess from her standpoint hemoraging, and a lack of a quicker response that’s more than a valid reason for someone to be upset and frightened. My question is where was her doctor when all this occurred and why wasn’t she called in because she mentions that she knew there was a possibility of having a placenta abruption.
she’s a liar for reiterating EXACTLY what she stated in her first post?
from “Abortion Saved My Life: “I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.”
from My Life Is Not Your Life: “If I knew why he refused I might have done just that, but since I know that there are many possible reasons that he did not do it?”
it’s completely redundent. WHERE, pray tell, lies this “embellishment”?
Hi justlookingon, 1:10am
Good point. This is all speculation and her story remains unsubstantiated without any documentation. I only question who made the abruption diagnosis. We can only go on what she says but there are certainly other possible scenarios.
Oh and about ER people wanting to get a OB patient up to L&D ASAP. You got that right! I came uncomfortable close to delivering more than a few babies on the elevator.
In her first post, she said her doctor didn’t do abortions. She never speculated on WHY. She never stated as a fact that the doctor was pro-life or maybe just wasn’t trained in it or the Flying Spaghetti Monster told him not to. She just said he didn’t do abortions and, well, did he?
Her second comment states, yet again, she doesn’t know his reasons for what he did. Where’s the disconnect?
You people all just want a scapegoat. Read her ACTUAL comments and figure it out.
Cass wrote, “In her first post, she said her doctor didn’t do abortions. She never speculated on WHY.”
Au contraire. Quoting Kendall: “My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway.”
The doctor did not call someone to do the abortion that was necessary to save her life. We don’t know if that was accidental due to miscommunication or laziness. We don’t know if it was purposeful due to a message from God or a mustache twirling villain in the ER. It doesn’t matter WHY he did it. In the end, by not getting her the help she needed, the needs of her dying fetus were put first before her. The fact that she already had children that would’ve lost her makes this all the more tragic.
He didn’t check to make sure this woman got the correct treatment. Supposedly their was a miscommunication, but that’s no excuse. My grandfather delivered dozens of babies here and in Cuba and he always told us you follow up every case yourself no matter how busy you are, ESPECIALLY the ones where you’re handing off treatment. He always told us that if you aren’t comfortable doing a treatment and that person doesn’t get help, it doesn’t matter why you were uncomfortable, you are directly responsible and have put that woman’s health below your own scruples. Period. End of story. If you’re refusing to do an abortion but have stated you’ve called someone else to do it, what conclusion should be drawn other than you are placing the fetus before the mother? If he believed the abortion was not necessary, why call another doctor to do it?
pomegrenade says:
she’s a liar for reiterating EXACTLY what she stated in her first post?
from “Abortion Saved My Life: “I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.”
An abortion was NOT the only thing that could stop the bleeding. It may have been what she wanted but the doctor had an obligation to treat both patients – equally.
I won’t try to argue whether or not a mass of cells is an equal person to a mother of two. That’s pointless with you people. All I can remember is the story of my pro-life father, after trying to have a baby for seven years, fighting with his father in law (who was a gynecologist) when my mother went into labor. My grandfather didn’t want his daughter giving birth in a Catholic hospital. He said he couldn’t replace his daughter but his daughter could adopt and that decided for him the priority.
They had an ultrasound. They saw the baby was dying and couldn’t be saved. There were no two patients to save at that point. If you’re on the battlefield and your two comrades have been shot, one in the head and one in the leg, which do you grab and treat and which do you leave as a hopeless cause? And yes, the analogy is correct, b/c in the chaos of today’s ER’s it is life and death most of the time.
Cass… in the (perhaps vanishing) hopes that you won’t simply blow this off: there’s a clear difference between a direct, willed abortion (which is the practice in question, when talking about so-called “pro-choice”, Roe v. Wade, etc.) and a miscarriage. There’s even a difference between a direct, willed abortion and a direct, willed action that triggers an unintended death of the unborn child (e.g. early Caesarian section, surgery on an ectopic pregnancy, etc.). If the man/woman with the scalpel/curettage is directly intending to end the life of the child (for whatever reason), then that’s a direct, willed abortion… and it’s gravely immoral. (In a sane country, it’d be called “murder”.)
Many abortion-tolerant people, on this thread alone, have made great, indignant, and pathos-ridden noises about the seeming “rash judgment” of Jill Stanek (among other more colourful accusations, peppered with more saucy invective). Is it possible that this irony has escaped them: that Mikki Kendall’s rash judgment of the so-called “doctor who wouldn’t do an abortion [sic] for any reason” was what attracted Jill’s attention in the first place? Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Jill’s judgment was rash (and I think that’s a provably false claim): why attack Jill, but give Mikki a free pass? That smacks of bias, doesn’t it?
Re: the “need for an abortion”, see above. Perhaps some in the medical profession could address this with more authority than I could, but I really don’t see how, if an emergency C-section or emergency induction of labour would be “too dangerous”, that the alternative of reaching blindly into the womb with various instruments to rip the child limb-from-limb would be in any way “safer”. Could you explain? What, in your minds, is it about the direct killing of the child that would improve the overall situation?
First off, Jill specifically went after Mikki. She has gleefully done all she can to discredit and insult the woman. If she’s so pro-life, at least show sympathy for a woman that obviously went through hell. Two wrongs don’t make a right but, at the risk of sounding like a child on a playground, she DID start it.
It’s a bit easier to forgive Mikki when she was the one dying in an emergency room, honestly, and I’m quite aware that’s biased. I’ve been in enough ER’s myself to know how desperate you are when you truly feel you’re dying and when no one is even sympathetic to you while you need help, that’s absolutely terrible. It’s a position I never, ever want to be in again. Mikki had to live through that and the doctor, rather than at least comfort her and make sure she got help or explain WHY an abortion was the wrong decision, apparently blew her off. He left her without the information she needed to get herself help and, even better, left her with a bunch of idiot medical students that treated her like an experiment rather than a person. I find that unforgivable (yes, including the students, as a doctor you are responsible for their actions as well as your own).
I’m going to repeat this: the doctor did NOT say WHY he wouldn’t do the abortion. Perhaps you’re right and an abortion was not medically best. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But when a doctor refuses to do a treatment then calls another doctor to do said treatment, I’m going to assume the treatment was the correct choice. If another treatment would’ve sufficed, why didn’t the original doctor provide it or, at the very least, get her painkillers and a blood transfusion?
To me, the most unforgivable part here was treating Mikki as less than a person worthy of dignity and respect. That is the ultimate crime a doctor can do and this doctor did it. Every single person here demonizing her is guilty of the same crime.
Also: don’t you think that this sort of sneering, dismissive talk (“I won’t try to argue whether or not a mass of cells is an equal person to a mother of two. That’s pointless with you people.”) would lead people to see you as uncritical and crass? How would you like it if someone said the following to you? “I won’t try to argue whether or not a drooling, non-verbal, uncoordinated, completely mother-dependent infant who shows no capacity for rational thought is an equal person to a fully-adult, fully-active, Ph.D-earning scholar of the fine arts. That’s pointless with you people.”
Call it a colourful insult, if you like, but it’s hardly reasonable, hardly fair-minded, and advances your case not one jot.
Pregnancy would most likely kill me, or so my doctors have told me, but I’m reading a bunch of people saying it’s best I die to save a child I might not even want should I ever get pregnant. It’s hard to remain cool headed here and I’ll totally admit that.
Save a child, Cass? A child? You said earlier it was just a “mass of cells”. Which is it? You also said your parents’ BABY was dying in utero – so was it a baby or a mass of cells?
I, too, find it hard to remain cool-headed on this site when people are so eager to be able to kill children.
i’ve always believed that when we’re at a certain point in time, it’s a baby, and before that it’s still an extension of the woman and not separate in terms of medical science. As I believe in the Jewish idea that a soul comes in at birth (God blew breath into Adam’s nostrils and all that), if a breath cannot be taken, it is not a child.
For the record, before I was told I can’t have safely give birth, my husband and I wanted 6 kids, and if I decided to risk my life to give birth, that would be my decision (and one I may pursue regardless of what my husband thinks). But it shouldn’t be FORCED on me.
How about someone answer my questions instead of demonizing me as you demonize anyone that doesn’t agree?
Basically, what I see here is that the pro-choicers commenting here and elsewhere refuse to acknowledge that the woman was wrong in her assertion that “Abortion Saved My Life” and they are wrongly asserting that she is not publishing – for all to read – her VERY PERSONAL AND PRIVATE experiences to advance a political/philosophical agenda, i.e. “Abortion on Demand, Without Apology” based on the false humanistic doctrine of “My Body, My Choice.” There is another body, of course, of a “Separate, Unique, Living, Human Being” (8th Circuit, SD Informed Consent). That person is dependent on the woman carrying him/her and has a body – but not a choice – in their oh so “pro-woman” world.
D&C is not possible at the stage of gestation the woman describes; it would be a dilation and extraction (D&E), the dismembering of her apparently live baby. I do not read ANYWHERE in the woman’s writings where she indicates fetal demise. If there was no demise, she was demanding that they tear apart her living child. As repeatedly stated, this is not the standard of care for placental abruption.
I agree with the observation that she is reporting her opinions, based on her bias toward abortion on demand, and that she is not a medical professional with an objective perspective. There are more holes in this story than swiss cheese, which has been repeatedly pointed out here and elsewhere. That makes it extremely difficult to ascertain the truth; however, it appears she was demanding a process that was not the recognized treatment for her condition.
To assert that she is not promoting a pro-choice agenda is disingenuous; which I am sad to say I am finding more and more to be standard fare for the public pro-choicer. Insult, obfuscate and redirect is the usual approach to pro-life blogs, websites and commenters.
I have seen so many straw men built by pro-choicer on the interwebs they could populate New York City.
She stated the baby was dying and could not survive outside the womb. Should they have twiddled their thumbs and waited for it to die before saving her life?
No one gave her ANY treatment for her condition. That’s the entire problem here. That doctor did NOTHING and left her there to bleed out while another doctor was supposedly, though apparently not, called.
Still waiting to read what happened to her baby.
I mean did they kill him/her before he/she died naturally OR did they deliver her baby via C section to try and save both of their lives?
She bled out with no medical intervention and lived to write about it? Amazing.
You can lose a lot of blood and survive if you’re resupplied. I nearly lost my best friend due to her slitting her wrists, walked right in and found her that way actually. I learned about that one the hard way.
Cass,
What we really need to see here is documentation. Mikki may be truthful as to her perception of the situation, medical documentation may tell a different story. As I stated from my own experience, how a patient perceives a situation and the medical staff perceives it can be two different things. From my perspective as a medical professional, her story has more holes than swiss cheese. This however does not mean she is deliberately lying.
I would still like to know her medical diagnosis. I’ve only read what she called it, a placental abruption. I can think of a number of possible alternative scenarios here, which means all we can do is speculate.
If indeed she did receive such poor care, then I expect to hear of an impending lawsuit.
Also, this was an obstetrical emergency, not an abortion situation. I can’t imagine that any OB would refuse to treat such an emergency. That is his/her job.
Cass wrote:
First off, Jill specifically went after Mikki.
Er… that’s one way of putting it, I suppose. I’d gently suggest, though, that your own views and emotions are colouring your interpretations (i.e. you’re angry, and you strongly dislike Jill’s anti-abortion position, so you tend to see everything she does in the darkest, least sympathetic light possible). Would you be equally willing to say, for example, that “Mikki specifically went after the doctor?”
She has gleefully done all she can to discredit and insult the woman.
Come, now. Disagree with Jill on tactical points and positions, if you must, but this sounds simply hysterical; wherein do you see “glee” and “insult”? (And “discrediting” an argument is rather different from “discrediting” a person, yes? You seem to imply that Jill is doing the latter, which is not true.) You seem to be using those words solely because they serve to make Jill sound more “monstrous”.
If she’s so pro-life, at least show sympathy for a woman that obviously went through hell.
Cass, this makes very little sense, and it comes across as an emotional rant. “Pro-life”, in the context of this blog, refers specifically to the protection of unborn human persons (and the elderly/infirm, and those in danger of being killed without just cause); you know that. For you to say, “If you were pro-life, then you’d be nicer to her” is not only question-begging (how does “going through hell” excuse Mikki’s general abortion-tolerant position? It isn’t as if Mikki were pro-life, but succombed to pressure by a doctor to abort…) and bias-ridden (you assume that “sympathy” and “pointing out an evil mind-set that corrupts a fellow child of God” are somehow mutually exclusive, when they most certainly are NOT). Believe me: we could scream and emote as vehemently as you; but what would be the point? Screaming matches really don’t have a good chance of doing anything but raise tempers and fatigue voices (or typing fingers).
Two wrongs don’t make a right but, at the risk of sounding like a child on a playground, she DID start it.
“She”, as in “Jill”? How, exactly, do you figure that? Mikki freely chose to have her story published in a national magazine, freely chose to promote an abortion-tolerant world-view without apology, and freely chose to defame a doctor whose only “crime” was “not performing an abortion”, and for reasons about which Mikki freely admits to being utterly ignorant. Mikki savages the doctor in print, and then “walks it back” to say that she was ignorant of the doctor’s motives (in addition to the hospital’s account of a mere communications mix-up). This, then, is the woman you paint as the “innocent, unassuming victim” of Jill’s “unprovoked, unsympathetic attack”? I have a hard time not attributing such exaggeration to unwarranted bias on your part, friend.
I’m going to repeat this: the doctor did NOT say WHY he wouldn’t do the abortion. Perhaps you’re right and an abortion was not medically best. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps you might tell Mikki that? Rather than give the doctor the benefit of the doubt, she smeared him in national print; that’s rash judgment, at very least… if not outright libel. (And no, I’m not concerned here with whether Mikki committed legal libel. I’m concerned with the moral gradient, here.)
To me, the most unforgivable part here was treating Mikki as less than a person worthy of dignity and respect. That is the ultimate crime a doctor can do and this doctor did it. Every single person here demonizing her is guilty of the same crime.
(*ahem*) I hope you won’t mind me pointing out the obvious problem with your statement, here: you, to the extent that you embrace an abortion-tolerant position, are treating every last unborn child on earth as “less than a person worthy of dignity and respect”, to the extent that you do not object to the direct killing of those persons. I’d also add that you’re skating uncomfortably close to the old canard, “Those whom I judge to be ‘not nice’ are committing a moral crime, and a horrible one, at that! Be nice, or be labelled as an unsurpassed criminal!” That’s balderdash, madam.
Mary, being a medical professional, you should also be aware of just how stupid some medical professionals are. I don’t mean that to insult you, since you’ve been one of the most reasoned voices here. It’s just, some ER doctors can be complete schmucks. I’ve been stitched without anaesthesia to “teach me a lesson” because I came in with slit wrists and cuts everywhere after a rape I never reported. The medical documentation they gave my mother says I got anaesthesia. My best friend who was with me, and ordered to not even give me fricken Tylenol as I kept screaming in pain, would attest otherwise.
I’ve had friends that came in with an OD that were ignored until I had to scream at doctors b/c, if they wanted to die, they weren’t a priority that night. I actually had to yank a nurse off her coffee break to get my friend treatment help. A friend of mine’s mother went into an ER in labor and they actually sent her home and said she wasn’t having enough contractions yet, so she went into full labor outside and they brought her back in when they realized they were wrong.
Documentation may prove Mikki was wrong or right, or it might lie. You can’t tell me there aren’t jerks masquerading as doctors out there that care more about their own butts than their patients. And I can’t agree with you that legal action is what proves an event took place. I never reported my rape. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t raped. I also never reported the ER I was in out of fear they would stick me in a padded cell. That doesn’t mean they gave me proper medical treatment.
I have doctors in my family, my grandfather having been a gynecologist for over 50 years when he passed and an anaestheseologist (sp?) for an uncle that practices for 20. That’s why it’s so easy for me to believe that a doctor would let her bleed out in an ER. The fact that no other doctor was called in and that the medical students didn’t ask someone to either give her a sedative or get her a transfusion cements my belief that something went seriously wrong here b/c the pregnancy had to end in an abortion. The fact that they even allowed medical students into that woman’s room is insane!
Again, I don’t see a fetus as a person until they are able, outside the womb, to take a breath. They are a potential person and must be treated as such. I do NOT believe in abortion for convenience, economic necessity, and the like. At that point, unless a condom broke or the pill failed, you made your bed and you need to lie in it. I aborted a baby when I was very young due to rape and I willingly admit that there isn’t a day where I don’t hate myself for it. Even though I don’t think it was a person it had the potential. But a potential person rates below a living person. It is the belief my faith has taught me and the one I will stick to. I wish I had stuck to that faith more when I went through it myself, but all I can do now is hope I’ll be forgiven and do what I can to atone for it.
If Mikki was truly going after this doctor, she would’ve posted his name, the hospital, any information she had to make sure he was known. She didn’t. I think that’s rather big of her. If i had been in her situation, I’d be screaming that doctor’s name to the rooftops.
I use the word “gleefully”, b/c what else is this current article about? Why else pretend that Mikki admitting she embellished her story, when she didn’t, if not to make a joke of her? We can debate the merits of Mikki’s article until the cows come home. It doesn’t change the fact that Mikki never recanted her statement and that saying so shows Jill to be just a bit dishonest and spiteful. You can believe Mikki’s article was incorrect without lying about her “recanting”
You’re right. Mikki should say what the doctor’s reasons were. That would shed a lot of light on the situation. Is it possible, though, that the doctor never gave a reason, though? If that’s true, that’s a bit of a mistake for a medical professional. He should have specifically told her WHY the treatment was not allowed rather than just say “I don’t do that” and walk. A doctor is there to show all your options and explain them, not blanket statement and leave you wondering wtf is going on. There have been times when I’ve been to doctors and asked about a treatment I had been told about and they said they wouldn’t do that but the reasons were x, y, z or that another option was better and then we moved on.
I mention pro-life because Mikki has a life too, a life that almost ended due to this situation. Isn’t her life valuable, as well?
Cass,
Yes unfortunately I know all too well how bad some medical people are. Horror stories abound. It doesn’t change the fact Mikki’s story has too many holes in it. First of all I want to see documentation of her medical diagnosis, not what she says she had. If you are going to publicize something, you better have big time documentation to back it up. Because of patient confidentiality, the doctor and hospital may be unable to respond to her accusations and thus we hear only her perception of the situation. The documentation may be in inaccurate, it may also be very accurate.
Documentation would not “prove” Mikki is lying, her perception of the situaiton is very real. It would state for legal purposes what happened, at what time, etc. from the medical staff, who also may not be lying either. We can’t assume either way.
Put simply, get ALL facts from both sides before jumping to any conclusions.
Cass,
First of all, before we have any more give-and-take on the tactical issues: please know that my heart goes out to you for the sufferings you’ve had, and still have. I don’t want my fight against the abortion-tolerant mindset to be mistaken for any sort of disrespect, lack of sympathy, or lack of concern for you. (I assure you, you’re already on my prayer list; and I don’t say that lightly.) I can neither explain nor excuse what happened to you, and what was done to you, in the past, and I pray that you get the healing you crave. In all of this: even though I may attack tactical points in this story (whether from you, from Mikki, or from whomever), I’ll never intend to attack you as a person. I attack errors, not people. Even when I decry the frequent swarms of trolls on this site, I attack their trollish-ness (and frequently remind them that I’d be happy to talk with them, if only they’d leave their troll-suits at home), not them as people. Please believe that.
You wrote:
Again, I don’t see a fetus as a person until they are able, outside the womb, to take a breath.
I understand… and I don’t mean to disrespect anyone who led you to believe that. I’d offer, though, that you were taught something that’s incorrect, and which can be shown to be logically and morally incoherent.
They are a potential person and must be treated as such.
I don’t see how that position could be maintained, once it’s examined with even a moment’s careful thought. Just as a quick example: several mothers elect to give birth underwater (i.e. the baby comes out into a warmed pool, and–interestingly enough–starts swimming around); I don’t see how you could maintain that the swimming child is somehow “not a person” until she reaches the surface and takes her first gasp of air. Do you?
I do NOT believe in abortion for convenience, economic necessity, and the like. At that point, unless a condom broke or the pill failed, you made your bed and you need to lie in it.
I’d gently remind you that most pro-lifers (except when they’re feeling particularly frustrated, in the midst of a battle with rabid opponents, etc., and lose their tempers enough to say something rash) do not take the “lie in your made bed” approach; there are thousands of ways in which women can find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy, and even the most reckless and selfish of those women deserve sympathy and compassion (which, admittedly, sometimes involves stern delivery of hard truths, in the midst of comfort). We merely assert that there’s nothing sympathetic or compassionate, whatsoever, about killing her unborn child… even out of misguided “mercy”. Love seeks to save and love them both… not pit one against the other in a sort of “death match” that kills the innocent child and wrenches the psyche of the mother brutally.
I aborted a baby when I was very young due to rape and I willingly admit that there isn’t a day where I don’t hate myself for it.
(*sigh*) My heart breaks to hear you say that. If you’ll forgive me a personal and faith-based observation: if only you could accept a worldview where you knew Mercy was available to you… mercy and forgiveness from One Who has the rightful authority to forgive even that evil thing which you grieve… you’d see that self-hatred is not, and never would be, necessary. Take that for what it’s worth.
Even though I don’t think it was a person it had the potential. But a potential person rates below a living person.
A potential person (like a sperm cell or oocyte, or even a collection of organic material) certainly rates below a living person, for dignity and value. But please understand that we’re not free to make arbitrary decisions about which living human being is a “person” and which one is not; the Nazis had no right to declare Jews (and my mother’s side of the family is Jewish) to be “less than human persons”, and the U.S. Supreme Court had no right (in Dred Scott vs. Sanford) to declare blacks to be “less than human persons”. You and I have no right to declare unborn children to be “less than human persons”, no matter whether their appearance, location, activity, etc., satisfies our personal tastes regarding “personhood” or not.
It is the belief my faith has taught me and the one I will stick to.
That sort of tenacity is admirable… but it needs to be obedient to the truth, as well. Two mutually exclusive things cannot be true at the same time; at least one of them must be wrong. It’s not possible that an unborn child is not a person (as you believe) and that an unborn child is a person (as I believe), at the same time, and there are no other options. One of us must be right (apart from our firm convictions and emotions), and one of us must be wrong (apart from our firm convictions and emotions). You and I have a grave moral responsibility to find out which is which, and not simply swallow what we’ve been taught. “Truth cannot contradict truth.” If a religious statement is true, then no other thing in the universe (whether scientific, hilosophical, or what-have-you) could possibly contradict it.
I wish I had stuck to that faith more when I went through it myself, but all I can do now is hope I’ll be forgiven and do what I can to atone for it.
At the risk of being daring: perhaps this conversation is an opportunity for you to atone for what you did. If you accept that unborn children are persons, deserving of love and protection from the very first moment of their existence, and if you work toward the day when no child is ever killed like that with the full sanction of law again, then I think that’d be an act of atonement which any sane person could admire.
Wow, this is really getting ugly . . .
Paladin, I admire your willingness to patiently and calmly respond in kindness. Whether people agree with you or not, you really set the standard for the civil discourse that so many people clamor about. And you show that we can be form in our convictions and opinions without being aggressive or hateful. Thanks.
Dear Cass,
I am sorry for all that you have been through. I can’t imagine.
There is hope and healing and forgiveness for you. I found it too after my abortion.
Please consider emailing me, I would love to talk with you.
carla@jillstanek.com
Cass:
If you are a reasonably intelligent person and read through the comments by medically trained people, as well as Mikki’s story itself, you can’t help but see bias (she states it quite clearly) and inconsistencies from a medical standpoint. Her language against the Doctor is quite clear. The ‘hero’ of the story is the Doctor from the ‘Reproductive Health Clinic’ . The medical facts don’t match the rest of her story however, and many examples have been detailed in the comments. When I commented over at Salon, I was merely pointing out inconsistencies while giving Mikki the benefit of the doubt due to the terrifying situation she was in, because as an OB nurse, I have heard many patients imbellish the story in very dramatic ways when they recount their experiences. The difference is, while most do it for dramatic effect, not many people allow their stories to be reprinted on Salon to support a particular political agenda like abortion on demand. Since Mikki did that, and since abortion is a hot button issue, her story should be able to stand up to factual scrutiny. Unless there was complete and TOTAL ineptitude of every staff member on that labor and delivery unit that tragic night, it does not.
Here’s what is interesting. I started commenting on the piece at Salon, being respectful, Identifying my expertise, and giving Mikki the benefit of the doubt that she was not trying to purposely embellish her story. The moment I was identified as pro life, my career experience was discredited, I was accused of pontification, and trying to control women, I was called ignorant, stupid, nazi, etc., I was told to get off the blog, accused of posting under several user names, and even told to electrocute myself. Maybe I should have told these horribly nasty people (who love women and respect all life), as I pointed out Mikki’s inconsistencies, that I had been an abortion clinic nurse for 20 years. I wonder what they would have said then? Sadly, the comments digressed into mindless ad hominem attacks on anyone that was pro life and offering an opinion (as usual). Also interesting – why haven’t we heard from any of the abortion industry’s medical community? Why aren’t they running to defend Mikki’s story?
And if ‘Mikki’ had gotten the abortion she wanted and died durng the procedure? We’d be hearing the usual response from the noble defenders of choice-resounding silence. If this had been an account from a prolifer describing a negligent proabort doctor, the choice nazis would be all over it like flies on stink demanding names and sources. Typical double standard.
Nowhere in your quoted text does the original blogger imply she knew why the doctor refused to perform the abortion. She just says he didn’t do it. Is it likely she thought it was because of his personal views? Yes. And considering she had and survived the abortion, she shouldn’t have much reason to think otherwise. But still, she never said she knew why he did it. No lie was told, and your very own selected quotes prove it.
Oh, and seeing as your comment rules warn against ethnic slurs, I’m sure you’ll get around to deleting Jill Guidry’s label of “choice nazis” soon, right?
CC, Mikki’s direct quote stating why she believes the doctor did not perform an abortion been posted and reposted.
Mikki said, “My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway.” (emphasis mine)
She says that he refused to perform the abortion because he decided that her life was worth less than that of a fetus.
Please acknowledge that you read this.
Also, I wasn’t aware that “Nazi” was an ethic slur. Since when has “Nazi” been an ethnicity? It’s a political party.
You’re so right, CC. That was an insult-to nazis that is. They only managed to kill 12 million human beings. ‘Choice’ has killed over 54 million human beings in the US alone. Congrats.
So, my baby girl wasn’t a person when she was in my womb, sucking her thumb and kicking when I saw her on the ultrasound? She wasn’t a person when she had the hiccups in my womb? She wasn’t a person when I saw her heart beating and flickering like a light, even though she was tiny? Pfft. She was not a “potential person.” She was a person with potential. We are all persons with potential. She was the same person then as she is now. She’s just taller. She didn’t magically become a person. She always WAS a person, and she will always BE a person. We are persons, at every stage of life. There is no magical day or marker that makes us a “person.” We can become teenagers, we can become elderly, but we are always persons no matter what age we are. Period. How anyone can arbitrarily decide who gets to be a person and who doesn’t blows my mind. How fascist and close-minded can you be? I guess, though, claiming these babies aren’t “persons” makes it easier to kill them. Very Silence of the Lambs, no? (“It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose.”) I am so glad I am not pro-choice anymore. Ignorance causes blindness.
Er… “CC, Biggz, Ashtar, etc. = trolls”, y’all. Feed her/them at your own risk. If she leaves her troll suit at home, then things can go on quite differently, and more pleasantly.
Bryan: :) Thank you… though I wish I’d have lived up to such ideals for my while life. Believe it or not, I was a flame-baiting “troll” in my heyday (on an abortion forum, no less, back on the old .usenet groups… I think it was “alt.abortion”). God can do amazing acts of conversion, with even such a basket-case as I! That’s one reason why I care for the trolls as much as I do; I was once one of them. I also know that feeding them only prolongs their disease (by giving them what they want, i.e. attention and reaction, but not giving them what they need, i.e. firmness, fairness, and a challenge to their nonsense by presenting the truth). That’s why I advocate a “don’t feed the trolls” approach (i.e. ignore them, and don’t let them bait you); we have work enough, feeding one another!
Every effort should be made to save a life still in the womb. A potential person is still made in God’s image, still a beautiful representation of the Creator, still amazing and precious and something to be loved and cherished. But that life has to rate below one already made. If you haven’t figured it out already, I’m Jewish and am going off the Talmud on this one. Doesn’t make much difference but I figured that a background on where I get my ideas might be useful.
I think in cases such as if the baby is born with a beating heart but not breathing or if the baby is born underwater, we have to look at whether or not it is CAPABLE of breath. I guess the question then would be viability, however you would determine that. However, the Talmud does mention a late partial term abortion as required should the mother be in danger due to what she carries (it’s a rather graphic passage, too) so I’m really not sure. I’d have to ask the rabbi for more clarification.
I didn’t mean the lie in your bed comment rudely. I’m a blunt person. What I meant was that what’s done is done and can’t be changed. All that can be done at that point is to accept circumstances as best you can and find what solutions may exist, but abortion would certainly not be one of them.
justlookingon, I apologize for what the women at Salon have said. I read your comments and yours were not rude in any way. People blindly reinforce a believe on either side. Pro-life is no better than pro-choice here. If it were a story about a pro-life patient being badly treated by a pro-choice doctor, I personally WOULD be just as upset. My last partner is only alive b/c his mother carried him to term after their doctor told them he would absolutely be born mentally retarded and she was required to have an abortion to save the child the pain. Well, he was an annoying idiot, but he wasn’t retarded. :-p.
Regardless of the circumstance, Mikki needed more options and help than she got. She needed blood, painkillers, and privacy from a batch of medical students that had no place in a room with a person going through such a personal ordeal. Whether or not the abortion was the right choice, if the doctor did not get her those three things, I would argue he’s a bad doctor regardless of whether or not this is about abortion.
And to go right to the beginning of this post, whether or not we agree her article is true has no bearing on whether or not she retracted. Mikki NEVER retracted. That is an absolute lie. You all have enough ammunition to take apart some aspects of her story on credible grounds, so do so in a civilized manner, and I’m sorry if responses are rude from others on my side. But don’t resort to lying. If you truly believe in your cause, you don’t need lies to prove it true. Jill Stanek lied by saying Mikki recanted. I’m not changing my opinion on that.
Cass:
I agree. Mikki did not retract her story. As a matter of fact, even in the face of compelling information that makes her experience as related less than a credible account, she staunchly maintains her position that an abortion saved her life. She did not recant, but she did give indication that she embellished her story with a pro abortion bias when she rephrased her previous indictment of the ‘physician on call’. Jill describing it as a “big, fat, fabricated lie” is pretty strong, but, Mikki was obviously aware that she was not being completely truthful – if not in her exact words, at least in her perspective. She was attempting to deceive. Since this was apparently what she was attempting to do, she’s violated the trust of her readers, her entire account becomes suspect. I don’t believe any cause should rely on lies, deception or coercion. That’s why I distance myself from the political cause “pro life” (except to exercise my voting rights)and avoid “pro choice” like the plague – and prefer to reach out to women on an individual basis with concrete and tangible help, not abstract ideas and slogans – but eveyone who contributes does it in the way they are led (and yes, I’m sorry to say, there are problems within the “pro life” political machine). I’ve lived long enough to know that present circumstances change too rapidly to base permanent decisions upon them. I don’t think you should leave this blog. I would strongly urge you to contact carla, because she is amazing. Paladin has also given some wise insight. I know you are Jewish, but there is truth in the gospel of Jesus Christ. He already made the atonement for your sin, not just for yours, but for the whole world, because we all are rotten sinners, incapable of saving ourselves.
Cass, I apologize if my post was harsh. I didn’t read through the whole thread. You seem like a smart and thoughtful person; as a rape survivor, I am so sorry for what you went through. However, I do maintain that life is a continuum and there is no marker for “becoming a person.” It is inconvenient for me to admit it, but it is the truth nonetheless.
The last two sentences of Mikki’s post are what get me. Way to group all Pro-Lifers into one catergory. Heaven forbid we put all pro-aborts in a box, because that act is reserved for the libs to make assumptions of Pro-Lifers.
Oh, and over on Mikki’s blog…What the heck is a “pro-birther?” Is it a derogatory term for people who value all human life? It’s new to me.
Cass wrote:
I think in cases such as if the baby is born with a beating heart but not breathing or if the baby is born underwater, we have to look at whether or not it is CAPABLE of breath.
Well… you do see that this is quickly lapsing into personal interpretation and personal opinion? That would be fine for lesser things (e.g. trying to decide whether that cooked snail would actually taste good, or not), but if a child’s life is at stake… if the issue entails the difference between a mere “missed opportunity” and “cold-blooded murder”, we cannot possibly afford to leave it up to mere guess-work. If you were to find two rabbis who gave you differing (and conflicting) replies on this issue (e.g. Rabbi #1: “Yes, a capacity for breath is all that’s needed to prove ensoulment and personhood”; Rabbi #2: “No, actual breath [ruah] is needed, or else the spirit [ruah] is not in the potential child!”), however would you tell truth from falsehood, or reality from opinion? They cannot both be right… which is why we need to analyze these issues so deeply, especially in this culture where the self-evident right to life of the unborn child has been at least partially eradicated from the minds of men and women alike.
I guess the question then would be viability, however you would determine that.
Hm. Some would set “viability” at the point of “being able to care for him/herself” (which, in some cases, would be roughly 35 years of age, post-birth)…
However, the Talmud does mention a late partial term abortion as required should the mother be in danger due to what she carries (it’s a rather graphic passage, too) so I’m really not sure. I’d have to ask the rabbi for more clarification.
Well… again, as delicately as I can: I need to say that, if your rabbi does not recognize the humanity of the unborn child (cf. Psalm 139:13), he’s simply mistaken.
Regardless of the circumstance, Mikki needed more options and help than she got. She needed blood, painkillers, and privacy from a batch of medical students that had no place in a room with a person going through such a personal ordeal. Whether or not the abortion was the right choice, if the doctor did not get her those three things, I would argue he’s a bad doctor regardless of whether or not this is about abortion.
If the story truly played out (substantially) as Mikki described it, then I couldn’t agree with you more: if even half of it is true, then some grievous malpractice was done, and I can’t imagine any sane person thinking otherwise (as many pro-lifers on this thread have already said). However, I must insist that you consider the possibility that Mikki’s story is NOT accurate enough to substantiate such a charge… that, for whatever combination of reasons, she may have given an inaccurate and distorted account. It’s uncomfortable to entertain such a challenge to someone’s truthfulness, but the logical inconsistencies and vagaries of her story require that we not accept it at face-value, quite yet. I have no idea what happened; I have only Mikki’s rather shaky story from which to gather details… and that’s hardly a secure enough position on which to stand for condemning anyone (including the doctor), just yet.
And to go right to the beginning of this post, whether or not we agree her article is true has no bearing on whether or not she retracted. Mikki NEVER retracted. That is an absolute lie.
Friend, with all due respect (and with all due reverence for your sincerity and suffering): I’ll ask you to be careful, and live up to your own standards! Suppose, for the sake of argument, Jill got her “thesis” (i.e. “Mikki backed off from her story, and changed it”) wrong; do you see that your accusation of “lying” is a hasty conclusion of the same type with which you charge Jill? Could you not give her the benefit of the doubt (even assuming that your starting assumptions are correct), and presume that she might have made a mistake (rather than practicing conscious deception–i.e. “lying”)?
You all have enough ammunition to take apart some aspects of her story on credible grounds, so do so in a civilized manner, and I’m sorry if responses are rude from others on my side. But don’t resort to lying. If you truly believe in your cause, you don’t need lies to prove it true. Jill Stanek lied by saying Mikki recanted. I’m not changing my opinion on that.
This was already addressed by others, but: the core of Jill’s contention seems to revolve around this:
Mikki quote #1: “I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.”
Mikki quote #2: “Some say I should name and shame the doctor that refused to do the procedure. If I knew why he refused I might have done just that, but since I know that there are many possible reasons that he did not do it? I’ve left him to deal with the internal procedures in place.”
(I’d add that the “were his motives religious or not” issue is something of a red herring…)
Do you see the flat logical contradiction, here? For Mikki to say, “I know why he didn’t help: because he never does abortions”, but then to follow it up with “I don’t know why he didn’t help, so I won’t sue”, is simply not possible, unless one of the statements is false. Since I can’t imagine how she could have uttered either of those statements by accident, I’m assuming (until clear evidence suggests otherwise) that she deliberately chose those words… which means that, if the above holds, she deliberately chose to speak the false statement of the two, as well. Lying, per se, is the deliberate choice to utter a false statement… so it really does appear that Mikki lied, and that she changed her story (i.e. backed off from, and contradicted, her first account). She also seems to have a motive for doing so (i.e. to “get the complainers and lawsuit-pushers off her back”).
Does that clarify? We mean no ill will toward Mikki; we mean only to scrutinize her story, since it’s always reasonable (and never malicious, per se) to examine logical inconsistencies, and especially since she’s using her story to promote what we know to be a ghastly evil. I don’t think that’s unreasonable; do you?
That’s why I distance myself from the political cause “pro life” (except to exercise my voting rights)and avoid “pro choice” like the plague – and prefer to reach out to women on an individual basis with concrete and tangible help, not abstract ideas and slogans – but eveyone who contributes does it in the way they are led (and yes, I’m sorry to say, there are problems within the “pro life” political machine).
I agree 100 percent!
As a mother who miscarried at 7 mos gestation, I’m getting pretty sick and tired of abortion zealots conflating curettage with abortion. D&C removes a baby that has already died. Abortion kills a living baby, then removes it in pieces. D&C is no more abortion than abortion is live birth-to insinuate otherwise is spitting in the face of women who grieve children lost to miscarriage. ‘Caring for women?’ Not hardly. Caring would be warning other women away from this quack doctor. Guess that’s a little tough to do when writing fiction though.
Cass, I am desperately sorry to hear about your abortion and the pain you experienced because of it. I hope you will talk with Carla, who has been through it herself. She is amazing :)
I would have to question a little your description of Jewish views on abortion. I think what you learned should best be described as a Jewish view, not the Jewish view. I know of a number of very staunch pro-life Orthodox rabbis who I trust wouldn’t agree that you’re not a person until you take your first breath after birth — a view that doesn’t have much to recommend it scientifically or medically. Perhaps as you say, a rabbi can help you out with the different positions among Jews throughout history.
(Please, in advance, don’t listen to anything “CC” has to say on this subject. She is rabidly pro-abort, and her views on Jewish teaching on the subject are based on her friendship with some rabid Jewish pro-aborts who it seems to me have seriously departed from even the most liberal Jewish views on this subject (she is not Jewish herself, neither am I)).
Though pro-life and a frequent commenter here, I disagree with Jill’s latest statement on Mikki. I don’t think she recanted anything or changed anything in her position. She merely repeated one of the many self-contradictory statements she made during her original account — an account that is emotional, highly-colored and exaggerated, especially in her statements about the doctor, and which presents a number of problems for anytone who wants to take it as a factual account.
Jill’s statement was also emotional, and if you know a little of her history, you will understand. Maybe we’ll learn a little more when emotions calm down on all sides.
Justlookinginon, a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants. Once a woman is pregnantm, however, there is another body and some of us are concerned with what she is doing with that one.
Lauren & co:
Again, when the fetus is viable, the preferred method of treatment is C-section, and then if the hemorrhaging doesn’t stop, emergency hysterectomy. If you haven’t found much out there in the medical literature on cases of placental abruption that indicate abortion, it’s because severe abruption like Mikki’s doesn’t happen often before the third trimester. But there have been similar cases. For a decent lit review, see Hodgson et al.’s article appearing in a 2007 edition of the Journal of Emergency Medicine: “Vaginal bleeding before 20 weeks gestation due to placental abruption leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation and fetal loss after appearing to satisfy criteria for routine threatened abortion: A case report and brief review of the literature.”
I’m grateful for such wonderful maternal-fetal medicine. It really is awesome that in the majority of these cases, if the mother wants to continue the pregnancy, there are means to do so, even if they’re really difficult. But I’m not comfortable with medicine that treats mother and fetus as equals. They’re not. One is dependent on the other. If mom is at the brink of death, then where is the unborn child? We haven’t eradicated maternal mortality, even in a country with such advanced medicine. I for one wouldn’t want to limit the toolkit of medical interventions for extreme emergencies, i.e. making absolutist statements that abortion is “never” necessary to save the mother’s life.
The final two sentences from the Hodgson sum it all up well:
“Positive fetal cardiac activity in the absence of substantial vaginal hemorrhage should be considered less important than a rigorous determination of the hemodynamic stability of the patient. We must remain vigilant in cases of second trimester bleeding and cognizant of the higher morbidity and potential consequences of rigid adherence to current evaluation guidelines.”
Here’s the problem with your reasoning: you made the assumption that Mikki was accusing the doctor of being personally opposed to abortions, when all she did was tell the world that he refused to do one and she didn’t know why. Nowhere in that article did she claim that she knew why the doctor refused to perform a necessary procedure, nor did she make any assumptions about it that she voiced in her article. So no, you didn’t catch her in a lie. You’re grasping at straws.
And if you’re so hung up on this idea that she should have filed a lawsuit, maybe you should consider how time-consuming and expensive those are. Some people will get every penny out of another person or organization for the slightest grievance because they’re either that stupid/desperate, or because they have the money to throw around and don’t care. Other people would rather avoid the gouge in their wallets and the publicity that will surround such a high-profile case because they’d rather be left alone, and you have to respect that. Don’t use it as part of your argument.
Nicoli,
Mikki absolutely did accuse the doctor of being personally opposed to abortions.
“I don’t know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn’t do abortions. Ever.”
Are any of Mikki’s defenders actually reading the thread?
Megan – how is it extremist to say that direct abortion is never necessary? It’s very true. The problem is most doctors recommend so-called “therapeutic abortion” as a CYA measure.
The mother and baby are absolutely equal. Location means nothing. If the baby dies as an unintended side effect of a treatment designed to save the mother, it’s a tragedy but not unethical. But if the baby is deliberately killed, its an even grosser tragedy because the baby’s right to life is violated.
Does no one here care that a woman’s right to life is violated if she has to die for her fetus? Just wondering.
Cass, no one here believes that a woman “has to die” for her fetus.
In response to justlookinginon: A woman has a right to do anything she wants with her body. However, when a woman becomes pregnant, there is another body to consider. Some of us are concerned with what is happening to those bodies. Consider that at least fifty percent of them may be female.
Not to inject religion even further into this article, but this would be the passages I refer to:
The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: “the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.”Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.
“Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus ‘lav nefesh hu–it is not a person.’ The Talmud contains the expression ‘ubar yerech imo–the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,’ i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman’s body.” 1This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman’s miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman’s husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
A passage from the Mishna quotes a Jewish legal text from the second century CE. It describes the situation in which a woman’s life is endangered during childbirth. A D&X procedure (often called Partial Birth Abortion in recent years) might be used under these conditions today. However, this technique was unknown in ancient times. The legal text states that the fetus must be dismembered and removed limb by limb. However, if “the greater part” of the fetus had already been delivered, then the fetus could not be killed. This is based on the belief that the fetus only becomes a person after most of its body emerges from the birth canal. Before personhood has been reached, it may be necessary to “sacrifice a potential life in order to save a fully existent human life, i.e. the pregnant woman in labor.“ 1After the forehead emerges from the birth canal, the fetus is regarded as a person. Neither the baby nor the mother can be killed to save the life of the other.
Indeed, Cass. Almost all pro-lifers agree that no woman has to die for the fetus. You save as many patients as you can while never killing or directly harming any of them. That is all.
To add a Biblical passage: Proverbs 6:17 refers to the “sheding of innocent blood.” FYI, “abomination” is a strong word, means He doesn’t like it.
Bobby,
But then how close would you cut it? How far would you go to save a pregnancy at risk of killing or severely harming the mother?
Barbara Kaye –
To what are you responding? And in regard to your response, Okayyyyy, so you’re saying……………what? Did something I say lead you to believe that I’m not concerned with the distinct and seperate individual that is inside the mother’s uterus?
Megan – if Mikki’s account is true, no one is questioning that her life should have been saved. A 20 week fetus delivered by cesarean section will almost never survive. A 20 week fetus removed by dilation and extraction will certainly never survive. Appropriate medical care was delivery of the fetus, even with the knowledge it would likely not survive, because that’s (if Mikki’s story is accurate) what was needed to save her life. I’m pro life, and I have no problem with that. There are laws in place that require life saving treatment after a certain gestational age if the fetus is delivered alive. I also think that physicians are given lattitude until 24 weeks gestation. If she had a complete abruption, which is what she said she had, her baby would not survive unless it was at the “age of viability” and delivered immediately before it could exsanguinate, which for a baby, happens very quickly. In my opinion, no responsible physician would have performed a D&E on a living 20wk gestation fetus due to the margin of error on gestational age calculation, and especially since Mikki did not have an accurate date for her last menstrual period to calculate an EDD. The hospital she went to would not have had any prenatal information d/t her early gestation, so the doc would be working entirely on the patient as the historian, and on the sono performed that night. A cesarean would have been performed in an emergent situation if vaginal delivery was not imminent, and as callous as it may sound to some, the baby would have received comfort care, and been allowed to expire.
But there are some people that would consider delivering the fetus at that time to be an abortion, as well. There are some pro life people i’ve talked to that have told me you need to leave the fetus until you’re 100% sure is dead even though, in cases like this, you need to operate and fast and just live with the fact that fetus will not survive.
That doctor would not help her deliver that fetus in any way, shape, or form. You said it yourself that baby wouldn’t have survived. This is not a doctor that took the proper care with his patient. Even if he was “against abortion”, she wasn’t given a C-section, either.
I do not have an answer for that question in the sense that I would have to leave it up to the medical professional (assuming the medical professional is interested in saving human life). The reason I “punt” is as follows. The case of a pregnant mother in critical danger and unborn fetus is analogous to that of a triage situation. There has been a catastrophic accident with dozens of people critically injured and only a handful of paramedics. The paramedics will have to make decisions about who to treat based on how much they can do for them, how much time they have, who has the best chance of survival, etc. When it comes to specifics in a triage situation like this or a life-threatening pregnancy, there isn’t necessarily a right or a wrong decision. For example, suppose a paramedic sees a person who will definitely survive but has a 95% chance of being paralyzed for life if he is not quickly treated. Suppose he also sees another person who only has a 5% chance of dying. Which one should he choose to help? I don’t think there is a right answer here or that anyone would say that there is some hard and fast cut-off percentage that one needs to adhere to in order to be moral. Thus, when a mother is in a situation like this with a pregnancy threatening her life or health, the doctor (again, assuming he is out to save lives) needs to do everything he can to save both lives while bringing as little injury to both as possible using his best medical opinions. So I certainly don’t have a life vs. health cut-off point, nor do I think one need have one in order to desire the best for all parties involved.
I personally would agree with justlookingon’s analysis @ 2011/06/01 at 4:31 pm, Cass. Some pro-lifers wouldn’t.
Where was this woman’s heroic personal and presumably proabort doctor hiding while all this was taking place? Didn’t want to miss tee off time?
This woman had no fluid left. Her baby was 20 weeks. Sadly the baby would not survive no matter what treatment she received…c-section, vaginal birth, d&e. What is the problem here??? What are all these arguments for? The end result would have been the same.
@ Jill
Why do you find this story so unlikely? As a nurse you must know what a placenta disruption means, you know some pregancies are doomed, and that some may kill the mother (eclampsia certainly rings a bell to you) and that removing the foetus might be the only way to avoid 2 deaths. Of course it happens. Of course malpractice happens as well. Why bully Mikki for telling a story that certainly happened to others?
Honestly, if you are truely pro-life, here is something to fight for: women mortality due to pregnancy complications and infant mortality in the US are among the highests in the western world. Why is that? Why is the world’s first economic power so bad at taking care of pregnant women and new born? This might be worth some attention, don’t you think?
The ends don’t justify the means, Vanessa. We may never do evil (directly killing an unborn baby) so that good may result.
If Mikki truly had no amniotic fluid left, it is unlikely her baby was alive. In that case, you’re right, it doesn’t matter. But also in that case, Mikki did not have a procured, direct abortion as she claims; she had a missed miscarriage (also called a “missed abortion”). Pro-lifers have no objection to removing an already-dead baby’s body from the mother’s womb. I had such a procedure done myself in 2006 after it was discovered that my baby had died in my womb.
magnum, have you read the list of inconsistencies that Jill and others, many of whom are medical professionals, have compiled?
@ Joana,
so a mass of cells with no brain and no neural connection (at the beginnig even no head) has as much rights as a full-grown adult? Be careful, if we follow your logic, then a tumor is going to receive full rights to live.
And stop pretending Mikki’s story is not true. If it really weren’t true, the hospital in Chicago would already have publicly denied it.
Johanna – I pulled those quotes from this very blog post from anti-choice commenter’s…
Gerard – No I do not know that is not true. All I hear about on this site is how having sex is only for people who are prepared to be parents and anyone else is an irresponsible murderer who just wants to have sex with whoever they want without consequences… That is trying to place shame on women who have sex at a whim or as the last “Pro-life sidewalk counselor” I talked to put it “Can you believe the way girls dress today, it’s no wonder they end up single and pregnant…” granted she was an elderly lady. Shame the sluts is the root of your cause or at least the ladder you use to get up on your high horses. Anything else is just kidding yourselves into thinking you’re being noble instead of elitist.
Michael Moon – The Supreme Court already decided this case and who has the president of rights over the woman’s body. They just don’t like the ruling…
Kristen & Justlookingon – Read it again… someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus. She specifically says “Someone” not the doctor. You are jumping to the doctor because it helps your side of the argument but just read the words she wrote…
I know there are a few people reading this blog wondering why this is even a discussion… Well besides Jill Stanek trying to grand stand on a non-issue the heart of this discussion under all the medical arguing is simply this. This is a story about a medically necessary abortion that helped a woman continue to live. That very fact is the problem because it goes against a few MAJOR anti-choice talking points…
1. Abortion is not healthcare.
2. Abortion only hurts women.
3. There is never a justifiable reason to abort a pregnancy.
4. The fetus has just as much right to live as the mother.
5. Every fetus is sacred and its own person.
And I am sure there are a few more I am not thinking of, but this is the problem. To let this story go by without challenging it would be admitting their talking points are 97% lies. This is also why Jill is so excited to have her nonsense argument on The Drudge Report website.
Carla – “Dear Cass, I am sorry for all that you have been through. I can’t imagine. There is hope and healing and forgiveness for you. I found it too after my abortion.”
So Gerard, Why would Cass need forgiveness if there was no shame or sin? Please e-mail me Cass cuz Jesus can take all your abortion shame away if you repent for your sin of having an abortion… Yep no SHAME in this cause….
Jill Guidry – “If this had been an account from a prolifer describing a negligent proabort doctor, the choice nazis would be all over it like flies on stink demanding names and sources.” Nice I guess there is no shame in being a Nazi huh Gerard?
Paladin – It is so much easier to just call us trolls than acknowledge the facts of the story… You have been playing too much EverQuest and chasing trolls around with your 2h sword there bud. I bet you’re a high elf lol.
Bobby Bambino – A fetus is not a patient. The woman it is inside of is a patient. The fetus does not have a SS number, health insurance, or the right to be considered a person according to the US Supreme Court and the American Medical Association. The well-being of the patient is what a doctor is responsible to protect. A doctor only has access to the fetus if the mother grants them permission. A doctor only treats a fetus at the mother request. It is the mother’s body that is important here.
Magnum,
You are very ignorant of fetal development. A baby’s brain begins forming very early on, and s/he ceases to be a “mass of cells” very shortly after conception. Even so, it doesn’t change the fact that a baby is (from the moment of conception), a separate, living, developing human being with its own unique DNA. Yes, it is a human person and entitled to the right to life from that point on.
A tumor is not a human being. It does not have a sex. It does not have its own unique DNA. It will not eventually be able to survive on its own outside of the person’s body.
Might I suggest a basic biology class? I learned about the difference between tumors and human beings in high school.
Biggz,
Your entire response to me is taken out of context; that is, in the context I was discussing, we were assuming (even if only for the sake of argument) that the unborn is a human person with moral dignity and rights. This was done by Megan (and possibly Cass) in order to try and show an inconsistency in the pro-life position. Please be more careful.
Biggz and magnum – my name is JoAnna, not Joana or Johanna.
I’m sorry, Biggz, to what post of mine are you replying? This conversation has moved fast.
Oh magnum. Why the tumor argument? It only makes pro “choicers” look silly. A Tumor is an aberrant proliferation of the same kind of cell. One type of cell. A tumor does not contain all of the genetic material making it a human being. A tumor can threaten life, and killing a tumor does not end the life of a human being. ok……?
Mikki’s story is about intentionally imbellishing a story to give it a pro abortion slant. She gives accounts that defy medical science, and disregard carefully constructed standards of care. It could have happened like she said, but it would be so far beyond the realm of possibility it would be the infinitessimally improbable exception.,
I believe Mikki lost her baby. I can even believe someone performed an operative procedure to stop her bleeding. For as long as Mikki remains purposely vague about the incident and leaves major details up for speculation, her story remains unbelievable and has to be viewed in the light of what she intended – a haphazard attempt to justify abortion.
And if we follow the functioning human = the only real human argument, we can start offing paraplegics, people under anesthesia, and comatose people, right?
Joana,
I have read the entire report and all the above comments, and apparently, everyone is speculating on details and disbelieving what they want to disbelieve. What is really funny is that they all play little detective and try and find the smallest contradiction that would tell them the story is untrue. But here are a few things you should consider:
1. The US has an extremely bad reputation when it comes to health care in the rest of the world, so yeah I have no problem imagining this kind of malpractice
2. The US has a very bad mother mortality rate and infant mortality rate for a western country. Furthermore, the rate of mortality due to pregnancy complications has considerably increased in the past few years in some states (check Wikipedia).
3. The anti-abortion movement has gone so far as to produce anti-miscarriage laws in Utah!!!
So, from the outside, it certainly looks like Mikki’s story is very possible and actually very consistent with what is generally happening in the US.
@justlookingon
Sorry, maybe the tumor was a bit much but I stand by what I say. An embryo is just a pack of cells with no brain, no neural connections, even no head in the first few weeks. It is not a sentient being by any stretch of the imagination.
And don’t pretend you misunderstood the full grown adult idea, you’re too smart for that. Of course I’m not saying not entirely functioning people can be killed.
Ok, Re: Biggz
Abortion IS a SHAME. A woman should feel SHAME for allowing her child to be killed. Abortion is a SIN. Sin is Shameful. Why would anyone back away from that? If abortion is wrong, then it is a sin. Sin is shameful. The whole problem is that people aren’t ashamed of the wrong things they do anymore, and pro choice would lie and tell you there is no shame when a human mother kills her human offspring. What we need to tell woman is that they don’t have to endure that shame due to God’s forgiveness through Jesus. “And should we then continue to sin that grace may abound….God Forbid!” That’s why pro choice has it so wrong when they say we hate women.
You will never hear me say a woman shouldn’t feel shame for an abortion she is unrepentant for having. Consequences…..there are always consequences…..
Magnum:
all the genetic material for the neural system is present. So your argument is that since the brain is not completely developed , it is ok to terminate?
I disagree, Magnum. I’ve given birth or miscarried in three different hospitals in two different states, and I have NEVER heard of ANY care professional denying care to a bleeding pregnant woman for ANY reason. Nor have I ever heard of abortion being a recommended or standard treatment for a placental abruption.
If Mikki did indeed experience such gross negligence in the treatment of her second-trimester bleeding, then she should at the very least publish the name of the hospital and the doctor in order to warn other pregnant women who might seek care there. She should also file a complain with her state’s medical board against the hospital and the doctors who have allegedly withheld treatment.
Magnum,
A baby’s brain begins to develop three weeks after conception. So, do you think that abortion should not then be permissible after that point?
I just read an article about a bleeding woman in a pharmacy who’s pharmacist refused to fill her prescription b/c they “suspected” she had had an abortion:
http://www.idahopress.com/news/article_d6a73c14-1eea-11e0-9f44-001cc4c03286.html
If stupidity like this can happen, who’s to say a doctor wouldn’t have refused her care in an ER?
@ JoAnna,
sorry for the mispelling
No, I know very well how a baby is formed, and there are no real cerebral activity before almost 5 months. I know some anti-abortionists have claimed the contrary, but it has been proven that what they thought were brain wave patterns was only the normal electrical activity of any kind of cells, and that real brain wave patterns appear quite late.
So when you have a mass of cells with no real form yet, that is not self-aware, and cannot feel, how can you claim this is a person that has more rights than the mother? Because in the end, deciding the fetus must stay within the mother is giving it more rights than the mother: a pregnancy is a risk, even nowadays, and it takes a huge toll on the mother’s life. So forcing a woman to become a mother is denying her her rights to choose her life, just to save something that is not yet a life.
JoAnna,
the baby neurons are starting to multiply at 3 weeks, big difference. There is no neural activity before almost 5 months.
Magnum:
The neural system is not completely developed until just around five years of age. So based upon your reasoning, a mother should be able to kill her 3 day old baby (because it is not self aware, and can not function independently) with impunity.
Oh dear Lord! Stop the madness!
So, magnum, cerebral activity determines personhood? Can you pinpoint when every human fetus begins cerebral activity?
Can I legally kill a person who is not self-aware and cannot feel? For example, someone who is comatose, or under anesthesia? Are those who are comatose or under anesthesia not persons at that time?
A baby’s rights are EQUAL to that of the mother. All pro-lifers ask is that doctors try, if possible, to save them BOTH, not to pit one over the other.
And this statement: “So when you have a mass of cells with no real form yet…” shows that you are indeed VERY ignorant of embryonic and fetal development. When I look at this chart, I see a very real, distinct form very early on in the embryo’s development. Please educate yourself.
@justlookingon
It’s not that it’s not complete, it’s that it is far from being even able to feel at the end of the legal delay. There are no real connections. Even a cow feels more than a 4 months fetus.
@ JoAnna,
wow, so you’re judging based on your extended experience of what? 3, 4 pregnancies? At 3 different hospitals in a country of 300 million inhabitants.
My, the WHO must be wrong if JoAnna says so, then.
Just to help me understand your logic, here’s a question:
Mucoviscidosis can be detected at 13 weeks of pregnancy. Imagine you are told your baby is going to have mucoviscidosis. You know on one hand your fetus at this stage has no real brain, and on the other hand your very alive, very aware son and very suffering son will die at 20 having had no hope in his life. Do you still refuse abortion?
Justlookingon – Thank you for making my point. Gerard said this ”
Little Z,
If you are going to comment, you had better put that lying in check. Specifically, I refer to the following:
“When you boil their argument down it always comes back to ‘Whores who have abortions are murderers’ ”
That’s a grotesque and vile lie, and you know it. This blog is about advancing arguments by airing facts. I suggest that you stick to arguing the facts. Any more grotesque distortions such as this will be taken down immediately.
You’re getting desperate, LittleZ”
Johanna Montana – It is a bit rich of anyone on this blog to complain about a name misspelling. My account name is Biggz but as you can see it has been turned around a thousand times by the anti-choice people on this blog. So with all due respect Ms. Montana I will spell your name however the hell I want to.
I have explained the origin to my name “It is a Star Wars reference” a couple of times but that has yet to stop Gerard or Ninek from calling me all sorts of names so get over it young lady.
AND a pharmacy, not AT a pharmacy, sorry.
@JoAnna
“Can I legally kill a person who is not self-aware and cannot feel? For example, someone who is comatose, or under anesthesia? Are those who are comatose or under anesthesia not persons at that time?”
You were complaining about the tumor argument, now it’s my time to complain. This argument makes you look silly. A comatose person has a lot more brain activity than a fetus.
On the other hand, do you know that the people heart transplants are taking from still have a beating heart and fully functional organs EXCEPT for the brain? When there is no brain activity, organs can be removed. So apparently, brain activity is a good indicator of the life of a person.
Sorry double post…
“Abortion IS a SHAME. A woman should feel SHAME for allowing her child to be killed. Abortion is a SIN. Sin is Shameful”
There are many women, who post on this blog, who have had abortions and who have strong feelings relating to the event. To say that they should be shamed is offensive and contributes to the notion that the pro-life movement is a bunch of right wing religious zealots. Carla and others deserve empathy – not shame.
Shame on you.
@justlookingon
“The neural system is not completely developed until just around five years of age. So based upon your reasoning, a mother should be able to kill her 3 day old baby (because it is not self aware, and can not function independently) with impunity.”
Don’t be ridiculous, no one is suggesting this. If you found the tumor argument poor, yours is poorer. And as I said before, it’s not that an embryo’s brain is not fully developed, it’s that it is barely started. It cannot feel or suffer or anything. Your 3 months old baby can feel pretty much.
I posted an article from a peer-reviewed journal discussing instances in which early severe abruption are indications for abortion. And that’s only considering one type of pregnancy complication. These tough cases do exist. Why should Mikki have been subjected to another invasive surgical procedure (c-section) to prolong the life of a doomed baby?
Biggz, there may be other commenters (past, present, or future) who used/will use Joana, Johanna, etc. so that’s why I prefer that my username be used correctly, to avoid any potential confusion. Your response was extremely rude and uncalled for to a very simple request.
Magnum, I did not say that my experiences are the rule, but Mikki’s seem to be the exception. One would think if the hospital she attended refused to treat all bleeding pregnant women that there would be lawsuits aplenty directed at it, and it would probably be a hot media issue. I would think that if she wanted to protect other women from suffering such abysmal care, she would name the hospital that neglected her so atrociously.
“Abortion IS a SHAME. A woman should feel SHAME for allowing her child to be killed. Abortion is a SIN. Sin is Shameful. Why would anyone back away from that? If abortion is wrong, then it is a sin.”
This is why the pro-life movement is viewed as a bunch of religious zealots who hate women. There are many women who post here who have had abortions and who have strong feelings regarding the experience. Women, like Carla, deserve our empathy and not your shame.
Shame on you.
I apologize to justlookinginon. It was actually a response to “Reality”. My mistake. Please forgive me.
Magnum – You become a person when you take your first breath of life like it says in the bible. After that, no matter what happens to you, you are still a person. Your point is moot.
Megan, are you referring to the literature you cited in this post? None of what you cited said that abortion was the recommended treatment for prenatal bleeding. Can you provide a link to the full abstract (or, if possible, the entire journal article)?
We present a case of placental abruption with concomitant disseminated intravascular coagulation in a woman who presented with vaginal bleeding. A 32-year-old pregnant woman at 17 and 4/7 weeks gestation with a 1-month history of intermittent abdominal pain presented to our Emergency Department (ED) with 1 h of vaginal bleeding. Upon initial history, the patient reported that she was diagnosed with “blood behind the placenta” the day before and was discharged on pelvic precautions. An ED ultrasound confirmed the sub-amniotic hematoma with placental hematoma and a viable intrauterine fetus. A low fibrinogen level was suggested for disseminated intravascular coagulation and increasing hemorrhage necessitated dilation and evacuation and multiple units of blood products on an emergent basis. Only a few cases have been described in the literature demonstrating disseminated intravascular coagulation in patients at fewer than 20 weeks gestation with routine ultrasound findings of live intrauterine pregnancy and subchorionic hemorrhage.
JoAnna,
“A baby’s rights are EQUAL to that of the mother. All pro-lifers ask is that doctors try, if possible, to save them BOTH, not to pit one over the other.”
And what you fail to see is that there are cases where you have to let one die to save the other and that it should be the mother’s decision and no one else’s.
Biggz
“Your point is moot.”
Sorry Biggz, I’m not sure what point you are refering to. Can you specify?
Also, I don’t believe in God, you’ll have to find a different reference.
CC,
I appreciate what you said very much but have to interject a few things.
I did feel shame. That came from nobody else but me and I couldn’t put my finger on why. Why would I feel ashamed of something legal and my “right” and my “choice?” Something was so WRONG with what I had done but it wasn’t until years later that I understood I took the life of my daughter that day.
I was shamed quite a bit by folks on both sides of this issue. Still am. They TRY to shame me. I do not listen. Nobody can shame me without my consent.
Jesus Christ took my guilt and shame. There is a difference in screaming, “SINNER!!” at a woman and telling her abortion is a sin when she is ready to listen and understand that and accept it. And yes I do believe that. Would you say I was a religious zealot who hates women, CC?
I have seen much love and compassion and empathy in so many unexpected places. Like your comment.
Don’t make me like you, CC. :)
JoAnna,
“Magnum, I did not say that my experiences are the rule, but Mikki’s seem to be the exception.”
I certainly hope so! I cannot imagine a doctor doing this more than once and not losing his licence. But I can imagine a doctor wanting to dismiss a case, and not checking if the call to the right doctor was made because he was having a bad day.
In a 300 million inhabitants country, there is definitely room for a few exceptions. Even if it’s an extremely unlikely event (say 1 chance in 300 millions).
Besides, she certainly should NOT name the doctor or the hospital if she doesn’t have the means for a full trial, because they could turn against her for diffamation, and they have a lot more money than she has. Since she warned the hospital , let’s hope they will do their best .
The no law suit argument is unfortunately not a good one. Do you know that only 10% of rape victims file a law suit?
There are women that really do want help and really do want to know that they can break free from the guilt and shame and those are the ones that are so receptive to offers of help.
National Helpline for Abortion Recovery
1-866-482-LIFE
@ JoAnna,
I’m still waiting for you to answer my question about mucovisidosis. Understand I only want to understand your reasoning. Do you think it’s better to condemn someone to live a horrible life or to avoid him being born, even if it means abortion?
And she has now admitted her story was a big, fat, fabricated lie.
[citation needed]
And what you fail to see is that there are cases where you have to let one die to save the other and that it should be the mother’s decision and no one else’s.
“Let one die” typically implies that the circumstance could not be avoided and that death was imminent, regardless. “Letting” a child die is very different than hastening or causing the death of a preborn child through abortion. A mother can’t decide to “let” her preborn child die. She can, however, decide to cause that death via abortion.
@ JoAnna
Here’s another example of when an embryo threatens to kill the mother: ectopic pregnancy
It’s when an embryo implants outside the uterus. It can only results in the death of the mother or the abortion of the embryo. But the embryo is still perfectly OK. If you define the embryo as a person from the moment of fertilization or implantation, then you have to consider the removal of the embryo a murder, which you can’t do, even to save the mother, and the death of the mother becomes, legally speaking, an unfortunate accident. Meaning you are actually denying the mother her rights to live.
Look, I don’t want to force anyone to not see the fetus as a person. When you are expecting, of course you consider your fetus as your baby. But if we start righting in the law that fetuses are persons, then consequences for women will be devastating, and mother mortality will skyrocket, very quickly. That’s what I’m really trying to say.
@ Kel,
And I’m saying fetuses (below a certain age) are no persons and their deaths can be considered the lesser of 2 evils in some cases, and that it should be the mother’s decision. As I said before, abortions are sad, but the consequences of defining in the law personhood since conception would be far worse, because however cute they might be they are still attached to their mother and still capable of destroying their mother’s life.
Point of clarification. I don’t believe someone mentioned this yet, but if they did, ignore the repetition.
It is entirely possible the doctor knew the baby could not survive and that the mother would die as well and still chose not to perform the abortion. This is the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion. They consider the loss of the life of the mother a tragedy, but will not interfere, even knowing the baby will die. This is because they would then be directly causing the loss of one life (despite the fact the life was already lost). The leeway here is that God could save both mother and child, thus sparing all.
A hospital administrator in Arizona – a Catholic nun – was excommunicated for allowing an abortion to be performed on a dying woman in a Catholic hospital. The woman and all participating staff were as well. A doctor opting out of treating a dying woman like Mikki would be within his legal rights, and the decision is not without precedent.
And for the record….years of Catholic schooling, my ultra-conservative religion teacher, youth minister, college youth group, and Catholic Daughters membership can guarantee that this IS the Church’s stance on the issue. Might not be talked about very frequently, but it’s where they stand.
magnum – so as I sleep, and my husband knows I do not hear him, see him or can defend myself from him, can he hurt me? Why or why not?
Afterall – I am not self-aware, I’m feeling nothing but sleep. Am I not human then as much as I am awake?
How do you deal with people with disabilities? If they can not feel, make themselves known, not have a natural conversation – can we hurt/kill them? I’m asking because those two cases are the same logically speaking. Awareness and ability do not determine our human-ness. Unless you are saying that some humans deserve some treatment, while others are less-deserving because of ability or function.
And when does life-hood get imparted on a human? denying a woman to ‘her life’ is different than killing an unborn child to uphold the life-style of a mother. The woman’s life does change but motherhood does not mean death in this day and age.
The woman’s life does CHANGE – but with the abortion, a baby DIES. The difference is change vs death. Which do you think is more important? After all – pregnancy is temporary, and death is permanent. who do you think gets robbed of more rights – human who deals with the temporary sacrifice or the human who is given permanent death? Just wondering.
The Church’s stance on abortion is that one can not directly cause the purposeful death of another. If the woman has cancer, and the uterus must be removed, then the removal of the cancerous uterus saves the mother, but as a secondary effect the child dies. One can not perform the abortion (direct killing) and THEN remove the uterus.
Of course, if the child can be saved as well, normally that is done. In the case of the woman in Arizona, some experts thought that the mother could have been saved and the baby as well – and that the hospital should not have done the direct abortion, but tried to help the mother’s blood pressure by other means. That would have avoided the abortion and the difficulties and still saved the mom.
But remember – 99.999% of every abortion causes the death of the child. So again – if an abortion was the purposeful cause of death for the child, and the mother can be treated by any other means, should there be an abortion? I think we should try things medically so that all may live.
I think we can all agree that pizza is delicious! I love cheese pizza so much!
@joyfromillinois,
1. The sleeping argument: I’ve answered this before. Look it up.
2. The disability argument: don’t be ridiculous, you can’t compare a 12 weeks old fetus with any disabled person. They’d have to be really disabled
3. The mortality rate of women due to pregnancy in the US is 11 out of 100000 births. That would be around 400 women each year in the US (very quick estimate). Is it nothing to you.
4. With abortion, a fetus dies (embryo more often), which can be not considered a person. Since the definition of a person is really a matter of conviction, if you want to consider it a person, fine with me. But do not try to force others to do the same or to have your definition of a person written in the law. Because then you’ll be denying women their rights.
5 With abortions of a sick fetus, you can also prevent your kid from suffering. Shouldn’t that be taken into consideration
“The Church’s stance on abortion is that one can not directly cause the purposeful death of another”
In the case of ectopic pregnancy, you definitely have to purposefully kill the embryo to save the mother. No loop hole in your logic to avoid it. You have to choose.
If you want to choose for yourself to die rather than purposefully kill an embryo, your choice, I’m not discussing it. But you do not have the right to ask others to do the same for a pack of cells, however cute they look like.
And please remember that others don’t share your beliefs: find other references than what the Vatican say. They are all unmarried men, they have no idea what it means to be pregnant.
Washingtoniette,
If what you mean is that the Catholic Church teaches that you can never kill someone to save someone else’s life then yes, you are correct. Otherwise, I am not sure what you are claiming, and although you may have much experience around “Catholic stuff”, you will never find any Church teaching about letting the mother die or not interfering trying to stop her death anywhere in Catholic teaching.
2. The disability argument: don’t be ridiculous, you can’t compare a 12 weeks old fetus with any disabled person. They’d have to be really disabled
So you can and should be allowed to legally kill someone if they are “disabled enough”. M’kay.
4. With abortion, a fetus dies (embryo more often), which can be not considered a person. Since the definition of a person is really a matter of conviction, if you want to consider it a person, fine with me. But do not try to force others to do the same or to have your definition of a person written in the law. Because then you’ll be denying women their rights.
Don’t do me any favors. I think every human being should have the right to live more than I should have the right to kill my children as long as I happen to be pregnant with them. Sorry.
5 With abortions of a sick fetus, you can also prevent your kid from suffering. Shouldn’t that be taken into consideration
And I suppose if I were to kill my children now (son – 3 years old, daughter – almost 9) it would only be in case their lives happened to get difficult later to spare them any possible pain and suffering, right? Because THAT makes sense.
HI Magnum,
“In the case of ectopic pregnancy, you definitely have to purposefully kill the embryo to save the mother. No loop hole in your logic to avoid it. You have to choose.”
No, here you can undergo a salpingectomy, which is the removal of the fallopian tube. This is not intended to kill the embryo, but to save the life of the mother. Of course, the embryo dies as a result of this, but the mother is not saved AS A RESULT or direct consequence of killing the embryo. In other words, it is not the action of killing the embryo that results in the saving of the life of the mother. Everything is done to save the life of the embryo, but unfortunately at this stage it is impossible. This follows the principle of double effect and is consistent with much of the everyday moral choices we make. So no, in the case of ectopic pregnancy you definitely do not have to purposefully kill the embryo. Same ends, but different means, which is something very important in moral theology.
my body my right to choose.
hmm that bothers me.
are there exceptions to this?
why and what gives a person right to decide these exceptions?
for instance if the world should go by my body my choice rules
would it not then be perfectly except-able for a 14 year old girl to sell her body to a 35 year old man?
their body’s their right to choose right?
Shame the sluts is the root of your cause or at least the ladder you use to get up on your high horses.
I am so tired of proaborts referring to females as sluts. I was called a slut for years by a proabort husband. Actually, I have never heard a prolifer call a female a slut but have heard many a pro-abort use this word in reference to females. Please, please stop Biggz.
Cass
I can believe she was treated poorly too because I spent a lot of time in hospitals with my son and I’ve seen a lot of good and bad. I’ve also seen economically disadvantaged women and African American women treated poorly especially when it comes to OB/GYN patients. When I was going to get my nurses aide certificate I seen an RN treat an African American lady so poorly that a student actually admonished her. And for her to be hemoraging that had to be scary. Personally when a person is that much at risk I think she should have been put in something like a ob/gyn ICU I’m sure that doesn’t exist but it should. And she probably should have been checked at least every 15 minutes and/or not left alone until her hemoraging stopped. What I don’t understand is she states clearly that she knew that she might be a candidate for placenta abruption. If she knew then why didn’t her doctor have a back up plan.
magnum – I am currently 11 weeks pregnant with my sixth child (4th here on earth – I have two in heaven). If I were told at my appointment on Tuesday that my baby had a terminal condition — any terminal condition — and would likely not live past birth, then I would carry him/her and love him/her as long as I possibly could. If s/he did survive birth, I would keep him/her as comfortable as possible, with the aid of perinatal hospice if necessary — until s/he passed away. I would never, ever resort to direct abortion. I would want to hold my baby and bury his or her body, whole, instead of having him/her violently ripped apart in my womb in the name of easing suffering.
You should read some of the stories at http://www.benotafraid.net; they may give you a different perspective on prenatal diagnosis of terminal illness.
Re: the Church and ectopic pregnancy. Bobby explained it well, but for more information see the article Abortion and Double Effect. The principle of double effect would apply to any situation in which the mother’s life was threatened due to a pregnancy complication, regardless of the baby’s age.
Also, at what exact point do unborn babies begin cerebral activity? Could you tell me, please?
Megan – I am sorry, but I don’t see anywhere in that abstract that says that abortion is recommended as a treatment. Can any of the L&D nurses weigh in, or perhaps Dr. Nadal?
Cass 6:17PM
Another situation where, like Mikki’s, you have heard only one side of the story.
Magnum 6:00PM
Having spent over 30 years in various hospitals and departments, I can assure you this is not typical of how hospitals handle obstetrical emergencies. I will tell you what I told Cass, the hospital and doctor have not responded to these allegations and likely cannot because of confidentiality. You have seen no documentation and have not heard the other side of the story. I would like to know this woman’s official medical diagnosis, not what she assumed she had when she woke up bleeding.
If you are going to put your story on the internet it is not unreasonable for people to expect documentation of the incident. Until this is also on the internet, I would strongly advise jumping to conclusions.
As a medical professional I know a patient’s perspective on a situation can vary immensely from that of the medical care provider(s). I also see that Mikki’s account has more holes than Swiss cheese. That is not to suggest she is a liar, but that there is another side of this story to be told.
Magnum – too bad you think I don’t care about women. You do not know me at all – and that statement brandishing me as unconcerned for women is far from the truth. I put women first – even those who I just met, by helping in any way I can. People here know what I do. …And the reasoning of double effect, well-done by Bobby, was what I was trying to convey.
Any member of the human family should not be disposed of for any reason. Part of the family? Great! Let’s welcome every single one! Including the unborn. That does not diminish women – it helps all of humanity, which of course includes women!
The human family is gifted, smart, loving and capable, as the women who are pregnant. We can find good solution to tough problems – solutions that does not cause the death of members of our human family.
Remember – as soon as you elevate one segment of human society over another – you are playing God. we want BOTH momma and baby to be ok, and we go out of our way, financially, emotionally and spiritually to do that. We are an ‘and/both’ bunch – not an ‘either/or’ one. We want both to have life, both to grow and prosper, both to go on to the life they are created to lead. We will not trade one life for the other – we want the women to prosper, for sure.
And with all those girls killed in abortion – how do those females prosper?
Ashtar,
I am prochoice on pizza!!!
CC says: May 31, 2011 at 7:12 pm
1. “Where did Kendall’s photo come from as I couldn’t find it on either the Salon piece or her blog? [Proably says more about your incompetence than anything else.]
2.Why was it necessary for Jill to publish the picture? Now it can be used on those disgusting anti-choice “dead or alive” posters. Nice.” [Clue einstein: The photo had already been published by Kendall on the internet.}
ClosedCaption,
You are starting to sound like Chatidy/Chaz Bono.
Announcing thru her/his/it’s ‘publicist’, “I am doing a very private thing, so please respect my privacy.” [Bono, like we really care about your planned ‘addadictomy’.] Knock youreself out, gal.
Then Chaz/Chastidy not only writes a book chronicling it’s/her/his metamophasis, but also agrees to do a ‘reality’ documentary capturing the transformation.
Kendall ‘outed’ herself. Jill did not lead a lynch mob to track her down and bring her to justice.
But Kendall is a ‘woman’ [re-read first part about Chaz/Chastidy’s halting stumbling rambling public cry for privacy.] so it is impossible to know what she wants. Evidently some women really are scatterbrained. [I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.]
As I recall the right to a dead baby was found in right to privacy which was cloistered some where in the penumbra of the contitution. You have to hold your head at just right angle and squint and focus on a point two feet in front of the ‘bill of rights’ or two feet behind it and one of those 3D images, hidden in seemingly random assortment of dots, and suddenly out out no where appears a giant coat hanger coated in rust and blood.
2. I would suggest attaching a notice to Kendall’s photograph warning the public that this lady is ‘tetched in the head’ and to give her a wide berth. Do NOT allow your kids to knock on her door at halloween.
[My apologies to real women, who know who they are and what they want and don’t require a womans’ or a man’s permission to say so.]
Cass
Your reference to Exodus 21:22 is something I suspected was being used to justify abortion and that’s what I found when I did a little research but it is a very poor argument at best. Yes, the two men were fighting but hurting the women was not their intent had they intentionally planned to hurt her and her unborn baby the penalty would have been much more severe. And for a community with the intellectual capacity of the Jews I just don’t believe that most are not able to see that distinction.
”The disability argument: don’t be ridiculous, you can’t compare a 12 weeks old fetus with any disabled person. They’d have to be really disabled.” (Magnum)
REALLY! Life can change very quickly and there are plenty of folks who are ”really disabled.” I personally know a person who suffered a stroke which left them completely incontenent, unable to speak, unable to walk, unable to dress themself, unable to eat by themself. No law is necessary for that person’s family to provide the 24/7 care that is needed. Thank God there is still protection under the law for some of the very vulnerable. God have mercy on our nation for what is being done daily to the defenseless unborn.
“Thank God there is still protection under the law for some of the very vulnerable.”
Ha, like recent GOP plans to dissolve Medicare? Some concern this country has for the disabled.
?? Megan – there is much more concern over the disabled – look what some democrats want to do the unborn and the disabled like Terry Schiavo. talk about concern…. We must have compassion for ALL humans, born and unborn, able-bodied and disabled….
If you are part of the human family, we need to protect and love you. Help everyone. Love them all.
And people do not have to be members of a political party to make a change – we have to demand that all of our representatives respect all human life – from it’s delicate beginnings at fertilization to it’s tender end, natural death.
I am merely referring to the fact that we may not take someone’s life simply because they are profoundly disabled without being held accountable. The death-culture we are living in begs the question, who will be next?
Joy,
I find that prolife rhetoric concerning life at its two poles (birth, death) is typically just a power play cloaked in compassion. The sheer fact of existence is worth more than the cost it takes to sustain that existence. On this website people have downplayed the physical and emotional toll pregnancy can take on a woman, or argued that it’s morally acceptable to render a woman infertile to remove an ectopic pregnancy from her body just to say, “Ok, we didn’t really mean to kill it.” People here have balked at the thought that we as a country subsidize some basic services (and primary health care is pretty basic), so that those born children and their families can enjoy healthy, productive lives (and beyond the point where moms can pick up baby diapers at a crisis pregnancy center).
Most prolife rhetoric really isn’t about love, Joy. It’s about control.
@ Kel,
And I’m saying fetuses (below a certain age) are no persons and their deaths can be considered the lesser of 2 evils in some cases, and that it should be the mother’s decision. As I said before, abortions are sad, but the consequences of defining in the law personhood since conception would be far worse, because however cute they might be they are still attached to their mother and still capable of destroying their mother’s life.
My point, magnum, was that you said “let them die.” This is not the case in an abortion. One human life is intentionally snuffed out at the behest of another – stronger – human life. I don’t care how “cute” anyone is. That doesn’t determine, for me, whether or not they have a right to life. What does is the fact that they are human. Attached to their mothers, yes. But definitely not a part of their mothers. The placenta is even “part of” the baby, not the mother.
If we’re going to start talking about whether kids can or cannot “destroy their mother’s life,” well, there are plenty of born children who I’m sure fit that criteria…. ;)
Love is letting the “unborn” become “the born,” hardly “control.” Is it ”love” to shed innocent blood?
Regarding Exodus 21:22, if you believe this passage refers to abortion or justifies abortion, please read this: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700
That is absolutely not the case.
Why didn’t she sue? And why won’t she JUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION? If she had died, it might have been considered negligent homicide. So if not for her own sake of pain and suffering and justice, bringing the doctor before a court could save FUTURE patients from that doctor.
That alone makes the veracity of the story highly dubitable.
I might add, her additional accusations of “misogyny and racism” seem to be some sort of perceived-victimhood delusion.
Biggz:
Okay, here you go. Shut up about this lying lady having an abortion. When you have a placental abruption, you are having a miscarriage. The placenta is ripping away from the uterine wall. Therefore; the BABY is no longer getting his lifeline from the placenta to the umbilical cord.
She lied. It’s not an abortion. That’s a miscarriage. DOCTORS know the difference. Obviously you don’t.
At the very least, she should name the hospital and/or doctor so that other pregnant women will know to stay away from that facility and that practitioner.
Also, I hope she filed a complaint with her state’s medical board against both the hospital and the doctor.
Biggz, thank you for yet again proving why any sympathy I have for the pro life movement should never be kept. Shut up about a lying woman that almost died losing her child? Nice sympathy there. Believing there was compassion to be found here was a mistake. I wish you all well with your hatred.
I just noticed that Amanda Marcotte gave her 2 cents on the story. She who has the stellar character judgment of being John Edwards’ campaign blogger and accusing Duke Lacrosse players of rape. That would explain the “misogyny and racism” comment.
JoAnna:
DIC that develops suddenly is a life threatening condition where the blood is clotting throughout the body in response to bleeding. Because the platelets are being used up throughout the body, there is more bleeding. This mother needed her life saved, her baby at less than 18 weeks was not going to live in any case. If you have a dead mother, you have a dead baby. If you don’t deliver the baby and stop the bleeding, you have a dead mother. If you deliver a baby at 17 weeks, you have a dead baby. I don’t have any difficulty with saving a mother’s life in this case, and I can certainly tell you as a mother, I wouldn’t want to be faced with making the decision to end my child’s life in such a case. Of course you also realize, that ending an ectopic pregnancy ends the life of a living baby, also. There are some things that are very difficult to discern, but I would help save the mother in this case with a clear conscience if there was no other way to save her.
and that does not make me “pro choice”.
CC:
“There are many women, who post on this blog, who have had abortions and who have strong feelings relating to the event. To say that they should be shamed is offensive and contributes to the notion that the pro-life movement is a bunch of right wing religious zealots. Carla and others deserve empathy – not shame.
Shame on you.”
Normally I wouldn’t even dignify such a blatant mischaracterization of what I said with a response. I stand by my comment. I am not shaming anyone woman who has repented of and obtained forgiveness for the sin of having an abortion. Jesus Christ covers that sin with his blood. I hope Carla, and those who have had abortions understand what I am saying. But abortion is a SHAME. Unrepentant, militant, pro abortion advocates and women who kill their offspring should be ASHAMED, but sadly, they are not. What is wrong with experiencing SHAME when you do something wrong? Shame on you for suggesting I meant something else.
And the same to you Bigz. I didn’t prove any point you are trying to make, trust me.
CC:
And you can stick your “empathy” and “sympathy” …………………….somewhere else.
If I see someone about to walk off a cliff, and merely have empathy and sympathy for them, it certainly isn’t going to stop them from spewing their brains out on the rocks below. I would prefer to actually DO something to prevent them from experiencing the effects of their poor decision, like throw a body block, or drag them back from the edge, or in the case of elective abortion, counsel them to avoid a harmful experience that will bring them shame. Not because I desire to shame them, but because deep down inside, after all the stupid arguing on a blog post comment thread is said and done, whether or not she or the pro aborts admit it, EVERY WOMAN WHO HAS AN ABORTION KNOWS SHE IS KILLING HER CHILD. I would do whatever it would take to prevent a mother from experiencing that guilt and shame that she will never, ever forget as long as she lives.
Cass:
Did you really think that on a blog comment thread you would not find a few hateful people? Would you prefer to go over to Salon where folks have called me stupid, buck tooth moron, pharisee, liar, stupid, nazi, and told me I should electrocute myself, and get some love there? You seem intelligent enough to sift through the various voices here and realize who is genuine in their concern for women. If you think we’re haters just because we won’t line up with your point of view, then I guess we are. All I see (with one or two exceptions) are people who are passionate about everyone having the opportunity to experience life.
I am no friend nor fellow traveller of the slave-pregnancy brigade, so well-represented here. Yet I also appreciate folks who think things through, no matter what side of the paddock fence they’re on. Facts matter despite a ”narrative.”
Just a tip of the non-mantilla’d, non-hijabbed, non-wigged hat as I pass by.
By virtue of just a very little surface scratching, it appears as if Mikki Kendall has a less than burgeoning career as a little know writer. My guess is that she has a low level buddy at Salon who got someone to reprint her (second or third) blog post, knowing it would attract the attention of “pro lifers”. I’m thinking that the hit counter on her blog went up exponentially after Jill Stanek showed up commenting at Salon. I’m sorry to have to say it, but I think she played “pro life” like a fiddle. She’s gained all sorts of exposure and is now receiving accolades from the pro choice worker bees. Not to mention shout outs from Drudge, et al. Makes me wonder how many children she’s had. I also think we should stop giving her free exposure. I think this one has been exercised enough. IMO, that is…….just my opinion.
Um… she never admitted it was a lie. All she said was she didn’t know why the doctor refused to preform the abortion, which is something she’d said in the beginning, in a quote you posted. So, so much fail Jill, you just get worse and worse at this. No wonder that hospital fired you, you couldn’t lie yourself out of a wet paper bag but that certainly doesn’t seem to discourage you.
Magnum: then let’s just say that every living member of the species homo sapiens is a human being, and that every human being deserves basic human rights-like the right to live-regardless of their location, their cognitive capacity, their physical ability, or mental state. M’kay?
Kristen
An abortion was NOT the only thing that could stop the bleeding. It may have been what she wanted but the doctor had an obligation to treat both patients – equally.
she was only 20 weeks pregnant. the fetus was not viable at that point. when a pregnant woman is experiencing that much bleeding, and the fetus is not viable and cannot be delivered, options are EXTREMELY limited. your insistence that she maintain a dangerous pregnancy and risk leaving two orphaned children behind is proof of just how “prolife” the prolife movement really is.
you also completely killed your own arguement of “it’s not true because no doctor would refuse life saving treatment”. because that’s exactly what you’re asserting should have happened: the withholding of life saving treatment. but i shouldn’t be surprised, seeing as how this is the same loving group that advocated the OK law allowing doctors to lie to women about the health of their pregnancy and the AZ law allowing doctors to withhold life saving measures from pregnant women.
pomegrenade - you also completely killed your own arguement
You also completely killed your own child. As if you’re one to make a stink about what is lying (in your opinion). I think killing your own child in utero is a little more heinous than any stretching of the truth. But I can see why you’d go out of your way to defend someone who did the same thing you did. It makes you feel better.
Speaking of stretching the truth…how exactly do conscience laws “withhold live saving measures from pregnant women”? I’m glad we don’t live in your screwed-up reality, or pregnant mothers would be dying in Catholic hospitals by the truckload, and Ireland would have the highest maternal mortality rate in the world.
“The US has an extremely bad reputation when it comes to health care in the rest of the world”
Yea, right. what a joke. Have you been to any hospitals in foriegn countries?
@ Jasper
I live outside the US. And the hospitals are very good, thanks for asking.
@Bobby Bambino
OK, so let me summarize what you have just said
With my solution, I’ve got: a dead embryo, a living and fairly untouched mother
With your solution: a dead embryo, a living half-fertilized mother with a bad internal scar
You’re adding an injury and the insult of taking the mother for stupid: pretending that removing the embryo with the fallopian tube was not an abortion is hypocrisy at its highest.
Hi Magnum. Thanks for the reply. You have actually completely ignored the fact that I believe that embryo is a human person, the moral equivalent of a two year old. Now that is fine if you don’t believe that, but then your response does not at all address my point. I have made a moral distinction concerning how one can save one person’s life without killing another person, but you have reduced the situation down simply to its ends (again, something I mentioned that is very important in moral theology which is the context of your response to Washingtoniette).
“pretending that removing the embryo with the fallopian tube was not an abortion is hypocrisy at its highest.”
You have not argued for why the principle of double effect is either incorrect or does not apply in this situation and how this would be the same thing as directly and willfully killing an unborn human being as a means or an ends; you have simply asserted that it is an abortion without interacting with anything I have said, other than summarizing the ends of two situations. Also is only hypocritical if I think it is an abortion (which I do not and which I have carefully given distinctions why it is not).
My point is that if the baby was still alive then, any means of removal would cause death, whether it be c-section, vaginal birth, or D&E. A 20 week old baby would not survive. Like I said, the end result is the same. What difference does it make how they removed the baby from the mother?? All these arguments are a waste of everyone’s time.
You cannot see the difference between delivering a living child(vaginally or by C section) that may die so the mother’s life can be saved so she can hold her baby and cherish her and love her until she dies naturally AND dismembering that baby in utero to kill her and remove her body in pieces?
You can’t see the difference in that? You can’t see the difference between an abortion(where the intent is ALWAYS to KILL)and delivery of a child to try and save both lives?
Perhaps you should stop wasting your time here, Vanessa.
Vanessa,
Suppose you work in a booth on a bridge over a body of water where you pull a lever to lift the bridge every time a ship needs to pass through. One day you decide to bring your son to work. Unfortunately as a ship approaches the bridge, you pull the lever and immediately notice that your son is playing in the gears of the bridge. The gears will crush and kill your son, his body will become stuck in the gears, and slow the drawbridge down, causing some damage to the ship, and injury to some aboard the ship, possibly even death. Now you also happen to have a gun on you by which you could shoot your son, causing his body to fall into the river so that no one on the ship is injured. Are you morally permitted to shoot your son? In this case, either way we have the same outcome (a dead child), but clear moral thinking requires that we never directly kill an innocent human being as a means or an end. So the issue at hand here is about carefully parsing out difficult situations using sound moral judgment and thinking, not simply a waste of time.
Actually, vaginal L&D is an option given to women who wish to terminate their pregnancies. The baby would not live either way. It should be up to the mother to decide the best way to let her baby go. Delivering the baby by any means would essentially be “killing” it. It would not be able to live outside the mother’s body.
Ok I seem to be taking shots for some things I never said…
1. Praxedes I do not call women sluts. I was repeating what I have heard anti-choice protestors say in person. I find the word slut to be a gross double standard. I am Pro-choice and a feminist.
2. Cass I have been defending this woman from the beginning. Jill is attacking her with no real reason other than she doesn’t like what her story is about. You know abortions that save lives.
xalisae – Still a bit jaded and bitter I see… Your arguments don’t even hold water. I think you just want to lash out at anyone who disagrees with you. That is not a discussion or a debate. The points you try to make are disjointed and tough to figure out. You just seem very vicious in your responses.
Joanna – Sorry I was not trying to be rude to you. I thought Johanna Montana was funny =) The name thing is something I have been watching since I started posting here. I was even accused of it being a misogynistic name…
Bobby Bambino – That is the biggest stretch of a set of circumstances I have ever heard lol Right off the bat your scenario is a false equivalent due to the fact that a fetus is not a child and this has nothing to do with abortion at all…
However I will bite… In your scenario yes you would be justified in shooting your son to save the lives of the boat passengers. Even though that one life means the world to you, the lives of the boat passengers are just as important to their families as your sons is to you. Could I shoot my son to save that many other people? I am pretty sure I could not do that, so I would make the less moral decision to save my own son but I would bet the families of the boat passengers would think I made a immoral decision. Morality is simply a matter of perspective. We may feel that shooting Osama in the eye was 100% justified but there are people in the world who see it from a different perspective and call us murderers of a holy man… It is all perspective.
the fact that a fetus is not a child
Then what is it, Biggz?
It’s called a “thought experiment” Biggz, and it is very standard among philosophers and those attempting to bring clear moral thinking into difficult situations. The most famous abortion thought experiment is the Violinist analogy which is an argument FOR abortion. The idea is that you wake up one morning plugged into a famous violinist who needs your kidney to survive. I think my scenario is less bizarre than the violinist analogy, but that is beside the point. The point is that it is very standard thing to do which people who study ethics agree upon as a valid illustration.
“Right off the bat your scenario is a false equivalent due to the fact that a fetus is not a child”
Biggz, this is very embarrassing for you. In THIS VERY THREAD I have already corrected you in my 2011/06/01 at 5:57 pm post for taking my quote out of context and not realizing that I am discussing an objection about the pro-life movement’s philosophy being inconsistent. I was responding to a claim that teh pro-life position is internally contradictory and hence, for the sake of argument, I may assume teh pro-life position to show that there is no contradiction. The point of my post was not to show that the unborn are the moral equivalent of a child. THAT is assumed. These knee-jerk responses of yours, Biggz, are extremely embarrassing for the pro-choice side.
Your response to my scenario is nonsensical because on the one hand you say
“yes you would be justified in shooting your son to save the lives of the boat passengers”
but on the other hand you say
“Morality is simply a matter of perspective.”
In the first quote, in what sense are you using teh word justified? Morally? Certainly not because in your next quote you say that morality is a matter of perspective. So I don’t know what you mean by justified, and I don’t see how you could argue any sort fo correct moral decision about the scenario on your worldview. IN fact, Biggz, this is another problem with your inability to care what your opponent says. The very FACT that I came up with a thought experiment PRESUPPOSES moral realism; that is, that there really are absolute morals and duties “out there” and it is our jo to discover them. The purpose of the thought experiment is to help make that discovery. Many pro-choicers are moral realists, and the thought experiment was necessarily directed towards them. You really should know better than to critique a writing which is clearly meant for someone who shares the same ground assumptions of the writing.
But just to make sure that you really believe that “Morality is simply a matter of perspective”, there would be nothing morally wrong or evil about torturing a small child for fun, rape, lynching a black man, forcing women to become pregnant and give birth, etc, right? The rightness or wrongness of these actions, according to your worldview, is simply a matter of perspective.
I’ll take facts over a “thought experiment” any day. I am not on a bridge and I don’t have a son. I don’t know what I would do if I was in that situation until I was in it. We are talking about this woman’s story, not a hypothetical. If her baby were to live through a birth (it most likely would not), many would think that bringing it into the world to die almost immediately after is immoral. We should be praying for this woman, not judging her. She did what she thought was best for her family.
many would think that bringing it into the world to die almost immediately after is immoral.
I see. So, perhaps it is more moral to dismember and kill “it” before “it” is born?
My grandmother had 5 children who were either stillborn or died shortly after birth. My father was the only surviving child.
I guess Grandma was just all about committing “immoral” acts by birthing her children (or “fetuses” as Mikki herself referred to her child) instead of asking the doctor to please chop them up first so they didn’t have to suffer.
Hi Vanessa.
“I’ll take facts over a “thought experiment” any day.”
This is an odd dichotomy. The purpose of the thought experiment is to help one see a fact more clearly. So this doesn’t really address anything.
“I don’t know what I would do if I was in that situation until I was in it.”
Exactly! Hence the thought experiment. When you are in that situation, you are biased and have too much invested in a certain outcome. Thought experiments remove the individual from the situation so that we can scrap all that emotional baggae that comes with being in a situation and figure out what the OBJECTIVE proper moral decision is.
“We are talking about this woman’s story, not a hypothetical.”
Again, that is the whole purpose of a thought experiment. It is to show that we have two morally analogous situations, and that if it is (hopefully) clear what the correct decision is in the thought experiment, then that should tell us how to morally proceed in the actual situation, or at least what the proper moral decision should be.
“If her baby were to live through a birth (it most likely would not), many would think that bringing it into the world to die almost immediately after is immoral.”
If this is what you would like to discuss, when can discuss the morality of that. But now you’re making a different argument; that is, that it would have been immoral to give birth to a baby who would die immediately (or something like that) as opposed to your original claim that since the ends are the same whether you kill the child or remove teh child and it dies, then the actions are the same morally.
“We should be praying for this woman, not judging her.”
I agree. We do not judge her soul or her culpability, but we may judge the OBJECTIVE ACTION taken in the situation. Again, we can even remove it from thinking about this particular woman by asking if in general it is moral to directly kill someone who will die anyway. The answer to this question does not make any moral pronouncements on any individual, but on the morality of a particular action.
I am very sorry for your Grandma’s losses, I wasn’t saying she was immoral. I was saying that people have differing opinions of morality. We shouldn’t judge other’s choices. I’m sure your Grandma did what she thought was best for her family and Mikki did what she thought was best for her’s.
Bobby Bambino- I don’t wish to discuss anything with you as you have your mind made up. You also use too many words. Try toning it down. You come off sounding like a real know-it-all.
” You also use too many words. Try toning it down. You come off sounding like a real know-it-all.”
in other words a well educated intellectual?