Baby born with anencephaly to please jesus?

[Minimalist]

And now in one of the great American states... Arizona... Doctors are supposed to lie to their patients if they think it will prevent her from having an abortion. As if it's anyone's business, anyway!!

Well, its right up there with our Shitstain Sheriff sending a deputy to Hawaii to "investigate" Obama's birth certificate.... at taxpayer expense.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politic...ed-deputy/


There is apparently no bottom to stupidity among AZ's republibertarianeo-conazis.

[Aiza]

Another post filled with a condescending and arrogant attitude and this one has obvious lies. Tell me Azzi, do you have any hospitals in your fantasy land where abortions are cheaper than giving birth and it's hospital stay that charges for both baby and mom?

Are you SERIOUSLY not only trying to dispute this, but even calling me a liar of it? I know you dislike me but this is ridiculous!

Average abortion costs are a few hundred dollars:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortio...ortion.htm

If she needed it in the third trimester (not sure when this was detected), it can go as high as $1200.

A vaginal birth with no complications whatsoever (and we know this doesn't apply here, no doubt this baby needed a lot of extra care), runs $6000-$7000, and prenatal care on top of that, which again, no doubt this baby needed a lot of

http://www.ehow.com/about_5304362_much-c...birth.html

No contest. The best-case childbirth scenario is 5-6x more expensive than the worst-case abortion scenario. On top of that, I am sure this particular family would want to give him a funeral as well, and the average cost for that is $5000. The cover charge for this benefit concert is $5, so unless this family is massively popular I think its still a net financial loss, I highly doubt they are getting massively wealthy over sharing a few pictures of their son on facebook. And yeah, of course its easier to rally people around the idea of giving a mother a few hours with her son than it is to rally them around of....helping the mother to kill her son in utero. Fair?

She actually wasn't with her child. She might as well have been with a steak. Without a brain, a human is just meat. What she did seems disturbing to me, but seeing as the infant had no consciousness and thus no rights to violate or feelings to consider, she has a right to do what she wants.

The baby was missing part of his brain, he wasn't brainless. Either way, no mother is going to consider the son she loves "just meat". I'd hope that if anyone here were to get in an accident and lose most of their brain with only 8 hours to live, their mother would be right there at their bedside, not going on about "just meat" or whatever. That is how mothers (and fathers) are with their babies. Usually.

Again, this is just a thing you need to have some empathy and humanity to understand. I can't even imagine how painful it must have been for her, but at least now she has that time she spent with him, no matter how brief it was. He was well loved. I am tearing up.

[jackman]

That is how mothers (and fathers) are with their babies.

thanks for including that part. people omit it too often.

---

Yes, I think the bottom line here is that, though we might choose to do something differently, this woman was well within her rights. She was not doing anything illegal or that went against her personal beliefs. I discussed something similar today with Tiberius. I am not anti-religious because it is well within a person's rights to be religious, provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of others. This woman has not infringed upon the rights of others or really hurt anyone. I cannot condemn her for choosing to handle her personal business in a way that she saw fit and did not hurt anyone else. I could certainly point out the differences between her choices and ones that I would make, but that would not make me a better person than she is. Her other children look happy and healthy and she looks like a loving mom. In many ways, I envy her ability to cope with the horrible situation presented to her, even if it is based on false beliefs. I also have to assume that the people who donated to whatever fundraisers she was having share her beliefs and that they did not pull the wool over anyone's eyes. Had she been conning people, I would think differently about it.

perfectly put, imho.

[Minimalist]

this woman was well within her rights

I agree, Shel....she's still a jesus freak psycho cunt for doing it.


Let us not forget this line from the OP.

So because Heather loved Jesus SO much, she thought it would be super virtuous of her to have her baby and use him as a prop in an 8 hour long, smiling-faced photo op, with 40+ members of her friends and family, only ending once her baby was dead. Her virtuous actions didn't end with that. After her baby died, she took those pictures, and is using them to benefit herself and her family financially, and spread the word that she so so unbelievably moral because she chose "life" for her baby.

[Phil]

Are you SERIOUSLY not only trying to dispute this, but even calling me a liar of it? I know you dislike me but this is ridiculous!

No I am not disputing anything. If you quoted the very next sentence of my post you would see that I simply misread your post but judging from your partial quote of my post, you are still arrogant and condescending as ever.

---

The baby was missing part of his brain, he wasn't brainless. Either way, no mother is going to consider the son she loves "just meat". I'd hope that if anyone here were to get in an accident and lose most of their brain with only 8 hours to live, their mother would be right there at their bedside, not going on about "just meat" or whatever. That is how mothers (and fathers) are with their babies. Usually.

Again, this is just a thing you need to have some empathy and humanity to understand. I can't even imagine how painful it must have been for her, but at least now she has that time she spent with him, no matter how brief it was. He was well loved. I am tearing up.

In anencephaly the brainstem is present. What is missing is most of the skull, scalp and forebrain. I have no idea why anyone here is claiming the baby isn't conscious as he is and is actually aware of his environment (that is controlled by the brainstem and is a cognitive process)

[Faith No More]

We all grieve in different ways, so the fact that the lady is smiling in the pictures doesn't bother me. It was her choice to take the baby to term, and people shouldn't hold anything against her for that.

As for these concerts, were they put on by the mother and father, or were they put on by others simply to help them in their time of need?

The only issue I would have would be if she truly is claiming that she chose the path of moral superiority

[Shell B]

I agree, Shel....she's still a jesus freak psycho cunt for doing it.

She's still a jesus freak, surely. Whether she is a cunt is still up for debate. I will agree that it is rather stupid not to have an abortion in these scenarios, but it was her baby and her body. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. To be pro-choice, one also has to support the choice to carry. I don't have to condone it.

So because Heather loved Jesus SO much, she thought it would be super virtuous of her to have her baby and use him as a prop in an 8 hour long, smiling-faced photo op, with 40+ members of her friends and family, only ending once her baby was dead. Her virtuous actions didn't end with that. After her baby died, she took those pictures, and is using them to benefit herself and her family financially, and spread the word that she so so unbelievably moral because she chose "life" for her baby.

Well, we have to remember too that the OP was an opinion, for the most part. We still haven't established how she "benefited financially." Yes, they did spread the word that they chose life. We still haven't established that her motive was to show how unbelievably moral she is. I still feel bad for her. When all is said and done, she has a dead baby. That's not quite the same as giving a child up for adoption. Having never been pregnant, I can't comment on the attachment formed while pregnant. She could have been afraid to let go. Sure, she outwardly used Jesus as an excuse, but who knows what she was feeling?

Again, I'm not saying I would not have done things differently. I am just saying that there are a lot of conclusions being jumped to here. They could all be right, sure, but there is no evidence of them.

---

In anencephaly the brainstem is present. What is missing is most of the skull, scalp and forebrain. I have no idea why anyone here is claiming the baby isn't conscious as he is and is actually aware of his environment (that is controlled by the brainstem and is a cognitive process)

You are completely wrong. If the only thing that was missing was the "forebrain," which includes the "frontal lobe," the baby would simply behave as if it had undergone a lobotomy. It would survive, as all the functions it requires to survive would be possible. Do you know why babies with anencephaly die? It's because even the basic functions performed by the brain stem are not enough. Of course the baby is not conscious or aware of his environment (redundant, but just rehashing your comments). Seriously, read something on the condition and brain function before you try to assert something.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/Anencephaly.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem#Functions

Remember when reading the brain stem's function that without a brain to relay messages to, all of its purposes, save basic organ function, are defunct.

[Gambit]

When all is said and done, we are just people debating the morality and ethics of this situation. To us it is just that - a situation. We assign our own values and beliefs to how we feel she should have acted. Some of us do so while still recognising the woman's right to choose; while others, openly condemn her for her choices. Regardless, there is not a one of us knows the pain that she went through, so all our words are worth nought. My last word on this is; I hope that she finds some kind of peace in life - because losing one's child is surely enough torment for anyone to endure.

[Phil]

I agree, Shel....she's still a jesus freak psycho cunt for doing it.

She's still a jesus freak, surely. Whether she is a cunt is still up for debate. I will agree that it is rather stupid not to have an abortion in these scenarios, but it was her baby and her body. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. To be pro-choice, one also has to support the choice to carry. I don't have to condone it.

So because Heather loved Jesus SO much, she thought it would be super virtuous of her to have her baby and use him as a prop in an 8 hour long, smiling-faced photo op, with 40+ members of her friends and family, only ending once her baby was dead. Her virtuous actions didn't end with that. After her baby died, she took those pictures, and is using them to benefit herself and her family financially, and spread the word that she so so unbelievably moral because she chose "life" for her baby.

Well, we have to remember too that the OP was an opinion, for the most part. We still haven't established how she "benefited financially." Yes, they did spread the word that they chose life. We still haven't established that her motive was to show how unbelievably moral she is. I still feel bad for her. When all is said and done, she has a dead baby. That's not quite the same as giving a child up for adoption. Having never been pregnant, I can't comment on the attachment formed while pregnant. She could have been afraid to let go. Sure, she outwardly used Jesus as an excuse, but who knows what she was feeling?

Again, I'm not saying I would not have done things differently. I am just saying that there are a lot of conclusions being jumped to here. They could all be right, sure, but there is no evidence of them.

---

In anencephaly the brainstem is present. What is missing is most of the skull, scalp and forebrain. I have no idea why anyone here is claiming the baby isn't conscious as he is and is actually aware of his environment (that is controlled by the brainstem and is a cognitive process)

You are completely wrong. If the only thing that was missing was the "forebrain," which includes the "frontal lobe," the baby would simply behave as if it had undergone a lobotomy. It would survive, as all the functions it requires to survive would be possible. Do you know why babies with anencephaly die? It's because even the basic functions performed by the brain stem are not enough. Of course the baby is not conscious or aware of his environment (redundant, but just rehashing your comments). Seriously, read something on the condition and brain function before you try to assert something.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/Anencephaly.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem#Functions

Remember when reading the brain stem's function that without a brain to relay messages to, all of its purposes, save basic organ function, are defunct.

Shell,

It is the forebrain, most of the skull and scalp that is missing. If you think all babies born with anencephaly die it is you who are very wrong. Look up Nicholas Coke and explain how his brainstem let him die considering he is alive after 4 years.

[Shell B]

Shell,

It is the forebrain, most of the skull and scalp that is missing. If you think all babies born with anencephaly die it is you who are very wrong. Look up Nicholas Coke and explain how his brainstem let him die considering he is alive after 4 years.

And most of the rest of the brain as well. My source is the CDC, Phil. At any rate, Nicholas Coke would not be alive without life saving measures. The same applied to Baby K. These babies are not aware and would die were it not for modern medicine. He will die soon enough, though. His heart will give out or his respiratory system will fail. It's inevitable.

With the assistance of the cerebellum, the cerebrum controls all voluntary actions in the body.