Why It’s Hard to Dialogue With Secularists and Leftists

[JimR-OCDS]

I don`t see how this would be necessary. At one time saving a baby of 20 weeks would have been considered impossible, and now it is not. Some have thought for example if it was possible to provide a sort of substitute womb until the fetus was able to survive alone, that might be an option for such small babies.

Not all experimental treatments are necessarily unethical, either.

In any case, the course of science and technology can often be surprising, so we really can`t rule anything out.

Saving the life of a 20 week fetus is still unlikely. The one case, is questionable as to whether the fetus was actually 20 weeks. The lung development suggest it was closer to 22 weeks and because it was a girl, her lungs were better developed than if she were a male.

For some reason, the lungs of a female fetus develop 2 weeks ahead of a male.

When my son was born at 27 weeks, I saw girls born at 24 weeks who survived without the complications my son ended up with and other males, who didn't even survive.

Jim

 

[AMDG]

But in the case of a fetus under 20 weeks, the medical professionals have already determined that it is unethical experimental research to attempt to save a fetus. The technology doesn't exist and never will.

They can't grow lungs, which is what the fetus needs at 18 weeks.

Jim, have told you before that doctors (at least those that are pro-life) will encourage the mother to "hold on" to that baby as long as possible--even just two weeks is "gold" because it gives the baby time to grow those lungs and all. How do I know? I was threatening to miscarry with my last baby and it was definitely before the 18 weeks. IOW, if the babe was born then, she most assuredly would have been born dead. Instead I was encouraged to "hold on" to that tiny babe until at least the baby would have a chance at survival (and longer if possible). I'm here to say, that it can be done. I don't think I'll ever forget the "wonderful words" words, "the danger is past".

And MKJ is right--there are only two ways of exit for a baby (whether it be dead or alive). Either there must be a C-Section, or the baby must exit vaginally. Even if the baby dies in the womb, it has to be removed (either way) or infection will set in.

 

[MikeK]

But they did give you instructions?

No, there was no reason for them to. They spoke with their doctors and they decided whay type of care they wished to recieve. They died of non-sudden illness. In the event of a traumatic accident that would leave a loved one in aunable to communicate, I would have no problem with their well-doctumented wishes being honored.

My mother had a rare form of lymphoma called Burkits. A cancer that eventually attacked her spinal chord, and her brain. For a year she was in increasing pain, as her body would interpret slight touches as something approximately equal to an electrical shock. It was clearly agonizing. For the final two months she lost complete control of her body. She had no motor function of her limbs, but they still twitched as her spine essentially fired agonizing pain from just a touch, just lying on a bed, or eventually for no reason at all. And this pain got worse, and worse, and more and more frequent. She had lost her sight, her jaw and tongue both had no feeling and she could not speak. But she gurgle, moan and scream. Toward the end we had no way of knowing whether she could hear us, because she lost the ability to respond, but essentially she was trapped in her own body, but that body was in horrible pain.

That sounds awful, and I am sorry that you and she had to endure it.

Now, how is it that I'm not a monster for allowing her to live a further three or four months like that, but would be if I allow it to end? You're calling me a monster for not wishing to watch a person, much less my mother go through that? For months?

I didn't call you anything. I have not made the argument that you could not "allow it to end". It is not my position that you must preserve life but that you ought not end life. Quite likely your mother consulted with experts before her condition dteriorated to where it was in the agonizing weeks that preceded her death. I suspect that at some point during that time she would have been able to articulate what sort of treatment she desired in the future, should things go south.

Suppose I had been the one responsible for putting her through that kind of suffering, then would I be a monster?

Certainly.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, have told you before that doctors (at least those that are pro-life) will encourage the mother to "hold on" to that baby as long as possible--even just two weeks is "gold" because it gives the baby time to grow those lungs and all. How do I know? I

You're not a medical expert, so your opinion has no validity.

When my wife went into labor at 26 weeks, they used drugs to delay labor.

However, once embryonic fluid is gone, the baby must be delivered and in the case of my son, he was delivered through c-section.

At 18 weeks with no embryonic fluid, the baby will die even before delivery. At 18 weeks, the fetus will not survive birth. The pressure of coming through the birth canal will most likely kill it, and if it survives, it will not be able to draw it's first breath even with aid. The lungs just can't handle taking in oxygen at that early stage.

That being said, not all premature cases are equal, and only the doctors on the case can decide what to do and advise the mother.


Jim

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

How does a mother hold on to a baby in the womb? Putting it like that almost makes it sound like you can make a conscious choice to avoid a miscarriage or premature birth. If we assume all a woman needs to do is 'hold on', then that adds tons of unnecessary guilt to those who lose a pregnancy.

 

[MKJ]

How does a mother hold on to a baby in the womb? Putting it like that almost makes it sound like you can make a conscious choice to avoid a miscarriage or premature birth. If we assume all a woman needs to do is 'hold on', then that adds tons of unnecessary guilt to those who lose a pregnancy.

I think what she meant is that in cases where the mothers health is unstable, if she waits as long as possible before delivering the child by induction or c-section, it can make a big difference even if it is only a few weeks or even a few days, because development happens so fast in the fetus.

So rather than jumping the gun and seeing the loss of baby or mother as a sure thing, they take it very much one day at a time, in hopes that enough time will be gained to give the baby a real chance.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think what she meant is that in cases where the mothers health is unstable, if she waits as long as possible before delivering the child by induction or c-section, it can make a big difference even if it is only a few weeks or even a few days, because development happens so fast in the fetus.

So rather than jumping the gun and seeing the loss of baby or mother as a sure thing, they take it very much one day at a time, in hopes that enough time will be gained to give the baby a real chance.

If the mother has gone into labor, and her water is broken, they can only delay delivery for a few days through drugs. Once the embryonic fluid has depleted to a certain level, they have to deliver the fetus. The fetus can not survive without a sufficient amount of embryonic fluid. What that is, only a doctor could decide.


Jim

 

[MKJ]

If the mother has gone into labor, and her water is broken, they can only delay delivery for a few days through drugs. Once the embryonic fluid has depleted to a certain level, they have to deliver the fetus. The fetus can not survive without a sufficient amount of embryonic fluid. What that is, only a doctor could decide.

Jim

Yes, there is only so much you can do to prevent a labour that really wants to happen. There are lots of cases to though where things look sticky, but being careful can make a difference.

I do think that the mindset of the mother can be important - there are lots of reasons to think our mental disposition can affect our health quite profoundly, but more obviously a person who gives up hope may be less likely to do the things required to stave off labour.

 

[AMDG]

You're not a medical expert, so your opinion has no validity.

Never claimed to be a medical expert. Only claimed experience of having the doctors choose to wait past the "danger zone" so that my baby had a chance of living. (And she did. I actually was able to "hold on" for the whole gestation time. Now she has six children of her own.)

Medicine has made a lot of progress since the 70s when I was pregnant (and when abortion on demand became the law of the land.) In the 1970s we never knew the sex of the babe--didn't even have sonograms, like they do today. Babies weren't considered viable until five months along. Sounds like we weren't totally aware that there is a *separate* being with a *separate* blood system and a beating heart at only 10 days!

We've come a long way. Doctors are more like miracle makers and babies can survive earlier and earlier than thought. And don't forget that in an emergency (where the mother cannot survive a vaginal birth but there is a chance that the baby can survive--is old enough), the doctor can preform a C-section and "take" the baby alive, so that both mother and baby may live.

 

[AMDG]

How does a mother hold on to a baby in the womb?

The doctors have ways. (Back in the 1950s there was even a surgery to take a couple of stiches in the cervix to help prevent premature labor. Then there were medications that were administered to stop premature labor. Don't think they are used today, though.)

In my case, the doctor had me on complete bedrest with careful monitoring. Believe me, it wasn't easy. The fact that husband and I had another baby and a toddler at the time made it even harder. Same with the fact that as military, we lived thousands of miles from family and the child care available at the time was only for older children who were already potty trained.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The doctors have ways. (Back in the 1950s there was even a surgery to take a couple of stiches in the cervix to help prevent premature labor. Then there were medications that were administered to stop premature labor. Don't think they are used today, though.)

In my case, the doctor had me on complete bedrest with careful monitoring. Believe me, it wasn't easy. The fact that husband and I had another baby and a toddler at the time made it even harder. Same with the fact that as military, we lived thousands of miles from family and the child care available at the time was only for older children who were already potty trained.

My wife had what is called a purse-string-suture to keep her from miscarrying.
However, when she went into labor at 26 weeks, off to the hospital in Boston she went. They could stop the labor with drugs for one week, but couldn't stop the loss of embryonic fluid. So, they had to deliver our son, via C-section. My wife was healthy otherwise.

Now consider a mother dying and they can't stop the embryonic fluid from draining out ?

A choice has to be made and there is no time left.

Jim

 

[MikeK]

My wife had what is called a purse-string-suture to keep her from miscarrying.
However, when she went into labor at 26 weeks, off to the hospital in Boston she went. They could stop the labor with drugs for one week, but couldn't stop the loss of embryonic fluid. So, they had to deliver our son, via C-section. My wife was healthy otherwise.

Now consider a mother dying and they can't stop the embryonic fluid from draining out ?

A choice has to be made and there is no time left.

Jim

Remove the child as gently as possible through the birth canal.

 

[LoAmmi]

Remove the child as gently as possible through the birth canal.

Is this possible? I'm not a doctor so I really don't know. I mean, it sounds so easy, but I suspect it isn't.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Remove the child as gently as possible through the birth canal.

You have experience at this ?

Jim

 

[MikeK]

Is this possible? I'm not a doctor so I really don't know. I mean, it sounds so easy, but I suspect it isn't.

Relatively simple. A 15 week old fetus has a head circumference of around 100mm - about 1-1/4" in diameter.

 

[MikeK]

You have experience at this ?

Jim

My wife does.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My wife does.

My wife was a nurse too, and I was present at two premature births.

My daughter gave birth to a 20 week fetus, which was still born. Not a piece of cake and even with no heartbeat, the doctors couldn't go in and pull the baby out without damaging the body.

Jim

 

[AMDG]

Now consider a mother dying and they can't stop the embryonic fluid from draining out ?

Has this ever happened? Or is this something that you *think* might happen (even with the doctors monitoring quite carefully)? You know, even when the embryonic fluid is gone, there is still time for both mother and baby to live. Daughter's first birth. She hadn't realized that her water broke. (It seems unlikely to us, but it happened.) Believe it or not, several hours of really hard labor went by before she called hospital and was told to come ASAP. It may have been a "dry" birth, but daughter and granddaughter were alive. No choice had to be made.

Yet another of her six children was by emergency C-section. Room turned into Operating Room--everything was all business there--her husband shunted aside, she and the baby were the only thing that mattered. Daughter wasn't even prepped when nurse realized babe was in trouble (is it just for high-risk pregnancies, or normal ones too that monitors are in place?), doctor came running and daughter simply put under. Another miracle granddaughter.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

AMDG

Has this ever happened? Or is this something that you *think* might happen (even with the doctors monitoring quite carefully)?

You don't read posts do you.

I already said that when my wife went into premature labor, they could stop the labor, but not the loss of embryonic fluid and they had to deliver my son at 27 weeks, via a C-section.

Yes, it happens.

You know, even when the embryonic fluid is gone, there is still time for both mother and baby to live.

Not when the fetus is only 18 weeks. Gesh !

Jim

 

[AMDG]

AMDG



You don't read posts do you.

I already said that when my wife went into premature labor, they could stop the labor, but not the loss of embryonic fluid and they had to deliver my son at 27 weeks, via a C-section.

Yes, it happens.

That much I read. But your post said something different--

Now consider a mother dying and they can't stop the embryonic fluid from draining out ?

A choice has to be made and there is no time left.

Two different things.

I also noted an experience of a "dry" birth. It doesn't require the killing of an innocent. Both mother and baby can live. My daughter and my beautiful granddaughter did.

The labor and the water breaking are evidently two different things. The purse string suture was to prevent premature labor. After the water breaks (and the embryonic fluid drains out) there can still be a vaginal birth (although years ago the baby would be in a lot of trouble but with today's medical advances, not so much since babies are viable earlier and earlier.) And the very fast emergency C-section (different from the usual C-section) might also be the doctor's choice in saving the baby and mother. He does not have to kill. He can actually be true to his Hippocratic Oath--to do no harm.