R
Parents Who Refused to Abort Baby with Brain Outside Skull Open up About Son's Transformative Surgery: 'You Can Feel His Will to Live'
- Status
R
RPRPsych
Guest
As medical science advances, all those “health of the mother and disability of the baby” excuses offered by pro-abortion advocates will slowly vanish, leaving them like an emperor naked except for their true colours.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Well said.
As medical science advances, all those “health of the mother and disability of the baby” excuses offered by pro-abortion advocates will slowly vanish, leaving them like an emperor naked except for their true colours.
A
AFerri48
Guest
How could a child live with a brain outside of the skull?
T
tawny
Guest
Praying for the health & recovery of this baby & for the family.
S
Siegehammer
Guest
Nice usage of the word “refused” in the headline. I’m sure these parents were hounded relentlessly by blood thirsty health care providers. /sarcasm/
Nobody tried to force them into an abortion. What these people did was DECLINE to abort and were supported in their CHOICE to continue the pregnancy. Big difference.
Nobody tried to force them into an abortion. What these people did was DECLINE to abort and were supported in their CHOICE to continue the pregnancy. Big difference.
R
robertmidwest
Guest
I got the story from yahoo and I believe the original story came from People. Both have a very left leaning bias. If you are asserting some sort of right wing bias from the publisher then your barking up the wrong tree. Yahoo is hard core in the agenda they push.
J
jediliz
Guest
With God, anything is possible.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
I understand baby had a thick membrane of skin over the brain. It was out of his skull, but not exposed.
C
Casilda
Guest
I was hounded relentlessly by the doctors who recommended I abort my last child when a blood test came back 90℅ down syndrome chance. According to textbooks I was extremely high risk because of age (36).
I refused all other tests. My pregnancy went perfectly, full term, daughter was perfect. All the other pregnant moms in our church were also given the same result of 90℅. Not one aborted. All babies born perfect.Flawed test? I hate to think there are women out there who may have aborted a perfect baby.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Those tests (my wife had to take one too) are based on statistical probability; they don’t “diagnose” a disease in the way, say, a blood sugar test or a HIV test would.I was hounded relentlessly by the doctors who recommended I abort my last child when a blood test came back 90℅ down syndrome chance. According to textbooks I was extremely high risk because of age (36).
Flawed test? I hate to think there are women out there who may have aborted a perfect baby.
The trouble is that probabilistic testing has a big flaw to it: if the disease it’s meant to diagnose is rare, then the test is screwed even before it has been administered.
Here’s what I mean:
Suppose your test is 90% accurate. That means that 90 out of 100 times, your test will truly pick up a disease, and 10% of results will be “false positives”, where the test is positive but the disease is absent (i.e., in this case, the child is normal)
Now consider how common the condition you are testing for (say, Down’s syndrome) is in the general population (or the sample space of all pregnancies.) A recent estimate says that it occurs in 1 in 1000 live births.*
Now use your “90%” accurate test on these 100 women before they give birth, and something funny happens:
Out of 1000 women, 100 (10%) will test positive! That’s because the test is only 90% accurate to start with.
But we know from the estimate that only 1 of those 1000 women is truly likely to give birth to a child with Down’s syndrome.
Now do the math: 100-1 = 99. 99 of those “positive” tests will be false alarms.
Even if you were dealing with older women where Down’s occurs in 20 in 1000 live births, you still have problems: 100 - 20 would still equal 80 false alarms!
This isn’t something that doctors discuss much, but they should.
- This figure may be criticized on the basis that some pregnancies with Down’s syndrome end in miscarriages, but this is just an approximation for illustrative purposes.
D
DoGodsBidding
Guest
Great post.
As medical science advances, all those “health of the mother and disability of the baby” excuses offered by pro-abortion advocates will slowly vanish, leaving them like an emperor naked except for their true colours.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Well said.
Thank you very much!Great post.
But it’s the simple truth.If the “handicapped / disabled child” card is gone, then the next to fall would be “physical health of the mother”.
“Mental health of the mother” would be a tougher nut to crack, but serious mental disorders during the post-partum period (so-called postpartum “psychosis” and severe depressions) are actually eminently treatable, and milder ones (such as mild forms of depression) cannot be seriously entertained as grounds for abortion.
That leaves the Emperor’s underpants: “contraceptive failure” (aka egg on Planned Parenthood’s face), “social reasons” (aka we’re too cheap to look after you and your child, so let’s coerce you into dumping the latter in the trash can) and “at request” (which is growing less and less convincing each day). With radical feminism also slowly on the wane, these reasons will also carry less conviction.
Of course, that leaves out the rare (but horrendous) cases of rape / incest, but even here, social welfare / charitable measures and adoption (if the mother is unable to bond with her child) are life-sparing solutions.
Over to you.
D
DoGodsBidding
Guest
It is indeed a simple truth, one that many fail to see. Life begins at conception, and is a gift from God.Thank you very much!
If the “handicapped / disabled child” card is gone, then the next to fall would be “physical health of the mother”.
“Mental health of the mother” would be a tougher nut to crack, but serious mental disorders during the post-partum period (so-called postpartum “psychosis” and severe depressions) are actually eminently treatable, and milder ones (such as mild forms of depression) cannot be seriously entertained as grounds for abortion.
That leaves the Emperor’s underpants: “contraceptive failure” (aka egg on Planned Parenthood’s face), “social reasons” (aka we’re too cheap to look after you and your child, so let’s coerce you into dumping the latter in the trash can) and “at request” (which is growing less and less convincing each day). With radical feminism also slowly on the wane, these reasons will also carry less conviction.
Of course, that leaves out the rare (but horrendous) cases of rape / incest, but even here, social welfare / charitable measures and adoption (if the mother is unable to bond with her child) are life-sparing solutions.
Over to you.
DGB
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
some of these stories make me cry…
- Status