Jump to content
IGNORED

FB bans mom for posting photos of son who lived 8 hours


gustava

Recommended Posts

Yous all know I like my riot porn. I had a FB avatar of a Molotov in the air (Greece) and before that a police car on fire (Germany). Those were OK but not a hrieving mum with her wean?

For me, wean means the process of withdrawing mother's milk and introducing adult food. In the US, I don't think we use it as a noun to refer to the child itself. Could you enlighten me? I'm not snarking, just interested in word usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I didn't mind the Duggars HAVING photos, or even sharing at the service which was invited guests only. It was the "accidental" leaking of them to the media and the rest of the circus. Michelle having jewelry with Jubillees footprint is ok too--she's the Mom. And this poor Mom probably wasn't thinking of privacy settings at a time like that. Probably made everything worse for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wean - wee one

..and I am American.

And thanks to JFC, also. It's fun to learn new ways to use words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like they've updated the article. She was never banned, just prohibited from uploading more pictures while they verified them. She's good to go now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please friend me. Please? This is exactly what I need in my life.

My bacon bra needs to meet your Molotov. Please friend Amil Zola :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't get how Mark Zuckerberg gets all the blame for the deleted photos on Facebook. It stopped being his personal project years ago, and many people actually work on Facebook to take down all of the reported photos, comments, and users. One person can't possibly moderate the postings of millions of users. He may very well be fine with breastfeeding himself, it's the people who actually moderate the pictures who aren't.

As for deleting a picture of a grieving mother and her dying child... that's pretty low. Why would that even be reported?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really torn on this. On one hand I feel its selfish to carry the baby to term so that it can die, but on the other hand she is exercising her right to choose what happens to her own body, and is actually living her faith. This is, truly, a woman's right to choose. BUT, in choosing, do we make choices for our own selfish reasons?

We cried and prayed and asked Jesus to not allow him to suffer. We prayed he would take him home. We couldn't bare him being in any pain or having a hard time. We fell asleep again and awoke to three or four nurses standing around us. Our eyes opened and he took his last breath. The nurse looked at us and said he was gone.

Is it cruel to allow this child to be born so that it may die? Is it more loving and merciful to end his suffering before it begins?

You were at this place 2,000 years ago when you sent your son to die for me. Even two thousand years ago, you knew that Heather Walker would be born and come to know you and love you. You knew that I would carry Grayson. Lord you know the pain and hurt that goes with it. But you also know the outcome. You are the creator and sustainer of life. So God, I ask you to touch Grayson's body and heal him. I know you have the power to do it. I know that in an instant he can be healed. Let him be the miracle of anencephaly...baffle what doctors say is inevitable. You are the healer. You can do this.

November 9, 2011 post

Sure, those with faith stand on it in times of suffering, but isnt this a bit too far? This woman stood in a horrible place with a difficult decision to make. I dont criticize posting pictures, the blog etc. I DO question the decision to carry to term. I do not believe I would make the same choice, but I am proud she HAS that choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really torn on this. On one hand I feel its selfish to carry the baby to term so that it can die, but on the other hand she is exercising her right to choose what happens to her own body, and is actually living her faith. This is, truly, a woman's right to choose. BUT, in choosing, do we make choices for our own selfish reasons?

Is it cruel to allow this child to be born so that it may die? Is it more loving and merciful to end his suffering before it begins?

November 9, 2011 post

Sure, those with faith stand on it in times of suffering, but isnt this a bit too far? This woman stood in a horrible place with a difficult decision to make. I dont criticize posting pictures, the blog etc. I DO question the decision to carry to term. I do not believe I would make the same choice, but I am proud she HAS that choice.

Personally, I say yes, it IS cruel. What is the point of bringing a baby to term if it has a definitely terminal condition, especially if it will be in discomfort during its short life and whatever portion of the gestation it may be able to feel pain?

I agree with you that it's ultimately the mother's choice as it's her body, but if I were in that situation I would consider it selfish to bring the child to term and would most likely abort in order to spare the child the pain and to avoid the strain to my own body of a pregnancy that would not produce a viable child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of these more religious folks who carry to term in these instances where the condition is not compatible with life are hoping for the big god loves us miracle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of these more religious folks who carry to term in these instances where the condition is not compatible with life are hoping for the big god loves us miracle.

This.

I'm not sure if they were hoping for that, or if they just felt that their actions were compatible with their beliefs.

I could not do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I say yes, it IS cruel. What is the point of bringing a baby to term if it has a definitely terminal condition, especially if it will be in discomfort during its short life and whatever portion of the gestation it may be able to feel pain?

I agree with you that it's ultimately the mother's choice as it's her body, but if I were in that situation I would consider it selfish to bring the child to term and would most likely abort in order to spare the child the pain and to avoid the strain to my own body of a pregnancy that would not produce a viable child.

And not just the baby's suffering, what about the other two children? They see the pregnancy, talk to the baby, draw pictures for the baby, meet the baby... and bury the baby... I just dont see it. I think its terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And not just the baby's suffering, what about the other two children? They see the pregnancy, talk to the baby, draw pictures for the baby, meet the baby... and bury the baby... I just dont see it. I think its terrible.

I have two other children and that was a big part of why i said I would have an abortion in this situation. What you described, plus, why go through the risks of a pregnancy, potentially depriving them of a parent, when there is no viable child to make it worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in the bible does it say that a woman has to put herself at risk for a hopeless situation? We've seen this from others before - they carry a pregnancy that has no chance is viability because "god says so." Where a medical situation is incompatible with life you remedy the medical situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't fault someone at all for going on with a terminal pregnancy like this woman did. This child was a wanted child that the woman fell in love with I'm assuming from the moment she found out she was pregnant or shortly after. Aborting a child that you planned to keep and love dearly, in my opinion, is a completely different ball game than aborting a child you had no intention of caring for/couldn't care for. I'm sure it could have also helped with closure to see the child and say goodbye that way. In any event I don't fault her at all for her decision.

ETA: Wouldn't a defect such as this only be seen during the anatomy scan thats done at like 20weeks?? If that's the case I can even see why people carry on non viable pregnancies for things such as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in the bible does it say that a woman has to put herself at risk for a hopeless situation? We've seen this from others before - they carry a pregnancy that has no chance is viability because "god says so." Where a medical situation is incompatible with life you remedy the medical situation.

They can't rationalize something like a baby born without a brain as a mistake of nature, so they have to rationalize it by saying God did it to teach them some kind of lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't fault someone at all for going on with a terminal pregnancy like this woman did. This child was a wanted child that the woman fell in love with I'm assuming from the moment she found out she was pregnant or shortly after. Aborting a child that you planned to keep and love dearly, in my opinion, is a completely different ball game than aborting a child you had no intention of caring for/couldn't care for. I'm sure it could have also helped with closure to see the child and say goodbye that way. In any event I don't fault her at all for her decision.

ETA: Wouldn't a defect such as this only be seen during the anatomy scan thats done at like 20weeks?? If that's the case I can even see why people carry on non viable pregnancies for things such as this.

Per her blog she knew somewhere in the 15-16 week range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it doesn't make it less cruel to the siblings, but anencephalic babies can't exactly suffer. They lack the part of the brain necessary for consciousness. I wouldn't go the way she did, but that's because that would be the less traumatic option for me. I imagine someone with her beliefs would find aborting a lot more traumatic than that, and if she's anything like the Duggars, she probably put all kinds of energy into making it clear to her son and daughter that they had a real baby sibling in her tummy. While they wouldn't have had to see him, I expect they would have still been made to grieve had she miscarried or aborted. So to each their own, and thank God it was anencephaly and not something where the baby can feel pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it doesn't make it less cruel to the siblings, but anencephalic babies can't exactly suffer. They lack the part of the brain necessary for consciousness. I wouldn't go the way she did, but that's because that would be the less traumatic option for me. I imagine someone with her beliefs would find aborting a lot more traumatic than that, and if she's anything like the Duggars, she probably put all kinds of energy into making it clear to her son and daughter that they had a real baby sibling in her tummy. While they wouldn't have had to see him, I expect they would have still been made to grieve had she miscarried or aborted. So to each their own, and thank God it was anencephaly and not something where the baby can feel pain.

Could you expound on this a bit? I know it's dumb, but until page 2 I hadn't actually considered that these babies might suffer. :(

Anencephaly doesn't actually mean the whole brain is missing, right? Is it possible that the parts of the brain involved in pain would still be there? Or does anencephaly always mean that those parts didn't grow?

Is it the case that the pieces missing or protruding would necessarily cause pain rather than just being... you know, there, kind of like if you were born without an arm, that wouldn't mean you'd feel the pain of having an arm chopped off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anencephaly doesn't actually mean the whole brain is missing, right? Is it possible that the parts of the brain involved in pain would still be there? Or does anencephaly always mean that those parts didn't grow?

Is it the case that the pieces missing or protruding would necessarily cause pain rather than just being... you know, there, kind of like if you were born without an arm, that wouldn't mean you'd feel the pain of having an arm chopped off?

Anencephaly is generally defined as where the forebrain is missing. So the infants are born unconscious, blind, deaf and unable to feel pain. I know there are some cases where the infants are born with a brainstem but it's pretty rare and I believe those are the ones that survive any length of time. You can go to the Wiki page on anencephaly to see infants with the condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I thought there was a little bit of ambiguity in the definition. I once read a list of about ten conditions ending in '-cephaly' (all fatal around birth) so you'd think there would be enough distinction between different degrees of, er, partial brain absence, that anencephaly meant 'exactly this much is missing and exactly this much is present'. But if the forebrain is always entirely missing to justify that diagnosis, that clears it up enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bring this back to fundies, did anyone else follow the Faith Hope thing?

http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/2008/ ... o-far.html

Baby born with anencephaly, mother firmly believes that with God all things are possible, and that her baby is totally normal.

She is not only surviving, but seems to be thriving. And contrary to pretty much everything that the medical community believes about anencephaly, Faith is functioning at the same level as any "normal" baby of her age. In fact, she seems to be a little more advanced for her age.

There was also some drama about Faith's father, who was a fundie pastor (I think? I can't remember the details) and rejected Myah, Faith's mother, when she got pregnant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bacon bra needs to meet your Molotov. Please friend Amil Zola :lol:

And since I am already friends with emmiedahl and experienced on FB, its only fair you friend me too. :dance:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since I am already friends with emmiedahl and experienced on FB, its only fair you friend me too. :dance:

And me!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.