Wow! She sounds so cool. God really wanted her to live. Wow.
Thanks for sharing this wonderful story,
Tra
This concerns our little debate on abortion...have you all ever heard of this girl named Gianna Jessen?
Her mom was teenager and tried to abort her, but the baby survived the abortion and was born.
She has some physical disabilities from the attack in her mother's womb, but she is mostly fine.
She was adopted to a loving woman who raised her and now Gianna goes around speaking to groups about abortion and giving her testimony that God has a purpose for every life that He creates.
She is a follower of Christ and has led many, many people to God.
People who would possibly not have God in their lives had this girl not been born!
She has the gift of leading people to God, and she also has the gift of singing!
She is a very, very talented singer- a talent that would have been wasted if she had not been born- and she came as a special guest to sing at my old school during an assembly.
Just thought I'd let you know.
Oh and there's also a book about her.
Wow! She sounds so cool. God really wanted her to live. Wow.
Thanks for sharing this wonderful story,
Tra
Interesting. I read up on her story, and it is truly heartwarming. I'm glad she found it in her to forgive her birth mother. [img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img] The fact that she was a third-trimester abortion worked in her favor, as she was, indeed, able to survive outside her mother's body.
I truly wish that abortion did not exist. Those who choose it in lieu of responsible birth control are warped individuals. However, no birth control method, even when administered strictly and responsibly is 100% effective. So I still stand in support of a woman's right to choose.
I agree Dionne. Insurance does not cover birth control, the cycle method doesnt work and refusing your husband most of the nights wont make anyone happy [img]wink.gif[/img] Short of a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied, theres no sure fire way to prevent pregnancy in a marriage that still involves sex. And what if you are trying to have only a certain number of kids? Its nice to think that any child concieved by a couple is a blessing, but what if they cannot afford it? What if it is a burden on the mother physically?
My 4'9 grandmother who back then weighed about 100lbs carried 10 children to full term-one was a still born-and on the last child her uterus said "I QUIT!" and burst. No kidding, it really did. She was unconcious for 2 or 3 weeks and was on her deathbed. Financially they werent bad, but the physcial burden was overwhelming. The same can be related to a very young girl who becomes pregnant. If a girl as young as 10 or 11 is pregnant-and dont say you cant concieve at that age because thats not true, some women can-carrying that fetus full term will more than likely be very harmful. In that case, adoption is not going to do the mother much good if the pregnancy and birth damage her body greatly.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 11, 2005 01:48 AM: Message edited by: *shortie* ]</font>
Thanks. I agree it is heartwarming and I too am glad she found a loving mom to take care of her and that she was able to forgive her birthmother. If she hadn't, she probably wouldn't be able to minister to people the way she does now.
But...IMO "the choice" comes when you have sex. That's the choice you make, because you know that is you have sex you could get pregnant. No birth control is 100% effective. So IMO the choice comes when you have sex, not when you find out you're pregnant. Once you're pregnant, the baby's alreayd there. You ought to make the choice when you have sex. Like, "If my birth control doesn't work, I might get pregnant. Would I be okay with that? If not, I probably shouldn't do this."
I guess its another reason I think you shouldn't do it till you're married.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 11, 2005 12:22 AM: Message edited by: StarTrekCaptain ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">????????????????I guess its another reason I think you shouldn't do it till you're married.
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 11, 2005 12:22 AM: Message edited by: StarTrekCaptain ]</font></font>[/QB]
So if you're married and your birth control fails, it's ok because you're married??? Just because you are married, does not mean that you want children. You should still have a choice.
I totally agree that you shouldn't have sex until you're married. To do otherwise is selfish adn irresponsible. One of the many problems with abortion is that when people have sex before marriage they can just say "oh well, if I get pregnant, I can just have an abortion." and go ahead and have sex.
As for married people, i'm not against birth control for them, but if it fails, then you could give the baby up for adoption. Carrying a baby to term is not going to harm anyone any more than complications from having an abortion would.
If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Simple as that. Easy as knowing that 1+1=2.
As my friend used to say to someone in high school when they said they were pregnant, "they know what causes that now."
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 11, 2005 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Tra ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Im sorry, but this is not true. Yes, abortion can cause serious damage. But it is not a given that it always will. But birth and carrying a baby to full term can also cause major physical problems. A girl not even 13 can become pregnant but she is more than likley not even fully developed and a small pelvis can create many issues in the birthing process. The body is simply not ready.Originally posted by Tra:
Carrying a baby to term is not going to harm anyone any more than complications from having an abortion would.
Giving birth is totally taken advantage of in our modern society. It is still a very dangerous thing. Like I said before, my grandmother's uterous ripped and tore and caused massive internal bleeding during the birth of her final child simply because she had had so many pregnancies that her body could not take it anymore. Many women are warned about not getting pregnant because of the dangers it poses both for themselves and the possible fetus.
A botched abortion can kill you, yes. But a difficult birth can end your life just as easily. Niether are 100% safe.
Most of the time, I will choose to not enter these debates. But when it comes to childbirth information, I may sometimes post to clear up information that seems to me to be scientifically inaccurate.
I disagree that pregnancy and birth are a dangerous proposition. Pregnancy and birth are natural processes that our bodies are designed to do, and there are hundreds of safety back-up measures that are designed into the process. These back-up safety measures are often thwarted and sabotaged by many things that our modern birthing system adds to the process.
I have been a nurse for 30 years, and I have been working in the childbirth field for about 28 years. I can tell you that most complications in childbirth are caused by interventions/routines which have been added to the pregnancy or labor or birth. Most complications do not come from the birth process itself. Most of them come from things like limiting weight gain during pregnancy, giving drugs to induce labor, and adding things during labor like requiring the mother to remain in bed, denying her food and drink, giving her pain medications or epidurals, requiring her to have an IV, requiring her to have electronic fetal monitoring, and giving her drugs to speed up the labor.
A very important factor for determining uterine strength and integrity is eating well during pregnancy. Before pregnancy, the uterus itself weighs 2 oz. At the end of pregnancy, the uterus alone weighs 2 lbs. So during each pregnancy we have to grow 1 lb 14 oz of new uterine muscle tissue.
To do that, pregnant women have to eat 100 gms of protein a day and a minimum of 1700 calories every day--more if she's doing a lot of exercise. Some of that eating goes to growing baby, some of it to growing more blood (the blood volume must increase by about 60% during the pregnancy), and some of it goes to growing more uterine muscle cells. On this kind of diet, women gain an average of 35-45 lbs. Some gain less, and some gain more. But a woman should never, ever artificially eat with the goal of limiting her pregnancy weight gain to a certain number of pounds during the pregnancy. If she does, it's quite likely that she will not grow enough new uterine muscle cells to go through labor and birth in the most optimal manner--in other words, the labor will not go as well as it could have if she had eaten better.
Also, for this reason it is often easier to push out a bigger baby than it is to push out a smaller baby, if the bigger baby (over 8 lb 8 oz) is bigger because the mother ate better, and if the smaller baby (under 7 lb 2oz) is smaller because the mother was limiting her food and weight gain. The mothers who eat better have more uterine muscle cells than the mothers who restrict their weight gain. Having more uterine muscle cells means that you have a bigger, stronger uterine muscle that can do its job more effectively.
It is also true that hundreds of women from communities like the Amish, the Hutterites, and the Mennonites, and some other groups, have had 15-20 pregnancies with no problem. One Russian woman 100-150 yrs ago was called to the Czar's court and given an award for helping to populate Mother Russia, because she had had 69 children. She had had many multiple births, but definitely more than 10 pregnancies.
When your grandmother was giving birth was probably during a time of our history when women were given strict instructions to limit their pregnancy weight gains to 15-25 lbs or less. They were limited to even fewer pounds if they were considered to be overweight when the pregnancy started. And some women restricted their weight gains just on their own, because they were so afraid of having babies that were "too big" or of gaining weight that would be too hard to lose after the pregnancy.
The other thing that was happening a lot during that time was the heavy use of drugs for pain and for inducing or speeding up labors. The drugs for inducing or speeding up labors are the most obvious cause for the rupturing of a uterus, and is almost the only cause for it.
So when you combine the common use of poor nutrition plus the common use of uterine stimulating drugs, you very much compromise the integrity of the uterus, and the likelihood of a uterine rupture is very much increased.
It is possible to dissect almost any complication of pregnancy, labor, or birth in this fashion. There are almost no complications that happen out of the blue on their own without some cause, without someone adding something to that process out of a misguided attempt to make it better somehow.
So I do believe that it is inaccurate to say that the natural process of giving birth, which is something that our bodies are designed to do, is just as risky as having an abortion, which is an artificial, surgical procedure and is not something that our bodies are designed to do on their own.
If you want to ask me more specific questions about how specific complications could be caused by interventions or procedures or routines which are artificially added onto the pregnancy, labor or birth, please email me.
Joy
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/
http://www.mothering.com/
http://www.askdrsears.com/
http://www.blueribbonbaby.org/
http://www.lalecheleague.org/
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 11, 2005 10:10 PM: Message edited by: djsnjones ]</font>
Yes I understand that it is a natural process. But it is still a major one that the body goes through and their can be difficulties. Just because those problems might be brought on by your own choices-being overweight or underweight-does not suddenly discount those problems. Yes I would agree that a woman is more likely to have complications from an abortinon than birth. But it does happen.
My aunt had an emergency c-section because of a tear on the inside and bled internally. She did nothing wrong with her pregnany. My mother-an RN btw who preaches to me about stuff ALL THE TIME, LOL-had to have a c-section with me and my brother because her pelvis was too small and simply uncapable of va-ginal birth. She didnt go into labor until she was nearly a month late and even then after 16hrs of labor she dilated to only 2cm. My brother was a scheduled c-section because they realized she simply couldnt do it. Had that happened at another time when medical science was very primitive she would have died in labor. Ive been told by my doctors that due to my own small size, I will likely face the same complications.
Dont get me wrong, I respect your knowledge and you certainly have much more expierence with it than I do. But you said your self that there are certain complications but wrote them off because they were brought on by the actions of the woman. Well, those are still problems regardless of how they occur. Also, you related many problems in birth to modern problems such as inducing labor, IVs and epidurals. Well how does that explain that huge number of women who died during childbirth before we had those medical options? More women died giving birth before modern science than they do today. That seems inconsistent to me.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 11, 2005 11:38 PM: Message edited by: *shortie* ]</font>
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks