From conception to viability <30% chance

Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say


This paper suggests that there's only about a 30% chance that a fertilized egg properly takes and makes it to a more stable developmental phase some 6 weeks later. After that, survivability increases greatly, even though some severe problems can still come up.

With this in mind, does a claim that a fertilized egg is a human or a citizen hold much weight? Would the religious fundamentalists still hold to the sanctity of conception? Is it sufficient to make it a crime to interfere as early as the first few weeks?

We have morning after pills that will work I think up to 72 hours after conception. If we also had a cheap and responsive test to know if conception had happened in that time, and we paired it with the morning after pill to basically replace a majority of today's abortion, would the pro-life movement accept it as a compromise?

It seems the best and most popular arguments and complaints against abortion focus on late stage frivolous abortions and a well developed potentially viable child.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

re: From conception to viability <30% chance

grainbelt said:

Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say


This paper suggests that there's only about a 30% chance that a fertilized egg properly takes and makes it to a more stable developmental phase some 6 weeks later. After that, survivability increases greatly, even though some severe problems can still come up.

With this in mind, does a claim that a fertilized egg is a human or a citizen hold much weight? Would the religious fundamentalists still hold to the sanctity of conception? Is it sufficient to make it a crime to interfere as early as the first few weeks?

We have morning after pills that will work I think up to 72 hours after conception. If we also had a cheap and responsive test to know if conception had happened in that time, and we paired it with the morning after pill to basically replace a majority of today's abortion, would the pro-life movement accept it as a compromise?

It seems the best and most popular arguments and complaints against abortion focus on late stage frivolous abortions and a well developed potentially viable child.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Speaking as someone who is nominally pro-choice, I find this is a poor argument against the opinion that a fertilized egg should be considered a human person/citizen, simply because it proves too much, grainbelt. If a child is born with a health disorder that gives them a 30% chance of surviving the first few weeks of their lives, would that justify the stripping of their personhood and allowing their parents to euthanize them? Are only healthy children qualified for personhood?

re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Felis Leo said:

Speaking as someone who is nominally pro-choice, I find this is a poor argument against the opinion that a fertilized egg should be considered a human person/citizen, simply because it proves too much, grainbelt. If a child is born with a health disorder that gives them a 30% chance of surviving the first few weeks of their lives, would that justify the stripping of their personhood and allowing their parents to euthanize them? Are only healthy children qualified for personhood?

Click to expand...

You seem to be missing a piece here...why are you comparing a fertilized egg to a child?

You seem to be making the assumption, but that is actually the question the OP asking.

re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Lursa said:

You seem to be missing a piece here...why are you comparing a fertilized egg to a child?

You seem to be making the assumption, but that is actually the question the OP asking.

Click to expand...

He seemed to be making the fact of the low rate of survivability one of the major dispositive factor of whether something should be considered human or not. I certainly consider human life worthy of protection (which a barely-fertilized egg is). What I am saying is that such a principle does not hold up to scrutiny for two reasons. First, if applied to anything else, it would mean that a newly-born child with some severe physical disorder that gives it a survivability chance of 30% within the first six weeks of life after birth would be an argument against the child's personhood. Second, the unspoken corollary to such a principle is that if statistical chances of the fertilized egg's survivability was high, that would be an argument against allowing abortion. I would find that equally nonsensical.

re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Felis Leo said:

He seemed to be making the fact of the low rate of survivability one of the major dispositive factor of whether something should be considered human or not. I certainly consider human life worthy of protection (which a barely-fertilized egg is). What I am saying is that such a principle does not hold up to scrutiny for two reasons. First, if applied to anything else, it would mean that a newly-born child with some severe physical disorder that gives it a survivability chance of 30% within the first six weeks of life after birth would be an argument against the child's personhood. Second, the unspoken corollary to such a principle is that if statistical chances of the fertilized egg's survivability was high, that would be an argument against allowing abortion. I would find that equally nonsensical.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you just expanded on your post but didnt change anything.

IMO my post still stands: why/how are you assuming the unborn would be treated the same as a child?

re: From conception to viability <30% chance

grainbelt said:

It seems the best and most popular arguments and complaints against abortion focus on late stage frivolous abortions and a well developed potentially viable child.

Click to expand...

No. For reasons already clear, conception is the only consistent and safe line that can be drawn to constitute human life. Heartbeat, viability, breathing, independence etc are not safe lines to draw as they have no moral or scientific backing and can easily be replicated by you or anyone else. Your heart can stop beating but you are still entitled to be treated like a person by having medical intervention. The same goes for breathing. The same goes for independence - you may become 100% reliant on medication and surgery to live, that doesn't mean you are any less of a person.

Conception is the only safe and unerring line to be drawn. It was only 60 or so years ago that some people considered Jewishness as an exclusion to person-hood, and the presence of blonde hair and blue eyes as the line at which someone is granted rights. Later on it was the colour of a person's skin that was the standard of personhood. Do we really have to go down this path again?

grainbelt said:

With this in mind, does a claim that a fertilized egg is a human or a citizen hold much weight?

Click to expand...

It doesn't hold weight even without that in mind.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

No. For reasons already clear, conception is the only consistent and safe line that can be drawn to constitute human life.

Click to expand...

So? Since when is science alone a basis for our laws?

Why stop at 'human' life? If you want to go with science, why isnt ALL life sacrosanct and to be protected then?

Please explain?

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Lursa said:

So? Since when is science alone a basis for our laws?

Why stop at 'human' life? If you want to go with science, why isnt ALL life sacrosanct and to be protected then?

Please explain?

Click to expand...

It's not just science. There's also morality to it. Abortion ends a human life. Even ancient societies knew that was wrong. So it's science, morality, and history that provide a strong compass against abortion.

The point you're missing is that if you draw the line of personhood anywhere else besides conception, it opens the law to be interpreted in a whole bunch of dangerous ways. This has already happened with abortions. It used to be "safe, legal, and rare", then the discussion of third-trimester abortions became mainstream, and now we even have discussions around whether or not we should be able to kill babies who are born alive during botched abortions, or whether the mother should still have legal rights to soak it in a bucket of acid even though it is no longer connected to her in any way. The line keeps shifting and if you can't see that, you're doomed to repeat the history of violence it led to in the past.

I agree that all forms of life should be protected by law, within reason. I consider animal cruelty just as detestable as doing the same thing to humans. It's a complete joke that people are found to have intentionally tortured living things and simply get a fine or a few months in jail. You have my support to punish these people with life in prison 100%.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

It's not just science. There's also morality to it. Abortion ends a human life. Even ancient societies knew that was wrong. So it's science, morality, and history that provide a strong compass against abortion.

Click to expand...

Why do I need to repeat this? And societies also have many instances where they respect justifiable killing. Societies decide this.

We kill in war, self-defense, the death penalty, assisted suicide, abortion, pulling the plug, etc. And society may not all be in agreement on all of those, but all have a morality to support them.

I believe it's incredibly immoral to imagine a govt that would force women to remain pregnant against their will. For a society to disrespect a woman's rights to bodily sovereignty and self-determination that much? Horrifically and historically immoral. We have moved beyond treating women like that. I believe it's immoral to value the life of the unborn over any born people's, at least in any manner that would go against the will of the woman.

So, do you have a concrete answer to the questions, "who says, what authority?" Because ancient societies, or current ones, are provably incorrect, since we...and they...have many instances where killing is not considered immoral.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

It's not just science. There's also morality to it. Abortion ends a human life. Even ancient societies knew that was wrong. So it's science, morality, and history that provide a strong compass against abortion.

The point you're missing is that if you draw the line of personhood anywhere else besides conception, it opens the law to be interpreted in a whole bunch of dangerous ways. This has already happened with abortions. It used to be "safe, legal, and rare", then the discussion of third-trimester abortions became mainstream, and now we even have discussions around whether or not we should be able to kill babies who are born alive during botched abortions, or whether the mother should still have legal rights to soak it in a bucket of acid even though it is no longer connected to her in any way. The line keeps shifting and if you can't see that, you're doomed to repeat the history of violence it led to in the past.

I agree that all forms of life should be protected by law, within reason. I consider animal cruelty just as detestable as doing the same thing to humans. It's a complete joke that people are found to have intentionally tortured living things and simply get a fine or a few months in jail. You have my support to punish these people with life in prison 100%.

Click to expand...

What is your source? Attempts at abortion were not uncommon in ancient times.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

I agree that all forms of life should be protected by law, within reason. I consider animal cruelty just as detestable as doing the same thing to humans. It's a complete joke that people are found to have intentionally tortured living things and simply get a fine or a few months in jail. You have my support to punish these people with life in prison 100%.

Click to expand...

And here you demonstrate the subjectivity of 'your' claim. "within reason."

Who ever said it's reasonable to violate a woman's bodily sovereignty and self-determination thru laws forcing her to remain pregnant against her will? How do you justify doing that in order to provide the exact same things for the unborn? Why is the unborn more deserving of those things than her?

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

The point you're missing is that if you draw the line of personhood anywhere else besides conception, it opens the law to be interpreted in a whole bunch of dangerous ways. This has already happened with abortions. It used to be "safe, legal, and rare", then the discussion of third-trimester abortions became mainstream, and now we even have discussions around whether or not we should be able to kill babies who are born alive during botched abortions, or whether the mother should still have legal rights to soak it in a bucket of acid even though it is no longer connected to her in any way. The line keeps shifting and if you can't see that, you're doomed to repeat the history of violence it led to in the past.

Click to expand...

Please show where people are talking in favour of that.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Lursa said:

Why do I need to repeat this? And societies also have many instances where they respect justifiable killing. Societies decide this.

We kill in war, self-defense, the death penalty, assisted suicide, abortion, pulling the plug, etc. And society may not all be in agreement on all of those, but all have a morality to support them.

Click to expand...

Yes, societies will sometimes decide if killing is OK. But throughout history, we've gotten it wrong more times than we've gotten it right. In fact, we've gotten it so, so embarrassingly wrong in very recent times. The examples you mentioned all have one thing in common - they are conceptually consensual. People who go to war know that they will be killed. People who attack others are implicitly giving others consent to attack them in return. Assisted suicide usually involves agreement with the dying person. The death penalty is a punishment for a heinous crime that someone knowingly and willingly committed. In all of these cases, there is implicit permission of the dying person to be killed. This is not true for abortion - it kills an innocent, unwilling human.

I believe it's incredibly immoral to imagine a govt that would force women to remain pregnant against their will. For a society to disrespect a woman's rights to bodily sovereignty and self-determination that much?

Click to expand...

Nobody is robbing you of bodily sovereignty. You have the right and ability to refrain from sex. There are countless forms of birth control available if you can't do that. If women knowingly cross those 2 safety nets, there's still no guarantee that they'll become pregnant. If they do, they need to carry the human life that they've created. You'd have my complete sympathy if women were chosen at random to become pregnant, but this isn't the case. Pregnancy is consensual in 99.5% of cases.

I believe it's immoral to value the life of the unborn over any born people's.

Click to expand...

How do you expect a society to function with dignity and justice if we can't even value our most innocent and pure? If we can kill a human that hasn't even done anything wrong, I'd hate to see what we do to humans who havedone something wrong. No wonder the world is in constant bloodshed.

Also, nobody is valuing the life of the unborn over the mother. In most cases, a pregnancy can be carried to birth with the mother being unharmed. Both her and the child get to live. We also have countless social benefits to set up to making pregnancy easier for women - medication, parental welfare, maternity accessories, etc. Nobody is making women's lives less enjoyable than the unborn. The fetus is not having a party in there, so no, by keeping it alive, we are not putting its life above the life of the mother. We are putting them equally.

So, do you have a concrete answer to the questions, "who says, what authority?" Because ancient societies, or current ones, are provably incorrect, since we...and they...have many instances where killing is not considered immoral.

Click to expand...

To answer this - neither you or I have any proven and divine authority to say that killing is either right or wrong. We both take our positions based on limited evidence and personal beliefs, so neither of us can win this argument by appealing to authority.

If God isn't real, and humans are prone to error and oversight, then who's to say that anything is wrong? We don't know anything for sure. But what we do know is that the world contains much less heartache, pain, and agony if we respect human life. Conversely, as history has shown, if we do not respect human life, we are left with social, economic and political upheaval. These are not favorable conditions for a society to live in. Societies are simply better and more prosperous if they don't kill humans against their will.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

....

If God isn't real, and humans are prone to error and oversight, then who's to say that anything is wrong? We don't know anything for sure. But what we do know is that the world contains much less heartache, pain, and agony if we respect human life. Conversely, as history has shown, if we do not respect human life, we are left with social, economic and political upheaval. These are not favorable conditions for a society to live in. Societies are simply better and more prosperous if they don't kill humans against their will.

Click to expand...

If you believe is God real, and yes I too sincerely believe that God real why do you not believe in the moral agency of the woman and her soul competency ?

Why do not believe that abortions are sometimes a part of God’s plan just as miscarriages are a part of Gods plan ?

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

It's not just science. There's also morality to it. Abortion ends a human life. Even ancient societies knew that was wrong. So it's science, morality, and history that provide a strong compass against abortion.

The point you're missing is that if you draw the line of personhood anywhere else besides conception, it opens the law to be interpreted in a whole bunch of dangerous ways. This has already happened with abortions. It used to be "safe, legal, and rare", then the discussion of third-trimester abortions became mainstream, and now we even have discussions around whether or not we should be able to kill babies who are born alive during botched abortions, or whether the mother should still have legal rights to soak it in a bucket of acid even though it is no longer connected to her in any way. The line keeps shifting and if you can't see that, you're doomed to repeat the history of violence it led to in the past.

I agree that all forms of life should be protected by law, within reason. I consider animal cruelty just as detestable as doing the same thing to humans. It's a complete joke that people are found to have intentionally tortured living things and simply get a fine or a few months in jail. You have my support to punish these people with life in prison 100%.

Click to expand...

Third trimester abortions became mainstream because the pro-lifers made it an issue.

Ask yourself why they are done.

Let me tell you what happened to my neighbor years ago and I will let you pass judgement.

The family next door was deliriously happy about having a second child. One day it was clear their demeanor changed. They had gotten reports back about the fetus having Tay-Sachs. Then she had her ultrasound. The fetus had overwhelming heart defects. We did not see them for several weeks. When we saw them again she was no longer pregnant.

Given the catastrophic heart defects and tay sachs….the baby would only suffer for the few days after birth he would have lived.
If you found out about the mother having an abortion, how would you feel? Compassion or contempt for the family?

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

It's not just science. There's also morality to it. Abortion ends a human life. Even ancient societies knew that was wrong. So it's science, morality, and history that provide a strong compass against abortion.

The point you're missing is that if you draw the line of personhood anywhere else besides conception, it opens the law to be interpreted in a whole bunch of dangerous ways. This has already happened with abortions. It used to be "safe, legal, and rare", then the discussion of third-trimester abortions became mainstream, and now we even have discussions around whether or not we should be able to kill babies who are born alive during botched abortions, or whether the mother should still have legal rights to soak it in a bucket of acid even though it is no longer connected to her in any way. The line keeps shifting and if you can't see that, you're doomed to repeat the history of violence it led to in the past.

I agree that all forms of life should be protected by law, within reason. I consider animal cruelty just as detestable as doing the same thing to humans. It's a complete joke that people are found to have intentionally tortured living things and simply get a fine or a few months in jail. You have my support to punish these people with life in prison 100%.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a credible source for your ancient times comment?
Abortion was not uncommon in "ancient times"

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

............ and now we even have discussions around whether or not we should be able to kill babies who are born alive during botched abortions, or whether the mother should still have legal rights to soak it in a bucket of acid even though it is no longer connected to her in any way.

Click to expand...

We don't actually have discussions about killing born alive babies of botched abortions etc. We have knowledgable and literate people trying to inform the raving mental midgets that doctors in legal clinics and hospitals are not killing born alive babies because:

*there are laws against infanticide
*abortion clinics do not handle late term abortions.
*the one doctor that illegally killed a born alive baby in his "clinic" is in jail for the rest of his life
*the law passed in NY but not passed in VA does not permit doctors to kill born alive babies
*the governor of VA was not advocating killing born alive babies.
*Abby Johnson is a proven liar.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

year2late said:

Can you provide a credible source for your ancient times comment?
Abortion was not uncommon in "ancient times"

Click to expand...

Abortion is the second oldest profession

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

Also, nobody is valuing the life of the unborn over the mother. In most cases, a pregnancy can be carried to birth with the mother being unharmed. Both her and the child get to live. We also have countless social benefits to set up to making pregnancy easier for women - medication, parental welfare, maternity accessories, etc. Nobody is making women's lives less enjoyable than the unborn. The fetus is not having a party in there, so no, by keeping it alive, we are not putting its life above the life of the mother. We are putting them equally.

Click to expand...

Oh crap! Another male telling women how simple and easy it is to go through a pregnancy, hormonal changes, birthing, C-sections, adopting out, drying up lactation, ending bonding, healing an episiotomy or a C-section in order to avoid early term abortion. And on top of all that endure some male's smarmy and maudlin hypocrisy about how he is saving an innocent human life.

I believe in heaven for the sole purpose of having a hell for men who think they have a right to manage women's reproductive lives.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

Nobody is robbing you of bodily sovereignty. You have the right and ability to refrain from sex. There are countless forms of birth control available if you can't do that. If women knowingly cross those 2 safety nets, there's still no guarantee that they'll become pregnant. If they do, they need to carry the human life that they've created.

How do you expect a society to function with dignity and justice if we can't even value our most innocent and pure?

We don't know anything for sure. But what we do know is that the world contains much less heartache, pain, and agony if we respect human life.

Click to expand...

This is the same man that refuses to use a condom and demands the right to opt-out of child support.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

minnie616 said:

If you believe is God real, and yes I too sincerely believe that God real why do you not believe in the moral agency of the woman and her soul competency ?

Why do not believe that abortions are sometimes a part of God’s plan just as miscarriages are a part of Gods plan ?

Click to expand...

You can't kill someone by your own hand and then claim it was God's plan. That's not how it works. Legally and religiously, the term "act of God" referred to something that happened uncontrollably or randomly.

My God was renowned for washing the feet of societies poorest and most desolate people, as well as carrying sick and incapable on his back. I do the same. I see value in a soul regardless of the clothes they wear, their car, their money, their job title, their gender, their size, or even their health or physical development.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

weaver2 said:

Oh crap! Another male telling women how simple and easy it is to go through a pregnancy, hormonal changes, birthing, C-sections, adopting out, drying up lactation, ending bonding, healing an episiotomy or a C-section in order to avoid early term abortion. And on top of all that endure some male's smarmy and maudlin hypocrisy about how he is saving an innocent human life.

I believe in heaven for the sole purpose of having a hell for men who think they have a right to manage women's reproductive lives.

Click to expand...

:doh it's not me or other men telling women about pregnancy. It's medical science. The human body was designed to bear children and in most cases it can do so without any long-term harm or danger to the mother. This ridiculous lie about pro-lifers wanting to sentence women to death is the strawman of all strawmans. It's a blatant lie and an appeal to irrational hysteria. Nobody is putting the child's life ahead of the mother's. We're simply putting it on the same level as the mother. It's a shame you find that so repulsive.

Secondly, stop making this about gender. Most women in the world are against abortion. In the US, men and women have similar views on abortion. In some cases women are actually more likely to be pro-life than men are. You can see that here, here and here. So no - it's not men who are standing in your way. Stop playing the vagina card. Even if we did leave it down to women only, you'd lose on a global scale and have just as many barriers locally.

Plus, we all know you are happy to take a man's advice if he agrees with you on this issue, so don't pretend like you are repulsed at men having a say. It's total trash and you know it.

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

:doh it's not me or other men telling women about pregnancy. It's medical science. The human body was designed to bear children and in most cases it can do so without any long-term harm or danger to the mother. This ridiculous lie about pro-lifers wanting to sentence women to death is the strawman of all strawmans. It's a blatant lie and an appeal to irrational hysteria. Nobody is putting the child's life ahead of the mother's. We're simply putting it on the same level as the mother. It's a shame you find that so repulsive.

Secondly, stop making this about gender. Most women in the world are against abortion. In the US, men and women have similar views on abortion. In some cases women are actually more likely to be pro-life than men are. You can see that here, here and here. So no - it's not men who are standing in your way. Stop playing the vagina card. Even if we did leave it down to women only, you'd lose on a global scale and have just as many barriers locally.

Plus, we all know you are happy to take a man's advice if he agrees with you on this issue, so don't pretend like you are repulsed at men having a say. It's total trash and you know it.

Click to expand...

Damage to a HEALTHY woman's body frequently enough to give me pause.

I am curious, what group of women are most apt to abort?

Those with poor personal, social, medical, and financial resources.

I am alive with functioning kidneys because I had great resources. I had a great medical insurance that allowed me to see a OBGYN with experience and time to treat me as an individual. He saw subtle signs that caused further investigation. I was off work due to pregnancy related complications for nearly 6 months.

BTW, pregnancy related deaths are on the rise

Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System | Maternal and Infant Health | CDC

As are complications

Data on Pregnancy Complications | Pregnancy | Maternal and Infant Health | CDC


And it should go without saying that depending on her employment, she may not be able to work for part of her pregnancy - even if she has NO complications. When you do not work and pay your bills....what do you think happens>

Re: From conception to viability <30% chance

Crusader13 said:

You can't kill someone by your own hand and then claim it was God's plan. That's not how it works. Legally and religiously, the term "act of God" referred to something that happened uncontrollably or randomly.

My God was renowned for washing the feet of societies poorest and most desolate people, as well as carrying sick and incapable on his back. I do the same. I see value in a soul regardless of the clothes they wear, their car, their money, their job title, their gender, their size, or even their health or physical development.

Click to expand...

I disagree I sincerely believe that abortions are a part of God’s plan.

He has committed far more abortions than woman have. About two thirds of all feterlized human eggs are spontaneously aborted within the first few weeks of firtization. Most before they they even had a chance of implanting or within the first week of implantation.

Another 15 to 20 percent of pregnancies spontaneously abort ( miscarry ) after the woman is aware she is pregnant.

********

I sincerely believe that zygotes/embryos/fetuses that are miscarried or aborted are just the shells that a soul enters into at birth.
About two thirds of zygotes ( fertilized eggs ) are never implanted or self abort about the first week after implanting.
It does not matter that they had "unique" DNA.
They passed right though the body.


I had two miscarriages. my second one was a very deformed fetus.
If I had not had those two miscarriages my two youngest might never have been born
because my husband and I had wanted and planned for 4 children.

God sometimes works in very mysterious ways.
Sometimes things are not meant to be.
We have no idea if sometimes abortions are a part of God's plan
just as miscarriages may sometimes be a part of God's plan.

I had two miscarriages between my 2 ed and 3rd child.
The first miscarriage was early on. I was about 5 to 6 weeks gestation.
If I had carried to term the due date would have been in March.
During my 4th pregnancy I went into premature labor when I was about 5 months gestation.
I was looking forward to a healthy baby.

My doctor was out of town so when I went into early labor we ended up at the ER.
They took a pregnancy test and told me I was no longer pregnant.
The doctor covering for my doctor did not want to come in that day so they shot me full of med's to try to stop the labor.
They took me to the maternity ward with other woman who had given birth to healthy babies.
When I was transferring from the gurney to the bed the fetus was expelled and I accidentally saw it and how deformed it was.

My doctor told me that the fetus was so deformed that even if I had carried it longer it never would have been viable .
If it had been a healthy pregnancy and I had carried it to term my due date would have been in November.

A little more than year later I learned I was pregnant again.
I was very worried I might miscarry again.
I had been irregular so the doctor sent me for an ultrasound to monitor how far along I was and if everything looked normal.
I was told my due date was the end of January.
I had some false labor mid January ,went to the hospital and I was sent back home.
I had false labor again the end of January but it stopped so the doctor ordered meds to induce the labor.
The contractions were coming too hard and too fast. They were worried about the baby so
they stopped it.
My doctor ordered fetal activity tests 2 times a week for the next 4 weeks.
To make a long story shorter our "Miracle" child was born March 2 ed.
Two and half years later our youngest was born in November.

March and November ... God chose the same months my miscarried ones were due.