Nebraska woman declared brain dead, 54 days later her son was born

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Katy Glover

As Karla Perez lay brain dead in the hospital, her grieving parents stretched their hands toward her growing stomach. The outline of their unborn grandchild’s feet pressed against their daughter’s skin.

Baby Angel was still kicking.

Perez was 22 weeks pregnant when she collapsed at her Waterloo, Nebraska, home in February. An ambulance rushed her to the hospital: She had suffered a catastrophic brain bleed.

Blood rushed into her brain tissue and the space around it. Her brain swelled. Doctors at Methodist Hospital in Omaha could not surgically or medically alleviate the pressure on her brain, and Perez was later declared brain dead.

FULL story at link.



Angel Perez

Read more: http://www.livewellnebraska.com/health/nebraska-woman-declared-brain-dead-days-later-her-son-was/article_9c9aa42e-ef8e-11e4-a274-1f2fe3082a89.html

[840high]

1. Thank you dear god. Precious.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Yeah, god's a real peach, giving that child's mom an aneurism.

I suppose the life support technology and medical staff stood aside and let god drive, too.

[phleshdef]

6. I don't believe in that shit either... but do you really have to go out of your way...

...to ridicule someone who does and expressed it in a way that was completely harmless?

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I don't agree that it is harmless.

At the least, people worked hard to save that child, and the mother as well. I find it insulting when the praise is given to a hypothetical 3rd party.

Be nice to see giving credit where it is due, become a common expression in the american lexicon.

[phleshdef]

8. You finding it insulting isn't actually harming anyone.

Atheists like you give ones like me a bad name though. I find that insulting.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Sorry I can't be a carbon copy of you.

I find apathy insulting too.

[phleshdef]

10. Who said for you to be a carbon copy of anyone?

I don't think "don't act like an asshole to someone who hasn't done anything particularly wrong" to be an unreasonable suggestion and it certainly isn't a request to be a "carbon copy".

People like you hurt important causes where religious encroachment is a real issue by ripping into someone over such a petty reason.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Would you say 'thank god' to the father, without knowing his views on religion?

What about to a surgeon that spent hours trying to save someone?

Why risk saying something like that to a victim, or robbing someone who ground away at the problem with everything they have for hours? Which is acting like an asshole?

Hell, this isn't even specifically an atheistic position, many religions don't believe in intercessory actions by a god.

[phleshdef]

12. Its a regular expression people use. I even use it once in awhile out of childhood habit.

And no one is trying to take credit away from medical professionals or anyone else who does good work by saying "thank god". Thats all in your intolerant head.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I layered on the sarcasm a bit but

Is there actually anything wrong with this article?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/24/instead-of-thanking-god-lets-hear-it-for-the-doctors/

[phleshdef]

14. I think we should pick our battles wisely and thats an unwise choice of a battle.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. If no one will fight it, when will it change?

Why is it so hard to look another human in the eyes and say

Thank you.

[phleshdef]

16. "Why is it so hard to look another human in the eyes and say Thank You"

Um, people do that all the time. Christians, atheists, whatever. My grandmother who is highly religious and also one of the most perfect examples of a decent human being I've ever known thanks God for everything, including her doctors and her medicines. She is always very grateful towards her doctors in person for what they do for her and she is the kind of person to say "I thank God for you". It might be silly and of course I don't believe in any of it. But its fine. Its not a big deal. A lot of those doctors are religious as well and even the ones that aren't take no offense at religious patients.

This isn't something that "needs" to change.

We should be focusing our energies towards those who try to use religion as an excuse to abuse people, discriminate against people and do things that are otherwise examples of palpable harm.

[baran]

21. +1,000!!! nt

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Why the presumptuous need to proselytize along with it?

Because let's be clear, that phrase IS proselytizing. Orrex thought of an effective way to flip it around, to illustrate the problem downthread, so I'm not going to reinvent the wheel on that.

That phrase could add grief and misery to the situation, not only for nonbelievers, but also for several types of believer that does not recognize a god that might intervene in our lives directly.

There's also an implicit 'the baby was worth intervening, mom was not' that goes along with it. It's unavoidable.

[phleshdef]

35. No, proselytizing is a lot more involved.

I reject that premise entirely.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. I disagree.

[Orrex]

38. One can as readily reject your premise that it's completely harmless.

Since you've demonstrated that you believe yourself to have the authority to declare what makes a "good" atheist, I have to ask who the hell you are to declare that a presumptuous invocation of God is indeed harmless.

[phleshdef]

39. I love when someone has an opinion that someone else doesn't agree with...

...the other person accuses them of "believing themself to have the authority over x".

Basically, I'm ignoring everything you said after that point because thats absolute bullshit to begin with. Try again.

[Orrex]

40. Declaring it bullshit does not make it so, though you do seem an expert at dispensing bullshit.

You have explicitly presumed to judge what makes a "good" atheist. I'm asking you to explain why you flatter yourself to have this authority. Your failure to do so confirms that you have no such authority.

The fact that you are willing to tolerate an offensive statement of religious witnessing does not make you a good atheist, or a good anything. It means that you give greater priority to the feelings of the witness than to those of the victim. That's cruel and preposterous insensitivity in service of religious dogma.

You will likely dismiss this again, which surprises me not at all. Your posts in this thread and elsewhere indicate that you are unable to support your bullshit.


You are boring and unsurprising.

[phleshdef]

41. "tolerate an offensive statement of religious witnessing"

Theres nothing offensive about what the poster said. Again, if someone saying "thank god" when something good happens offends you, you need to get out more.

There are real issues of religious overreach that atheists should focus our time on. Taking petty snipes at an anonymous person on the internet for saying "Thank God, a baby survived" is not one of them and anyone with an ounce of decency, common sense and balanced priorities can see that.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to be an asshole to anyone that dares to be religious. That is no different than the intolerance that comes from the religious right. You aren't making things better, you're just attacking someone for no reason other than the mention of god made your poor little butt all hurt. That kind of thin skinned, petty bullshit should be called out for what it is and I did so and will continue to do so and you'll have to live with that.

[Orrex]

42. If I told a mourning religionist "there is no god, and your beloved rots in the ground"

How do you suppose that the person would respond? Because it's exactly the same.

Your presumption to decide for others what is and is not offensive does not make it so. It makes you a preachy blowhard. And a liar as well, now that you mention it.

The statement was not "Thank God, a baby survived."

The statement was "Thank you dear god," which is very different.

Also, the fact that this one statement may have been offered as a sort of lazy offhand idiom is not relevant, because it's merely a symptom of the actual problem: as I noted elsewhere, there is a widespread assumption that we should accept such bullshit religious name-dropping "in the intended spirit." That's simply another way of saying "Allow me to use your suffering as an opportunity to make a public declaration of faith and fuck your beliefs and feelings."

What you petulantly dismiss as "butt-hurt" is in fact a pervasive and nearly constant reminder that my failure to embrace bronze age mythology makes me an outsider. I hear it in the workplace, I hear it in public, I hear it from family members, I see it online constantly, and even my children have to endure it in grade school. You pretend that it's an innocent statement of goodwill, and if you truly live in such a simplistic, rose-colored world then I hope that you never have to deal with reality.

I'm sure that you don't see it this way, but you can stuff it up whichever of your orifices you find most accessible, assuming there's still room in there along with your head.

[phleshdef]

47. "Because it's exactly the same. ".. no, it isn't, not even close.

But hey, if you want to continue being all sociopathic about people who don't feel the same way you do, I can't stop you.

[Orrex]

53. You simply don't know how to argue a point

Every one of your posts is a series of insults and declarations with nothing to back them up but your grossly inflated sense of self-importance.

You have no ability to see outside of your own assumptions, and you decide that I'm a sociopath because my experience doesn't match yours.

Done with you and your preachy blowhard bullshit. If I had any sense, I'd have been done with you yesterday.

[KittyWampus]

62. Why would you want to point to a rotting corpse as opposed to offering condolences and

appreciating the memory of the deceased?

Thank You dear god= gratitude.

That you need to twist that into a pretzel makes it quite likely you have some work to do to shore up a weak philosophical foundation. Or you need to maybe brush on social skills?

People who are secure in their world view don't need to project hostility on to others like that and make a statement of gratitude into an expression of any other sentiment.

[Orrex]

68. If you seriously believe that, then you're not worth reading.

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Why would you want to point to a rotting corpse as opposed to offering condolences and appreciating the memory of the deceased?

Why would you force me to give someone else's bronze age mythology greater importance than my own present-day grief? Because that's exactly what's going on. "Thank god," and "she's in a better place" and "God has a plan" and all the rest are recitations of religious belief that have absolutely zero meaning for me and give no comfort.

Since I don't embrace bronze age mythology, such a statement is worthless because:
You either believe it, in which case I don't want to hear about it. Or
You're wrong, in which case I don't want to hear about it. Or
You're lying, in which case I don't want to hear about it. Or
You're crazy, in which case I don't want to hear about it.

It's not about making the religionist feel better. It's about comforting the mourner. Why must a religionist subordinate the non-religious mourner's views by injecting an unwelcome religious sentiment? Why is it not simply sufficient to offer a statement of human compassion unburdened by out-of-place religious baggage? If someone says that to me, it explicitly means that they don't give a shit about my beliefs. If I give you an ugly gift, are you required to display it in your living room in perpetuity, simply because I meant well? Bullshit!

The presumption of religious belief is ubiquitous. An insidious, pervasive, and constant reminder that I, as an atheist, am not part of "the group." It is everywhere. Online, in the media, in casual conversation, in public schools, in libraries, on public buildings, on money, and the list goes on.

Please, convince me that I'm wrong. Appealing to the speaker's "intent" is not sufficient. For instance, if I use the word "bitch" as an idiom of affection, many here would find it offensive. Convince them that they're wrong, because it's the same thing.

People who are secure in their world view don't need to project hostility on to others like that and make a statement of gratitude into an expression of any other sentiment.

That is absolute 100% bullshit. If what you say is true, then we would never see posts about sexist or racist microaggressions; according to you, women and people of color who object to such statements are simply "projecting hostility."

I am not "projecting hostility." I am calling out a microaggression.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. You're not very consistent.

"Theres nothing offensive about what the poster said. Again, if someone saying "thank god" when something good happens offends you, you need to get out more. "

after

"phleshdef (9,694 posts)

39. I love when someone has an opinion that someone else doesn't agree with......the other person accuses them of "believing themself to have the authority over x". "

If not some sort of authority on anything, on what basis do you instruct/presume someone to 'get out more'?

[phleshdef]

48. Telling someone they need to get out more is not the same as accusing them of presumptive authority.

You don't need to be a fucking authority on anything to realize that "thank god" shouldn't be something that you attack some anonymous poster on the Internet for. You just need to be sane and have a little common sense and a little sense of decency. No authority on anything required.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Well, it's a good thing I didn't do that then.

There is not a word in post 4 that attacks the person who said 'thank god'. Not a single word. Attacking a concept someone just referred to, is not a personal attack upon the person who said it, unless you are suggesting that poster IS god.

Funny you can't discriminate between attacking an idea, and attacking the person who voiced it.

Why is that?

And here you are, suggesting that If I was sane, had common sense, and decency, I wouldn't have done the thing you just imagined I did. Fascinating. I have encountered believers that internalized criticism of god as personal criticism of them, themselves, but never an atheist that interpreted criticism of god as a personal attack on the believer him or herself.

[KittyWampus]

63. And you aren't very good at grasping other people's intent nor their world view.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. pleshdef presumed to tell others

They need to get out more.
That what they said (to a believer, which he is not) is insulting.
That I 'give atheists a bad name'.

Etc.

None of that was sourced, so he is actually asserting him or herself as the authority.

[KittyWampus]

60. Here, I'll help explain what makes a good atheist. Having the capacity to make a decent

philosophical argument while being familiar with other's basic philosophies.

After all, if you're going to attack someone for thanking god (read- being grateful) for a child's survival, one SHOULD have a philosophical understanding of what the person thanking god is actually saying. Otherwise, you're just a kneejerk, reactionary loudmouth.

After many years I've realized that many atheists posting on DU simply rejected the somewhat simplistic philosophical tenets of exoteric religion as youngsters and never bothered to do much in the way of philosophical exploration. They essentially threw the baby out with the bath water. This explains their rather unthinking and emotional outbursts.

When you don't have a solid philosophical foundation to argue from you resort to empty-minded rhetoric.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. You don't know anything about either of us.

You have NO IDEA how much of my life has been spent digging into all aspects of philosophy. Not a clue. Certainly not based upon just this thread.

"After all, if you're going to attack someone for thanking god "

Let me stop you right there. Neither Orrex nor myself attacked 840high. We attacked an idea he or she expressed. I'd expect someone hurf durfing as much as you have about others not grasping philosophy, to have the chops to pick up on that simple point.

[Orrex]

69. Who the hell are you?

Here, I'll help explain what makes a good atheist. Having the capacity to make a decent philosophical argument while being familiar with other's basic philosophies.

Bullshit. I will go toe-to-toe on matters of theology against any Christian I know IRL. Having done so many times, I can tell you that I know that shit better than they do.

Further, religionists are more than happy to argue against science from a stance of pure ignorance, so don't preach to me about "others' basic philosophies." Go after those assholes, because in the grand scheme they're a hell of a lot more damaging than one atheist who doesn't give a shit about The Good News.

After many years I've realized that many atheists posting on DU simply rejected the somewhat simplistic philosophical tenets of exoteric religion as youngsters and never bothered to do much in the way of philosophical exploration.

Since that has nothing to do with me, there is no need to reply to your patronizing, preachy bullshit. Take your strawman objection to the atheists to whom it applies.

They essentially threw the baby out with the bath water. This explains their rather unthinking and emotional outbursts.

That's a bullshit dismissal of an issue that, having read your posts over many years, reveals once again your failure to understand what you're talking about.


And anyway, I have no fucking obligation to understand or study someone else's mythology. Why the fuck should I? Especially when they make it clear that they don't give a shit about mine?

[840high]

17. I am a nurse and fully

understood the great work done by the medical team. That did not stop me from thanking God.

[phleshdef]

19. Yea, I was pretty sure you weren't detracting from any person involved.

I believe the person I'm arguing with just has too much of a chip on their shoulder towards those who believe differently from them. I'm an atheist, but thanking god for something good is like one of the LEAST offensive things we hear people in this world say.

[840high]

20. Thanks

[Orrex]

24. If someone said that to me, as the father in that circumstance...

I would look them in the eye and tell them to go fuck themselves.

The widespread assumption that people must always be happy to hear the Good News is an offensive load of shit. I don't even see a convincing reason why people should be required to "accept it in the intended spirit," as we are generally told to do. The feelings of the mourning survivor should be given first priority; it is not the time to proselytize.

If your loved one just died, and I told you that "the universe is a cold, uncaring void, and death is the end of consciousness and identity," how would you react? Would you thank me for ignoring your feelings and forcing you to endure my sentiment?

[haikugal]

26. Thank You Orrex!

Damn, when will people understand?!

[HERVEPA]

30. Very well said.

This hypothetical god killed the mother, then for kicks saved the baby. How whimsical of him or her.

[KittyWampus]

64. actually, the aneurism killed the mother. Unless you believe in the childish version of god

as puppet master.

Which is sadly the case with most atheists and why I seldom identify as one.

Many atheists rejected a simplistic version of exoteric religion as youngsters and never bothered exploring philosophy any further.

Thus, their reactions are based on emotion and not understanding.

[HERVEPA]

65. Thanks for the lecture. I bow to your superior intellect.

[Comrade Grumpy]

43. And you would be a real asshole.

You know, I'm not a believer, either, but I don't believe in being a jerk about it.

[Orrex]

44. But you're happy to be a jerk about other things.

Got it.

[phleshdef]

49. Thanks, I'm glad someone can see this like I do.

If a believer isn't being a dick to me or others, I won't be a dick to them. Who gives a shit? Most of the country believes in some sky fairy. Thats no reason to ridicule someone in this day and time. These kinda folks do nothing but give credence to the idea that atheists want to take away religious freedom and silence religious people and all that kinda bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Which god(s,es,esses), and thanking him/her/them for what, precisely?

[840high]

18. Thank you. It's OK

I felt his comment was not necessary. I found the story joyous and he did not focus on the joy of that baby.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. It was your atheist-based scientism that effectively

starved that poor, physically-healthy, young woman, Terri Schiavo, a few years ago, to a death worthy of Belsen, ignoring the protestations of her parents, on the spurious grounds that she was brain dead, while mind/brain duality has now been empirically-proven to be the reality.The mind is not coterminous with the brain. Moreover, it was very evident from photographs that her emotional intelligence was 100%, and she had more of that than in her little finger than all her 'euthanasers', combined.

Read the second piece and weep : Medical Evidence for Near Death Experiences : A Reply to Shermer by Pim van Lommel

http://science-spirituality.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Mysticism

[AtheistCrusader]

25. I can't tell if this is over the top satire, or if you're serious. help me out here.

[haikugal]

28. It's over the top, no question... nt

[niyad]

70. either you forgot the sarcasm icon, or you are posting on the wrong board.

[StevieM]

74. Some of us just hate the sarcasm icon. To me it just defeats the whole purpose of being sarcastic.

But yes, the poster was definitely not serious.

[KittyWampus]

58. Ah, Atheist Crusader. LOL. The concept is god helps us bear our burdens not so much

that he removes them entirely or runs our lives like a puppet master.

While I technically qualify as an atheist (and occasionally also a pantheist) I came to my philosophical positions after exploration and doing my best to understand various viewpoints.

You might try doing some yourself. Your commentary often makes atheists seem so philosophically backwards, rude and hostile.

In short, comments such as yours give atheists a bad name.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Thanks for your input.

Especially the smear that I don't spend effort exploring or understanding other viewpoints. Thanks for that.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. How good they were able to save his life...

Well done, everybody!

I hope he will continue to thrive.

[secondwind]

3. Welcome to this crazy world, Angel. Your mom gave you the greatest gift.. Life. Use it wisely.

Look at all that hair! he's adorable. His family will shower him with love, for sure.

[jwirr]

5. Very interesting. I was not aware that this was even possible.

[Nihil]

22. That's a lovely result of a terrible situation but ...

... it's going to confuse the sh*t out of genealogists in that child's future ...

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

32. Maybe it's just me, but I find this situation very macabre and creepy

Who decided to keep the woman medically alive? Was it her family, her partner or the doctors? I feel her life was reduced to that of an incubator for the sole purpose of gestating longer so the child could be born not as premature as possible, but it still feels creepy.

Once again, a woman's worth is in her uterus, it appears. There is no mention of a partner, so I also wonder who will be taking care of this child who will probably have some lifelong issues.

I would like to know more about whose decision this was.

[christx30]

33. If it's not possible to save one,

it's preferable to save one rather than let both die.
I probably would have made the same call if it were my wife in that bed. And when I showed her the story, she said as much. At least give the child a chance at life.

[geek tragedy]

34. Hopefully it was done in accordance with what the mother would have wanted nt

[joshcryer]

50. +1

I don't have a problem with this as long as proper wishes were carried out. She was also an organ donor.

[LisaL]

51. Obviously not yours.

[niyad]

71. did you read the article at the link? definitely creepy.

[skeewee08]

37. Thank you Jesus!!! Thanks to all the Dr's and Nurses!!!!!!

Baby Angel is truly a blessing!!!

[blackspade]

46. What a train wreck.

It's awesome that they were able to keep the mother 'alive' long enough for the birth.
That truly is a credit to the medical community.
However, keeping the mother alive as an incubator has negative ethical issues written all over it.

[Ilsa]

52. Oh yeah. Including eventually

Forcing women into near-braindead status to make incubators out of them.

You never know...

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Happened in texas recently.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-family-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-sue-article-1.1575444

[LisaL]

57. Nobody forced TX woman into a brain dead status. She became brain dead for medical reasons.

So, no, it didn't happen in TX recently.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. I misread that poster's point.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[LisaL]

56. Team of 100 people took care of this woman, and only managed to extend her pregnancy for less than 2

months. A brain dead pregnant woman doesn't really make for a good incubator.
So I really doubt it's gonna be a thing.

[Yo_Mama]

73. What are they??

People sign cards to donate their organs to others to help them live after they are dead. This baby was desired and wanted.

Do you really believe the mother would have said "No" if she had known before that this could happen??

It wasn't a choice between the baby's life or the mother's - the only choice was trying to keep the baby alive after the mother suffered brain death.

[mainer]

72. Thank you, doctors and nurses.

We mustn't forget how much is due to the sheer humanity of people who want to save a life. This was a wanted baby, by both the dead mother and her family. A birth that must be celebrated.

This has nothing to do with God.