I have so many conflicting feelings about this subject that I can't even begin to express myself right now.
-pH
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I find amniocentesis done for the purpose of deciding whether to abort babies that *might* have defects very disturbing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I can't imagine *any* instance under which I would abort a baby except, maybe, if I were certain to die otherwise. Even then it would be a hard choice. Any prenatal test I have done are to allow myself time to "get used" to the idea of health problems in a child. Same way I find out the sex of the child ahead of time so I can "get used" to the idea of it being a boy or girl.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I read recently that 80%-90% of couples who find out that their baby will have Down's Syndrome choose to abort. In Time magazine, I think. That was so disturbing to me. I know people who will argue that some people are just not equipped to care for a child that will have so many problems and special needs; but people are adaptable, and babies are not fruits to be picked over. Things like that get me all pro-choice-y.
Jen
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Me too. It bothers me and I can't really explain why.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
On one hand, I can kind of understand if the problems will cause the child a lot of pain and prevent him/her from having a good "quality of life," whatever that is. But then, how do you define that? I mean, some kids are going to be smarter at others or stronger or better at basketball or something. What if the parents define a high quality of life as having the potential to be able to dunk?
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, and what if the space lizards invade us tomorrow? Seriously, pH, people are not that stupid.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wonder what they mean by quality of life anyway. Even if you are 100 precent healthy life will not be perfect for you... Life is hard no matter what. I just get a bit scared of the idea of people designing their children or something.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, and what if the space lizards invade us tomorrow? Seriously, pH, people are not that stupid.
I realize that; it was a deliberate exaggeration.
The point is, I don't think people SHOULD be able to choose specific characteristics about their children. But I don't know whether that should apply to inherited disorders or pregnancy complications (which is what seems to have happened in this case).
-pH
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Quality of life means that you're kid won't be slumming it in Haiti or something like that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: people are adaptable, and babies are not fruits to be picked over. Things like that get me all pro-choice-y.
That's weird. From the other things you were saying, I would have guessed that it was making you feel all pro-life-y.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I know this is not politically correct, but this is one of the reasons that I think abortion should be legal. I recognize it as elitist and horrible, but I know that if I were in that position I would at least want the option. Taking care of a severely handicapped child is an extremely difficult, life long commitment. It stresses your finances, your emotions, your relationships, and everything else in your life far more than a normal kid. I applaud all those that take on this challenge. However I think it's understandable and forgivable when people choose otherwise.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Amancer, that's why I'm torn.
I can kind of see both sides. But I think we do have to be careful not to make it so that parents are aborting babies willy-nilly because they didn't want a boy or something.
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I applaud all those that take on this challenge. However I think it's understandable and forgivable when people choose otherwise.
I agree.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Amancer, that's why I'm torn.
I can kind of see both sides. But I think we do have to be careful not to make it so that parents are aborting babies willy-nilly because they didn't want a boy or something.
-pH
I agree with you man. Movies like Gatacca(sp?) make you think about what the world is coming to. Thank god for the Catholic Church and the Pro-Choice conflicts going on. At least that way the two powers can lobby the government and keep each other in check.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I recognize it as elitist and horrible
I've got to agree about it being horrible.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I think we do have to be careful not to make it so that parents are aborting babies willy-nilly because they didn't want a boy or something.
I agree with the sentiment but I don't think it's a huge concern. There are very few people who view abortion as a willy-nilly thing. I think most people see it as a life changing event. While they probably exist, I can't even imagine somebody being shallow enough to abort a baby because he or she is not the gender that they want.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:While they probably exist, I can't even imagine somebody being shallow enough to abort a baby because he or she is not the gender that they want.
Not only do they exist, but they exist in large numbers. It's pretty common to abort female fetuses in Korea (and in China too, I think, but I'm not positive) because the parents want a son, not a daughter.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
That's largely in part of the government's influence though right?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Wrong. It's because of the higher status of sons over daughters in the culture.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Good point mph. Those are the countries that also restrict each family to one child only, correct? While still horrible and in my opinion unforgivable, I don't really think that's comparable to a US citizen doing the same thing.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It's pretty common to abort female fetuses in Korea (and in China too, I think, but I'm not positive) because the parents want a son, not a daughter.
I hear tell that's it is even a bigger problem in China because of population controls, where the government offers incentives for only having one child.
In general, there are whole populations of fathers who consider girls useless deformed boys.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Good point mph. Those are the countries that also restrict each family to one child only, correct?
China, pretty much yes. Korea no.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
In India, also.
I find the idea of a "wrongful life" suit deplorable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In general, there are whole populations of fathers who consider girls useless deformed boys.
And because of this, far more males are being born than females. This is even now starting to cause problems, as there are large groups of bachelors who have no hopes of ever finding a wife.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
When my mother and I discuss the issue of abortion, she takes the stance that she would abort a child the doctor believed would be born severly-handicapped. She does not doubt that she would love the child and care for him or her just the same as she does for my brothers and I until the day her and my father pass away. But, she worries about putting that strain on her children once she's gone. While I reassure her that my siblings and I are very close and would sacrifice anything for one another, she never wanted use to take on the stress of a raising a severly-handicapped brother or sister in addition to our own new families.
I really don't know what I would do if I had to make such a choice. From a detached perspective I can recognize that people with various degrees of ability bring diversity into the world which teaches love and tolerance. Yet, I couldn't stand to see my child live a life of pain and loneliness. I just don't know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That reminds me of a conversation my old landlord had. He runs an orphanedge in Haiti and has adopted six children from Africa or India himself. Somebody said to him something along the lines of him "I don't want to adopt someone of another race -- it would cause all sorts of problems for them."
This angered my landlord and he said something like "While those kids are starving and dying of diseases down in Haiti, I'm sure that they'll really appreciate that you didn't want them to suffer social pains here in the United States."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*applauds that landlord*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: In India, also.
I find the idea of a "wrongful life" suit deplorable.
I do think that the woman in this case had a right to sue her doctors.
As to the "burden on the other children" thing, I've seen that in action. It can be really sad. On one hand, it's very touching that siblings are willing to make such sacrifices for one another. On the other hand...
-pH
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I personally didn't consider my disabled brother to be a "burden" ... or at least, whatever degree to which he was a burden was vastly outweighed by the pride and love I felt, having known him.
It would have been hard to take on his care if I had somehow been left as his sole guardian. But stuff like that happens all the time to people. What if your spouse gets MS? What if your own child loses a leg in a car accident? What if Shanna's mother became an invalid herself? Of course, her kids would take care of her. That's what family is supposed to do.
Really, that's one of the most ill-thought-out excuses I've heard to abort a child. I feel sorry for the disadvantaged children of the world who are deprived of siblings to care for because their parents didn't want to "burden" them with the responsibility of loved ones.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:What if Shanna's mother became an invalid herself? Of course, her kids would take care of her. That's what family is supposed to do.
Sure; and if you could avoid such an event by a medical procedure that killed no-one, would you not do so? And if your doctors failed to warn you that such a thing might happen, would you not sue for malpractice?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The odd thing is I believe in rare abortions, but the idea of aborting someone because they will have down syndrome, or if they are able to detect autism or even homosexuality or some sort of minor difference that will make the child's life hard... It bothers me, as life really is hard no matter what. But, there are also those beautiful moments that a person would be deprived of if they were not born because of a "defect" or something.
But then, there is the perspective of a parent dealing with a child that is different. It's sad how back in early days a child like that would just be institutionalized. It's so sad not to have that family life they deserve regardless of whether or not they can walk or talk or their intelligence. I guess it's complicated and society with children making fun of anyone different doesn't really help.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Some children are a burden for some parents. It's one reason we have adoption institutions.
I'm scared to death of being tested, especially before I'm financially secure, of raising a child with a severe developmental disability. This fear isn't something to be proud of, but I do know that if I'm ever a father to be, I'm going to hope beyond hope for a healthy child because it does matter.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:What if your spouse gets MS? What if your own child loses a leg in a car accident? What if Shanna's mother became an invalid herself? Of course, her kids would take care of her. That's what family is supposed to do.
Its kinda sad that's what's SUPPOSED to happen. I look at my dad's family and its sad because they haven't adjusted to family illnesses at all. My grandfather had Alzheimer's before he passed away and most of his children couldn't deal with flying in from out of town to see a father who didn't even know who they were. My uncle has MS and was confined to a wheelchair a few years ago. Now he's never invited to family events because his siblings feel "uncomfortable." My dad tries his best to spend time with him when he's in town but the exile has made my uncle bitter and confrontational.
I wonder if my grandmother ever considered the possibility that her children would act this way.
Its interesting to consider that how different children react to life-long challenges. Sometimes it drives them onto be stronger, sometimes they're destroyed and choose to commit suicide than live another day of torment. Its hard to determine quality of life.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I wonder if this wasn't something the lawyer suggested to drive up the settlement. It does sound as if the doctor was negligent, but since he didn't cause the syndrome, I doubt they would have gotten nearly as much without the "wrongful birth" charge.
As the mother of a micropreemie, I am shocked and appalled by this entire idea. We knew that Aerin would be born prematurely and the chances of her being normal were very slim. Not once did it occur to me to terminate the pregnancy - I knew her and I loved her already. There is a very strong bond between a mother and her unborn child. I've also worked at the Special Olympics and my best friend works with children with autism, so I know that babies born with disabilities can have meaningful lives (and how do you measure that anyway?). Was I scared? Of course - I was petrified. No one wants their child to be disabled. But your child is your child, no matter what. You get the same amount of joy from them, even if you get it in a different way than from a non-disabled child. You love them just as much. Aerin was a mess when she was born, I know that. But when I saw her for the first time, it was the most precious moment of my entire life and there is no way I can measure or describe the love I felt for her. I didn't see her as defective, I just saw my beautiful child.
I am also very upset about the legal termination date for New York. I had no idea it was 24 weeks. When I think of Aerin's two 23.5-week neighbors, I feel sick to my stomach. I can't fathom that it would have been legal to kill those little girls. I'm generally pro-choice, but a 24-weeker is a baby.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do think the bit about 'meaningful lives' is misleading. As people have pointed out, there is no good definition of such a life. However, I think it is in any case a rationalisation of "I don't want to deal with this". And that is, I think, a perfectly acceptable reason for an abortion. Having a child is a major commitment; I do think it is reasonable not to want a mentally handicapped one.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:However, I think it is in any case a rationalisation of "I don't want to deal with this".
I agree.
quote:And that is, I think, a perfectly acceptable reason for an abortion. Having a child is a major commitment; I do think it is reasonable not to want a mentally handicapped one.
Then they shouldn't get pregnant, because there is always a risk of that. In fact, a significant percentage of handicapped children became so due to trauma or injury during the birth. Knowing that, I chose to have a C-Section so that my 26-week daughter wouldn't have any trauma during her birth.
A child is a major committment, and so much more than that. If you aren't prepared to accept everything about your child, such as mental handicaps, then you aren't committed enough and shouldn't procreate at all.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
Amen, Mrs. M!
Hey, that almost rhymes!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
This
quote:Branca bled during her first trimester, a possible indication of birth defects, and at her midterm sonogram, when she was 20 weeks pregnant, her fetus looked smaller than it should have based on when her doctors originally presumed she conceived. Branca had not gained much weight, either, but her doctors — whom she is barred from identifying, by a legal settlement — saw no cause for alarm.
happened when I was pregnant with Ems. She is perfectly normal and healthy. I was told that most babies who are carried through such pregnancies are.
So I find the lawsuit rather annoying.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:What if Shanna's mother became an invalid herself? Of course, her kids would take care of her. That's what family is supposed to do.
Sure; and if you could avoid such an event by a medical procedure that killed no-one, would you not do so? And if your doctors failed to warn you that such a thing might happen, would you not sue for malpractice?
That works if you don't believe that the unborn child is someone. For the other half of the country, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as an analogy. It's ironic to me that we're able to detect human diseases in these unborn fetuses, yet do not consider them to be human.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Somebody said to him something along the lines of him "I don't want to adopt someone of another race -- it would cause all sorts of problems for them."
This angered my landlord and he said something like "While those kids are starving and dying of diseases down in Haiti, I'm sure that they'll really appreciate that you didn't want them to suffer social pains here in the United States."
Great comeback. I have friends in our old church who went on a mission trip to Haiti to serve at the church's sponsored mission. They fell in love with a little girl there and worked to adopt her...found out she had an older brother and then worked to adopt him as well. It took the better part of year to accomplish, but they were able to bring their two children home. They are white and I don't think race ever entered their minds. It was just love. So now it's nearly 10 years later and the kids are just amazing.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
This is just too disturbing for me to even comment on right now. Mrs. M summed it up beautifully.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Then they shouldn't get pregnant, because there is always a risk of that. In fact, a significant percentage of handicapped children became so due to trauma or injury during the birth.
Sure, but I don't see the harm in minimising the risk. Really, it all comes back to the fundamental disagreement : If the embryo is not human, then you can arrange things for your own convenience without doing evil. If it is human, then you can't. And incidentally, since when are you qualified to judge whether other people can have children or not?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:And incidentally, since when are you qualified to judge whether other people can have children or not?
I never said anything about whether people can or cannot have children - I stated that people shouldn't have children if they're not prepared to accept whatever disabilities their children might have.
Also, there is a difference between a fetus and an embryo - a fairly significant one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I shall certainly take your opinion on whether I should have children or not, deeply to heart. Just what is your problem with trying to minimise the risk of having a handicapped child?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Just what is your problem with trying to minimise the risk of having a handicapped child?
I don't understand what you mean. Are you referring to abortion as a means to minimize the risk of having a handicapped child?
BTW, I am all for minimizing the risk of having a handicapped child. My husband and I had genetic testing before we conceived to make sure that we weren't carriers of any of the Jewish genetic diseases or any others. And, as I mentioned earlier, I had a C-Section to ensure that my daughter wouldn't have any trauma at birth.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Just what is your problem with trying to minimise the risk of having a handicapped child?
I can't speak for Mrs. M, but for myself: if I became pregnant with a handicapped child, then I already have a handicapped child; there's no risk to minimize once it's already happened.
To "minimize the risks of having one," I would have to do whatever was in my power to not conceive one, and to care for myself while I'm pregnant. Once I'm pregnant, though, the child is mine and it's my duty to take care of them - whoever and however they are.
Back to that fundamental difference of opinion, I guess.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I'm generally pro-choice, but the idea of aborting after four/five months of pregnancy is a big no-no for me. After four/five months we're speaking about babies, not foetuses - and that's why I'm profoundly shocked at the idea to abort because of a disease the baby may have, because you quasi never find that out before four months. My baby may suffer, may die early, but he will live his life loved by his parents. Doing otherwise is, for me, only not wanting to bother yourself - you're certainly not doing this for the baby.
quote:I do think it is reasonable not to want a mentally handicapped one.
I find it appaling how our societies can't accept any risk as normal. For g-d's sake, life is risky, it's only natural! If you don't want a disable baby, than you don't want a baby at all. It's already settled between hubby and I. If we make the choice to procreate, we accept the risk.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Then again, there are babies with defects that would cause them to die within a year of birth. My friend whose baby died at 1 month before its due date, experienced this. Her daughter had trisomy 18. The effects of this genetic defect are so severe that most babies with it are miscarried. The ones that survive birth usually die by their first birthday. The trisomy screws up so many body systems that their short little lives are basically a continuous ordeal of expensive medical treatments that merely prolong the inevitable. Would it be right to abort a baby that is carrying a death sentence in its genes? I know that in my girlfriend's case (had she known and made the decision not to carry the pregnancy to full term and deliver a dead baby), an abortion might have saved her and her family a lot of agony. I don't know, it's a hard thing. In most cases, I am very against abortions. But Trisomy 18, while rare, casts a lot of shadows on the blanket "Abortion is wrong and I'd never do it" statement.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Also if you really can't deal with disability (I can't imagine a circumstance where it would be possible, but still) than you can still keep the baby until birth and give it to adoption after. But denying him the chance to live...
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:Would it be right to abort a baby that is carrying a death sentence in its genes?
I know I'm going a little far with it - you're not forced to read what follows, that's a difficult subject for me. All babies are born with a death-sentence in their genes : they're all going to die one day. You can give birth to a perfectly healthy baby and see him die one year after because of an accident, for exemple. What would you do if you had the choice between living one more year, surrounded by the love of your loved ones, or die immediatly? Some people may choose the first option, but I think I would go for the second. The last year of my mother's life has been really hard, for her, for us, still I wouldn't choose to erase it if I could. I understand that with abortion some people think they are preventing entirely someone's life to begin because it would probably be miserable, but I think if you abort a five months pregnancy then you are terminating a life, not preventing it.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Who's going to adopt a baby that is already on life support and isn't expected to live? It's a tremendous drain on one's emotions and finances, no matter how loving you are. I doubt that there's many families willing to take those children on...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
In a case like a trisomy disorder, I would not be against refusing medical treatment for the baby. MOst will die within hours of birth without medical intervention. I see no problem with not interfering in a natural process.
It would be painful, and horrible, and traumatic, but I would rather give birth to my baby and hold him/her for that hour of life than abort him/her in the womb. Abortion is (to me) the intentional taking of my baby's life, while allowing him to die without medical intervention is simply allowing a natural process to take place and I see a big difference between the two.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I agree - we all die. But the devil's advocate argument is that a baby who dies before it's first year never had the chance to learn the goodness of life. It knows pain, confusion, and perhaps the occasional touch of a loving hand. But babies don't think the way we do - their brains work in the NOW only. The concept of time is one that develops as the brain matures. And most of a severely (I'm talking life-threatening lots of systems going wrong scenario) handicapped baby's life is full of hurt. It's very different than an older child or adult who has many more concepts.
Another aspect - babies used to die often. Before the advent of modern medicine, babies with problems usually died early. One wonders how attached mothers were to their children. Did they have their hearts ripped out with every lost baby or young child? Or was there a certain hesitation to get close until the child survived its first vulnerable years and illnesses? Are we closer to our unborn children now than generations before us? How does that affect our perspectives on abortion?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
As someone who knows a family who had a baby with Trisomy 18 (he lived about 10 months, much of that in and out of hospitals), I still think that any abortion done because the baby is disabled is horrible.
True, he never had a real shot at a long life. But he DID have a life. A life where he was loved. A life with some joy (he had a beautiful smile).
ALL life is doomed to death. ALL life has pain. Where is the line between "this baby won't have a 'meaningful' life" and "this person has no 'meaningful' life anymore -- kill 'em"?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Furthermore, oftentimes those tests before birth aren't 100% accurate. The health of the baby may be far better than the testing indicates. If people abort based on percentages then there will be deaths that, if more information was available, would not have been desired.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I, myself, would find it a difficult position to be in. Belle and Rivka, you are both mature and wise women who are well able to work with the tragedies that life might bring you. But another woman might not be in that place. I guess I'm just trying to point out that regardless of one's own position on abortion, it is unkind and unwise to judge another woman's/family's very painful decisions in these extreme cases.
Abortion, no matter how it is done or why, is a tragedy. It's severe and extreme. Murder? In some cases, I'm sure it is. Mercy killing, perhaps, in others. I'm definitely not advocating it.
But all I know is that I would not have put my dear friend through the delivery of her dead baby if I could have spared her from it. If she'd known her child was going to die before birth, she might have been able to abort it before she began to feel it in her womb and bond with it. She might have been able to lose her pregnancy before her breasts filled with milk for a child that had to be induced and delivered dead. She would not have bonded with that baby and hoped. She wouldn't be writing awkward thank-you cards for baby shower gifts that cannot be used. I don't know, maybe she would have chosen that path anyway. But at least she would have the comfort of knowing she made a choice.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
My friend's experience really affected me. I used to be in the "I'd never" camp on abortion. But now I know that I don't know. I wouldn't know unless the situation came upon me. I feel I cannot judge. I've not been there.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
IMO, a "mercy killing" (whether of a baby or an adult) is still murder.
More understandable, perhaps, but still murder.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: Would it be right to abort a baby that is carrying a death sentence in its genes?
I'll give the Mormon response to that. Mormons believe that one of the primary functions of human life is to give a living body to an already-developed spirit, which existed as a spirit child of Diety millennia before the conception of the baby. This uniting of body and spirit gives the child of Heavenly Parents chance to advance and progress in ways that would have been impossible without the body, even if this body is physically or mentally deformed.
It is for this reason that, theologically, Mormons are against abortion--it deprives the spirit child of the chance to receive and earthly body. There are, however, exceptions to the Church's anti-abortion stance that can be made in the case of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. There isn't an exception granted for cases of disability or short life of the infant, becaus by simply receiving a physical body the spirit has fulfilled an important part of it's earthly existance, and the rest of that existence will occur after the body is resurrected in a perfect state.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are, however, exceptions to the Church's anti-abortion stance that can be made in the case of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.
Why?
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Furthermore, oftentimes those tests before birth aren't 100% accurate.
That is a significant point. I know more than one person who was incorrectly told their child had Downs syndrome.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I was kinda wondering that too. In all of those cases, isn't the spirit child still entitled to his/her Earthly body, regardless of the unfortunate circumstances of its conception?
*Edit* That's in response to TomDavidson's comment, by the way. I hate it when people wedge in a post between my post and the one I'm responding to. Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
There is no official church doctrine as to why the exception is made in those specific cases, except that that every decision should be made between the woman, her support group, and most importantly with the confirmation of her Heavenly Father.
Since there isn't an official doctrine, I am about to delve into the realm of Deep Theology Based on Pure Speculation that is imperfect and will surely raise questions, so take it with a grain of salt. In my opinion, the spirit children who are deprived the rights of an earthly body either through willfull or spontaneous abortion (i.e. miscarriage) will receive another chance to inherit their earthly body. An earthly body is so fundamental to the Plan of Heavenly Father that it would be uncharicteristic of Him to eternally deprive one of his spirit children the right to a body because of choices made on earth.
However, it does frustrate his plan. When a couple conceives, either by choice or by accident, Heavenly Father prepares a way for one of His children to inherit the body that is forming within the mother. If the fetus is aborted, that plan is frustrated, and the Heavenly Father must find another place for that child to go. Thus, abortion-on-demand is looked upon as sin, as it is contrary to the plan of God.
Rape, however, is by definition contrary to the will of God. If a pregnancy results from the rape, He will prepare a way for one of his children to inherit the body, but since it the body is being formed against the will of the mother, then the mother has the right to decide whether to abort. In cases where the mother is a member of the church, this decision should be made through prayer with confirmation of Heavenly Father. If the pregnancy ends, then the spirit child will get another chance at life.
In cases where the life of the mother is likely to be ended by the pregnancy, then the spirit child won't be given a chance to live on earth anyway (assuming the fetus dies with the mother.) So, it would be better for the the pregnancy to end and the child be "re-assigned" than for the mother to die along with the child.
Again, this is all Deep Theological Speculation, probably better suited to Nauvoo, but you asked, so I tried to answer with my opinion.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Thanks. I appreciate it, and your reasoning makes sense to me even though I'm not Mormon.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: There isn't an exception granted for cases of disability or short life of the infant
According to Dallin H. Oaks
quote:Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth
So, while there is no exception for a short life, there is an exception relating to the survivability of the fetus (which is somewhat similar).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There are, however, exceptions to the Church's anti-abortion stance that can be made in the case of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.
Why?
I can't say for the church, but I'll give a perspective somewhat different than Brian's.
I believe that almost anything that is generally wrong can be situationally right. Thus killing is generally wrong, but in certain situations it can be right, due to extenuating circumstances (self-defense, war, capital punishment, etc.). The more serious the effect of the action (seriousness judged, I think, by God-like values relating to life, freedom and hapiness) the more restrictive the set of extenuating circumstances.
So I think each commandment has an explicit or implied set of (rare) exceptions. Why the commandment against abortion has the specific set of exceptions it does I'm not sure. I imagine there are other theoretical exceptions that aren't delineated in the list. I'm not sure what they would be. I imagine the list was an attempt by the leadership of the church to come up with circumstances where consequences were serious enough (again, judged by effect on life, freedom and hapiness) to warrant a mention. I don't think it's comprehensive, but I do think that no other currently widely-suggested reasons (such as genetic choice) will make the list, because they have already been judged lacking sufficient standing.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
This remindes me of a StarTrek - TNG episode where they were working with a race that by law required babies with "defects" to be aborted. When Giordi was told by one of the planet's people that he would have been aborted because he was blind he replied, "What gives you the right to decide if my life would have been worthwhile.", or something to that effect.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:But all I know is that I would not have put my dear friend through the delivery of her dead baby if I could have spared her from it. If she'd known her child was going to die before birth, she might have been able to abort it before she began to feel it in her womb and bond with it. She might have been able to lose her pregnancy before her breasts filled with milk for a child that had to be induced and delivered dead. She would not have bonded with that baby and hoped
Obviously, I can't answer for your freind, but I'll give you my perspective.
If I'd known my baby was going to be stillborn, known that for sure, I still would have let nature take it's course. At least that way I was able to hold him, to touch him, to have photos and momentos. There's a lot less of wondering what he would have looked like. I think the bonding has helped me move on. In my loss groups I have met many women who are pro-choice, but made the decision to carry on with the pregnancy to have that bonding experience.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Due to some medical issues going on at the time I was conceived and in the very early stages of development, my parents were told I would very likely have serious and possibly fatal birth defects and problems. I know that at one appointment, the doctor informed them that in their position some people might choose abortion over carrying me to full-term. My doctor knew this was not an option my parents would be interested in (nor was it something he would recommend), but at the same time he wanted to be sure that they were completely informed. They planned as best they could for my entrance into the world - while my mom was in labor they had surgical suites and teams of doctors waiting. There were multiple doctors in the delivery room. As I was born, they literally had beds and elevators waiting to transport us. And you know what? I was fine - perfectly healthy. The other doctors teased Mom's doctor that if I was a very sick baby, they wanted to see a healthy one. Granted, predictions of diseases and defects are more certain now that they were when I was born, but the idea that I could have been aborted is disconcerting.
The idea of terminating pregnancy due to defects is troubling to me. I don't know what I would do, were I in that situation, but I would like to think I would choose to have my baby, regardless of their possible disabilities.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
If a parent should be able to abort a baby because there is a likelihood of the child having a mental or physical defect, and the parent isn't willing to deal with it ... what should such parents do if AFTER birth, their child develops some kind of mental or physical defect due to trauma or disease?
There is no such thing as a child or loved one who cannot become a burden. People who try to customize their future family life and make it easier for themselves by violently eliminating the burdensome children in advance are in for a rude awakening.
I think that such people are in need of serious help. Do we really want to promote the idea in our culture that people with disabilities should not have lives because they are a burden to others?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If a parent should be able to abort a baby because there is a likelihood of the child having a mental or physical defect, and the parent isn't willing to deal with it ... what should such parents do if AFTER birth, their child develops some kind of mental or physical defect due to trauma or disease?
It's worth noting that to people who do not think of a fetus as a child, these are not equivalent situations. Presumably anyone who does not believe abortion is murder would not consider this a fair analogy.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
It is a fair analogy if we speak about children that would be viable outside of their mother's uterus. Two babies of the same "age" (six months from conception for exemple), one inside and the second outside the mother's uterus can't have different status if we speak morally. Still, the doctors have to do everything they can to keep the second one alive and have the right to kill the first one. I'm pro-choice, really I am, but not that far in the pregnancy, and it's very rare that heavy diseases can be detected before that stage.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna: Two babies of the same "age" (six months from conception for example), one inside and the second outside the mother's uterus can't have different status if we speak morally.
That is your opinion. Others disagree.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
What's the difference?
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's worth noting that to people who do not think of a fetus as a child, these are not equivalent situations. Presumably anyone who does not believe abortion is murder would not consider this a fair analogy.
Similarly, someone who does not consider an infant to be fully human until they are, say, four years old would object to an analogy that compares toddlers to nine-year-olds. However, their objection would no bearing on whether it actually IS a valid analogy.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If a parent should be able to abort a baby because there is a likelihood of the child having a mental or physical defect, and the parent isn't willing to deal with it ... what should such parents do if AFTER birth, their child develops some kind of mental or physical defect due to trauma or disease?
It's worth noting that to people who do not think of a fetus as a child, these are not equivalent situations. Presumably anyone who does not believe abortion is murder would not consider this a fair analogy.
I read Puppy's quote quite differently. His point doesn't presuppose the equating of abortion with murder in order to be valid. He's saying that the parental attitude that they're unwilling to take on any more "burden" than that associated with a "normal," healthy child is bound to be met with disappointment.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Anna, traditional Jewish thought considers a child which has been born to be a "complete" life, with as much right to life as the mother. An unborn child, however, is -- while definitely a human life -- not yet a complete life. Certainly not to be killed for convenience's sake, or even in a "mercy killing"; but the mother's life takes precedence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:His point doesn't presuppose the equating of abortion with murder in order to be valid.
Yes, it does. Because it's not unreasonable to observe that choosing to bear a child which you are fairly certain will be an abnormal burden is NOT the same thing as discovering, later in life, that your child has become an abnormal burden. To people who do not believe that fetuses are already children, the first choice can be made before the fetus achieves "child" status, whereas the second cannot.
Note that I'm not making the moral argument that fetuses are not children. But I AM saying that if you don't think fetuses are children, aborting a fetus which is almost certain to produce a particularly difficult child is NOT equivalent to abandoning a particularly different child.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Rivka, that's interesting. I had never heard of it. Okay, then my argument is not valid.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
My point was that every fetus has a good chance of becoming a difficult burden for some reason, at some point in its life. If someone is so unwilling to deal with that kind of burden that they would abort a potential child because of the risk, then they should abort all their potential children. Or, in a version of the universe I can more easily live with, they should grow up and learn to love other human beings enough to help them even through difficult times.
Honestly, the distinction between a fetus and a baby is a rough one to make, because humans don't live entirely in the present. I'm a twentysomething new dad and competent game designer right now, but I also consider myself to be the same person as the fast-driving teenage gamer, the insecure outcast elementary-school kid, the precocious toddler, and every stage of my future self through middle and old age. I think of my wife in all those terms, and I think of my daughter, not just as the baby she is now, but also as the child, teenager, and woman she will grow into.
The same thing happens when most people (I believe) think about an unborn child. People insist on using the word "fetus" because it draws a line that makes it easier not to think of the unborn child as being the same as its future self.
But when a parent aborts a child because of a mental defect, perhaps the thing that makes it abhorrent to me is the fact that they are clearly not thinking of it solely as a fetus. Being pregnant with a potentially-disabled fetus isn't much different from being pregnant with a healthy fetus. It's not the "fetus" or the pregnancy that is causing the problem. It's the fact that these parents see this "fetus" as a future child. And it is the child that they reject and decide to kill. Not the fetus. Because taking care of it will be hard, or because they'll be embarrassed.
I can't imagine thinking about an entity, whatever you want to call it, in terms of its future potential as a living, feeling human being, and then choose to kill it because I would rather destroy that potential human being than be forced to love it and care for it.
[shudders] That's just awful. I hate to imagine what those same people would have thought when they met my brother.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: To people who do not believe that fetuses are already children, the first choice can be made before the fetus achieves "child" status, whereas the second cannot.
You make a strong point. However, Puppy didn't argue (and neither do I) that the same hypothetical parents who would choose an abortion would also abandon a child who developed a disability. The point that resonated with me is that parental responsibility includes being willing to accept the possibility that their child may become seriously disabled, whether it is due to birth defects or later events. That being said, I'm loath to flat-out condemn all parents who choose to abort due to medical reasons involving the fetus. However, being that I know several families whose lives have been truly blessed by their "disabled" children (especially with something as relatively common as Down's Syndrome,) then I'll say abortion in these cases should be rare.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But when a parent aborts a child because of a mental defect, perhaps the thing that makes it abhorrent to me is the fact that they are clearly not thinking of it solely as a fetus. Being pregnant with a potentially-disabled fetus isn't much different from being pregnant with a healthy fetus. It's not the "fetus" or the pregnancy that is causing the problem. It's the fact that these parents see this "fetus" as a future child. And it is the child that they reject and decide to kill. Not the fetus. Because taking care of it will be hard, or because they'll be embarrassed.
I love this.
People who abort when the fetus they are carrying may have disabilities are aborting the future, not the present. They are looking at the probable future and probably child, and rejecting that.
I think deciding to be a parent is a "Come What May" proposition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think deciding to be a parent is a "Come What May" proposition.
What, then, do you think about genetic engineering for things like eye color, weight, etc.? Is there something INHERENTLY sacred about the roll of the dice that is genetics?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm less concerned with futzing with genetic selection than with what looks like rejection of a child that isn't perfect.
It's okay to hope one's kid will be tall and brilliant, just like his dad, but not okay to not want him if he isn't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's okay to hope one's kid will be tall and brilliant, just like his dad, but not okay to not want him if he isn't.
Is it not bad, then, to give parents the option to customize their children prior to birth?
If we could, for example, eliminate DS entirely through genetic engineering, would you blame parents for choosing that option? If not, why is that ethically better than when parents who do not believe that abortion is the murder of a child choose to abort a DS child?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I haven't decided about the ethics of pre-conception customization.
I have decided about post-conception customization. I don't like it. Conception as it is now means producing a life - from baby to adult - that may be anything from spectacular to very challenging. Once that second life is begun, getting out of the game is wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Once that second life is begun, getting out of the game is wrong.
Why? What if, for example, a viral cure for DS were found? Would it be wrong to cure a child born with MS, because that would constitute "getting out the game?" How much randomness must we accept to be "authentic" parents?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have decided about post-conception customization. I don't like it. Conception as it is now means producing a life - from baby to adult - that may be anything from spectacular to very challenging. Once that second life is begun, getting out of the game is wrong.
What about selective implantation of embryos? Do you feel its alright, if the potential exists, for embryos created in vitro to be tested for genetic "defects" and not implanted if defects are found? I'm not sure how I feel about it; I react with much less revulsion to that scenario than to an in utero conception being aborted for genetic reasons.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Once you've decided to expand your life to include someone else's, it's wrong to end that life because it isn't going as planned. Of course it won't go as planned - very little goes as planned.
It's conditional love. I don't like that - I think if that if someone doesn't want to accept all the risks that come with loving someone else, then they aren't ready yet to love someone else.
There is a huge difference between curing a disease in utero and eliminating the patient.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:Of course it won't go as planned - very little goes as planned.
I like this sentence - it's so true. I really dislike the actual tendance to think that if something goes wrong then someone has to be responsible for it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is a huge difference between curing a disease in utero and eliminating the patient.
And by acknowledging that the fetus is a "patient," you're granting it personhood. To people to whom a fetus is not a person, this may not be a premise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then that's another argument.
Either the fetus has personhood or it does not. The personhood does not depend on whether or not it is completely healthy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The personhood does not depend on whether or not it is completely healthy.
And yet my point is that choosing to abort a fetus with an extremely high likelihood of long-term suffering is a question with different moral overtones if you believe the fetus is already a person. If you do not, aborting the fetus is NOT equivalent to eliminating a patient.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Perhaps it does have different moral overtones, but then again every individual case is loaded with moral overtones specific to that case. You still haven't answered Geoff's point that once parents decide to end a pregnancy because of potential health problems, they have moved beyond "destroying a fetus" to "preventing a potential life that may be very difficult to live with. That is one of the issues that lies at the heart of this potential debate.
Btw, I don't usually like simply repeating another Jatraquero's comments, but since Geoff's posts on this topic are much better worded than mine, and he has more personal experience with this issue than I have, I'm more than willing to defer to him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You still haven't answered Geoff's point that once parents decide to end a pregnancy because of potential health problems, they have moved beyond "destroying a fetus" to "preventing a potential life that may be very difficult to live with."
But "preventing a potential life that may be difficult to live with" isn't inherently immoral. After all, we don't consider people immoral if, knowing that their genetics will produce a disabled or diseased child, they choose to abstain from conception altogether. In fact, we still require blood tests prior to marriage in most states with the express intent of preventing conception among some genetically incompatible individuals.
The issue here is whether, having conceived an embryo, it is moral to abort an embryo that seems likely to produce a flawed child. Clearly no one is claiming that it is immoral to refrain from sex if you have reason to believe that you will conceive a flawed child; it is the act of conception itself on which the question hinges.
After all, we're just setting the bar a bit earlier. Most people agree that it's wrong to abandon a child after birth if that child is likely -- or proves -- to be inconvenient. Fewer people agree that it's wrong to abort a child before birth if that child will be inconvenient. And even fewer agree that it's wrong to avoid conception (through birth control, abstinence, etc.) if one believes a child will be inconvenient.
The difference, of course, is the recognized rights of the child at each stage. Those people who do not believe these acts to be wrong at any of the above stages do so because they do not believe the child at that stage to be a "person" who requires parental attention. (Obviously, too, those people who do not believe children, however damaged, to be people at birth are rare -- but they do exist.)
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Rat Named Dog, I loved your last post. Eloquent and made a good point.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are some who might abort because they really worry about the pain and suffering of the child, and not just because they worry about their own ability to care for it or the inconvenience of having a disabled child. Similar to those who have to choose whether or not to resuscitate a family member who has been in a lot of pain and is going to die soon anyway. It's not necessarily a selfish "I don't want to care for them" decision - it's a very painful one, but often made with the comfort of someone else in mind. This may not apply in cases similar to Down's Syndrome, but in cases where they know the life is going to be short and painful, abortion is just as likely to be for the purpose of sparing the child that pain as it is to spare themselves the trouble.
I'm not saying I agree with the decision to abort, or that it's okay; but I think it's wrong to paint them all with the "selfish" brush.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:In fact, we still require blood tests prior to marriage in most states
Only 12 states currently require blood tests. </nitpick>
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Either the fetus has personhood or it does not. The personhood does not depend on whether or not it is completely healthy.
I'm sure that's true. It may be a problem with language, though. And there are properly controversial metaphysical assumptions that go into a statement like the excerpted quote.
I'll chime in on the blood test issue. I have the trait for sickle cell, and whether my partner is similarly disposed is going to be a determining factor in any paternal decisions I make.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Edit: Reply is to JennaDean.
Absolutely. It's unfair to paint large groups of people with infinitely varying motives with any brush. One thing that is interesting to note is that in many, many cases, medical technology has done nothing but prolong inevitable death. Sadly, this has happened when it comes to care of newborns as well. There was a time not so long ago when a child with severe genetic malfunctions would simply die, rather than live out a short life knowing nothing but needles and wires and tubes.
From my perspective (I'm talking about the theological one I outlined several posts above,) it is a better choice to allow the child to be born, so as to receive his or her earthly body, but I understand how other good-minded people can reach other conclusions.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
What's really intriguing to me is that a lot of people who believe that death is a transition to "a better place" fight so fiercely against mercy killing.
And indeed, as Brian puts it, "in many, many cases, medical technology has done nothing but prolong inevitable death." Is this part of God's plan as well?
I've experienced 6 deaths in the last year - from old age, from cancer, from violence, from fire, from an untreated heart condition, from congenital defects. I'm wrestling with the coping of life and death. What is death's place in the grand scheme of things? Why do we fear it? Why do people get so puffed up claiming they'd NEVER kill anybody or abort a child or unplug their grandparents? It's a painful thing to decide, and my opinion is that you can't know until you get there what you would do. And the comforting platitudes people say at a tragic death somehow get turned on their heads if one applies them to an aborted baby or the ending of life support.
"He's in a better place" "At least she's not suffering any more." "God's watching over him" "We'll see her in Heaven someday"
Is this true? Are these appropriate things to say to the grieving? Even if the dead involved were aborted or unplugged? And if so, then why the fierce dedication to life at any cost?
Even in nature, there are animals who reabsorb their fetuses or eat their babies in times of scarcity. Is that part of God's plan or not?And how do you know?
I'm still not inclined to recommend killing someone to put them out of their misery or to avoid dealing with a child who might have life-threatening disabilities. That seems very wrong to me. But I'm also not inclined to be harsh to someone who truly agonizes over their decision and comes to a different conclusion than me.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
Amen Anna,
Don't kill the baby... first, you are murdering, let call a spade a spade here. The only reason we don't call it murder is b/c the profession has dehumanized the human by calling it a 'Fetus'. Changing the name doesn't change its reality - a rose by any other name... Second - does anyone have any clue what the waiting list is for adoption? Don't you think parents incapable of having a baby would much rather take a child from a mother considering abortion rather than having to fly half way around the world to buy one from a foreign land (no offense to foreign lands). Now I know the situation is a little different if the baby has some sort of birth difficulties along with it, but still, there are alternatives.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
comparing humans to animals in terms of 'reabsorbing fetuses and eating babies' is not exactly a fair comparison or criticism of God's plan. Our higher order thinking informs us that these things are wrong. God's plan is much more targeted towards humanity, so lets leave those Sinfuly evil animals (tongue firmly in cheek) out of this. Jenny, I find your response to be refreshing, even if your analogy wasn't the best. You put forth a gracious attitude - one we would all be wise to adopt. While I could never agree with a decision to adopt, I also could never condemn someone who made that decision - its not my place and it never will be. There is always room for grace
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
I know that this isn't about aborting babies with defects, but it is still on topic and puts the whole notion into an interesting perspective - the author is Michael Coren - he writes for the Toronto Sun Newspaper:
Canada too permissive on abortion
By MICHAEL COREN
Last week, several days after Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated that he would not reopen the abortion debate, the governor of South Dakota signed legislation that would ban almost all abortions in that state.
Many other jurisdictions in the U.S. are discussing limitations and bans. Even in liberal Europe, there is no country with such a permissive attitude towards abortion as Canada.
Which should oblige us all to analyze our position on this life-and-death issue. Once again, I state clearly and loudly that I am pro-life. As to why, here is just a sample of reasons.
The proposition that abortion is acceptable because a woman can do what she likes with her own body is absurd. The inherent assumption is flawed, in that a woman cannot do what she wants with her body. She cannot, for example, sell her organs for transplant purposes or obstruct the public way.
Further, the argument is not about what she can or cannot do with her own body because it is not just her body that is involved. Within her is an unborn child, unique at conception and a distinct character and soul. If the contents of her womb were mere tissue, there would be no discussion.
But no mother ever tells people with delight that she "felt the tissue kick today" or announces that she has chosen a name for her tissue. Nor does she speak of her "fetus." It's a baby. It is referred to as a fetus by pro-abortionists because it's easier to kill what one has dehumanized.
We invariably hear people who favour what they describe as "choice" say they would prefer there to be fewer abortions. Yet if abortion is merely the removal of tissue without any moral or emotional consequences there is no reason for there to be fewer of them.
We deny, we disguise, we kill. Clearly, it is a life. A life whose sex can be determined even before implantation, a life which at 17 days has its own blood cells, which two days later is developing eyes and the day after has an entire nervous system established.
A life that at 28 days is forming arms and legs, at 30 days is developing ears and nose and at 49 days is a miniature person with complete fingers and toes.
So convinced are we now that this is a genuine life that in Britain some pro-abortion doctors want anesthetic to be administered to unborn babies before the procedure. In Canada, however, medics who object to performing abortions risk losing their jobs. Several have already paid that price.
This has nothing to do with so-called unwanted babies. There are legions of couples who want to adopt children. Even if there weren't, we still do not have the right to take an innocent life simply because we are larger and more powerful. That is the style of the thug and the fascist.
Nor is there a population problem. In fact, Europe and North America have a crisis of under-population. Where starvation occurs, it is the fault of the greedy West rather than the over-populated developing world. Again, even if there were a problem, it would not give us the right to kill.
We have to provide care and help for mothers in need and guarantee community support for children from conception to birth to adulthood to death. We have to know that the human person, which should be at its safest in the womb, is now, obscenely, at its most vulnerable.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: What's really intriguing to me is that a lot of people who believe that death is a transition to "a better place" fight so fiercely against mercy killing.
There is, IMO and IME, no contradiction whatsoever between saying that the World to Come is a better place than this one, and saying that every moment of life in this world is a precious gift that we have no right to throw away.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Hari, First of all, welcome to Hatrack! I'm not one of the best known Jatraqueros (members of the Hatrack community) but if you're anything like me, you'll find it a breath of fresh air with people who are intelligent, usually caring for one another, and deeply passionate about what they believe. I think the latter point is one that you haven't quite realized yet. Posting things like
quote: Don't kill the baby... first, you are murdering, let call a spade a spade here. The only reason we don't call it murder is b/c the profession has dehumanized the human by calling it a 'Fetus'. Changing the name doesn't change its reality - a rose by any other name...
is likely to ruffle more than a few feathers. There are thoughtful, intelligent people here who don't always equate abortion with murder, and you've just insulted them (for the record, I'm generally pro-life but not to the degree that some are.) The general tone of your post is that of "what I'm saying is obviously right and whoever disagrees with me is a nutjob."
Also, the use of the Shakespeare quote is waaay out of context. I'm just sayin'.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Why do people get so puffed up claiming they'd NEVER kill anybody or abort a child or unplug their grandparents? It's a painful thing to decide, and my opinion is that you can't know until you get there what you would do. And the comforting platitudes people say at a tragic death somehow get turned on their heads if one applies them to an aborted baby or the ending of life support.
I have been there, though. My mom was on life support at the hospital. My step-brother was in a coma from which they would never recover. I'm all for life.
I HATE the comforting platitudes. I don't think they are comforting. I do believe in the better place, but I hated it when people would say it to me. Grief from her death wasn't there because I thought she was in hell - I was devastated because, no matter how great a place she was in, I wasn't with her. She wasn't with me. And considering how much my mother loved me and the rest of her family, I think she would have liked to have been with us for another forty years, despite how great the next place was.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
I apologize Brian, for coming off as arrogant. That was not my purpose. I guess, as you so eloquently put it, I ruffled too many feathers. Wait, my feathers are ruffled now because of your post. I don't consider anyone here a nutjob, since I am relatively new here, I can't make that assumption.
Again, it was not my intention to ruffle feathers, I thought the general topic did a good enough job of that already.
I'm just sayin'.
PS - the quote works
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: What's really intriguing to me is that a lot of people who believe that death is a transition to "a better place" fight so fiercely against mercy killing.
There is, IMO and IME, no contradiction whatsoever between saying that the World to Come is a better place than this one, and saying that every moment of life in this world is a precious gift that we have no right to throw away.
Especially if one believes in eternity. The moments here are finite; the moments after aren't. Therefore, living longer here does not detract one whit from what happens in the World to Come.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:He's in a better place" "At least she's not suffering any more." "God's watching over him" "We'll see her in Heaven someday"
While many people believe in and in the fullness of time find comfort in such thoughts, that doesn't take away the deep wish the loved one was still with you. And for the losses I've faced, I didn't want to hear those platitudes for about a year or so.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I have friends in our old church who went on a mission trip to Haiti to serve at the church's sponsored mission. They fell in love with a little girl there and worked to adopt her...found out she had an older brother and then worked to adopt him as well. It took the better part of year to accomplish, but they were able to bring their two children home. They are white and I don't think race ever entered their minds. It was just love. So now it's nearly 10 years later and the kids are just amazing.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)