quote:And you follow it with the implication that women seeking late-term abortions all want their children dead. Also unfounded.
Considering death for the child is what abortion is, that's exactly what they want. There are probably other desires in there as well, but if they didn't want the child dead and gone, they wouldn't be going to an abortion clinic.
I don't think that's a very finessed way of viewing the situation, and it's a volatile enough conversation that I think finesse is warranted.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I was unclear. You implied in that statement that wanting the child dead was the principle reason for a late term abortion. In at least some cases - my mother-in-law's included - that is emphatically not true. The decision was made by the doctor and mother together, with no time to wait, and it continued to affect her emotionally for many years afterward. She wanted that child.
Is that the norm? Or is it a tiny blip in the numbers? I have no doubt that many late-term abortion clinic clients do see the fetus as an inconvenience. What are the numbers? The experience of someone close to me defies your confident assurances, I see no reason to accept it without proof.
Which, again, may prove you to be correct. I don't know. But you telling me it's so will not suffice.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a fetus is already dead, or dying and going to be gone in a few weeks, then the woman's desire or otherwise for its death is quite irrelevant to her decision to get an abortion. What she wants in this case is a corpse removed from her womb.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what you are asking, and I don't think it is at all a reasonable request.
And do the numbers really matter? What if it was only one? What if in all the hundreds and possibly thousands of abortions, there was only one viable baby killed even though the mother would have been physically fine.
Is just one dead baby okay?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, a D&C is not the same as an abortion. Also, what people are discussing is exactly the situation where a fetus is NOT, or at least not conclusively, dead, dying, or going to be gone in a few weeks.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am very interested to have someone address this idea that a late term abortion of a viable fetus rather than a c-section could ever be necessary to save the life of a mother. This goes so far beyond the usual debate about when life begins. You may not believe life begins at conception, and you may debate about where exactly life begins, but there is no question that it began AT or BEFORE the time when the baby can survive outside the womb.
That is just so obvious that I can't believe anyone could believe otherwise and could justify a late-term abortion when a c-section brings about the same result (ending a dangerous pregnancy for the mother) without killing the baby. And I AM thinking of the mechanics here. In order to kill the baby, what exactly does the doctor have to do? Probably put his hands on the baby, yet instead of lifting the baby out, a relatively simple motion, he kills it instead. Or maybe it's much more clinical with a simple injection beforehand. But the mechanics are still the same. The baby's body still needs to be removed whether he kills it before or after opening the womb. The mother's body still needs to be cut open to remove the baby, dead or alive.
It is absolutely horrific and unquestionably wrong. You may disagree with that, but I'd like to hear how you reason that out.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'd like to know is the number of late term abortions broken down by the reason for the procedure. How many were emergency procedures, how many were done to save the mother's life, how many were done to prevent the mother's crippling, how many were done due to fetal death, how many were due to diagnosed fetal problems, how many were done in cases of rape or abuse, how many were done for emotional distress, how many were done because the mother just wanted it gone. I don't think it's at all unreasonable and I hope someone is paying attention to them.
By your statements, you tend to lump them all under "the mother just wanted it gone" and that's the part that bugs me, since everything else you write is based on that. It's an unfounded assumption on your part.
I have acknowledged that late-term abortions have been performed when they shouldn't have, and I'm against it happening. You have not acknowledged that any late-term abortions have ever been necessary, and you are scornful of those who do. Since I owe my wife's life to just such a procedure, you're just going to have be scornful of me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could be wrong but I remember a thread where the differences in risk to the mother between a late term abortion and a c-section were addressed. Was that here?
ETA: Here we go. CT was kind enough to provide lots of good information in a couple of posts on the last page of this thread near the bottom of the page.
posted
I don't know, but I'd like to see it. I typically stay out of abortion threads exactly because I don't think I can impose my beliefs on when life starts on someone else--but at some point I think it's obvious that life has indeed begun.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Privacy laws would prevent the exposure of names, but they had better be keeping track of reasons since states have rules about what is and isn't legal.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am very interested to have someone address this idea that a late term abortion of a viable fetus rather than a c-section could ever be necessary to save the life of a mother.
A successful C-section is, as I understand it, considerably more difficult than a late-term abortion for a variety of reasons. It's also harder on the mother.
I'm also going to play devil's advocate here and ask a very hard question. (Don't, by the way, assume my answer to this one.)
What if the child has no chance of an independent life? If he or she will never fully grow into an adult, and will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep alive, and will never develop brain function beyond that of, say, a three-year-old? Does a parent ever have the right to say, "No, I can't take care of this child. It is not worth it to me to spend the rest of my life raising this child without ever being accorded the satisfaction of watching this child become independent, or even capable of conversation." Upon choosing to become pregnant, is a woman now required to care for the product of that decision no matter what?
Bear in mind that it's easy to make that call if you're not in that position. It's even easier if you've never had a child. But I'm honest enough with myself to admit that I would at the very least feel trapped by such a birth; it is not difficult for me to imagine feeling so incredibly resentful of the situation that I would not be able to fulfill my duties as a parent. And then the question arises: why should those be the duties of any parent? Is the life of an infant more important than the life of an adult, regardless of that infant's likely potential? Are there variables to consider there?
Most people react to these questions by seizing a central principle and clinging to it stubbornly, no matter what. But what I'm trying to point out by asking them is that the situation is far, far nuanced than that approach would suggest -- or is capable of suggesting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose that's the problem with advanced methods of fetal observation, combined with the legality of abortions even into viability. It makes eugenics so much easier to enforce.
While I admit, I really don't know *what* I'd do, or think, in that situation, I'd like to think that my belief that a human life is sacred no matter what their physical or mental capabilities would trump. Otherwise, I'd be opening the door, even just a little bit, to becoming a complete monster. I just could not face anyone who was physically or mentally disabled ever again, if I made the choice to terminate.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can answer these questions with absolute certainty because I have a disabled child I risked my life to give birth to. Here goes:
quote:Does a parent ever have the right to say, "No, I can't take care of this child. It is not worth it to me to spend the rest of my life raising this child without ever being accorded the satisfaction of watching this child become independent, or even capable of conversation."
No, they do not. Or, to delve deeper - they can say that after the child is born and surrender him to social services.
quote:Upon choosing to become pregnant, is a woman now required to care for the product of that decision no matter what?
She's required not to murder him. Again, she can choose to surrender the child to social services. Or to a family member, trusted friend, etc. who has the desire and capability to care for the child as he deserves.
Tom, I appreciate your forthrightness. However, it's hard for me to try to give you any kind of answer that isn't emotionally charged. The thought of feeling resentment towards a disabled child makes me terribly sad. How could I resent Aerin when it was my body that failed her? When she has brought so much joy to so many people? When she is already a junior-level lobbyist who has charmed state legislators and community leaders who have, in turn, voted and worked to help mothers and babies? She has inspired so many people, including her mother. Before she was even 3 years old, she endured more physical pain than most people do in a lifetime. Now that she's physically healthy, she leads a life where she has to take 13 steps sideways for every 1 step forward a typical child takes. She doesn't get a day off from the therapies that are her work. All this and she is still one of the happiest, fiestiest, charismatic, amazing children I have ever seen. She is the light of my life and the best thing that has ever happened to me (along with her sisters and father). The love you feel for your child totally eclipses everything else.
That's not to say it isn't hard. We have had to adjust every aspect of our lives. We have a disability trust for Aerin. We pay, out-of-pocket, for various treatments. We're fortunate to be able to afford this with relative comfort, but I would do whatever I had to if we could not. Ordinarily life activities (meals, baths, etc.) are much, much more involved for us. There are times I'm tired and discouraged and frustrated, but what mother isn't?
There are no guarantees, Tom. You can't guarantee that a healthy, typically-developing child won't become a drug addict who will ruin her life and ruin yours, spiritually and financially. Just because your child is healthy and free from misfortune early on doesn't mean that she will remain so all her life (though, as parents, that is what we all wish).
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Is adoption not an option in your scenario? I think I wouldn't find that situation any different than one where the parents for whatever reason can't care for their perfectly healthy child.
And really, why should any of us be put through hardships? Most of them that we deal with we didn't ask for, including caring for a severely disable child. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that some of us are put in situations where we are expected to fulfill additional duties. Thankfully, where parents lack the means or the desire to care for their offspring, others are often willing to step in and care for the children as their own.
In answer to these types of questions, I do find it useful to cling to central principles. If we are to say that a child's life has value proportional to their potential, where exactly does that stop? If a person is born into poverty into a 3rd world country, does he have less potential than someone born into a wealthy family who has opportunities handed to him? Or if we measure potential solely in what a person can produce, perform, develop, or otherwise contribute, does a mildly mentally retarded child have less value than a genius or even a so-called normal child? If I lose mobility, do I have less value than when I could walk, talk, or move?
Or is the importance of a life only decreased when loss of function is total, body and mind? Do we then categorize an otherwise human life as animal because that person cannot perform those functions that separate us from the animals? Isn't the fact that it is a human life and is "like us," if not in function, then at least in form and DNA mean something?
So ultimately, I would say it doesn't matter if the child is thought to have no potential (something it is almost impossible to say with any clarity or surety before birth)--if the parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child, that child should be given up for adoption. If there are no available adoptive parents, then better the child be cared for by an institution, hopefully provided with the fullest life possible.
Never does it become okay to take that life because it is thought to have no potential.
Edited to change the name at the top. I didn't realize that Tom was the one who posted the question. Sorry!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing... I noticed that TomD mentioned the child not going past the functionality of a 3 year old. My daughter is 15 months. She is vibrant and communicative and full of energy and just a pure joy. And she's not even half way to 3 years.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I deleted my post after noticing you fixed yours. Now your last one makes no sense, so I'm posting again. Ack!
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Tom, Is adoption not an option in your scenario? I think I wouldn't find that situation any different than one where the parents for whatever reason can't care for their perfectly healthy child.
And really, why should any of us be put through hardships? Most of them that we deal with we didn't ask for, including caring for a severely disable child. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that some of us are put in situations where we are expected to fulfill additional duties. Thankfully, where parents lack the means or the desire to care for their offspring, others are often willing to step in and care for the children as their own.
There are very, very few people who would willingly take in a severely disabled child. I know myself well enough to know that I could not care for a child damaged to the extent Tom described in his example, which is a very extreme case. What I would do with that child were I to become pregnant with one is, thankfully, not a choice I have had to make.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Another thing... I noticed that TomD mentioned the child not going past the functionality of a 3 year old. My daughter is 15 months. She is vibrant and communicative and full of energy and just a pure joy. And she's not even half way to 3 years.
This is a very strange way to look at it. Your daughter is a healthy, normally developing (or advanced, if she's communicating very well at 15 months) child. She is undoubtedly curious and inquisitive as she is on the path to becoming an intelligent woman. A baby who never reaches past the functionality of a 3-year-old is never like that. In fact, it's a somewhat difficult difficult state of mind to describe and comparing it to a normal child of any age is a bit of a stretch, but we do it because it's the best benchmark we have.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good point. I see that there really isn't any validity in my comparison--but it does not change my opinion about the value of said life.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think practicality forces us to admit that the number of parents lining up to adopt a child with serious disabilities has an upper bound.
quote:Never does it become okay to take that life because it is thought to have no potential.
Never? Let us note that there are more than a few medical conditions that we know will result in the death of the infant within days if not hours. Let us also, for the purposes of the thought experiment, assume that this birth poses a serious risk to the life of the mother. Is it worth risking the mother's life to give birth to a child you are absolutely certain is going to die? Or may be born without brain function in the first place?
If not, all you're quibbling about is price.
quote:My daughter is 15 months. She is vibrant and communicative and full of energy and just a pure joy.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not all parents would want an eternal infant, I would ask: would it matter if she were quiet, lethargic, and generally cranky and colicky? Does the fact that she's a "pure joy" to you matter in any way?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, kmmboots. I was definitely wrong at the method of the abortion. I found all of that deeply troubling. Deeply, deeply troubling. Not because it changes my mind, but because I can't help but personalize it.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think practicality forces us to admit that the number of parents lining up to adopt a child with serious disabilities has an upper bound.
Certainly. But I did state that an institution is better than taking the life.
quote:
quote:Never does it become okay to take that life because it is thought to have no potential.
Never? Let us note that there are more than a few medical conditions that we know will result in the death of the infant within days if not hours. Let us also, for the purposes of the thought experiment, assume that this birth poses a serious risk to the life of the mother. Is it worth risking the mother's life to give birth to a child you are absolutely certain is going to die? Or may be born without brain function in the first place?
If not, all you're quibbling about is price.
There's a woman on another forum who has shared her experience with her baby who only lived a few hours after birth. The mother knew that this would happen before birth. Those hours were precious. Not only do I think the parents and family can get benefit from those hours, however sad it is, but more so I believe that the child has the right to those few hours of life. And yes, I think it is worth the risk to the mother's life. If death is a certainty to mother and child, then you save whoever it is possible to save.
quote:
quote:My daughter is 15 months. She is vibrant and communicative and full of energy and just a pure joy.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not all parents would want an eternal infant, I would ask: would it matter if she were quiet, lethargic, and generally cranky and colicky? Does the fact that she's a "pure joy" to you matter in any way?
The pure joy part would make me happier in that situation. But the part of my statement I wanted to stress was "communicative." But ultimately, no, it doesn't matter.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Is a late term abortion safer than a c-section? We are talking about viable fetuses here, so is the procedure any safer than delivering the child early?
quote:Even sadder seeing a woman who really, really wants the child inside of her alive but fetal problems and uncontrolled internal bleeding are about to kill her and the child so the doctor makes the call to save the mother.
In a case like this, of course you save the mother. But, I firmly believe the first goal of the physician should be to save both, and I believe for many obstetricians that is the goal. If the baby is not viable yet, then naturally you do what is necessary to save the mother. I have no problem with procedures that truly save a woman's life - like in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.
Yeas, at least at times. It depends on what is wrong with the mother, and what needs to be done to save her life too.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let us also, for the purposes of the thought experiment, assume that this birth poses a serious risk to the life of the mother. Is it worth risking the mother's life to give birth to a child you are absolutely certain is going to die? Or may be born without brain function in the first place?
Yes, it's worth it. I made my choice knowing that Aerin had very poor odds. I didn't even have to think about it and I'd do it all over again in a heartbeat.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is your choice. Will you use the power of law to enforce your choice on others? And, incidentally, I am moderately convinced that the hypothetical you who made the other choice would be just as utterly convinced that it was necessary and right, and just as happy with her life. Humans are funny like that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is your choice. Will you use the power of law to enforce your choice on others?
I use my vote, if that is what you mean. To take it further, I believe my choice is the right one and I wish it was the law that everyone had to choose the way I did.
quote:And, incidentally, I am moderately convinced that the hypothetical you who made the other choice would be just as utterly convinced that it was necessary and right, and just as happy with her life. Humans are funny like that.
I don't really understand what you mean by this. You don't know me well enough to declare how I would feel if I had made a different choice. Incidentally, I made the choice to carry both of my twins, which made my third pregnancy much riskier. So I can assure you that the "hypothetical" me could never exist.
I also think you don't approve of my choice, especially since it weakens your arguement that someone with the opposing viewpoint would do exactly what she said she would and act according to her beliefs.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mrs. M -- I think you misunderstand. He is not saying what you would feel if you'd made the other choice. I think he's basically suggesting that a woman in a similar situation who made the other choice would also feel strongly that she made the right decision. The only thing you and this "hypothetical you" need have in common is that you both were carrying babies who were likely to have severe problems and also cause you injury.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did misunderstand, then. And I would expect that a woman who made a different choice would feel that she made the right decision and live with it happily. I don't think I implied otherwise. I can even understand that - as I mentioned, my husband and my mother struggled greatly with my choice.
I still think it's wrong and that no one should ever make any other choice that the one I made.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mrs.M, I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that you would use your vote and wish to ensure that, for example, a husband who, unlike you, decided to save his wife rather than the baby in a situation where the baby was not likely to survive more than a few hours or days should go to jail for murder? Or a mother who was unlikely to survive the pregnancy choosing her own life? Or that the doctor should?
I am asking for clarification, because I won't want to put words in your mouth.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My girlfriend's neice has cre du chats. The child being born has not only wrecked the marriage because the parents are not really capable of emotionally dealing with a child who is physically and mentally 18 months old and unlikely to progress much further in the next five years (she's 44 months now), it has also wrecked their financial situation, and the grandparents financial situation. The child will likely need massive family assistance her entire life, economic and simply attention.
My girlfriend tells me that if she found out she would have a child like clara, she would abort... she knows she couldn't deal with it. And yet, this is the same girl who was terrified that I don't think there should be legal restrictions on access to abortion because what makes a person a person is the acknowledgement of other people that it is indeed a person, and the only relevant person prior to birth is the mother.
The personal can make an abstraction into a much more complicated gray-scale. Knowing the horror that has been wreaked on her own family by the birth of a child who is simply incapable of significant independence has made her realize that there are situations in which she would abort.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not an entirely fair comparison. Would Clara's parents feel the same way? Not that I'm asking you to interview them or anything, but your girlfriend, as close as she is to the situation, is still not experiencing all of it (seemingly only the financial end, from what you've posted).
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem here is that drawing a line at either end of the mother's life/baby's life spectrum results in disturbing consequences. Draw it at one end, and we allow any abortion that carries a lower risk of death than childbirth. Draw it at the other, and we forbid treatment of ectopic pregnancies.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, she's experienced a lot more than the financial. She's been heavily involved with clara on a day to day basis since she was born, and has watched the deterioration of the marriage from fairly close up due to the necessarily close contact between clara's parents and the rest of the family.
No one wants Clara to die... but given the choice between raising another clara, and having an abortion, my virulently anti-abortion girlfriend would rather have the abortion.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or you can not draw lines at all and just let moms decide, which, I think, is the point of the pro-choice argument.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw CT's links on the other thread and they do assert that the intact dilation and extraction or D&E (what is commonly referred to as partial-birth abortion) is safer than c-section in that it carries a smaller risk of complications.
However, those links do not prove that the mother's life is significantly endangered by c-section vs. the D&E. A slightly higher risk of complications does not seem enough, to me, to sacrifice the life of a viable fetus. I looked at a USA Today article, and if I'm reading it correctly in 2004-2005 .81% of c-section deliveries had some sort of complication. A less than 1% complication rate seems to me an acceptable risk and well worth trying if an infant's life is on the line.
As to Tom's question, I would fall back on the exact same thing I mentioned on the other page. First, I would have to be convinced that such a disorder could definitively be diagnosed in the womb and that no possibility exists for new treatments to be developed that would improve the quality of life after birth. Since that is unknowable...then my answer has to be no. I cannot sanction the destruction of that fetus when there is no way to be certain, in utero, what that child's actual quality of life will be when it is born.
All of us take risks when we decide to have children. We don't know that our pregnancies will be normal, if our children will be healthy, if they will be happy or if they will even live past birth. I don't believe, with children, you should take the attitude of "Oh, well it's not going to go exactly as a I expected so I will just destroy it and start over." Again, as I have said repeatedly - we should err on the side of life. We err on the side of giving a child a chance at life, even if it's not the life we would have chosen...we give them a chance at life.
I've heard many people say they would rather die than be left a quadriplegic after an accident. Yet I have met a quadriplegic who graduated college and led a productive, happy life. We shouldn't decide who gets to experience life or not based on our own judgments of how their life will be.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I looked at a USA Today article, and if I'm reading it correctly in 2004-2005 .81% of c-section deliveries had some sort of complication. A less than 1% complication rate seems to me an acceptable risk and well worth trying if an infant's life is on the line.
I find that statistic improbable. I am not aware of any other abdominal surgery with such a low rate of complications -- not even close. Regardless, you are comparing apples and oranges. Most c-sections are on low- or medium-risk pregnancies. The ones under discussion are anything but.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very very hard for me to say that any of the stories in that article were the right choice (other than 11 year old rape victims. That, there is no way around. It's dangerous to the child to carry a child, the pregnancy must be ended as soon as it's found out. Period.)
I'm glad I don't have to judge them. I will leave it there, because it's possible some of them did make the right decision-- but I can't know and it's hard for me to sympathise.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mrs.M, I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that you would use your vote and wish to ensure that, for example, a husband who, unlike you, decided to save his wife rather than the baby in a situation where the baby was not likely to survive more than a few hours or days should go to jail for murder? Or a mother who was unlikely to survive the pregnancy choosing her own life? Or that the doctor should?
I am asking for clarification, because I won't want to put words in your mouth.
I appreciate that. Would I want them to go to jail? No, probably not. Almost definitely not, I guess. Like I keep saying, it's hard for me to think clearly about this subject. I took the choice into my own hands, which spared my husband and doctor having to make it. I think advanced directives are great, in many cases.
In response to some of the later posts - having Aerin has made my marriage even stronger. I have never loved Andrew more than when I saw him kangaroo Aerin in the NICU or pray over her in the PICU. Now, when I see how patient and loving he is with her and how he adores her completely unconditionally, I fall in love with him all over again.
I was actually somewhat pro-choice until I became pregnant with Aerin and her triplet siblings. The second I saw those tiny sacs on the screen, I knew they were babies, precious gifts from G-d with souls, and I had been wrong. We still grieve for the babies we have lost, even as we take joy in our living children.
There are not guarantees with children. Bipolar disorder, for example, usually doesn't manifest until late teens or early 20s and it can be as hard, if not harder, on a family than diseases that manifest before or shortly after birth.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: I was actually somewhat pro-choice until I became pregnant with Aerin and her triplet siblings. The second I saw those tiny sacs on the screen, I knew they were babies, precious gifts from G-d with souls, and I had been wrong. We still grieve for the babies we have lost, even as we take joy in our living children.
I had the opposite experience. I leaned pro-life before I got pregnant for the first time. The u/s didn't affect me that much. Of course, I'm legally blind, so I didn't get to see much but a gray blur.
What really affected me, though, was the miscarriage I had between healthy pregnancies. I knew that 1/3 of pregnancies ended in miscarriage, but it didn't hit home until it happened to me. And when it happened, I felt sad, but I didn't feel as if anyone had died. I remember thinking at the time that I should feel that way, that it was terrible that I wasn't mourning the loss of a child, but all I felt was disappointment. It wasn't even as dramatic as the loss of a dream because I knew I could get pregnant again. In fact, Celeste was born 3 months after my original due date.
A few weeks before my miscarriage, and right after I found out I was pregnant, a woman who had gone through 3 successive miscarriages spoke to my MOPS group. She said a lot of inspirational things but one thing she said that bothered me was that she knew her 3 babies were waiting for her in heaven. When I had my own miscarriage, I remembered what she'd said but I couldn't accept it and didn't even want to. The idea that one out of every three souls in heaven is a baby that never had a chance to live...I just don't think God works that way.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: the following isn't addressed to anyone in particular. Mrs. M inspired it but I don't think she's made an actual statement that I'd consider hypocritical. In fact she's made it clear that it's a hard subject to think clearly about.
I saw a clip wherein someone went with a camera and a microphone to a group of protestors at an abortion clinic. He asked each of them why abortion was wrong. They replied that abortion was murder. He then asked what the proper penalty for a woman who chose to get an abortion is, if they have committed (or at least instigated) murder. And every one of the protestors shuffled uncomfortably and said "I don't know." Most of them followed that up with something like "I guess not... we should keep the mothers in our prayers."
I know not all protestors are like that (the video was a small sample and could easily have been cherry picked to make a point). However, I'm sure those results are at least fairly common. And I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who makes the claim that abortion is equivalent to murder without backing that up with actual murder charges.
There are other countries that consider feticide to be a different crime than murder, that has its own penalties that are less strict. While I disagree I think that's an internally consistent position. But if you're going to call abortion full on murder, and then hesitate before sending an 18 year old to jail for 10, you should consider what your position actually is. Making something a crime without punishment is meaningless.
A lot of what I've heard is "the doctor should go to jail." It's a safe decision that lets people feel like they've changed things without having to think about ruining the life of a young woman who made a mistake. But I can't see how dropping off a victim at a serial killer's house is much better than the actual killing itself, and that doesn't even address back-alley abortions performed either by the girl herself or by one of her friends.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find that statistic improbable. I am not aware of any other abdominal surgery with such a low rate of complications -- not even close. Regardless, you are comparing apples and oranges. Most c-sections are on low- or medium-risk pregnancies. The ones under discussion are anything but.
I'm only citing what I saw. Please read the article and let me know if I've misunderstood it.
quote:The actual number of deliveries with at least one complication was 0.64% in 1998-99 and 0.81% in 2004-05. "Even though the absolute numbers are low, the rates are increasing. … We could do a better job at tracking these complications," says Meikle, an obstetrician. "There may be short-term trade-offs and long-term trade-offs (depending on mode of delivery). We don't know that yet."
posted
I would need to see the actual study to evaluate it. I do note that it appears they are only talking about immediate and life-threatening complications. There are many c-section complication that only become evident days, weeks, or months later; there are also many which affect the health and/or fertility of the mother but may not directly threaten her life.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing about very disabled children is that they often become adults. Not only do they take a mental and financial toll on the parents, they take a toll on any other children, and I don't mean only financial. The time taken up in dealing with the one child and then adult who is very disabled detracts from the other children while they are still children. It is one thing to not have a choice; it is another to have a choice and choose to inflict this on your other children who do not have a choice. People do say, "I would never to that to them," meaning their healthy children. They should have the right to make that choice.
Miscarriage is one way to deal with an unviable fetus. If it worked perfectly, every unviable fetus would miscarry, perfectly naturally, in the early days of pregnancy. This doesn't always happen. We have surgery for all kinds of medical issues that our body's natural healing abilities fail to handle alone. For a non-viable or barely viable fetus, isn't this the same thing? Shouldn't parents have the choice to say, "enough, already"?
Isn't this the same argument that comes at the end of ones life as well? When an adult becomes an unviable human being, supported by the scientific equivalent of a womb, this discussion is raised. Do the next of kin have the right to "pull the plug?" Do human beings have the right to say, "yes, pull the plug on me if..."? I believe they do. Babies do not have the intellectual capacity to make this decision for themselves and so the onus falls on their next of kin-- their mother.
The introduction of God to the equation skews everything. The idea of spectral babies exists far stronger in the minds of those who believe in the spiritual world than those who don't. As Christine noted, the idea that God keeps a vast number of spectral unborn children (hopefully in baby or adult form!) around in Heaven doesn't really ring true for her. Parents should have the right to believe what they want, and not have other people's spectral babies projected upon theirs.
Yes, unborn babies-- fetuses-- are human beings in waiting. Plain old human beings, if you like, But they have not had lives. There was no kindergarten, high school graduation, university, career, grandkids. For most of the babies in question, none of this would ever occur.
Almost nobody undertakes late term abortion lightly, and nor should they. However, I believe that yes, it's worth a few frivolous idiots aborting a child for no reason in order to give the choice, the possibility, the option, to those mothers who genuinely face this decision because the alternative is dangerous, grievously painful or rationally unsound.
Very personally, I think we torture ourselves with imagination. We are all biased: we are all babies who were born, who have lived, breathed, even had children of our own. The babies in question have not, and may never. Does that mean we shouldn't feel loss? Certainly not. Does it mean we should offer choice to expectant parents? I believe it does.
I do not think that legalizing and tolerating reasonable late term abortion for extreme cases such as those situations described above will cause people to stop feeling a connection to their unborn children, or stop them grieving when things go wrong.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
