posted
I can't either, but the possibility still scares me, if only as an example of people who are so pig-headed determined on this issue that they leave all common sense and rational discourse behind.
posted
I think all sorts of crazy things get proposed. This is really extreme, though - I don't think it's fair to use it as an example of what would happen if anything at all about abortion is restricted.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, did the bill specifically exclude termination of pregnancy with a dead fetus, or was this an opponent of the bill's interpretation of the effects of the law?
posted
Yeah, I can imagine that such a bill was proposed. It certainly does seem to be extreme, though.
I am all for finding middle ground. Most of all, I want to do whatever I can to encourage women to choose adopting out a child rather than aborting.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that my sister's life was at risk the longer the dead baby remained within her.
On the other hand, I am thinking of a girl who was pregnant with twins. One of them wasn't getting good blood flow through the umbilical chord. After doing all they could to give this little one every chance at life, it died. They never did anything invasive with her, just let it disolve back into her body. Perhaps it was the lesser of two evils, the idea being that if they did something invasive, it would endanger the remaining twin.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I think I see the miscommunication -- I’m not arguing against abortion restrictions here. I’m sharing my own difficulty in how to phrase things most clearly in tricky situations, and gave this as an example of less than perfect phrasing having hideous consequences.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize my brother could have written something very like the Paeon to Eugenics article, but I think our acrimony should not be directed at the parents. I think that when the diagnosis of Down Syndrome is made, the parents are under extreme pressure from caregivers to abort. A critical shift occurs -- the fetus ceases to be a co-patient with the mother, and becomes a disease to be removed.
(in reference to the law dkw mentions, and I'd appreciate a link because I've never heard of it, the fetus is assumed to be a patient of sorts and it must be dead before they proceed. Awful as it is to walk around with a dead fetus for a few days, I think that's less horrible than if one were mistaken about it being dead.)
Utah is also where they conducted a study to see if Down Syndrome could be detected by Ultrasound as early as 14 weeks into the pregnancy. That way the parents would have a whole 6 weeks to decide whether to abort "with a clear conscience" (as most folks assume that abortion before 20 weeks is better than after).
Edit: somehow I managed to forget my point, that most parents get an ultrasound at 18-20 weeks, and if the baby is found to be defective they are under pressure to decide whether to abort it right away. And it is presented as the medically indicated thing to do. I imagine a lot of these parents really do feel remorse. They perhaps go too far in the collusive psychosis of denial created by that online community. But I do feel bad for them. There are time in my life when I would have made that choice. If it happened to me right now, I might not see eye to eye on it with my husband.
posted
I participated in that study, twice, in fact, for the free ultrasound. I didn't think of it as propegating a technology that would make it easier to abort Downs babies. *shudder*
Since I would never consider such a thing, for me it would just be being mentally and in all other ways prepared to deal with a child with special needs.
At the same time, this technology never claimed to be able to predict Downs with accuracy, just show where the child is more likely to be Downs. Further testing would be necessary to confirm. (I am still hoping this couldn't be used as an excuse for more abortions.)
quote:Ah, I think I see the miscommunication -- I’m not arguing against abortion restrictions here. I’m sharing my own difficulty in how to phrase things most clearly in tricky situations, and gave this as an example of less than perfect phrasing having hideous consequences.
No worries. That's how I took it from the start.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That makes sense, CT. In fact, I think I remember her talking about being monitored regularly for something like that. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the weirdness of "heartbreakingchoice.com" is their need to still be able to condemn elective abortions without condemning themselves. Yeah, that is weird.
Bev- I missed the start of that study by a less than a month, and I might have done it too except I'm a little paranoid about extra medical interventions. Still, talking with a friend about it later who did the study as well, we pondered the irony of them doing the study in Utah. Maybe they did it here because more women would carry to term and they could be surer of the diagnosis.
I turned down the AFP (spina-bifida detection) screen that pregnancy. They really really wanted me to have it done. My fourth pregnancy they didn't have me sign a release, they just did it.
quote:I realize my brother could have written something very like the Paeon to Eugenics article, but I think our acrimony should not be directed at the parents. I think that when the diagnosis of Down Syndrome is made, the parents are under extreme pressure from caregivers to abort. A critical shift occurs -- the fetus ceases to be a co-patient with the mother, and becomes a disease to be removed.
pooka, I don't get where anyone but the people maintaining these webpages and writing these "memorials" deserve acrimony. While I agree the professionals are probably involved in helping them frame the abortions this way, this is a project run by the people who ended those pregnancies.
Strangely, I don't have real acrimony for people who admit that they had an abortion just because they didn't want a kid with a disability - it's honest.
Remember - these websites are specifically asking for affirmation that these abortions were acts of compassion and love. They are asking for affirmation. That's where they cross the line - and it's a big one.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, thanks for sharing a more compassionate view on women who have aborted for those reasons. There have been a couple of occasions when I followed a doctor's advice against my own instincts and later regretted it. It is easy to think, "They know what they are talking about. Maybe it is I who is wrong."
I would hope that most women would listen to their own hearts on such an important issue, but many women have been subject to the opinions of authority figures for so long, they have forgotten how to think for themselves. There was a time in my life when I was like that. I do not wish to judge another before considering their situation.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I participated in that study, twice, in fact, for the free ultrasound. I didn't think of it as propegating a technology that would make it easier to abort Downs babies.
bev,
do you think that this should have been brought up in terms of "informed consent" to participation?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think so. I saw no mention of it being used as a tool to help women make a decision on whether or not to abort. I'm still hoping that held no part in their intentions.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess the weirdness of "heartbreakingchoice.com" is their need to still be able to condemn elective abortions without condemning themselves.
An abortion because the parents don't want the type of child they're getting is the height of "elective abortion."
It's amazing to me that anyone can say, "Person X would be better off dead." Or, if you want to remove the "when does life begin" question from it, saying "Person X would be better off if they did not exist right now."
It's utter hubris. I'd bet lots of people who thought they'd rather die than be a paraplegic changed their minds when they got hit by the truck.
posted
It's still a sore issue in our family. My niece with DS is 6 now, and my sister who is a physician still thinks they should have had an abortion. As an abstraction. I don't know what she is like with her in person.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not wish to judge another before considering their situation.
I try to separate the action - the abortion - and the way it's being framed.
I'm not in a position to judge the legal actions of these women.
But I am in a position to offer a judgment on the affirmation they have more or less asked for. I can refuse to judge their choice to have an abortion but condemn their insistence that they be viewed as having acted through love and compassion.
It's kind of like urinating on the graves of the dead.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep thinking of the Nazi paradigm of killing of the sick, weak, or otherwise unproductive members of society.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
An excellent point as always Dag - but one we can and should apply to all situations.
Whenever we pass judgement, we must measure that judgement with the question, "would I do this if it were me? Would I accept and embrace such a judgement leveled against me? Or someone I care about?"
If I say all babies with poor vision should be terminated at birth, am I willing to stand the test when my own child is discovered to have this "defect?"
I ask only because I wonder the same about myself from time to time.
-Trevor
Edit: Feh - the Khmer Rhouge (sp?) did the same thing - purging everyone who could or would be deemed with physical or mental defects.
posted
sndrake: it just makes me wonder if some of these women were victims, to a lesser extent than their aborted children, though. If so, while I still think what they did was wrong, I empathize with the pain and guilt they must feel.
But I agree that it is evil to call it love and compassion when it was not. It would be better to be honest with their guilt. If they at least termed it a "mercy killing" they would be getting closer to the truth. We don't "mercy kill" living people with Downs.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We don't "mercy kill" living people with Downs.
Exactly. Which is why I think the disability card is irrelevant to the legality of abortion debate. Either the fetus has some rights, or it doesn't. If the fetus has no rights, then abortion is permitted at the discretion of the mother up to whatever point those rights attach.
If it does have rights, then those rights are weighed against the mother's in determining if an abortion is permissible. The fact that the baby would have a disability is irrelevent to that balancing test.
Would we let a mother kill a 1-day old with Down's (pretending they're not left to die in hospitals)? No. So the fact that the child has Down's is irrelevant to whether an abortion should be permitted. Either the mother has the right to terminate or she doesn't.
posted
No, the doctor sibling and the DS parent sibling have a lifelong rivalry thing going- probably the worst one in the family. And I live on the other side of the country which is why I have no clear recollection of how Dr. sibling treats the niece. I'm sure she is nice to her though and would buy her a present if her visit coincided with her birthday. It was just an odd void in my understanding that I didn't recognize until I was posting about it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
we don't "mercy kill" (interesting term in and of itself) people with Down syndrome anymore - or at least not openly, anyway.
Or are you unfamiliar with the Indiana Baby Doe case? It was a baby with Down syndrome who was denied corrective surgery, then starved and dehydrated to death. This was just a case that became public. Quite a depressing amount of journal article written throughout the 1970s and into the early 80s by physicians doing things like this as standard practice.
quote:I keep thinking of the Nazi paradigm of killing of the sick, weak, or otherwise unproductive members of society.
As mentioned previously, abortion is used more by minorities and the poor.
P.S. I guess the shirt could read "I had an abortion, and I'm one of the 79% who did so for reasons other than financial hardship." That way one doesn't have to wonder where they got money to buy a t shirt online.
posted
Perhaps we have uncovered a conspiracy plot of doctors across our country in giving abortion "advice", eh? Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's just the natural result of the lack of legal clarity we have on the start of life. Even if we had legal clarity, I doubt it would satisfy hardliners like me. But because the start of life is a gray area, like everything else in life if weighs against the unfortunate.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Would a rich minority be more inclined to have an abortion than a poor minority?
Instead of "poor and minorities," it might be closer to say "the poor are more inclined to have an abortion."
As long as having children is an expensive proposition - welfare rants notwithstanding, it is an expensive proposition, there will still be women and families who opt for an abortion rather than having the child and giving it up for adoption.
posted
Sorry, I forgot that you couldn't hear the smirk in my voice over the internet forum. I do *not* think there is a country-wide doctor conspiracy to weed out minorities and poor through abortion.
I do, however, think there are doctors who enjoy the monetary benefits of performing numerous abortions.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although the 9 months of stress and demand on a woman's body may still sway a number of women even if the costs of carrying and giving birth to a child were completely covered.
Being pregnant can be quite an obstacle in daily life - now imagine if you had to try and work a 9-5 job, hike miles to and from the bus stop, etc.
While I'm sure some of you may have, I would hazard a guess that kind of character and determination is the exception rather than the rule.
posted
I think if more women viewed the life in their womb as sacred, even if they had no intention of keeping the baby, they would be more willing to go through the riggors of pregnancy in honor of giving that little human a chance at life--and hopefully a good life at that.
But then thinking of the fetus as a human makes it harder to give it up. Just as it is harder on a human conscience to kill a newborn baby than a fetus, it is easier to abort (ignore that the fetus ever had any humanity to begin with) than hand over that baby to another parent.
It is easier. But it is a philosophy I think is damaging and dangerous. I would like to return, as a whole society, to a view of life in the womb as sacred--something to protect.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I seem to recall the number of c-sections going up because that's cheaper than vaginal births?
I think the deal there is that it is more *expensive*. More money goes into the pocket of the doctor. Also, the situation is more "controlled". The doctor can choose to do a c-section at three in the afternoon after his golf game rather than at 3 am interrupting his good night's sleep.
I think that doctors who have these things as motivations are evil, personally. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, it turns out that I was mixing up unintended pregnancy with abortion. Reading further in Frisco's report, only 26% of abortions are received by women living below the poverty line. Half are received by those either at up to 3 times the federal poverty income, and the remainin 24 % are 3 times or more federal poverty.
Minorities make up 58.1% of abortion cases. But at 40.9%, whites are the biggest racial group in the pie chart. There's also a religion chart. More Catholics than no religion have abortions, though protestants are the most. Again, depends on what the overall population is, what these numbers mean.
Below the pie chart it explains that proportional to the \ number of women childbearing age in that religion, protestants have the fewest abortions, then catholics. No religion is 22% of abortions and only 16% of the same age/sex group in the population. So it means they are much more likely to have abortion.
posted
What a fascinating thread...you'd think it was a whole different forum from the last abortion thread. No offense intended to anyone--I'm just amazed. It's actually civil.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was the last one titled? You click on the title for this one and you have to know things can't get any worse. Oh yeah, that was the "Abort This!". It's because it had the Pro Life message up front. It kind of ran amok from the original content, whereas we do actually keep coming back to the T-shirt and the planned parenthood issue this time.
I was saying earlier that 20 weeks is a lot of people's concept of the latest an abortion should occur, but in the "Frisco Link" it says after 16 weeks. Is there a difference in how the procedure can be done at that point? 16 weeks is also the point at which most women will have felt the fetus move, or "quickening". I seem to remember that in Jewish law, as well as Mormon tradition, the quickening is when the soul enters the fetal body.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew...what a long thread! I'm interested in the hostility towards parents that have aborted due to birth defects. I read several of the personal stories in the links, and never got the impression that these parents didn't love their children. I would never abort a child with Down's, but reading some of the other combinations of birth defects I really have to wonder. To be honest, I don't know if I would want to bring a child into the world to do nothing but suffer.
posted
Why? I don't see the point of playing Devil's Advocate unless (1) there is actual merit to the other side, or (2) you're goofing off.
I don't like they want affirmation for this - praise for being so selfless as to kill any baby that doesn't meet their standards. The Shangra-lai vision of endless Barney television and poking in the mud for the perpetual toddlers is necessary to cover up what actually happened. They wanted a baby, but not one like that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sincerely hope I didn't offend you. But I saw several stories that involved more than disabilities - basically the babies would have lived in the ICU their whole lives. To me, that is very different. Would I ever abort a child with a disability? No, of course not. But I would have to think twice if I learned my child would be in constant pain and have essentially no higher brain functions. I'm not saying it would be a simple choice at all. I'm just being honest and admitting that I would have to do some serious thinking about it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I do not wish to judge another before considering their situation.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
No, the doctor sibling and the DS parent sibling have a lifelong rivalry thing going- probably the worst one in the family. And I live on the other side of the country which is why I have no clear recollection of how Dr. sibling treats the niece. I'm sure she is nice to her though and would buy her a present if her visit coincided with her birthday. It was just an odd void in my understanding that I didn't recognize until I was posting about it.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Oh yeah, that was the "Abort This!". It's because it had the Pro Life message up front. It kind of ran amok from the original content, whereas we do actually keep coming back to the T-shirt and the planned parenthood issue this time.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Is there a difference in how the procedure can be done at that point? 16 weeks is also the point at which most women will have felt the fetus move, or "quickening". I seem to remember that in Jewish law, as well as Mormon tradition, the quickening is when the soul enters the fetal body.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
->Mabus
