from Space Opera's post, it's obvious the point wasn't made at all.
And, to the other, these women may very well hold onto these beliefs - I mentioned something earlier about lies we tell ourselves in order to get by from day to day.
A lot of the "memorials" are to "angels" with Down syndrome and spina bifida. There's not a lot of overwhelming support for the idea that those are fates worth than death in the living breathing group of people that don't tend to get asked about their "quality of life."
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, PSI. So then what's the difference? I'm not trying to be simple about this, but is aborting a child in the womb versus letting it be born and taking it off life support (or refusing any measures of the sort) all that different?
quote:See, I feel like you still have that choice to make after they're born, assuming they are on life support and can't form words or thoughts.
Uh, there are a number of ethicists who claim that no young baby forms what we think of as words or thoughts - or are you restricting your feeling to those babies who may have cognitive disabilities? (Remembering, in most cases, it's really hard to predict what kind of outcome you will have in terms of cognitive development in infancy.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, perhaps I just have a different perception. I didn't get that these parents wanted "praise" for aborting their children. I kind of read it that they wanted understanding and support. Knowing how many people feel about abortion, if I ever found myself in these parents' situation, I'd be scared to share my story. Can you imagine dealing with a co-worker who thinks you want affirmation when all you want is time to grieve? Again though, I think we just see things differently. I'm always willing to listen and learn from the other side.
quote:And for some people, quality of live takes precedence over life itself.
See, this is where terminology gets misused. What we're really talking about is not the idea of "quality of life" - it's the "quality of this particular child."
Clearly, to some, a child with Down syndrome is kind of damaged goods and that's not the quality they will accept in a child.
It has nothing to do with the quality as perceived by the individual whose life is on the line.
And none of this really erases the absurdity of saying "This was a wanted child. This was an aborted child." (and one I'm going to replace with someone more acceptable to me)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sndrake: I should point out that I'm pretty much against stopping any child's life for any reason other than extreme pain and inability to ever get out of it. Let me rephrase that.....it would be a cold day in heck before I would pull the plug on my child.
BUT I have never been there and can't possibly begin to tell a parent when the right time to end their child's life would be. I do think it's wrong to abort the child before they even get a chance.
It's sticky and I'm pretty unwilling to go there because my thoughts aren't well-formed. I just don't see why it would be necessary to abort a child with an extreme disability...you have a chance to reevaluate the situation. It's not an emergency or anything.
(And I was referring to brain activity. I'm not an expert in this area...do infants have very low brain activity?)
posted
I also get very angered with the practice of aborting Downs children. They're people, for crying out loud! They have thoughts and feelings just like anyone else, they're just behind in their development. So, they are forever innocent. OH NO. How terrible.
It's very obvious to me that aborting a child with Downs is meant to make life easier on the parent, and has nothing to do with "unconditional love" for the child. Please.
There are different levels of Downs and some are more life-threatening than others. But if having a perfect life was more important than having a life at all, you wouldn't see those children fighting for their lives. Why doesn't anyone say, "You know, your life is going to be hard. I think it would be best if we just ended it now." Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Are they making a decision based on the quality of the child
-or-
The quality of this child's life?
Is the child going to have a chance at a life or will (s)he be confined to ICU, requiring constant and expensive attention that is beyond the means of the parents to provide?
I'll grant you, some parents did consider the quality of the child, but I don't see how we can assume every last parent used that belief structure rather than trying to consider what was best for the child.
posted
I don't think anyone is saying it's okay to abort a child with Down's. The examples that I brought up, and I think what Trevor is talking about, are defects waaaaay more serious than Down's.
posted
I think I'm still arguing with the web site and not with Hatrackers.
The two stories that I read were from women who had aborted because of Down's Syndrome, and the sugary relief that they didn't have to deal with it and could instead picture a baby peaking over the clouds, just so darn happy that her parents got healthy kids instead made me want to throw something very pointy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't blame you there. However, I think if you read more of the site (if you can stomach the wading though process) there are some stories that are far different and very heartbreaking. These are the stories that truly made me wonder what I would do.
posted
Ack that website talks about a baby being aborted that had hydrocephalus, exact same thing sndrake had. We really do need a vomiting smiley. will have to do
posted
It doesn't matter to me what the condition is - at the point in gestation most of these are detectable, we're talking about a choice between being dismembered while alive or dying of a natural disease.
posted
I'd like to remind folks that I am not necessarily arguing against abortion here. Just ranting against the idea that the abortions for reasons of expected disability are somehow more "moral."
Trevor, one of the problems of what you are trying to argue is that you're pretty much putting words in the mouths of the women on these websites.
Let's get back to a concrete example, shall we?
From the NY Times:
quote:Kate Hoffman, for example, who aborted a fetus with Down syndrome, was quoted in The Times on June 20 as saying: "I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."
Somehow, it seems you view this as irrelevant - this is how Hoffman are wanting their choices to be viewed. Little bizarre fantasies of the child that was offed smiling down on the woman from heaven - along with the nondisabled child she had instead. That's the reality of the website.
It's the one I prefer to deal with rather than try to figure out the things they haven't said.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With respect, I'm not even going into the issue of the website.
I'm arguing the hypothetical of worst case scenario.
As to whether or not I would abort a child with Down syndrome - I honestly don't have a clue. Frankly, I have never been in a position to make the decision.
I'm not going to presume to understand what goes through a woman's mind, never mind the decision the parents grappled with during the process of trying to decide.
What I am arguing is, "would there ever be a scenario where you might consider it an act of kindness to abort the fetus?"
I think the answer to that is yes. As to Hoffman and her "my child is in Heaven" website - I have mixed opinions, most of which aren't fit to share here.
It's one of the reasons why I can't side with the Pro-Life people - because I'm not the one giving birth, nor carrying the fetus for 9 months. And I think it asinine for me to dictate what I think you should or shouldn't do, since it's not my body and I will never be able to undergo the same process in order to say, "been there - done that."
quote:would there ever be a scenario where you might consider it an act of kindness to abort the fetus?
The only way this can be true, given the stage these things are detectable, is if it would sometimes be an act of kindness to kill a newborn baby with a similar condition.
posted
Ok, I'm gonna repeat my question above...what's the difference between abortion and taking a child off life support (or witholding it). I'm just interested in different perspectives on this.
posted
SO's question: Well, for one thing, there's no way to know for sure how your child is going to be born. The tests aren't always accurate. I think all kids need a chance.
I think taking a kid off life support should only happen after every available measure has been taken and everything that can be done has been done. There would have to be no hope at all, and the child would have to be in serious pain.
posted
Frankly, I don't consider nutrition and hydration to be life support - I never support withholding them unless a person has explicitly authorized that for themselves while still competent to make the decision. Therefore, it's never appropriate for children.
Breathing assistance is far trickier to decide, but withholding it is far more humane than a late-term abortion.
posted
Why do you think that's more humane, Dag? Forgive my bluntness, but I would much rather my brain be punctured and have a quick death rather than slowly suffocate to death because breathing assistance is withheld. I'm not being snarky, I promise - I'm truly interested. Is it just the connotation of abortion?
posted
If you're going to kill a child or adult or anything else, why do we think it humane to let them expire on their own?
And I think we're just going to have to disagree about the late-term abortions.
-Trevor
Edit: PSI - being dismembered with the intent to kill is a relatively quick way to die. Or so I assume, unless anyone has factual data to prove otherwise.
posted
They aren't dismembered with the intent to kill. They are dismembered with the intent to be gently pulled out of someone's body. We're not talking about being drawn and quartered here.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you think that's more humane, Dag? Forgive my bluntness, but I would much rather my brain be punctured and have a quick death rather than slowly suffocate to death because breathing assistance is withheld. I'm not being snarky, I promise - I'm truly interested. Is it just the connotation of abortion?
Two reasons: First, ask yourself why we don't use that method when we're taking people off life support now.
Second, and this viewpoint is informed from both a Catholic and legal perspective, there is a difference between an affirmative act and a failure to act. One is letting nature take its course, the other is ripping the life away from someone.
Now, I think a duty attaches to all of us to help preserve life. But it's not nearly as absolute as the duty not to take it. For example, most people would not consider it morally wrong to not attack a grizzly bear to save another person, although someone who did would be commended. But most people would consider it morally wrong to trip someone so the bear gets them when it was chasing both of you.
These aren't meant to parallel the life support/abortion debate, but to show the difference in culpability between taking action and not taking action.
posted
Thanks for the reply, Dag. The funny thing is - I wish we did have a better method for ending life support! I have never considered withholding food, etc. to be humane. Your grizzly bear analogy was interesting - I'll be continuing to think on that.
And this should change my opinion why? Would you prefer they not use the heart-stopping medication?
Dag - that is a perfectly good question. And I don't think it's a rhetorical answer.
I think it is a convenient means of absolving someone of responsibility in the taking or ending of a life. Which I fail to see as an inherent crime. If we commit to a course of action that will lead to an inevitable conclusion, why is it suddenly preferable to allow them to suffer until they reach that natural conclusion?
Do we presume to act in loco parentis (pardon my mis-spelling) of a fetus, the way we do with children?
posted
I never thought of withholding food as humane either, until I went through it with my grandmothers. Now I would include feeding tubes as something I don't want for myself (under similar circumstances).
Of course, we weren't really withholding food, merely refusing a feeding tube. In both instances family was there 24 hours a day to feed them spoonfuls of applesauce and ice cream, and give liquids -- first with a straw, then with an eyedropper or sponge-on-a-stick. Which I think is actually much more humane than force feeding with a tube. Just my opinion, though.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, I agree with you on that. As long as someone was willing to do that, it's a perfectly valid way to supply nutrition and hydration, even if it's less than ideal.
quote:Dag, I don’t even think it’s less than ideal.
I meant that from a strictly medical/physical perspective. I think it is ideal from a totality of the circumstances perspective. Sometimes it's not the best way to deliver the precise amount of needed nutrition; I don't think delivering the precise amount of nitrition is always the most important goal.
Does that make sense? I think it's a wonderful act of caring that you did, and didn't mean to dismiss. Sorry I wasn't clear.
posted
Not only makes sense, but is exactly what I was trying to say.
But in both cases there was someone (one cousin and one neighbor) who protested that we were “starving Grandma to death” by not inserting a feeding tube.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The only way this can be true, given the stage these things are detectable, is if it would sometimes be an act of kindness to kill a newborn baby with a similar condition.
YES!!! Exactly the point here. If it is OK to "mercy kill" fetuses, then it *must* be acceptable to "mercy kill" newborns and other human beings. It is acceptable in some circumstances to "turn off life support" and let someone die, but what about killing them? Who was that doctor that used to help people commit suicide when they had some horrible, terminal illness? Is he in jail now?
Euthenasia. That is what we are talkin' 'bout here, folks. Is it OK or isn't it?
New T-shirt slogan: "I euthenized my baby/child"
I think being euthenized is probably far more humane than most abortions.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
