quote: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.
posted
Generally when children ask "why" they really mean "tell me more". Since you are not a child, I'm not sure what you're asking.
If you're asking why should they have the right to make that choice, then you need to re-read the paragraph you just quoted.
If that is not enough for you, then you likely simply disagree that parents should have a choice about whether they want to sacrifice one child in lieu of another. This is, in terms of spectral babies, a very unpopular viewpoint, since the spectral baby is likely equal in every sense to the spectra of the other children. However, in terms of reality, I don't think it's all that uncommon among parents with other children to abort (if not late-term abort) unviable or children whom they think will detract severely from the quality of life of their other children. Most of the time, this abortion occurs within the first term trimester. In some rare cases (described above) it cannot, possibly even due to a sequence of events like a final test coming back late or something.
I don't believe by any means that parents should abort in this case, that is very important to note. I believe that parents should have the right--within reasonable boundaries-- to make that choice, instead of having the government determining such a dramatic change in the family.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't there some article in a previous debate, where it pointed out that severe birth defects are only really spotted after the point of viability (or at least, after the legal definition of such)? I think that's the real sticking point. Because whether or not a fetus is a person before then, it's very hard to make the case that it's not when it's able to survive outside the mother. Even Roe v. Wade seems to imply that abortions should not take place before this point.
Like I said, the technology to determine these defects has made abortion in these cases possible. If not for that, women would have always carried these babies to term and then presumably cared for them for their whole lives. It's the burden of knowledge that seems to open the door to these sorts of things. That sort of God-play makes me very uncomfortable, but it seems to be the cost of better healthcare and better treatments for pregnant mothers and their babies.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, could you point out the difference between a child that is able to survive outside a mother and one that already is? All those justifications for killing the first apply to the second.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to what has previously been said in this thread, there are a good eight weeks between the cutoff where "abortions" becomes "late-term abortions" and extremely premature but surviving babies who have health issues regardless of any other health issues they may have.
Scott R: That's very sweet, but it's a song.
quote:If not for that, women would have always carried these babies to term and then presumably cared for them for their whole lives.
That is, until the babies died or the mothers died, leaving them--hopefully--in the hands of someone who cared. Don't idyllicize the past. Modern science has not only made prevention possible, it has made post-birth care possible as well. In the past, many of these babies would die within days or weeks of birth. Modern science plays God all the time. If God-play makes you uncomfortable, then all life-saving medicine does.
And finally, God comes up again. For many people, God doesn't exist. For those people, there are no spectral futures, no spectral babies, there is only what there is.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: that is not enough for you, then you likely simply disagree that parents should have a choice about whether they want to sacrifice one child in lieu of another.
I couldn't disagree more and I am living your spectral situation with actual children. I am very cognizant that Aerin needs special attention, but that doesn't mean that I don't have time for the twins. It does mean juggling things and making compromises, but I do it and so do the other parents I know in my situation. Yes, we have a disability trust for Aerin, but we also have college funds for the twins. And we work with a therapist to incorporate ABA into our daily lives, rather than do formal, intensive 1-on-1 with Aerin. We balance our time and our resources, just like any other family, and all of our children are thriving.
It makes me so sad to hear disabled children spoken of as if they are a terrible, unlovable, ruinous burden to a family. They are as much a blessing as any other child. Siblings of disabled children are often compassionate, patient, strong, and loving in profound ways that those without disabled siblings are not. Disabled children are a gift to a family, even if it's one we didn't choose.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they would. I know many families with disabled children who have fewer resources and less time than mine (both parents work out of the home full-time, etc.) and are doing fantastic jobs. We'd adjust to less if we had to.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mrs M, I am in awe of the job you are doing with your kids. I think that all of your children are incredibly lucky to have you as their Mom. I saw, through Hatrack, the struggles you had through your pregnancy with Aerin, and the fight she had to live. And I am so happy that she is now a beautiful toddler.
All that said, I do have a question from this thread.
If you now had another high risk pregnancy like you did with Aerin, would you put the baby's life ahead of your own again?
(The difference being now, your children you have already, and their need for you.)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by spectral babies or spectral futures.
Do you mean that atheists have no capacity for imagination or fear?
The babies are not waiting, watching or having a life, however you might imagine them to be.
Aerin is not disabled in meaning of the word that I am describing, Mrs.M. She is an intelligent girl who will go on to look after herself, be employed (likely very well), possibly have children of her own, even if she's a little bit more work now.
From what I know of ABA, it works best when incorporated into life than when done in a specialized, unreal situation.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yes, they would. I know many families with disabled children who have fewer resources and less time than mine (both parents work out of the home full-time, etc.) and are doing fantastic jobs. We'd adjust to less if we had to"
And how about if you had even less? Where is the lower bound for time and resources for raising the number of children you have such that they are all thriving?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a difference between a 20 week old fetus and a two year old child? Yes.
I assume you are against all abortion, not only late term abortion but the 16-week mark is arbitrary. Is a later mark also arbitrary? Yes.
I most certainly do not believe in aborting children randomly for no reason in the third trimester and I do not think that ever occurs in any statistically significant portion of late term abortions. I've tried to articulate when I feel like there is a plausible situation where so-called late-term abortion might be preferable to an alternative death or an irrationally difficult or painful life.
Would I personally abort a child in any of these situations? I don't know. But I would thank you for giving me, and others, the chance and the tolerance to make my own choice.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
That's a fair question and it's one I really struggled with myself. Technically, every pregnancy I will ever have is high-risk because of my history. So why did we choose to have more children? Well, prenatal medical technology is amazing and moves unbelievably fast. There were treatments available to me with the twins that were still in trials when I was pregnant with Aerin. And since we were able to work with our medical team proactively, rather than reacting to one disaster after another, we prevented 100% of what went wrong with Aerin.
That being said, I will answer your question directly. Yes, I would put the baby's life ahead of my own again. It would break my heart to leave my children and husband, but I think any other choice is wrong. I wouldn't be able to live with myself. Andrew and I have talked about this and we have a support system in place that would get my family through without me. Andrew has also promised to remarry within a reasonable amount of time and I have people who would help with that (with introductions, etc.).
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Why do you assume that? Because you want to answer the question you wish I had asked instead of the one that I did?
I'll repeat the question:
quote:could you point out the difference between a child that is able to survive outside a mother and one that already is?
The difference in this case being the one that makes killing the first okay and killing the second not.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that I'd agree that disabled children are a gift.
So everyone knows, my youngest has severe heart problems that will restrict her life. She won't be able to have children, will likely be developmentally (physically and mentally) delayed, and will probably need heart surgeries frequently. (At least 3 open heart bypass surgeries before she turns four.) She's already had one bypass surgery and two angioplasties.
I don't know that I want to start equating Tiptoe with "heart disease." It's important to me to compartmentalize the child away from the disability. SHE herself is a gift, like my other four kids; her health problems are a trial.
I know that facing those problems has made me a better man; but it hasn't been anything close to easy. Everyone in the family has struggled with the shifts necessary to accommodate Tiptoe's needs, and some days it seems like we're the most fragile people in the world. I'd love to push a button and make her problems vanish.
Her problems; not her. I'm not fond of the trials, but I'll take them over her absence any day. If I'm looking at this, calculating risks, benefits, and costs, her presence provides significantly more value to me than what her disease deducts.
Like Mrs. M, I'm appalled at the tendency I've seen in others who seem to assert that the sick, the disabled, the handicapped are somehow better off dead than living, and use the trials that their birth will cause as a reason to support abortion.
They are people, not handicaps.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know many families with disabled children who have fewer resources and less time than mine (both parents work out of the home full-time, etc.) and are doing fantastic jobs.
For what it's worth, I know many families with disabled children who are not doing well.
I suspect there's a great deal of self-selection happening here, for many complicated reasons.
----------
quote:I'm appalled at the tendency I've seen in others who seem to assert that the sick, the disabled, the handicapped are somehow better off dead than living...
There is a common philosophical fallacy applied here, one that's so common that it actually goes by a number of names. If you assert that it is always better for any given individual to exist than to not exist, you wind up with all kinds of problems down the chain. At some point, surely we all agree that there is conceptually some line beyond which it is better for society for a given person, whatever their other merits, not to exist; surely, too, we all agree that there might be a point of misery in someone's life at which someone (either that individual or a hypothetically fair and unbiased observer) would agree that the individual in question would be better off not living.
I know this sounds ruthless. Bear in mind, too, that I continue to play Devil's Advocate here. But I believe it's indisputable that the argument "it is better that any random individual exist" is ultimately a non-starter.
quote:Aerin is not disabled in meaning of the word that I am describing, Mrs.M. She is an intelligent girl who will go on to look after herself, be employed (likely very well), possibly have children of her own, even if she's a little bit more work now.
From your mouth to G-d's ears. However, while Aerin is intelligent, she is very, very challenged and unlikely to live an independent life. And she's vastly more than a little more work.
quote:From what I know of ABA, it works best when incorporated into life than when done in a specialized, unreal situation.
There are 2 schools of thought on that. It's probably best not to explore that further here.
quote:Where is the lower bound for time and resources for raising the number of children you have such that they are all thriving?
I don't know. I come from nothing, so I know that a lot can be done with very little. And I personally work with organizations that help families less fortunate than mine, so I know that there are resources out there for people who are struggling.
Scott, that is exactly what I meant but couldn't articulate. Very well put.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why does your question suppose that any exist.
What reasons do you think are acceptable for killing a child, Tom?
I think Tom already hinted at one possibility, where the quality of life for child and his parents is so dire it may not be worth it to try and grit through it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I believe it's indisputable that the argument "it is better that any random individual exist" is ultimately a non-starter.
No one has made that argument.
I said that trials resulting from the birth of a handicapped baby are not necessarily cause for an abortion.
Would you like to discuss that topic? I mean, we can tangent if you really want, Tom, but I think it's a little untoward of you to claim that something was argued for when it wasn't...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said that trials resulting from the birth of a handicapped baby are not necessarily cause for an abortion.
Do you concede that they might be? That at some point the burden caused by a child of sufficient handicap (upon a family of sufficiently limited resources) might exceed the value of that child?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said that trials resulting from the birth of a handicapped baby are not necessarily cause for an abortion.
Do you concede that they might be? That at some point the burden caused by a child of sufficient handicap (upon a family of sufficiently limited resources) might exceed the value of that child?
I imagine so-- but the level of handicap and burden you're talking about, that would produce a parent who (EDIT: can justifiably) point his finger at his child and say, "I wish you were never born. This misery is all your fault." is staggering, and bordering on the fantastical.
EDIT II:
I think it's a better to find ways to support parents in these situations than it is to point to abortion clinics as the answer.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can imagine a case where a child would be so handicapped - unable to live for more than a couple of hours - and be a severe risk to the mother - doing enough damage that she couldn't bear other children or even risking death. In such a case, I could see abortion being a rational choice. What if she were a widow? Should her other children go into foster care?
Mrs.M, I think that you made noble choices, but I don't think that we can legally require quite that level of nobility. As was pointed out, if we make something illegal, we are putting people in jail for doing it. (Fines, I think would be useless. Wealthy people would just pay them and the poor who couldn't would just go to jail.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm reminded of the Worthing saga. In a world where there is no pain, there are no stories. OSC believes the stories are worth the pain. Conversely, in a world of no abortions, there are no noble choices to be made about sacrificing for handicapped children. Are the abortions worth the stories? If not, what's the difference?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:the level of handicap and burden you're talking about, that would produce a parent who (EDIT: can justifiably) point his finger at his child and say, "I wish you were never born. This misery is all your fault." is staggering
Is it staggering that a couple can look at their available resources and conclude not to have children at all? It appears to happen all the time. Potential children are discarded pre-conception every hour of every day, and we do not regard this as a great loss.
Would prospective parents evaluate their resources differently if the resources consumed by the child were to be dramatically increased for some reason? I think it's very likely.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: "If not for that, women would have always carried these babies to term and then presumably cared for them for their whole lives." That is, until the babies died or the mothers died, leaving them--hopefully--in the hands of someone who cared.
"for their whole lives" could be a very short time, and is what I was referring to (admittedly the life of a sick infant, but I am in fact aware of situations where mothers are at risk).
Don't idyllicize the past. Modern science has not only made prevention possible, it has made post-birth care possible as well. In the past, many of these babies would die within days or weeks of birth.
That's exactly what I said. I said that the ability to discuss this issue of the ethics of fetus-terminating is a RESULT of our advanced medical technology and ability to detect these problems in utero.
Modern science plays God all the time.
Particularly heinous doctors would agree with you, to the point that they'll convince a woman to abort because that shadow in the Ultrasound means their offspring will be less socially acceptable.
If God-play makes you uncomfortable, then all life-saving medicine does.
Give me a break. I'm GLAD it exists. I think it regularly saves lives. My discomfort is not in the fact that the technology regularly saves peoples lives, but that it directly results in these "sophie's choice" level situations where people are being led (either by well-meaning or devious doctors) to make a decision to abort healthy fetuses. Call it playing god or call it eugenics, but in my mind, it is Not Right. Hence the discomfort. I have to think it is not what the original creators of the technology intended when they developed the life-saving diagnostic and observation equipment, but that is what it's currently being used for.
And finally, God comes up again. For many people, God doesn't exist. For those people, there are no spectral futures, no spectral babies, there is only what there is.
Check the bitterness just a little bit. I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you, I'm just trying to articulate the wrongness of it from my perspective. Any flaws in expression are mine, but chill out.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it staggering that a couple can look at their available resources and conclude not to have children at all? It appears to happen all the time. Potential children are discarded pre-conception every hour of every day, and we do not regard this as a great loss. Would prospective parents evaluate their resources differently if the resources consumed by the child were to be dramatically increased for some reason? I think it's very likely.
Apples and Oranges, Tom. We're talking about children already conceived-- this is a discussion about abortion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not apples and oranges from every vantage point. You've drawn a line and said "These are seperate fruit," while other people have looked at the line you've drawn and said "Its all apples. Some are macintosh and others are golden delicious."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Do you believe if there was no war there'd also be no patriotism or civic pride?
I do not see the relevance. The normals of the Worthing saga presumably had patriotism and civic pride.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
NOTE: Someone else used a term similar to "potential people," to refer to the unborn. That wasn't me, I don't think.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Parental sacrifice is going to continue whether there's abortion or not.
quote:Its not apples and oranges from every vantage point. You've drawn a line and said "These are seperate fruit," while other people have looked at the line you've drawn and said "Its all apples. Some are macintosh and others are golden delicious."
Okay. I'm going to put it all in a nice fruit salad and throw spoonfuls for Tom to catch in his mouth. It'll be fun!
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Parental sacrifice is going to continue whether there's abortion or not.
Right. But I was discussing choosing to sacrifice. The sort of choice Mrs M made, of risking her life to have a child; if abortion weren't available, if there were no choice, then there's no nobility in that. Returning to the Worthing saga, the normals made choices too: Marrying one person rather than another, taking up this trade instead of that. OSC, apparently - or at least his mouthpieces within the book - felt that these choices were not interesting enough to make stories, and that a real risk of physical pain and death was needed. Perhaps you disagree on the point?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if women have abortion rights prior to birth, then fathers should have abortion rights after birth--really late-term--like the Romans did. It’s only fair gender-wise. If after birth, the fetus makes the father uncomfortable, does not do its homework, gives him headaches, or causes sleeplessness, he should have the right to take it down to a clinic and have it humanely put to sleep. This is the only fair way to put a stop to these endless gender wars. on this subject.
Posts: 8 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with Mrs. M about the life of the child being more important than the life of the mother.
But I'm very glad that her choice worked out for her and her family.
In this case, if we accept your premise as true (which I don't), then I do not feel that losing that nobility is a great loss.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ken_in_sc, if you are interested in a discussion where the issue of father's rights was addressed somewhat more rationally, I linked to it earlier in this thread.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I can imagine a case where a child would be so handicapped - unable to live for more than a couple of hours - and be a severe risk to the mother - doing enough damage that she couldn't bear other children or even risking death. In such a case, I could see abortion being a rational choice. What if she were a widow? Should her other children go into foster care?
Heck, I would take it a step further. Even outside the womb, what kind of perverse notion of "mercy" is it to allow an infant, incapable of rational thought or expression, who is only going to live hours or days and spend them in agonizing pain that they cannot understand, to live out a life of nothing but suffering when a cessation of that suffering is available?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even outside the womb, what kind of perverse notion of "mercy" is it to allow an infant, incapable of rational thought or expression, who is only going to live hours or days and spend them in agonizing pain that they cannot understand, to live out a life of nothing but suffering when a cessation of that suffering is available?
That "cessation of suffering?" Also known as "morphine."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what is the purpose of that? What makes it so worthwhile to have a body draw breath with its own lungs, doped up on morphine in addition to all the other things wrong in this scenario? This is just breathing for its own sake. Or, apparently, a drug high for its own sake! What is the point of bringing into the world a brain which will spend its brief life experiencing either suffering or a morphine high?
quote:I disagree with Mrs. M about the life of the child being more important than the life of the mother.
So do I; that's not the point. The point is that Mrs M made that choice, and it has clearly become a large part of her identity; she now thinks of herself as a woman who once risked her life to have a child. It's a story, "this is who I am." We don't have to agree in detail with the choices the Worthing normals make either; the point is that without such choices - according to OSC - they are less than human, because they have no stories. Do you disagree that Mrs M's choice is a story in this sense? That such stories are needed to make full humans? Or that the stories need to include death and suffering as well as choice? I don't think there are any other alternatives.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sarcasticmuppet, I did not mean to come off as bitter. I too am trying to articulate my views.
1. I do not believe that disabled children, having been born, are "better off dead". My view goes more along the lines of unborn children, especially those who are very tiny, are not intrinsically special from the next unborn child. Often, there is another child who is a delight and a joy without the difficulty.
It is almost impossible to imagine this from "the other side". Once you have learned to love your child as him or herself, of course you should prefer him or her alive rather than dead. The path has already been taken.
But before that path even exists, and there's maybe another healthy baby down the line, and this baby's not going to live well at all (if at all), and you're not so well off, and you're already looking after grandma... then the path hasn't been taken yet.
If you are able to take on the child, then you have the choice to keep it and do what you can for it. If you can't, then I believe the choice should be available to take a different path. It is up to the parents to decide what is manageable and what is not. I do not think it qualifies as eugenics, although I think deliberately passing on genetic disabilities is incredibly selfish.
I don't want to kill disabled people. I recognize the valid contributions they make, like every human being, to life. However, I do not believe that before that contribution is made that each fetus was "meant" to be alive. I don't think some parents want to ride that invisible "meant to be" train to a possibly tragic end when they'd rather try again.
2. If it helps, perhaps you can think of some of these cases as "scientifically miscarried". The human body didn't solve the problem as it was supposed to, so a doctor steps in. Hopefully, this occurs earlier rather than later. Sometimes, it cannot or doesn't.
3. To deliberately subject yourself to pain and suffering because you believe there are no stories without difficulty doesn't really affect the argument, since most of these abortions do include very much pain and suffering.
4.
quote:...to make a decision to abort healthy fetuses...
There are very, very, very few situations where I would regard it acceptable to abort a viable healthy fetus late in pregnancy. I regard that as generally heinous.There are slightly more reasons to earlier and earlier as it goes. I do not mind first or second month pregnancies aborted.
I'm not a monster. As I have said, what I choose to do when and if I have children of my own may not involve abortion. My viewpoint, like all pro-choice people, is one of choice.
I don't want to set a date so hard a fast, that ignores the particulars on the situation. I don't want to force families to ride a tragic train when they could get off it now. Your families are different from other families. Some parents aren't in families at all. Some disabilities are survivable and livable and fixable, even, others are not. I don't want to colour everything a uniform red.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
