Interesting Read on Abortion

[NachtcGleiskette]

http://lifestyle.msn.com/mindbodyandsou ... &GT1=10114

You know, thats not something I often think about when thinking about abortion, is fetal abnormalities. I mean, like tehe second story, who's daughter didn't even develop a brain, carrying that child to term seems a risk not worth taking. And the fact her friends and church would turn on her is disgraceful.

I know, that there are instances where I would abort without question. If I were carrying a child developing abnormally in a way that would cause either immediate death, or painful life before death days, or months after birth, I see no reason why putting myself, my family, and that child through all that. And I don't think that makes me immoral, selfish, or evil. I also don't think it's anyones business to judge anyone for such a terrifying and difficult decision.

[Angelique]

The following words, however, I found a bit chilling: "Even if our baby had a remote chance of surviving, it was not a life that we would choose for our child."

Pregnancy and parenthood are gambles, as is all life. No one would choose a life with catastrophic disabilities for their child, but if the alternative is death, well, as there were neural tube defects on both sides of the family, I had decided to take my folic acid and hope for the best. For those of you who don't already know, my track record for carrying to term isn't the greatest, but I did end up with two healthy children, one of whom I was actually pressured to abort.

I knew that my conscience would let me rest easier if I stuck it out as long as possible, rather than abort and wonder, "What if the imaging was wrong? What if the tests were wrong? What if it wouldn't have turned out as bad as we expected? What if it really would have been easier to let the baby go naturally?" And after having one daughter as living proof that, well, sometimes doctors can be wrong when they recommend abortion... you get the picture?

I feel for women who have aborted in these situations because I can guess pretty well how hard it would have been if I were one of them. But, and here's a big but, I'm concerned about where we draw the line. Anencephaly is catastrophic- no argument there. How about spina bifida? Cerebral palsy? Down's Syndrome? Being a girl? Giving mom stretch marks? It's legal to abort in all of these scenarios, and I think it is disgraceful that the most dire cases are used as excuses to keep abortion legal in even the most frivolous cases.

And, I might add, how many of our lives turned out to be what our parents would have chosen for us?

[Edited on 25/6/2007 by Angelique]

[fourpawsonthefloor]

I read that, and I also liked the companion article:

http://lifestyle.msn.com/familyandparen ... &GT1=10115

I think the only thing to say is that it is very very hard to make choices for a woman. There is no black and white and you aren't them.

Paws

[JSherlock]

I wouldn't have thought of abnormal defects...wow. Those were hard choices, but I think that they did the right thing. As Nacht says - why put myself, the child and everyone else involved through the pain and turmoil? There's no reason to.

As for Paws' link, I think the woman is a strong and amazing person. I'm glad she found peace and grace, and the strength to love that child.

[The Drastic Spastic]

That ban extends to fetal abnormalities? That's fucking retarded.

Legislators also made no mention of fetal viability (the point at which a fetus can live independently of its mother for an extended period of time) or gestational age. There were no exceptions for a fetus with severe birth defects incompatible with life (many of which cannot be detected until well into the second trimester). Nor for a mother who would be forced to have, for example, a kidney transplant or hysterectomy if she continued with the pregnancy.

Holy shit.

And of course if a woman doesn't feel like having a baby and has no medical reason for to not continue her only possible concern is stretch marks. Maybe she cares about something other than adding her own genes to the population (assuming she would put it up for adoption and won't "be a mom"). Maybe she has a difficult job that she loves and the added stress of a pregnancy would be too much. How dare she make a decision other people might not agree with.

Hypothetical crap aside, defects are always the first thing I think about when people talk about banning abortion. I would consider going through an accidental pregnancy to put a healthy child up for adoption. I could feel good about that. For the "minor" defects already named here (thread consensus: minor = not fatal, er all right hey guys I broke my spine and lost 30 IQ points in a "minor" car accident!) there is just no way.

[NachtcGleiskette]

Well it's painfully clear that abortion laws have nothing to do with the rights of the human being involved, only the potential human being. And I'm sorry, if the child I'm carrying is not developing a brain, I see no reason to carry it to full term and go through all that. Why? Why put yourself through that emotional rollercoaster to immediately lose your child upon birth?

The mother has to come into play here too. The woman is completely disregarded when it comes to these laws. And so is the baby, actually, after it is born. These laws are not for humans, they are for potential humans, and that's kind of absurd. Pregnancy can be dangerous, it can be life threatening, and to do that for a child who will not even live.....it's ridiculous.

[Freak]

I think I have to step in to defend such laws (don't like it though, you'll see why):

Laws protecting the unborn life are so complicated because it is complicated to determine when the 'fetus' becomes a 'human'. So, any time you agree upon when a human is created could be too late, so that the act of abortion could be an act of murder instead. This is the only philosophical-logical reason to critizise abortion in any way. Anything else is basically religiously or politically orientated.

So, why still making it complicated to abort an obviously severely disabled fetus/child? Let's say a human commits murder, he kills a mentally disabled person. This is murder in the eye of the law. The problem starts with the argumentation. Because, if you allow the abortion of a child because of an illness (maybe even the same as our victim had) to a time when it is already human, then, again: in the eye of the law, said murderer wouldn't have commited murder, he would have made a rightfull 'abortion'. (and it gets even worse in the case of an abortion because a child doesn't fit the actual life-style of the woman, it would 'allow' murder in any variation, with the worst possible result for the criminal being pled guilty of something around manhandle, because it didn't happen in accordance with the victim's mother)

Which leads me to my remark that I am sorry that I have to defend those laws: Any normal thinking human knows the difference between those two cases, but law is based on its thorough applicability. You can be sure that humans will definitely misuse any flaw that hasn't regarded some special scenario.

To sum it up: Stupid laws are made to be better safe than sorry, so that bad humans can't misuse them.

Another problem, based on this: Should one day some smart scientist find out that one, and only one, certain point in the developement of a fetus is the beginning of human life, any doctors and women who participated in an abortion after this certain point would have a problem, because murder doesn't precribe.

Again: Better safe than sorry, let's make the latest point in which we allow abortion one that definitely can't be that certain point. Hey, maybe most of those life-threatening defects can't be noticed at this time, but at least there won't be any problem with that in the near future.

I hope that wasn't to long, I just tried to give a correct ethical/philosophical explanation of the problem without citing Kant

[Edited on 26/6/07 by Freak]

[fourpawsonthefloor]

Yes. I cannot imagine the emotional turmoil a woman would go through, carrying a child she well KNOWS isn't going to live. No hope of it. But yet this bill would force her to carry it within her for another 4-5 months? (depending on the ultrasound time, you may find out that early). So...not only can you not properly grieve your child, who is essentially dead, but you also have to listen to people's well meaning chatter about it EVERY DAY. Trust me, unless you would completely isolate yourself, you would. The public loves pregnant women. You can't go anywhere without someone asking you how far you are, or if you've picked out names, or what have you. That is emotional torture, plain and simple.

Not to mention the fact, that the bigger the baby is, the harder it will be on the mother to boot. And all that for what pray tell? For a label? How infinitely cruel of people who'd thrust this on a human being.

Paws

[Angelique]

Actually, the laws as they currently exist show little concern for either the mother or the baby, as it is legal to abort for ANY reason whatsoever. (And the specific method of abortion that's been banned is one that forces a woman to deliver a baby footling breech. Most doctors agree that C sections are actually safer than footling breech deliveries, so there actually is some concern for the mother here.)

As for the case of severe fetal abnormalities, I did not say I was completely opposed to abortion in those cases, but I am concerned about what we'd consider severe enough to warrant an abortion. It's not really about the mother's rights vs. the baby, but about the attitudes our society has toward the disabled.