The potential is what I’m trying to debate here. Some think that the potential of a severely disabled person is automatically void, which is not true. Some also assume that since it’s a life they would not want to live, they should feel obligated to abort the birth in order to save a soul from future suffering. That’s why I asked in my OP if you’d make your decision for the sake of the potential child.
I’m just curious John Mace, what’s your opinion on the Terri Schiavo case?
I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word “potential.” A “potential” person is a person who, by definition, does not exist. In the case of a fetus we are talking about a hypothetical person. A person who exists only in the imaginaton. If that pregnancy is aborted then the “potential” is never realized and there never was a person. There is no “they” who either wants or does not want to live. An abortion does not eliminate a person, it eliminates the possibility of a person.
This seems to be an extremely common fallacy for pro-lifers. They confuse potentiality with reality. An acorn is potentially an oak tree, that doesn’t mean that squirrels eat oak trees.
You can’t retroject victimhood onto an entity based on a potential that was never realized. Once a fetus vanishes, then any potential personhood vanishes. Potential is really just another word for “imaginary.”
Terry Schiavo is already dead. She has been in a coma for 14 years. Her cerebral cortex has liquified. There is no chance of recovery. You can’t regrow a cerebral cortex any more than you can regrow an amputated arm. The courts have consitently ruled that she is in a permanent vegetative state with no chance of ever regaining consciousness. The court’s own appointed medical experts have concurred. The only medical expert testimony which has testified otherwise was an expert paid by Terry Schiavo’s parents to support their side of the case.
Terry Schiavo died 14 years ago. All that’s being kept alive is a non-sentient shell. Terry told multiple people before her coma that she did not wish to be artificially kept alive under such circumstances.
It is unfortunate that Terry’s parents and the religious right have chosen to exploit this case for their own fanatical, self-serving agenda. It’s unfortunate that Jeb Bush has chosen to pander to these religious sickos for his own political purposes. There is an awful lot of bullshit misinformation and propganda about this case and I hope you haven’t bought into it.
The only decent and honorable thing to do is pull the plug on this fucking carrot and let her poor husband get on with his life.
I guess it depends on the grade of disability in question; for one, once you´ve seen a picture of an Harlequin Baby you can´t say that you´ll never condone abortion under any circunstance. Being born to live a few years of painful agony is not humane in my scale of values, YMMV.
My friend’s baby had that condition and she ended her pregnancy rather than continue with the knowledge that the baby had 0% chance of survival (the doctor used the term “incompatible with life”). She joined a support group for mothers whose babies had suffered this condition, but was kicked out for opting not to carry the baby to term. I don’t know whether to use the mad smilie or the sad smilie for this. How can people who’ve gone through such a horrible thing be so judgemental?
I don’t know what I’d do, and I hope I never have to find out. I would prefer not to have some of the tests done as what will be, will be, and stressing over these things during the pregnancy would be a pointless exercise that would not affect the outcome.
Please define “evil.”
I will not argue with your legal or even moral assertions, but your apparent refusal to acknowledge the truth of fetal development is not a credit to your argument. Please have the integrity to drop the phrase ‘blood clot’, which is not accurate at any point beyond 6 weeks fetal gestation.
I was being facetious, however, I will point out that anti-abortion extremists really do attribute personhood to embryos and zygotes at the earliest stage of development. A fetus may lterally be a “clot” of tissue or blood, but neither is an egg with some jizz on it a “baby.”
I meant to say, “a fetus may not literally be…”
Even if we grant that last claim of yours, it has little bearing on the abortion issue. The vast majority of abortions are performed long after conception; indeed, by the time a woman knows she is pregnant, the fetus already has brainwaves and a discernable heartbeat.
So even if we assume this “extreme” position to be wrong, it does precious little to justify abortion.
Also note: It’s interesting that pro-choicers immediately label the “life begins at conception” stand as “extreme,” but give a free pass to the claim that abortion is justified up until the very moment of birth. (Granted, not all pro-choicers feel this way, but a great number on the SDMB clearly do.) Talk about a one-sided view of what constitutes “extreme.”
I’m having trouble grasping this analogy. Are you trying to say that people eat fetuses? Wasn’t that a South Park episode? Anyway, I understand your stance on abortion, but again, what does it have to do with my OP?
In regards to your Schiavo comments, I mostly agree. However, “fucking carrot” is a little uncalled for. You don’t call people that, dead or alive. Or do you believe that if a person is dead or comatose, they forfeit their deserved respect?
DtC is being facetious again. Usually, this means ‘funny’. In his case, however, it means ‘crude’ and ‘cruel’.
If you’re going to be dismissive, can you at least be accurately dismissive? A tumor results from your cells dividing at an abnormal rate. A fetus has entirely different cells from you, which are usually developing in a normal pattern and its own DNA. In this way it’s far more like a parasite than a tumor - it’s an alien entity in your body depleting you of nutrients.
Well, this is true to a degree. However, what host ever provided a specially-made home for its parasites, including arranging its hormonal cycles to facilitate parasitic infestation?
You might say ‘symbiotes’ but that’s not right either.
Symbiotes would be far more inaccurate than parasite or even tumor…the mother gains nothing from the baby’s presence in her body. Except perhaps a possible greater immunity to some cancers later on, but has that link even been proven?
Well, all right. I concede. But still, parasite isn’t correct either. While the dictionary definition is correct, (Webster’s: An animal which lives during the whole or part of its existence on or in the body of some other animal, feeding upon its food, blood, or tissues, as lice, tapeworms, etc.), a parasite is always a different species. I cannot think of any other circumstance under which a host creates a receptive place where the parasite can live, or particularly, goes out of its way to sacrifice itself in order to nourish the parasite. In pregnancy, this is the case: the body will rob itself to feed the fetus. It is not a matter of the fetus robbing.
Truly, the mother gains nothing from the baby’s presence in her body. Except the whole ‘passing on genetic material’ thing, whicih seems very important biologically speaking. And to accomplish this, the mother’s body will go to great effort and even pay a heavy price, all so the baby can survive. This is also true in the breastfeeding relationship.
I think a parasitic tumor would be about accurate. It’s a gowth in the the uterus which saps nutrients and gives nothing back. My wife’s Ob/Gyn told us the relationship was “parasitic” during my wife’s pregnancy, but the word parasite implies a separate entity when there really isn’t one.
Even if you grant the inaccurate “parasitic” description, Dio, it most certainly is not a tumor. A tumor grows abnormally and out of control. The fetus does not. Its growth is most certainly not out of control, except in rare circumstances.
But to get back to the OP’s actual question, is it right to abort a fetus which, beyond any question, will suffer greatly during its short life?
You know…I don’t know if it’s right. Certainly it’s an option, and one a great many people would choose. But I think it takes a great deal of courage to welcome such a child into your family. I’m on a list for parents of children with g-tubes (one of my daughters was born with a severe heart defect, which fortunately could be corrected (which we knew about beforehand, and by the way we were offered a chance to ‘terminate’ her and her twin at 20 weeks - clearly we didn’t choose it), and as a result of this, wound up fed by NG tube for 6 months, and then by g-tube until April of this year, when she finally learned to eat orally. She’ll be 5 years old in a few days, so our days of frustration and struggle due to medical issues are nearly over. But there’s a mother on that list who has two children, both of whom are sick, or fragile, or something, in every way imaginable: ‘glass’ bones, muscle spasticity, g-tube fed, and so on. Those children suffer so without any hope of ever improving…and the poor mother and father struggle daily to meet their childrens’ medical needs and keep their sanity. There are days where, after reading her posts to the list, that I think for all their sakes it would be best if the children succumbed to their medical problems and died.
But, those children are people. They talk, they think, they somehow manage to find joy despite being trapped inside bodies that are never going to work right. And their mother does have moments of joy. Is the world a better place because of that joy, and love? Is it a worse place? Certainly the parents’ lives would have been happier and easier. I’m not sure their lives would have been richer.
And I cannot imagine not having my daughter, who many people would have ‘terminated’ before birth along with her healthy twin, for being imperfect. Her mind is fine. It’s just her body that didn’t turn out perfect, as happens sometimes. And this had consequences, and we’ve dealt with them. Of course I wish we hadn’t had to go through it, but once you get into dealing with whatever the problem is, it becomes normal for you. It’s just a different kind of normal.
And the thing is, things can go wrong at any point. A child can get cancer or even have a stroke. Or get in a car wreck or bicycle crash, or nearly drown…and suddenly the parents have a child unlike the one they wanted - now, they have a child who needs constant medical care, a child who suffers, a child whose personality and abilities are changed. What are you going to do, kill those children to spare them the pain and indignity? I think most parents would not, could not. Perhaps **Diogenes ** could.
If I were pregnant with a child I knew would have a problem such as the OP describes…no, I would not kill it. Why? Because I already know I’m strong enough, resolute enough, to go through life with that child. Because even the illest children seem to manage to find joy in their short lives. Because I’ve already gone through more than most people ever have to with their childrens’ health, and you know what? It’s been worth it.
However, as another poster said, there are things I would terminate for - anencephaly, sirenomelia, acardia in a set of ID twins (terminate the acardiac one, not the healthy one). These are things which offer no hope of survival at all.
There is the ‘molar’ pregnancy, also known as a ‘hyatidiform mole’.
From the web page at www.paternityangel.com:
This is an example of a tumor. Occasionally, it will metastasize and cause long-term health problems in the woman. From www.obgyn.net:
In contrast, a healthy fetus merely needs time to develop the ability to live on its own (and even then will require care appropriate for a newborn, as it cannot do anything for itself - and even then, children require care for many years.) I see pregnancy as merely part of the continuum, and while I do not see a fetus as a person, I see no reason to consider the entity any more expendable at one point in the continuum than at any other. Clearly, opinions vary.
This implies to me that you assign some form of “personhood” to people in temporarily vegetative states–e.g., hypothermic patients who “flat line” but ultimately recover brain functions. Is my inference correct?