Sure it is. Adults of legal competence may refuse medical care, even if it leads to their own death.
First lets resolve the original issue. Do you see why my post was not inconsistent with itself? Do you see why omitting the words you omitted from my post totally changed the meaning of what you were quoting?
Is it your position that denying a woman the right to an elective abortion of a healthy third trimester pregnancy means that I know better than every woman in the world?
Roe v Wade explicitly gives the government the right to entirely ban abortion of healthy third trimester pregnancies. right? Was Roe V Wade an anti-choice decision?
The definition of health in the third trimester is not defined by the woman’s preferences.
I don’t know what a urether is but I am pretty sure I’m against abortions performed during labor.
Yes, they are and elective third trimester abortions are rarer still. So?
Then what’s your point? If you’re saying that elective third trimester abortions should be illegal, I agree.
I dunno. Broomstick is the one that was clip quoting my posts to make me sound inconsistent. Broomstick is the one that is taking offense at the notion that I would limit choice in the third trimester. That somehow that means i am against free will or something like that.
I would effectively ban something that rarely ever happens but involves some serious moral and ethical considerations when it does.
??? Like, say, the use of deadly force for self-defense?
And what moral problem is there with self defense? I didn’t realize that the anti-gun position was anti-self defense as well (although I might have suspected it).
My moral problem with third trimester elective abortions does not depend on how prevalent or rare it is. I would have a problem with it even if it was rampant… especially if it was rampant.
The use of violence in self-defense, entirely aside from any gun issues, is not absolutely universally accepted as moral. There are some few pacifists and Christian absolutists (“Turn the other cheek”) who suggest that it is immoral.
My point is that if you’re looking for absolutes, you aren’t going to find them.
Remember, we’re in a world where a good many people hold that eating a hamburger violates serious moral and ethical considerations.
I remember seeing a thread on another board recently where people said if they had a prenatal test for autism they would abort, because both the parents and the child are in a miserable living hell of a life. Funny a lot of autistic kids seem pretty happy, my son laughs too much to miserable.
I agree with a lot of people that when judging other people’s enjoyment of life, people often get it wrong.
It sounds like you are starting to head down the road of moral relativism and that way leads to everything from polygamy to cannibalism and even rape.
If we cannot agree on a common set of moral principles then in a democracy we are left with the will of the people and I would suggest that many more states would restrict choice if left to its own devices rather than increase access to abortions.
I’m not certain about “support group for parents of anencephalic children”. HOw many are there? It means “without a brain”. Such things exist, and, obviously don’t usually get too far without a brain.
Nevertheless, a woman in S CA was in the news years back because she was seeking medical treatment to keep her body from aborting an anencephalic fetus. She and hubby had decided to take it to term and harvest the organs for transplant. Yeah, creepy. Welcome to S CA.
Her body ultimately won, and she miscarried.
Another factor in rolling the dice - obviously new baby parts are in incredibly short supply, but few conditions will allow a baby to be born and promptly die conveniently. What if the thing had enough of a medulla to run the pump and aerator? All of a sudden the thing DOESN’T die - do you get to put a pillow over its face?
Which brings us to the new twist: it lasts the entire term, but is born with such massive defects that it will consume millions of dollars in care over its lifetime and will never walk, talk, recognize caregivers - a vegetable with a 50 year life span. It is more valuable as a source of spare parts than as a living human. Are we to the point that we recognize this and act accordingly?
Yes, there will be cases of all the shades of gray imaginable - that’s what we pay people to decide. No, this is not a committee - this is the obstetrician’s call with whatever consultations he/she deems appropriate. If the thing is allowed to live, the parents get a free pass to sign it over to the state to deal with. The state may wish to review the obstetrician’s call.
Hello dope Fiends! ,
Assuming (1) the child will most likely have a developmental disability. And (2) the child will need life time support .I believe the mother should not be required to abort ,as
Long as she isn’t receiving government assistance.
You think people don’t look for ongoing support after the death of their child? Why on earth wouldn’t parents who have lost or face losing a child due to anencephaly come together to support each other and discuss their shared experience? It affects 1 in 1,000 pregnancies so I’d say there are quite a lot of families who are affected. Of course, a quick Google search would inform you that yes, anencephaly support groups exist.
I have a friend who has twins. One of standard intelligence and health. The other with DS. After listening to all she’s been through because of his needs, she wishes she had aborted him. Given the fact that he’s already battled leukemia and a serious heart condition, I can hardly say I blame her. He’s very low functioning and always will be. The costs and energy involved in his care are huge.
When this topic originally popped up I thought about it a little. In my view the only argument for requiring abortion of a defective foetus would be if healthcare is heavily socialised. If the public is going to be paying to take care of a human being, the public should have a say in whether or not that human being comes into existence. That still doesn’t sit well with me. I don’t like the idea of someone being forced into a decision as big as abortion. My next logical step was to take away the payment aspect, so then the public doesn’t get a say. In the hypothetical world where testing for foetal defects exists, and healthcare is heavily socialised, and someone chooses to bring a defective foetus to term, that particular offspring does not receive free/subsidised healthcare.
Thoughts?
Yep. Now, I think that counseling should be available, of course.
Why?
I know four families with children with autism. Two are high-functioning and verbal and with a lot of work and care have pretty much gotten to the point where they are fairly mainstreamed and able to function in society. The kids enjoy life and in general are a pleasure to be around (of course they can be a handful, but so can many neurotypical kids).
Two are low-functioning, and although their parents have invested in even more care and training and etc. than the other parents, it is still a constant struggle. They will never talk (although after a LOT of work they can communicate nonverbally) or be able to be independent, and have various frustrations with communication. They get very frustrated frequently over things that the parents often can’t even discern, leading to wide swaths of destruction. One is seven and still enjoys smearing poop on the walls on a regular basis.
Those parents love their kids. They have never told me that they would rather have aborted them (not that they necessarily would even if they thought so). But seeing what they have to live with, if I knew my kid would be low-functioning like that, I’d definitely abort.
But that was still THEIR choice. That was her body, her child, and her decision to make. We’re talking about a wanted pregancy with a tragic defect.
And by the way, this wasn’t a “thing”. Not to these people. This was a tragedy. Not some monster.