‘What Kind of Mother Is 8 Months Pregnant and Wants an Abortion?’

‘What Kind of Mother Is 8 Months Pregnant and Wants an Abortion?’
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/what-kind-of-mother-is-8-months-pregnant-and-117104430132.html


it is all too easy to assume this or that about the choice and considerations
this is one example that imo illustrates why the option should remain
i known that i would feel devastated by any of the available choices
but i would feel just horrible for the rest of my life to have a severely deformed child
who would be forced to live a life with only bad and worse outcomes
in this case when we speak of right to life, imo we also need to consider what is life
imo it is not a life to forever be an essentially brain dead comatose patient....
a vainglorious exemplar of our unwavering committment to life, no matter how compromised

 

This raises some interesting questions.

I think we need to have a basic definition of what is valuable about a human life.

Love, affinity, friends, family, memories, lack of pain, pleasure, health, happiness and so on.

A human life is finite and lasts a relatively short period of time. If in that time there is only pain and suffering is it really something to be valued.

Any human can be made to beg for death under extreme torture.

If a "a human " is not experiencing any of the things are valuable about life. What is the point. What is the point of living if nothing in that life is good ?

These are tough questions.

 

This was 36 weeks along; there was a baby in there, no doubt about it.
Now let me ask you, if doctors discovered a brain malformation in a 1-year-old toddler, should that toddler be 'put down', euthanized ?
I'm not going to tell you whether it's wrong or right, I'm just asking whether there's really that much difference between a fetus at 36 weeks and a newborn baby.

In fact I started a whole thread about this: mercy killing the retarded/feeble-minded

 

Poor you, still can't handle the difference between born and NOT born.....

 

That's one of the weakest pro-choice arguments. It's basically the same human being, but one is inside the mother and the other is outside, and the umbilical cord has been detached, and even then sometimes not immediately.

 

YUP! Location and attachment are everything......... too bad for you.....

Only a cruel inhumane selfish monster would bring a severely deformed human into the world.

 

Passing through the birth canal doesn't "bring the baby into the world".

 

You're a riot today, avoiding posts and segueing into other issues when the pertinent issue is INCONVENIENT ...

 

well in sparta, there would be no difference
and probably for a lot of societies where they simply do not have the resources to care for such a child

if you are asking me
i think terri schiavo should have been allowed to die
and i think parents should have the option for dramatically handicapped children
in the womb, or out

but as is the case with assisted suicide laws
it is not a blank check

that is my opinion, since you asked
i think that this is an horrible decision for any parent to face
and i know that if i were that parent
i would be deeply offended by the complicating intrusion others into this already excruciating situation

 

I share your opinion, but unfortunately we know there are women out there who would abort their perfectly normal healthy pregnancies at 6, 7, or even 8 months if it was legal. It's not very common, but it does happen. As unbelievable as it might seem, some women may not even realize they're pregnant until very late, and there are women who "change their mind", for various reasons.

I just think there needs to be some oversight. I'm generally not in favor of government regulation and taking away people's individual freedom and liberties, but when it comes to the intentional killing of human beings, I think it's more than fair to have some government involvement.

An individual choosing to kill themselves is very different than an individual choosing to kill someone else.

 

Again, "baby" is the stage of development from birth to one year. Until it's born, it's only potentially a baby.

If it were a brain malformation like OP, it would have been discovered long before 1 year.

 

Yes, that's what it means:

 

as is the case with assisted suicide laws
it is not a blank check where you are having a bad day and ask the dr to give you some pills


and your objection does not hold for terri schiavo
or lots of elderly or severely compromised individuals

we all know how altzheimers plays out
i have had a few family members die this way
and i gotta say that in the last stages of az, there is no dignity of life that is being defended
there is only the pathetic physical shell of the person you once loved

 

Oops. I'm sorry Cady, I meant to say "fetus". That makes it ok.

So tell me, does it turn into a baby after it comes out through the birth canal, or not until the umbilical cord is snipped?
Or is it when the fetus takes its first breath? because there's no air in the uterus

 

I think you meant to say "baby."

Did you want a precise moment? Because there is no "moment of conception," it's a process that takes hours.

 

So you admit there is a twilight zone, where it's both a baby and fetus ? or neither one at all... or maybe it's half and half ??

 

Sure it was a baby. It was a baby its mother desperately wanted. But, it was not to be. The child's deformities would have made what short life she had here unbearable. And, that was unbearable for the mother.

This wasn't a case of a woman changing her mind a month before giving birth. This is a case of a woman doing what she knew was the best for the baby.

 

some may object
but i find that it is useful to consult the definitions of words

Fetus: An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth.

so technically is a fetus until it is born
and then is a baby

 

I think there was a thread about this: Who Does The Government Think They Are Prohibiting Intentional killing?

Are not "pro-choicers" the ones who are hypocrites, when they want bigger government everywhere else, but insist it's a woman's sovereign right to decide for herself whether to kill her unborn child?

There was a sarcastically-themed thread about this too: "No one has the right to force a woman to do something she doesn't want to do"

 

If we start saying that women can abort because of fetal deformities, that can start creating a slippery slope.

Woman Has Abortion at 28 Weeks Because Baby Would Have “Deformed” Left Hand

Hmm, at 28 weeks. Just abort and try for another one I suppose...

Would we let a newborn baby be killed just because it turned out to have a deformed left hand?

 

ah, the venerable slippery slope argument
always a favorite, along with its my religion, founders intent, strict constructionalusm, natural law, communism, kenya, yada yada yada

 

YOU support, even encourage, aborting for fetal deformity AND killing disabled newborns. Don't even THINK about getting outraged at this woman's choice.

 

I want smaller govt. I do not want anti abortion laws, I do not want mandatory seatbelt or helmet laws, I do not want anti drug laws (at least soft core drugs), I do not want anti smoking laws (and I don't smoke), I do not want the govt telling me I have to have a permit to modify my home or build on my property, etc etc.

And I am conservative.

- - - Updated - - -

YOU support late term abortion and killing newborns for deformity, so you know what you can do with your slippery slope argument.