This is about a baby that was not aborted. The mother refused abortion even though it was a diagnosed anencephalic The full story below is quite long so I will summarise. Stephanie Keene was born without the front part of the brain. Her mother insisted on full care and the baby survived for 2.5 years. That was 2.5 years of medical interventions and care at a phenomenal cost A picture of an anencephalic I deliberately chose one of the better looking pictures as there have been complaints in the past bin relation to some of the less fortunate babies http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/969
Yes I do but I also think she does not have the right to insist that extraordinary measures be taken when the outcome is clearly futile
Isn't it odd how Anti-Choicers don't seem to mind a child being born like that and suffering throughout it's life but whine and scream that fetuses are tortured to death when THEY actually feel no pain? I know, just another in their list of hypocritical backward "thinking".
A child doesn't suddenly come into being the instant it's born, of course. So why not do it on 2-year-olds then? Lots of people are suffering. Is that your solution to incurable medical diseases? Look, I'm not arguing against abortion in the case of severe (and I do want to emphasize the word severe) abnormalities, but we should recognize it for what it is: a mercy killing. And if you wouldn't do it on a 2-year-old, I'd be very hesitant to do it on a 6-month fetus. And unfortunately, with a lot of these abnormalities, they don't discover them until later in the developmental stage when the fetus is already sucking its thumb.
And what about borderline cases of abnormality? Like Down syndrome or Epidermolysis Bullosa? Would you still abort them at 24 weeks? One of the people sitting down at the table partaking in the family conversation has Down Syndrome. Can you spot them? If you'd do it at 24 weeks, what would be wrong with doing it after they're born? (if the abnormality was not discovered until that point)
I will ask you the obvious question and request an HONEST answer. Would you decide to give birth an care for Baby K if you knew the cost and endgame? If you had the option and womb.?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Isn't it odd how Anti-Choicers don't seem to mind a child being born like that … That has nothing to do with what you quoted but a fetus does become a child the minute it's born. For the ten millionth time, a two year old is a BORN person with rights and a fetus is not. YOU cannot and have NOT ever proven otherwise. Another of your many comments that elicits an appropriate "So what?" You don't believe in mercy? Really? No because a two -year-old, and a one minute old and a 13 year old and a 6 month old are LEGAL BORN PERSONS with rights. FINE! Then YOU keep your badly deformed fetus and , spend thousands of dollars to keep it suffering after birth....but don't try to tell others they have to. And unfortunately for YOU whether it sucks it's thumb or not the woman has the right to have mercy and kill it.
I AM pro palliative care and that is what should have happened here. Pro choice means that it can occur pre birth or post birth
There is concern in the U.K. about Downs and many women aborting them are concerned because it is not just the mental retardation that can occur in Downs it is the higher risk of heart defects, oespohageal Atresia and fistula leukaemia and other co morbidities. Epidemolysis Bullosa is different. These children live in a world of pain and increasing disability. Many many parents would rather not have a child be put through all of that Those that say there is nothing worse than death have little medical experience
Note the attempts at goal post shifting. Yet this is a discussion that is looming larger with the spread of Zika virus
So at what level of risk does Zika justify abortion? If there is a Zika pandemic area, should all those women just automatically abort, in your view? If the risk is 10% that the fetus may be affected, does that justify it? 5% ? How about a woman contracts Zika in the 6th month of pregnancy?
It may Many many women are even now facing the decision to continue a WANTED pregnancy or abort because they have been exposed to Zika. Again this is about CHOICE. Faced with either having a child who not only will never be a "normal" child but will require intense ongoing care AND is "irritable". These babies constantly cry as if they are never out of pain, and terminating the pregnancy to try again later, well it is not just the women making that decision it is couples
You really do not grasp the Idea of choice do you? It is entirely up to the mother, not him, me or you and percentages do not matter.
And what if something turns out to be wrong with the baby and they didn't catch it in the womb? Is merciful termination still okay then, do you think?
Make sense when you post It is about choice. Most commonly when it is a foetal abnormality it is the couple that decide
I just re read your last sentence and it seems you are supremely ignorant in relation to foetal ddevelopment Abnormalities such as microcephaly happen during the first 12 weeks. The CDC has a very informative site https://www.cdc.gov/pregnancy/zika/testing-follow-up/zika-syndrome-birth-defects.html
But with other types of abnormalities, especially ones where the fetus is not obviously deformed, they might not detect it until much later. Anyway, here's what a fetus looks like at 12 weeks, if you wanted to see a picture: https://www.liveaction.org/news/stunning-photo-of-noah-miscarried-at-12-weeks-will-amaze-you/ Even if you're not impacted by that picture and don't feel it represents a baby, at least consider this: From the age of 12 weeks onwards the fetus begins developing and growing very rapidly, and pretty much takes the form of a baby by 18 or 19 weeks. In other countries they have different abortion cut-off dates, depending on whether there are abnormalities. (i.e. you have to get the abortion before 12 weeks if it's a normal pregnancy, but can get it up to 22 weeks if the fetus has a severe abnormality)
Detection and development are two different things I know what a foetus looks like and I prefer medically accurate sites like UNSW Embyology What has that got to do with anything? Seems that like most anti choice people it is only a "one trick pony" whenever possible bring the discussion back to late term abortion. Only the original post here shows the real reasons for late term abortions and that never sits well with anti abortionists Interestingly I note you have not addressed the original premise. In the interests of "life above all" should even babies like baby K be kept alive indefinitely?
Then why do pro-choicers defend so staunchly later term abortions that are not for medical reasons or fetal abnormality? I've been told by several pro-choicers that they don't consider it late term until 24 weeks. Obviously there are some questions in the time period before then.
They don't....your imagination is going wild again.... That's the legal limit, it is viable after that so considered late term. What questions? before that it's not viable.
Oh gosh , here's a question you "missed" in that post : """ Interestingly I note you have not addressed the original premise. In the interests of "life above all" should even babies like baby K be kept alive indefinitely?"""
But when I was talking about 12 weeks to around 18-19 weeks, she accused me of using a "one trick pony" to bring the discussion back to late term abortion. So she's accusing me of being unfair to bring up 19 week old fetuses in the discussion of abortion for fetal abnormality, and you're telling me it's not late term until 24 weeks. So which is it? Is it a one trick pony to bring up the subject of late term 12-19 week old fetuses, or does late term not begin until 24 weeks?
