I was just reading a thread about babies being born without arms or legs in France, and then I read a comment by FoxHastings in another thread, in the context of late-term induced labor abortions, claiming that choosing not to resuscitate is not killing: So let me pose this scenario to you Pro-Choicers and tell me what your thoughts are about it. You are pregnant, it's late into the pregnancy, 26 weeks. Your doctor tells you that you have a very rare heart condition. If the pregnancy continues, he believes there's an 11 percent chance you could die. They're going to try performing an emergency C-section, taking the fetus out. Since the baby will be very premature it will need to be put on oxygen and put in an incubator and receive round the clock medical care for the first 3 weeks, if it is to have a chance to survive. The doctor says that with the appropriate medical care the baby will have an 85 percent chance of survival, statistically. The doctor has something else to reveal. When they did the ultrasound they discovered that the baby appears to have no arms or legs. Everything else seems normal though. The doctor gives you the option of choosing not to resuscitate after the baby comes out. If special medical care is not administered there is a zero percent chance that baby will be able to survive. It might only be alive for an hour. Or maybe just a day if they put it in an incubator and do nothing else. The doctor also gives you another option. He can arrange for you to get an abortion. They will stick a long needle through your abdomen and inject the fetus with poison. Then labor will be induced and the dead fetus will come out whole. He leaves the room and gives you some time to think about your options. What would you decide to do? Suppose a woman did choose to give birth but decided not to resuscitate. Would you view that as killing? Would you condone her choice in this particular situation? The baby would have no arms or legs, but otherwise would be normal and turn out healthy. I want you to think about that. And then after you think about it, watch these videos: Man Born Without Arms And Legs Lives Life Without Limits | BORN DIFFERENT The Motivational Speaker born without arms or legs What this question really comes down to is whether you believe late-term abortion is okay in the case of any fetal abnormality. Suppose the fetus was just missing one arm. Would it still be okay? Suppose they didn't find out about the missing arms and legs until the baby was born. Would it be okay to just leave the baby to die then? Would it be different if that baby was also born with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (a relatively easy and simple problem to solve these days) and the decision was simply made not to resuscitate? Would the mother and doctor be absolved of responsibility for letting the baby die in that case, since it was born with a physical defect? At what point is this becoming euthanasia? Do any of you choicers approve of this? Not approve? Is it "the decision of the mother" ? Does the termination have to happen within the mother's womb for this to be okay? Do you find it more morally acceptable to perform the abortion, or to choose not to resuscitate after the baby comes out? Which one is more acceptable from an ethics point of view? Or do you feel they're both pretty much equal. Some interesting and thought provoking questions. I hope some Pro-Choicers here will dare to respond and give me their honest answers.
What a dreadful position for a woman to be in, will the child be born into a civilised country where it will be supported by the state who will provide the welfare and assistance that is required for the child to have a decent life?
So if this happens in Africa abortion would be okay? Would it not be okay in Norway then? Just asking what you think.
Obviously the society in which it is born into will affect the woman's decision, be real about it. I presume you are interested in the welfare of a child after it has been born?
Yes, but ironically a woman will be more likely to abort in a wealthy progressive society like Norway or Iceland than in a poorer country like, let's say India or Poland. (In Iceland for example almost all Down syndrome pregnancies are aborted) If I'm not interested, does that make it okay to abort? Just asking what you think.
Yes in poorer less educated countries especially where religion is involved the woman is more likely to have the child. If you are not interested it just goes to prove that you have no real concern for human life just some bizarre wish to control abortion as it is with most anti- abortion people. You show videos of how great life can be for some, if you are not interested why bother, why do you care about the unborn but not the born child?
Question: Would it have been okay to terminate this child or this child? How late would be too late? EJ had Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) - "The Worst Disease You've Never Heard Of" The Crash Reel [Clip #4] - brother of famous snowboarder Kevin Pearce has mild Down syndrome but can still talk fluently and carry on conversations How late would be too late? 24 weeks? Right before the moment of birth? How about right after the moment of birth, if the problem wasn't discovered until then?
Sounds like you are only interested in the life up until the moment it is born, me I leave the decision to the parents and the laws of the land. Ethics cannot work in a vacuum, ie up to the point it is born. There was a child left in a plastic bag in the UK this week, astonishing that such a thing could happen, but I bet the child would of been left by someone who was pressured into not having an abortion due to religious fanatics. Would I keep the child alive? No, I would not because its chances of having a good life are very small, would I try to influence the mother either way, not a chance, I leave that kind of self righteousness to the revolting god squad.
Not using heroics to prolong life for a baby with severe multiple birth defects is not euthanasia and it's not your call to make.
It's very hard to convince Anti-Choicers that they don't really rule the world or other people's lives or decisions...…..so good luck
Sounds like you couldn't address that post And to accusing someone else of avoiding directly answering questions when you have such a history of not answering those inconvenient questions is HILARIOUS!
Show the stats...……where are they and what do they matter? Yes, DUH wealthy women have an easier time getting an abortion than women in poor countries ...duh, didja just figger dat out.... That's why PP is put in poor neighborhoods and not rich ones....got it now?
FUNNY how in your thread , """Man wants to sue his parents for giving birth to him 'without his consent'""you thought it was TERRIBLE that a fetus should have a choice...…..but wouldn't that solve the problem here ?
Lets remember what the first diagnosis was and the 1st option of birth. attempt at live birth because of complications to mothers life. Then the OP piled on all sorts of non-real world possibilities. If a woman were to abort a fetus with no arms or legs that is possible way before the last trimester. There would be no reason to wait till the later trimesters to decide...and if a woman does not want to carry any fetus to term while in the 1st trimester...that is her choice. Late term abortions are very rare. States still need laws to deal with those rare instances in which one may need to occur.
Is that how you see it? Presumably this also applies to babies who are otherwise perfectly normal and have all their arms and legs?
Like if they just have Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome, a simple and easy problem to solve these days. What if all they needed to survive was to be put in a warm incubator?
Mm-hmm, so it's back to "It's a decision between a woman and her doctor". The usual deflect when it comes to talking about later-term abortions.
Presume all you like. Sadly some babies with severe multiple birth defects should be made comfortable as possible and allowed to die.That isn't euthanasia ..
