Tuesday, 02 September 2008
-
Morning Chat: Do Fetal Abnormalities Justify Abortion?
by Nurse Jenna
Last week the news was abuzz with the announcement of John McCain’s Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska. Right to Life advocates applauded her decision to have her now 4 month old son, despite the prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. She stated there was never any hesitation that she would carry her baby to term even though the condition had been detected within the legal time frame to abort the pregnancy.Though I am pro-choice, I do find it refreshing that someone (especially someone in politics) practices what they preach. More times than not this is not the case, as we saw with Elliot Spitzer who prosecuted prostitutes, but then he himself was caught spending exorbitant amounts of money on an escort. This is just one of many such examples of political pretense. People are entitled to their beliefs in this country, but nothing angers me more than a hypocrite. Sarah Palin, at least by all accounts, has made life choices consistent with her political rhetoric.
I digress a bit from my planned topic—a bit of information about how Down Syndrome and other potential genetic anomalies are diagnosed and then the difficult decisions parents must make about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. An amniocentesis can be performed for many reasons, one of which is to check for fetal abnormalities. The procedure involves inserting a needle through the abdomen, into the uterus and amniotic sac under ultrasound guidance. A sample of the amniotic fluid is drawn up through the needle and used to check fetal cells that can indicate neural tube defects or chromosomal anomalies, such as Down syndrome. This is usually done between 16 and 18 weeks gestation.
If the fetus shows an abnormality, the critical decision must be made whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy. It is a difficult decision— if continued, the quality of life of both the child and the family can be severely compromised. Though for many, terminating a pregnancy may clash with moral or religious values, regardless of the circumstance.
Do you think a fetal abnormality is a justifiable reason to abort a pregnancy? If you are pro-life, would you want to know ahead of time if your baby was going to have any medical or developmental conditions?
-
recommend
- recs 6
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to momaroo's Momaroo Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in momaroo's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (288)
Its funny because I just posted a blog about this on Myspace yesterday...here is what I said:
"This thing about Sarah Palin's baby having Down's Syndrome got me thinking about all the women out there who would have had an abortion in that situation and I realized something: If God trusted a woman enough to give her the gift of a special needs child, who is she to decide to destroy that gift before its even born."
And to answer this question: "If you are pro-life, would you want to know ahead of time if your baby was going to have any medical or developmental conditions?" Yes, I would like to know, just so I am able to be prepared ahead of time and therefore able to take care of the child better.
I agree that it is refreshing to see a politician practice what they preach.
Thankfully we live in a country where it is a woman's right to choose. If I personally were to have a child and knew it had substantial birth defects, I'd probably abort. I say this because I know myself and I know that I would make a terrible mother to a child with birth defects. I'm sure that makes me an awful person but really, a child born into this shitty of a world deserves at the very least the unconditional love of it's parents.
After coming back and reading all the comments, I'm left with a couple new thoughts. First, since early tests are quite often wrong, it hardly seems justifiable to abort on the basis of that. Most of us seem to agree that it's not a good thing to abort a healthy baby.
So maybe the answer is to simply wait until the child is born and make sure that there actually IS a birth defect. Then, once you find out for SURE that there's something wrong, you can go ahead and get rid of the baby at that point. How would those of you who are pro-choice feel about that? It seems more responsible to wait until the tests can be conclusive, so that you don't run the risk of killing a healthy baby. Would you be okay with that? I honestly would like to know, because it seems more reasonable to me than aborting, knowing that the test may have been wrong. Would it be better if the law allowed for that?
Another issue mentioned is rape. Rape is a horrible and traumatic thing, and I agree that an unplanned pregnancy on top of it would be difficult. What no one has mentioned is that abortion is also a traumatic event for a woman. No matter what the reason a woman has for choosing abortion, it is not an easy thing to do. Most women who have abortions struggle with emotional issues for quite some time. I'm wondering why adding that to the emotional and physical trauma of a rape would be beneficial? Obviously unplanned pregnancy is inconvenient, but maybe one way to validate the pain would be to carry the baby to term to be adopted by a waiting family. I think it might actually be a silver lining--admittedly not an easy thing to do, but then at least the woman might find some purpose in what she has suffered.
Just a thought, and since I have no personal experience on either one of these issues, it would be interesting to hear from someone who does.
Congratulations, you have dodged the Dumbasher Bullet! Here at Dumbashers R Us we make it our business to get all-up-in everyone else's, awarding only the most moronic the coveted(?) Dumbasher Award. Today, you may rest easy knowing you are not yet among the internets Idiot Elite. Stay sharp, as we will check back for future submissions.
Stay on ur meds,
Dumbashers
abort them all.
@Isismoon@xanga - I've had trouble with the comment feature lately too. No clue what's going on there. I agree that the "Everybody's doing it" argument doesn't mean that it's no big deal. Like I said, I personally avoid it. But I do think that (like cussing, actually) it can be used occasionally to some benefit. But it should by no means be in regular use. *chuckling* I guess you could say that one thing that Obama and I agree on is that words DO have power. *grin*
As to the endangered species comment, I do personally think she was trying to make a point, perhaps based on what she thought would get you thinking. But that's just me. I enjoy discussing meaningful issues without burying each other in rhetoric or insults that obfuscate the matters we discuss. I can't speak for anyone but myself. Hope you had a good weekend! Til' next time, eh?
@jennipenar@xanga - I was not sure what her point was. I'm a natural products chemist and all species have their own unique chemicals that could be helpful to us humans. It seemed as if she was just tossing out something another person had put into her head. I am just cautious of people when they use sarcasm. Sometimes it's meant to be humorous but other times it is a form of aggression. Yes, it's good we agree that words have power. I also think that hope is very important. And intelligence is good in a leader if it goes with kindness and compassion. That is what I see in Obama. I don't want people to vote for someone who even admits he has a temper just because of their stance on a personal issue such as abortion. You see, I did not ever have an abortion and now have an 18 year old son. An aggressive president with a temper could be death for him and I do love him dearly. Hope you had a good week-end too.
@Isismoon@xanga - Well, unless she elaborates, we may never know exactly what she meant. Admittedly, it's pretty typical rhetoric for a conservative to use, but I don't even know what laws she may have been referencing.
On Obama - well, that words have power is about all he and I agree on. I'll just leave it at that, else I open up a new can of worms.
On the "president with a temper" - I agree. Proverbs 16:32 says "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city." We should always try to elect leaders who are slow to anger. (although a little side-thought: Has anyone really known Obama well enough to say he has a temper or not? I would be interested to hear from his IL Senate staff what he is like. The secretaries ALWAYS have the real scoop. I paged in my home state's capitol, and learned a LOT from the secretaries)
But I am pretty sure that a President cannot enact a draft on his lonesome, nor can he declare war without the Senate and House's okay. Thank-you, three branches of government. It's meant to protect us from a Dr. Strangelove ending (a fave movie of mine and my hubby's btw). Although perhaps you're son is a volunteer? To that concern, since McCain has been a tortured POW in the military, and in his own words "I hate war", I don't think he would send troops anywhere unless he truly believed it had to be done for our national defense. I disagree with McCain on a far bit of stuff, but him handling our national defense (outside of the illegal immigration issue) has never been a concern of mine.
But with Obama, I fear that instead of having an opinion so strongly his temper blows up, he would be the opposite - being such a people-pleaser that he never comes to a decision on anything until it is too late, and we have another 9/11, or worse on our hands. I think of how abismally he reacted to the Russia/Geogia conflict, and it scares me to think that he might be in control of our nation's defense.
Whoo, boy. Have WE gotten of topic, or what? Have a good night.
@jennipenar@xanga - Well, I have met Obama a few times and my son worked on his campaign when he could. He is a good thinker and slow to anger. But not a wimp either. Tough but not out of control. As TIME magazine said,he's the candidate with the conservative restraint. He is used to working with people. McCain was tortured and seems to have never gotten over it. His advertisements show a certain immaturity. Did you know that some are saying that the Russia Georgia conflict is made up to make McCain look good-- just as the Republicans were in league with Iran when Carter was president. It's all very complicated. Why would the GOP go behind the back of the nation just to influence an election? I am going to stick with the slow to anger person. As for the three branches of government, the Court tilts very conservative. Clinton appointed moderates and Bush did not return the favor. So that would leave just one branch left. I don't agree with everything Obama does. He is too conservative in my book. He is very devout which scares me some because I see secular as being a good thing for an elected official. But I like his ability to consider all sides of an issue and make a fair decision and he promises not to campaign using fear which is a nice change. I actually know somebody who knows Palin. Says she is nice enough but a bit over her head in the big league.
While aborting a genetically ill child can be viewed as somewhat cold and selfish, I do believe the family must consider the potential quality of life that both baby and family would have if birth of said child takes place. Not all families are financially blessed like Palin's, who I completely admire for doing the very thing she preaches. For example, if having a child with Down's would mean a life of financial insecurity and emotional instability for the entire family, I hate to be a utilitarian, but I do believe aborting that child would be better for the entire family as a whole.
Being pro-life, it wouldn't matter to me if my baby had abnormalities.. I would carry it to term and give birth anyway. I don't believe that a mental condition or a physical abnormality is a reason to not give the child a chance at life. It seems a bit silly to me to terminate the child because their life may be compromised. Isn't that compromising it to the fullest extent, by not even giving it a chance?
I understand that some people wouldn't be able to take care of a child with a disorder, etc. Frankly, it's expensive and emotionally draining. However, I'm adopted myself, and I know from various adoption groups that there are many many couples in this world who want to adopt special needs children. They feel capable and comfortable. They're financially and emotionally stable enough to. So I have to ask what makes abortion, in those situations, the better option? Because adoption looks like a fairly good one to me.
bamfness_xx@xanga.com
do you really, honestly think there are enough families looking to adopt special needs kids? if so many families are eager to adopt these kids... please explain to me why so many are suffering in state homes and inadequate foster care systems?
abnormalties don't justify anything. a child with down-syndrome has every right to enter this world as one without. a down-syndrome kid is as much as a blessing as a normal child. when my mother was pregnant with my little brother, she was given the option to test and see if he had down-syndrome, because it was possible because she was so old. she told the doctor, "why should i? the test could hurt the baby, and what difference would it make? he has a right to live, no matter what he is like." that's what everyone should go by. abortion is murder. these babies have every right to live as you and i do.