HuffPo writer aborts daughter with Trisomy 13
That night I tried reading about the procedures, but I kept feeling nauseous. Sophia was now moving regularly, and we were planning a 21-week D&E or induced birth.
The horror pressed into us. We holed up in our house and grieved, deliberated and found scraps of distraction to keep us sane. We whispered to Sophia, my husband’s head lying lovingly on my belly.
Postponing her imminent death was not an option. She would develop more sensory ability to feel pain. We filled out consent forms to have an autopsy and cremation performed on our unborn child.
~ Writer Kimberly Cates Escamilla (pictured) explaining her decision to abort her unborn daughter after being diagnosed with the genetic disorder, Trisomy 13, Huffington Post, April 10
[Photo via Cates Escamilla’s Facebook page]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s unheard of today to leave yourself open to the will of God. Yes, your baby is going to die, probably pre-term, or shortly after birth. But you must still see yourself as a parent. A parent is in charge of giving her children the best life possible–the circumstances are determined by God. So you have a womb, warm, comfortable, nurturing….your little one is happy in there! This is her little life! Maybe you’ll get to hold her, greet her, kiss her. Ah, that’s the rub! We can’t face it: the possible deformity; watching her expire. It’s hard. I know–I did it. My Trisomy 18 baby was the best thing that ever happened to me. I’m glad for the 48 hours I had with her. Though it was difficult. For a brief fleeting moment, when I realized what was happening to her, I wanted to reject her. I wanted to run from her bedside like the disciples ran from Christ on the cross. But I steadied myself and stayed. I made sure that my voice was singing in her little malformed ears until the last moment of her life. Because that’s my job as a parent–to give her life, guidance and comfort for whatever length of days God gives her.
http://www.benotafraid.com
This makes me ill. That they would name her, talk to her and then murder her because she wasn’t perfect.
I am so sorry Sophia. So very sorry that your parents lacked the courage to give you life COME WHAT MAY!!!
Though my mother and father forsake me the Lord will receive me. Psalm 21:10.
My heart aches.
What a brutal culture we live in where putting your child down like a sick dog you found in the street gets acclamations and empathy. The article reads more like political melodrama or a PPFA ad than a story of mourning. So many of the commentors are so sorry for her. What about those sorry for Sophia?
Words cannot even begin to come to mind on this situation. My heart is weighted down. How have we, human beings, with heart and minds come to this? I can’t even begin to comprehend what goes into the mind of these parents. Selfishness! That’s all I can think of. Lord have Mercy on their souls.
Read the story and notice they took their cat to the emergency room. Their pet got more consideration as a life than their child. This fear of suffering and willingness to kill those who we deem as life unworthy of life is a sad, sad motivation and has had terribly profound impacts.
Bravo Kimberly. You are an inspiration and should be applauded.
I will NEVER understand the mental gymnastics it takes to brutally kill a child before they die naturally.
And then call it MERCY.
God help us.
Jake,
Clapping for murder.
Go you.
We treat our animals more humanely than we treat ourselves. I say it again, bravo!!
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a28618441/trisomy_13
Plenty of true stories to counter the justification.
Can anyone comment on this “pain” issue? Could they possibly know that this child, unlike the typical person with tri 13, had some super high pain level that called for a mercy killing?
I think Jake just TRIES to see how demented he can come across in a post. Either that..or he actually IS demented.
Get help, Jake.
I know I shouldn’t have read the article and all of the comments!! But I did.
Grieving the brutal murder of Sophia. And the thousands of other babies that will die by abortion today.
Come quickly Lord Jesus.
Leave the fool to his folly.
I think (hope) Jake was being ironic. Right, Jake? And Carla yes! When I was a child, I used to fear the last day. Now I find myself begging Our Lord to just come in glory already, for heaven’s sake!
One of the saddest things I’ve ever read.
I find it very hard to understand how parents could do this to their unborn children. However, I also believe that a great number of other people are complicit in these acts. In short, when parents find themselves in these very difficult and emotional situations, how many people do they encounter that are kind and considerate while still firm in their resolve that Life is the only option? I am sure that they are instead surrounded by people who are encouraging them to kill their child and/or being “kind and considerate” while supporting their choice of Death. I say that in quotes because I do not really find that to be kind or considerate. Instead, I find it to be complicit in the killing of an innocent child and in the long term an act that just sets up the parents for suffering later. Love is not doing what people want us to do. Love is doing what people need us to do. And in cases like this, if parents were surrounded by people doing the truly loving thing in the proper sense of what love is, then they would encounter the support they needed to make the truly loving choice, which is of course Life.
Every time I hear one of these stories, it’s hard to keep from crying. My brother was born with trisomy 7. He lived for 4.5 years. God worked amazing wonders through him in my family and in other people’s lives.
After he was born, the doctors recommended aborting me (I was born 3 years later). My mom’s answer was simple: no. She didn’t care if she needed another crib in the living room with round-the-clock-nurses taking care of me. She wasn’t going to kill her own child.
There is nothing humane about abortion. It is a disgusting, vile, evil act.
What Kimberly is saying is false compassion. One day, she will regret it.
I will be speaking with another Silent No More woman tonight, who was told she needed to terminate her pregnancy because her baby had hydrocephalus. She tells her story of abortion regret to help others.
My heart aches, too, Carla.
I don’t think we should demonize the mother for the tragedy that she suffered. She is not evil, but misguided. She didn’t want this abortion, but she felt like she “had to.”
What compelled her? What compels a women to kill a child she wants and loves when a birth defect is discovered?
For some women, it might be selfishness. Fear of the sacrifices it will take to raise a child with Down’s Syndrome or spina bifida.
But I don’t see any such fear in Mrs. Escamilla. Her motive is not clear — it takes some digging to find. As nearly as I can tell, she believes that “Quality of Life” is more valuable and sacred that “Life” itself.
In simple terms — a short life with Trisomy 18 is not a life that is worth living. And so, the best thing to do is to kill the child quickly — before she can “feel pain.” This minimizes the suffering, and thus it is best.
Mrs. Escamilla is trying to do the loving and moral and best possible thing, within a world-view that no longer believes that life is sacred.
Pray for her. We may see her speaking at Silent No More in a few years.
I feel so bad for that woman, Carol, because I was born with hydrocephalus and, after surgery to insert a shunt, corrective eye surgery, surgery for clubbed feet and bladder surgery (all ‘corrective’ surgery), I am just fine. I developed Type 2 diabetes later in life but still, on a day-to-day basis, I’m BLESSED to be here. I have a husband, I have a child..I have a LIFE.
So sad that parents take a doctor’s word as “Gospel” that their child will have “no quality of life” and end that child’s life.
My heart aches, too.
I always wonder why women who do this sort of thing are so willing to “normalize” it in such a public way. It makes me wonder if they are really looking for approval or justification, or perhaps sympathy (maybe not, but like I said – I do wonder). And I also wonder if they have an agenda to make pro-lifers appear unmerciful because we think doing something like this is the opposite of love. If you read between the lines (or sometimes they even say it outright), you’ll often find a hint of “I can’t believe those pro-life people would make anyone give birth to a less-than-perfectly-healthy child!” and the sentiment of “Don’t you dare judge me for killing my child in this manner!”
I don’t get the utilitarian mentality of “you’re going to die anyway, so let’s end it now.” I will never understand it.
I cannot see any other reason for articles of this sort than to normalize the killing of the disabled.
From a pic that was made on facebook comes this question
So……..if the abortionist were to deliver Sophia alive and placed her in mommy’s arms would she have killed that girly herself??
I know I shouldn’t have read the article and all of the comments!! But I did.
i know how you feel, Carla. I can’t read this stuff anymore, it gets me too upset, and I don’t want to start crying at work.
I remember I thought I was having a miscarriage at 24 weeks and went to the hospital. The nurse let me hear Samantha’s heartbeat. It was so strong and fast! My daughter (now 23, so I obviously didnt lose her) was only a few weeks older than this woman’s. Heartbreaking.
@Jake – Dude, speaking of animals, you are one sick puppy.
Del,
The ACT itself is heinous. The justification for it is in fact completely misguided and this mother was deceived. Completely deceived. I cannot claim to know what went on in the mind of her and her husband but the end result is this…Sophia was brutally murdered because she was “less than.”
phillymiss,
It is like a car accident for me. I can’t look away.
:(
@Del – you said in part what I was trying to say
“I don’t think we should demonize the mother for the tragedy that she suffered. She is not evil, but misguided. She didn’t want this abortion, but she felt like she “had to.” ”
I hate what she did, and I do not see her as innocent. But I do see her as misguided and I think we need to look beyond her. How can we help women like her choose life instead? The short answer, at least in my opinion – be there and speak the truth with conviction, compassion and mercy – and be willing to give of ourselves to help someone who needs our help.
How about a prolife OB/GYN??
How about a team of doctors that believe in the sanctity of life? That will surround a couple in their fear and guide them to love the child until she dies naturally?
How about referrals to other couples who allowed nature to take its course and are not living with regret over it??
So much better we can offer than death.
Poor Sophia. This article is one of the saddest things I’ve ever read. Killing disguised as compassion. It’s horrifying.
” I couldn’t live with myself if I received the amnio and accidentally killed or hurt a healthy baby.”
Kimberly already had one child that wasn’t “perfect”. Apparently she was bound and determined she wouldn’t have another. There’s nothing loving about this story. I’m not sure it’s demonizing Kimberly to recognize that she did evil. In a stressful and emotional situation she chose to do evil and call it good. Lord have mercy.
Carla – absolutely – that is exactly what I mean! And I pray for the day that this becomes the normal expectation in our society.
She obviously didn’t research her options very well, as it seems she’s never heard of perinatal hospice.
Poor little Sophia. My heart breaks for her.
I will never understand the mental gymnastics that allow someone to bond with a child for 5 months, then kill her because she is not “perfect”.
I struggle with Del’s convicting comments about demonizing, and he has an important point. But if you read the article, it’s not a personal story from so much as a political screed using the memory of her daughter to condemn us and lead others into believing that her abortion and the millions of others for reasons far worse should be accepted and considered compassionate. Even some of the comments on the article were from pro-life people who thought they had to sympathize and imply she was doing the right thing. These brutal acts cloaked in a story with sweet words were calculated to continue the death of millions. A fine line between condemnation and hoping for forgiveness, but how many will be led astray in our society obsessed with avoiding suffering and false empathy for others?
Ob/gyns that push for abortion to avoid problems/malpractice suits/etc. cannot be underestimated.
HuffPo writer aborts daughter with Trisomy 13
I guess that alone should be a clue as to the purpose or agenda of the article
good comments, Chris
A D&E???? Tearing the arms and legs off your child and disemboweling her as she struggles within your womb is SAVING HER FROM PAIN? Good grief, this woman is delusional. Did she research what a D&E is at all? Parents don’t kill their kids when they are sick!!! I wish our society would get that memo already.
I was thinking the same thing, Kel. What is the “agenda” when publishing a story such as this one ? Is she looking for justification? sympathy?
Sorry, but the only sympathy I have is for baby Sofia..who is no longer here to know it.
This woman is nuts. Having now read the full article I can tell she can only use lies to justify her horrible pro-death position. She claims that CPC’s are full of pictures of aborted babies. What CPC’s has she been in? I’ve been and worked in several and never once saw a photo of an aborted baby. Anywhere.
Joanna,
I was about to mention prenatal hospice as well. The parents are supported by compassionate and knowledgable medical professionals who can provide comfort care and pain management, as well as covering of visible deformities (if the parents wish), and provide grief and support resources for pregnancy/child loss for the parents. In addition, the parents are given an oppurtunity to hold the child and say goodbye, take photos with the child, have foot prints & finger prints taken, and the child baptized if the parents wish. If the child is killed (by heart injection) before induction & delivery or dismembered in the womb, you miss out on the opportunity to hold and interact with you child (for their little fingers to hold your own) and for them to hear your voice, and pass peacefully in your arms.
In the alternative, an abortion, the child dies in an often gruesome and painful manner (the inter-cardiac injection causes a heart attack, hypertonic saline causes demise by burning & poisoning; & dismemberment causes uncomfortable popping/pressure sensations if not pain, for the fetus. The fetus may feel pain as early as 21-23 weeks). If you love your child so much, then why put them through that, instead of providing pallative care and letting nature take it’s course, which to me seems more humane. I’m soryy, but I’m not willing to assuage and appease people’s consciouses and guilt with shallow and empty support and euphemisms, in some kind of patronistic protection, which isn’t doing them any favors in the long run.
Jamie,
Thank you for sharing your heart about your precious baby. You have been there. You know.
I have walked with two families through poor prenatal diagnosis. They REFUSED to kill their daughters before they died naturally. And now they have precious memories of the baby they held and cuddled, kissed and sang to. Their families met their grandchild, sister and niece. No fear. Just love.
Can’t blame her for not wanting the baby to suffer.
Ecclesiastes 4:3
But better off than either are those who have never been born, who have never seen the injustice that goes on in this world.
Hoss Cartwright wrote:
Can’t blame her for not wanting the baby to suffer.
I do not blame her (or anyone else) for not wanting the baby to suffer. I do, however, find grave fault with her decision to kill her baby as her method of trying to fulfill that “want”. If the idea of “better off dead than suffering” were to be true, then only the utter genocide of all humanity (and, arguably, all life with ability to experience distress/pain) on earth could satisfy it!
Re: Ecclesiastes 4:3: that is a short excerpt of a long complaint, laced with hyperbolic laments about the miseries of life; it’s not a valid approach to lift that out of its context and try to use it as a universal moral norm. Otherwise, again: do you think God finds annihilation preferable to life (even in the face of suffering)? If that were true, then an all-good God (such as we have) would never have created life in the first place! No… we need to detach ourselves from the sickly notion that “suffering is the ultimate evil”; suffering is technically an evil, but it can be (and has been) redeemed, and Christ even allows us to unite our sufferings to His, in order to give our own (comparatively paltry) sufferings rich meaning. Read Colossians 1:24, 1 Peter 4:13, etc.
Whoops… apparently, I replied to a ghost comment! :) Sorry about that…
I think the only “suffering” she wanted to eliminate was her OWN.
So tragic that these parents truly loved their little daughter but bought the societal lie that it is more merciful to murder a disabled child then allow her to be born and die naturally. They sacrificed the chance to hold Sophia in their arms, to kiss her, rock her, sing to her, possibly even make eye-to-eye contact and smile their love into her heart before she passed from this world. Instead, their love was perverted, twisted, and they slew their own daughter; denied her all their warmth and love and acceptance she deserved and made themselves into murderers instead of bereaved parents. And for this they are praised! What a backwards society we live in.
Everyone already expressed my sentiments on the matter. The whole thing, what she went through, what Sophia went through, the whole song and dance of feeling sorry for her and pretending Sophia got the best part of the deal is all SICK. Just SICK. Our whole death loving society is sick >:(
Except this, D&E or Induced Birth, which one? She’s not attempting to imply they are one and the same or two terms for the same procedure is she? I didn’t read the article… did she clarify?
Thanks Carla! And thanks for your work with expectant families. It’s so much better to face your sick baby, and look him or her in the eyes, rather than heap misery upon yourself by being an instrument of death to them. I really think that Fear is behind all this. God bless.
I read the article…the D&E and the induction were the two options the doctors presented her with for the abortion. She chose the induction because she didn’t want to go to an abortion clinic.
All the commenters feel so sorry for her, but there is no sympathy for little Sophia at all.
Okay, this post is mean and uncalled for, and has nothing to do with anything, and the mods can delete it if they want, but how come so many of these abortion supporters look so BUSTED?
” They sacrificed the chance to hold Sophia in their arms, to kiss her, rock her, sing to her, possibly even make eye-to-eye contact and smile their love into her heart before she passed from this world.”
Actually, if you and everyone else here had bothered to read the entire article, you would have read the following:
“After 17 hours of dilation drugs and contractions, Sophia arrived. We were grateful to hold her tiny body, kiss her face and say goodbye in person.”
There was no D&E (so the hysterics about the tearing of limbs and disembowelment are even more absurd than usual); they triggered labor and she gave birth. I don’t see any meaningful difference between that and a miscarriage.
Imagine how Kimberly and those who also abort or agree with the destruction of disabled boys and girls when they are fetuses must look at older disabled children. Now we know the anger behind those who say mean and bizarre things about Trigg Palin and Bella Santorum. They can’t cope with the mental dissonance of having aborted or supporting death for disabled children and seeing living, happy disabled children in loving families.
My brother had Duchene Muscular Dystrophy, and I can tell you first hand that some people, and not a tiny few, just can’t take it that some children have disablilites, and they won’t let themselves love them to care for them. Killing such children via abortion spares small-hearted
adults the pain and conflict they feel.
Why small-heartedness isn’t a MUCH bigger disability than Trisomy 13, I don’t know… I mourn Sophia and her too-short life. I bet she would have a great smile like her mother or Bella Santorum.
joan says:
“I don’t see any meaningful difference between that and a miscarriage.”
Of course you don’t.
I don’t see any meaningful difference between that and a miscarriage.
My miscarriage last month was not triggered purposely by me in order to kill my child. This woman’s abortion was.
There are plenty of women in my support group, pro-life AND pro-choice alike, who would tell you that is a VERY meaningful difference.
These sort of stories make me thank God for my three healthy and beautiful daughters.
Phillymiss: Okay, this post is mean and uncalled for, and has nothing to do with anything, and the mods can delete it if they want, but how come so many of these abortion supporters look so BUSTED?
I don’t think that was all *that* mean, Phillymiss. ;)
But how many in “so many”? <insert another wink here>
Part of the problem is the doom and gloom that doctors foretell to parents in this situation. Doctors are not God and they cannot see the future. Neither can parents. They had no way of knowing for sure the extent of their daughter’s condition and what her life would be like. They do not know that her death was inevitable and imminent. They chose imminent death FOR her. For all anyone knows (and God knows) she could have lived! And lived a happy life.
The Santorums receive so much criticism from arrogant, cruel people who insist that Bella’s life has been nothing but suffering and pain, but they are wrong. They don’t know Bella! They don’t know the Santorum family! The truth is, Bella is a happy and joyful child, and God has not thrown her away. There’s a purpose for her life.
Sophia had a purpose, too, and it’s a tragedy that her parents were unwilling to let God be God, and let their daughter be their daughter and live.
I pity Sophia’s parents because they have forfeited their treasure.
Don’t bother, Kate. You and I know the difference. Joan never will.
I’m sorry for the loss of your child, Kate, but we will see our babies again one day.
No joan. Learn to read. Seriously. She said she considered D&E. Do you know what they do to babies during a D&E Joan? Allow me to demonstrate on you.
I admitted I had not read the entire article yet so I didn’t know what method she chose. But many moms and dads do put their little babies to death by having limbs ripped off and being disemboweled in the womb. Don’t be so dense. Research D&E and you’ll see the only absurd one here is you.
Sydney, I would like to add to that–she chose the induction not because it was less painful for her daughter, but because she didn’t want to have the abortion in a clinic. The pain of the abortion didn’t matter to her.
But…wtf…An autopsy? What killed the baby? GEE, COULD IT BE THE EFFIN’ ABORTION?!
She needs prayer, not judgement. She will live with this decision for the rest of her life, and be haunted by it. She may one day find herself speaking to others about the pain and tragedy of her choice as many of us do. While the story was full of anti-life propaganda that isn’t true, the last sentence she wrote is one I can agree with: “we need sacred ways to honor both women and the unborn that are loving, free of dogma and condemnation”. Post-abortive women need the love of Jesus and the freedom to grieve the loss of their child. Too many times, those of us who bear the name of Christ deny them those things and that, to me, is very sad. And it is most decidedly not what our Lord would do. He would likely kneel down and write in the sand as we stand with stones in our hands…
I will absolutely judge what she has done!! It is heinous. Just as my abortion was!!
I will stand and say women deserve better than abortion and ONE DAY when and if this woman feels any sort of guilt or shame or regret I pray she finds the healing and forgiveness I have found.
Until then she is writing articles to justify what she has done in the killing of her precious daughter.
I blame the doctors and the Supreme court. If this woman lived in a decent society where doctors didn’t do this and the courts didn’t “make” it legal, she would have not have been pressured into murder.
Even a two year stint i the state pen and loss of a medical license would get rid of this crap. Those docs are cowards. They wouldn’t risk sitting in the pen for a couple of years just to kill a kid a few weeks before she may likely pass anyway. But hey, if it is legal and profitable, then sure the profiteers will assure you it is for the “best” … ugh, so disgusting.
sophia – greek for wisdom
tragic irony.
the parents reject wisdom
The only thing worse than insensitive, anti-life doctors are the “wolves in shepherd’s clothing” called “clergy for choice”. The medical profession has been corrupted by abortion and parents have been corrupted by this “children are commodities”. There is nothing more that can be said for “pro-choice” clergy except that they betray Jesus as did their predecessor, Judas.
Christians need to live authentically Christian lives. God bless the courageous parents who welcomed their children even after a poor prenatal prognosis. God bless the doctors, clergy and family members who stood with these parents. Your light will shine forth and penetrate the spiritual darkness.
How can we help women like her choose life instead?
Illegalize abortion and throw any “doctor” willing to do an abortion in the clink.
Our country should not allow anyone to choose murder.
“I blame the doctors and the Supreme court. If this woman lived in a decent society where doctors didn’t do this and the courts didn’t “make” it legal, she would have not have been pressured into murder.”
I also blame our medical system – parents facing this decision also know that they are going to incur thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in a situation they are told is helpless. We put dollar figures on people’s lives by not having a better healthcare system.
See April 11, 2012 at 7:31 am
Ex-GOP: We put dollar figures on people’s lives by not having a better healthcare system.
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Right or wrong, good or bad, those Dollar figures are going to have to go down.
sophia – greek for wisdom
tragic irony.
the parents reject wisdom
I don’t know…seems to me the wise decision was made here. The parents EMBRACED wisdom.
Okay, this post is mean and uncalled for, and has nothing to do with anything, and the mods can delete it if they want, but how come so many of these abortion supporters look so BUSTED
Lovely…I think she is beautiful. She was faced with facts and made a wise choice, a beautiful woman indeed. Post a picture of yourself and we shall debate what busted looks like.
Trisomy 13 is no joke. This is Patau Syndrome, and most people, pro-lifer and pro-choicer alike, would prevent it if they could, and choose not to get pregnant if Trisomy 13 was going to be the result.
But we cannot know ahead of time, right? When we do find out, during pregnancy in this case, a lot more people will choose to have abortions, versus normal pregnancies (and many people will choose abortions in the case of normal pregnancies already). If you’re pregnant and it’s a wanted pregnancy, and you find out it’s Trisomy 13 and you elect to continue the pregnancy, fine, it’s your choice. Likewise, it’s the choice of some to end the pregnancy. Trisomy 13 babies are not for everybody, not nearly so. I would say it’s only a small minority that would choose to continue such pregnancies.
Trisomy 13 babies are not for everybody, not nearly so.
Well, there you have it folks.
@Colleen,
[Life is] not for everybody, not nearly so.
Fixed that for you, since that’s really what you’re saying. I wonder, do you hold the same opinion about born children with trisomy 13? Is it also perfectly acceptable to you to rip them limb from limb?
Your shallow pop-culture wisdom is offensive to anyone with two working brain cells.
We cannot just kill everyone with cancer and say we’ve cured cancer. That’s exactly what you are suggesting with your “preventative” care.
What I want to know is why didn’t “dear daddy” man up and try to make his wife see that the natural course of things would have been easier in the long run for everyone.
Oh wait…that would require a little sacrifice and inconvenience. No time or tolerance for any of THAT ! Heaven forbid.
Daddy is just as responsible for this tragedy as mommy is.
Trisomy 13 babies are not for everybody, not nearly so.
Hoop earrings are not for everybody.
Chihuahuas are not for everybody.
Horizontal stripes are not for everybody.
Short skirts are not for everybody.
High heels are not for everybody.
Lady,
Stop talking about this CHILD as if she were a pet or a fashion accessory. THIS CHILD’S LIFE is/was not some option like wearing mauve or teal on a particular day. How effin’ insensitive can you be?!
Jamie, thank you for sharing your story. I am glad for the 48 hours you had with your daughter and I am glad that for her whole little life, she knew you and was loved by you.
Hitler would be proud!
There is no such thing as a perfect child! Just as there will never be a perfect president of the united states.
Instead of letting their child die NATURALLY, they decided she needed to be brutally killed….that is just WRONG!
X–I am going to have to agree with you there about the whole horizontal stripe thing.
Oh sweet little Trisomy baby! I’m going to do myself, oops, I mean YOU a favor. I’m going to KILL you.
And the logic of that would be…….?
Andrew Ensley says: April 12, 2012 at 12:18 am
@Colleen,[Life is] not for everybody, not nearly so.
Fixed that for you, since that’s really what you’re saying.
You are correct, but not in the way you probably intended. As stated, many people will choose to have abortions, when the pregnancy is normal. When Trisomy 13 is present, the rate will be higher. This is simply a fact, whether or not one is for legal abortion or not (in general or in the case of Trisomy 13).
I wonder, do you hold the same opinion about born children with trisomy 13? Is it also perfectly acceptable to you to rip them limb from limb?
Of course not (and it’s a bit difficult to think you’re serious – there is Constitutional protection for the born). Again, as stated -If you’re pregnant and it’s a wanted pregnancy, and you find out it’s Trisomy 13 and you elect to continue the pregnancy, fine, it’s your choice. This is the decision of the parents. If they choose to continue the pregnancy, do you really think they would in any way want the born baby dead? The parents should know what to expect – over 80% of such babies die in the first year. Hopefully, they do know, and are still making their best choice.
Your shallow pop-culture wisdom is offensive to anyone with two working brain cells.
Your need to demean the truth is telling. There are many things here that apply in all cases – again – whether or not one is for legal abortion or not (in general or in the case of Trisomy 13).
We cannot just kill everyone with cancer and say we’ve cured cancer. That’s exactly what you are suggesting with your “preventative” care.
You are absolutely wrong. Neither I nor anyone else here has said that all Trisomy 13 pregnancies have to be ended.
@Colleen,
I absolutely was serious. Do you not see that, born or unborn, the act and outcome are the same? How do you reconcile being incredulous that I would suggest ripping a born child limb from limb while defending the very same act on the very same being only a little earlier?
Your need to demean the truth is telling. There are many things here that apply in all cases – again – whether or not one is for legal abortion or not (in general or in the case of Trisomy 13).
Please elaborate on this point. I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say. I’m saying the right to life applies to all humans. Your statement seems to support that point, but you clearly disagree with me. What am I missing?
I admit that perhaps I misunderstood you when you said: “most people, pro-lifer and pro-choicer alike, would prevent it if they could.” It was a reasonable misunderstanding as I actually have heard people say this when they meant “abort all deformed babies.”
Hi Colleen.
“there is Constitutional protection for the born”
Is this why it would be immoral to kill a born person with Trisomy 13? In other words, without constitutional protection for born people with Trisomy 13, would it be morally permissible to kill them? More to the point, suppose the constitution positively allowed for the right to kill a born person. Would you then be defending that position? The reason I ask these questions is because in response to Andrew’s question about whether or not it is acceptable to rip born people limb from limb, the only reason you gave was an appeal to law. You also mentioned “choice,” but that is obviously a question-begging argument which assumes that the choice to procure an abortion is a moral one, the very question we are debating.
Again, as stated -If you’re pregnant and it’s a wanted pregnancy, and you find out it’s Trisomy 13 and you elect to continue the pregnancy, fine, it’s your choice.
Nice use of the word ‘it’s’ and ‘pregnancy, Colleen.
Her name was Sophia. She had Trisomy 13. And her parents chose to kill her because of her disability.
And that’s the truth.
Colleen Ray,
Demean the truth? The truth that many mothers choose to abort?
Basically it seems you are saying the status quo of abortion is just fine and dandy with you. Many people will choose to abort whether Trisomy 13 is involved or not. Whatev.
Yes, we know that “truth”. And it’s wrong.
You don’t just choose to end a pregnancy, Colleen. You choose to kill someone.
(can you hear my face palm???)
What is this magical quality of wantedness and how is it so powerful that it can decide who lives and who dies?
I admit that perhaps I misunderstood you when you said: “most people, pro-lifer and pro-choicer alike, would prevent it if they could.” It was a reasonable misunderstanding as I actually have heard people say this when they meant “abort all deformed babies.”
Andrew, “abort all deformed babies,” without regard to what the pregnant woman wants? This would hardly be pro-choice.
I absolutely was serious. Do you not see that, born or unborn, the act and outcome are the same? How do you reconcile being incredulous that I would suggest ripping a born child limb from limb while defending the very same act on the very same being only a little earlier?
No, not “the same,” but rather the same in some ways. There is a death in both cases, indeed, but when you are talking about a born child, then you’ve removed the aspect of being inside the woman’s body – which, whether you say it justifies legal abortion or not – remains a huge factor in abortion deliberations. There are also the differences of Consitutional protection, of the born baby being a full and legal human being, etc. – again, whether you say that weighs on things or not (I would say it obviously does weigh on things). There is also the development and characteristics at hand. I don’t say that abortion is all right through all the months of pregnancy. Better to have abortions earlier, rather than later. Most states already prohibit elective abortions at a juncture in pregnancy, and I would not change that. As gestation progresses, the unborn become cognizant entities.
Your need to demean the truth is telling. There are many things here that apply in all cases – again – whether or not one is for legal abortion or not (in general or in the case of Trisomy 13).
Please elaborate on this point. I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say. I’m saying the right to life applies to all humans. Your statement seems to support that point, but you clearly disagree with me. What am I missing?
You said, “shallow pop-culture wisdom.” True wisdom would include the realization that the right to life is not absolute. You apparently want it to be extended farther than it currently is. All right, that is your wish. That does not change the independent facts surrounding the discussion, some of which I’ve pointed out (to the apparent “horror” of some posters).
Where you say, “the right to life applies to all humans,” this is your wish, but you appear to be pitching it as if it is the status quo, and this is in the face of the reality that it is that very status quo that you desire to be changed. Needless to say, that does not make sense.
Hi Bobby.
“there is Constitutional protection for the born”
Is this why it would be immoral to kill a born person with Trisomy 13? In other words, without constitutional protection for born people with Trisomy 13, would it be morally permissible to kill them? More to the point, suppose the constitution positively allowed for the right to kill a born person. Would you then be defending that position? The reason I ask these questions is because in response to Andrew’s question about whether or not it is acceptable to rip born people limb from limb, the only reason you gave was an appeal to law. You also mentioned “choice,” but that is obviously a question-begging argument which assumes that the choice to procure an abortion is a moral one, the very question we are debating.
I was replying to Andrew’s question about including born children. There are quite a few differences – which I later elaborated on in response to Andrew – but I see why you see it as an appeal to law. No, I don’t say moral/immoral based on that alone, yet it is one difference, along with being outside the womb, the development that occurs in the womb, the characteristics of the baby, etc.
As to “choice,” there, I said, “Again, as stated – If you’re pregnant and it’s a wanted pregnancy, and you find out it’s Trisomy 13 and you elect to continue the pregnancy, fine, it’s your choice.”
My point is that no, I don’t say kill born Trisomy13 babies. I don’t even say kill unborn Trisomy 13 babies. It’s not my choice unless I’m the pregnant one.
Praxedes says: April 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Again, as stated -If you’re pregnant and it’s a wanted pregnancy, and you find out it’s Trisomy 13 and you elect to continue the pregnancy, fine, it’s your choice.
Nice use of the word ‘it’s’ and ‘pregnancy, Colleen.
Her name was Sophia. She had Trisomy 13. And her parents chose to kill her because of her disability.
And that’s the truth.
Praxedes, no offense meant, and I wasn’t talking about that one specific baby. I mean for all pregnancies, as with “what percentage of unwanted pregnancies are ended via abortion?” The answer is that it’s usually about 50% of them (gender-neutral there) that are ended. For a single pregnancy, as would be the case of one woman in “if you’re pregnant,” then to say, “if the pregnancy is unwanted then it will be ended” is the same gender-neutrality.
“along with being outside the womb, the development that occurs in the womb, the characteristics of the baby, etc.”
So then to be clear, you would base the right to life (possibly amongst other things) in a human being’s location as well as a being’s level of development? In other words, we do not have a right to life intrinsically in view of the kind of thing we are, but rather, we have a right to life based on certain properties that we have or where we are. Is this correct?
Joan, you said: “Actually, if you and everyone else here had bothered to read the entire article, you would have read the following: ‘After 17 hours of dilation drugs and contractions, Sophia arrived. We were grateful to hold her tiny body, kiss her face and say goodbye in person.’ “
This is a rather cryptic sentence – the article doesn’t actually say whether Sophia was born dead or alive. The lack of details make it sound like she was stillborn. There is no mention of her eyes opening, or holding her while she breathed her last breath.
How would prochoicers feel if a toddler was diagnosed with a fatal condition and rather than seeking any treatment or letting her live out her last days surrounded in the warmth and love of her family, the parents instead gave her a lethal injection to “prevent any future suffering” and then cradled the toddler’s dead body in their arms while saying good-bye? While there might be a handful who would be all for this, I think the majority would cringe and call that murder. Once again, we see the unborn being dehumanized and treated like animals rather than human beings.
Joan, why did you feel it necessary to point out that induction was used instead of D&E? Do you feel it is more humane than dismemberment? If so, why? Does it matter to you if the fetus suffers and/or is desecrated? Secondly, why did you point out that they held Sophia (who wouldn’t be dead if not for their actions) and kissed her good-bye: are you suggesting that a fetus might possibly be a precious child worthy of saying good-bye to? And if worthy of the same love and bereavement as a full-term infant, why can we kill the former and not the latter? This is all very inconsistent.
True wisdom would include the realization that the right to life is not absolute.
Well, there you have it, folks.
Colleen, what DO you consider absolute?
Okay, Bobby, one more… :)
So then to be clear, you would base the right to life (possibly amongst other things) in a human being’s location as well as a being’s level of development? In other words, we do not have a right to life intrinsically in view of the kind of thing we are, but rather, we have a right to life based on certain properties that we have or where we are. Is this correct?
There’s a contradiction in saying, “have a right intrinsically in view of…” The wish for a right to be the status quo, or not, is a view itself. Said another way, if there were no such views, there would be no rights nor any such concepts.
If I was pregnant, I would either keep the pregnancy or end it. I’ve never been pregnant, a fact which I’m glad of – I’m in college – and were I to become pregnant, I’m not sure what I would do. That is not pronouncing upon right to life, other than saying that I think it’s okay that some women choose to have abortions and that I’m for that staying legal.
I don’t say that “we have a right to life because…” There are many religio-philosophical views on this, obviously, which I don’t share. I see the practical actions that lead to laws, rights, etc., and this is related to the wishes of cognizant beings; whereas I also see most pregnancies involving cognizant unborn babies later in gestation. For the record, I’m in agreement with almost all of our current laws.
To say, “we have a right to life based on certain properties that we have or where we are” is reflective of reality. Some people’s ideals notwithstanding, yes, it may very well matter where we are – people get treated differently in different places, and this is true even within the uncontested group of “us” as far as cognizant people. When we include the unborn, it remains true. Personally, even within a given locale and even “within the womb,” I would make a distinction. I see it as much worse for an 8 or 9 month baby to die in a miscarriage instead of a fertilized egg to fail to implant, or for a blastocyst or embryo to miscarry, and likewise I’m for earlier abortions instead of later-term abortions.
Ack!!
Okay – hello Courtnay.
I see conscious existence as absolute, if we know we exist, what argument can there be with that?
So you’re in favor of post-birth abortion as well, Colleen? Human beings don’t pass “The Mirror Test” until well after a year old.
@Colleen,
True wisdom would include the realization that the right to life is not absolute.
No. True wisdom recognizes that one does not make all the rules, nor can any person grant rights. The Constitution does not give us rights. It recognizes and protects them. Slavery was once legal according to the Constitution. The supreme court even upheld it. By your logic, that means slavery was a-ok while it was constitutionally legal.
You apparently want it to be extended farther than it currently is. All right, that is your wish. That does not change the independent facts surrounding the discussion…
If only you would listen to your own reasoning…
Where you say, “the right to life applies to all humans,” this is your wish, but you appear to be pitching it as if it is the status quo, and this is in the face of the reality that it is that very status quo that you desire to be changed. Needless to say, that does not make sense.
What I am saying is that all humans have the right to life, whether our legal system (or their parents) recognizes that or not. It would be the same as if I said in the 1850s: “All humans have the right to freedom, whether our legal system recognizes it or not.”
The only examples in all of history where classes of humans were denied the right to life were times of great tragedy and injustice. I challenge you to list one that was not.
Colleen–what other stages of human life can we end without the other person’s consent?
And why does a 8 month old fetus abortion bother you but not a 10-week?
And you haven’t answered my question above yet: how does wantedness confer humanity and/or worth?
And finally, what do you think happens in an abortion? Have you ever seen one/a video of one?
“”There’s a contradiction in saying, “have a right intrinsically in view of…”
You’ve claimed a contradiction here, Colleen, I’m not sure you’ve shown any contradiction here.
“The wish for a right to be the status quo, or not, is a view itself.”
I agree, but how is that a contardiction?
“Said another way, if there were no such views, there would be no rights nor any such concepts.”
Ah, very interesting. So you are saying that rights do not exist objectively. There really is nothing intrinsic about a woman’s right to control her body or a right to freedom of speech. These are simply constructs that exist in the mind. Outside of a mind, such rights do not exist. This view is of course problematic because if there is no real foundation to the “rights” that we claim besides our own minds, what is to say that one supposed “right” is any better than another? The right for me to kill my neighbor or rape a 5 year old seems just as real as the right to own property or right to a fair trial- they are both grounded in the “foundation” of the human mind which is of course no foundation at all. So i would find this view and its corollaries extremely problematic.
“I’m in college…”
I’m just going to go ahead and play my cards and let you know that your school is my Alma mater. I loved that place :) Enjoy every minute of it.
The condition was actually Trisomy 18. I guess if all you care about is attacking the author, there’s no need to waste time reading carefully.
Trisomy 18 is worse than Trisomy 13, and both are worse, by far, than being mongoloid.
Trisomy 18 is worse than Trisomy 13, and both are worse, by far, than being mongoloid.
That’s a pretty horrible thing to call someone with Down syndrome. You couldn’t have just gone with retarded?
All three are better than being dead.
I agree, Navi.
Isn’t it amazing how cold-hearted pro-choice people can be? If I was that cold-hearted during the brief time I was pro-choice, anyone is welcome to get in a time machine to go back and slap me. Truly. I’m deeply ashamed that I was ever on the side of people who think, talk, and write like today’s abortion advocates. On the bright side, I am also confident that abortion will not stand in our civilization. One could have argued, pre-1973, that abortion would be one way or the other, but no one would have known for sure. Today, we’ve got tens of millions of corpses in our nation alone rotting in our landfills, and experimented upon in laboratories where educated people sip coffee while they dismember their fellow creatures. There is no sugar-coating abortion or its advocacy now.
Abortion advocacy is ugly, brutal, and very offensive.
In the future, young people will not believe that abortion became legal and so common and that we had tolerated so many to have died. In the future, our children’s children will argue with abortion-genocide deniers who think no civilization could possibly have really killed that many of its youngsters. Due in no small part to the Roe effect, in the future, the humans that have survived to pass on their DNA will be more likely than today to see in the pre-born a frail and miraculous brother, a delicate and beautifully forming sister. In the future, the news of pregnancy will be greeted with tenderness, compassion, and yes even fear. Pregnancy is life-changing, but in the future women will feel no shame of it. In the future, women will not be ashamed to be pregnant. They will not be ashamed of their ability to conceive.
The Colleens and Jakes of the world will either convert or go extinct. Survival will go to the very fittest: Those with the unbroken will to live and let live.
Courtnay: And you haven’t answered my question above yet: how does wantedness confer humanity and/or worth?
Oh, I know, I know! For example, when massah want anudder slave, if t’other traders want the same buck, why then he’ll fetch a higher price. Ain’t that right?
Now lessee . . . yep. Same application. Different century. My o’ my, dem progressives shore has brought us a long ways, ain’t dey?
Ninek -
I don’t think the pro-choicers are the only ones that can be cold-hearted…was in a health care debate two weeks ago on this board, and was told:
“To me this whole healthcare ‘right’ is just an absurd attempt by people to delude themselves that they *should* be able to control death. My kid may die because I can’t afford the best care. So may I, so may my any number of people in my family.”
So pro-choicers believe babies can be killed because they aren’t born yet…but some who value life will quickly disgard it if it doesn’t have money and insurance.
Fun world we live in.
Arliss,
Good grief. Who in the world uses the term MONGOLOID anymore??
LisaC
Trisomy 18 or Trisomy 13.
Sophia is still dead.
Lisa C. wrote:
“The condition was actually Trisomy 18. I guess if all you care about is attacking the author, there’s no need to waste time reading carefully.”
Yes, we condemned the abortion of a child because of the child having a disability akin to eugenics. However, If you’ve read farther up, you’d seen we also asked what can be done so that women don’t have to feel having an abortion is their only option when they face a poor prenatal diagnosis. We also advocate loving and supportive alternatives to theraputic abortion, such as perinatal hospice, advancements in prenatal surgery, and professional/parenting support organizations. We also oppose doctors giving only give worse case scenarios/biased information and pressuring women into unwanted amniocentisis and terminations(it happens more often then you think).
Really Ex, that’s the best example you can come up with to pretend a pro-lifer commented as cold-heartedly as the above comments on THIS thread? Really?
How retarded.
ninek,
I guess you have to take comfort where you can manufacture it when you’re willing to sell your integrity for “free” healthcare and align yourself with those who wholeheartedly endorse the wanton slaughter of the unborn simply because there’s more in it for you.
Courtnay to Colleen: how does wantedness confer humanity and/or worth?
I assume you mean “being human” by “humanity,” Courtnay, and wantedness doesn’t affect that – that’s an external, physical issue. Worth *is* wantedness – has to be “somebody” around wanting, having feelings of positive value, etc., in the first place for “worth” to be conceived, even thought of.
Alright. Let me go tell Jack how worthless he is because his parents didn’t want him.
You’re a sicko, Doug.
Not doing the douggoround. Not tonight, not again. Peace.
Ninek -
Yes, I think it is a heck of a thing to argue that a family would be better off having a child and then watching the child die because they don’t have coverage.
How foolish of me to think that is cold-hearted. What a silly man I am.
Yep, cuz if killing for convenience is good enough for the family dog, it must be good enough for your child! I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
Let’s just take “palliative care” right out of the human vocabulary, because there’s no reason to make someone comfortable and then sit and wait for them to die. How inconvenient! How inconsiderate of the sick! And those hospice people – ugh! Don’t they realize I’ve got things to do?? Gosh, I don’t know what I’ve been thinking, with all this pro-life business. Murder is just so much quicker. Then I can get to my mani-pedi before the salon closes.
Ninek -
I’m not saying abortion is good. I’m saying I’m equally horrified at the thought of somebody being okay with their kid dying because the family didn’t have insurance. If you are cool with that, that’s fine – I’m just saying that I’m not.
Ex-RINO
Thank goodness there are already laws on the books preventing things like that from happening. Now I can vote Republican because abortion is the most pressing issue, seeing as how it’s been illegal for hospitals to refuse care to people for awhile now.
Hospitals are prevented if the person is in an emergency state (surprised you right wingers haven’t attacked that mandate yet!). There is no requirement that medical facilities have to provide non life-saving treatment to somebody who doesn’t have health insurance.
Do you understand the difference? Might be worth reading up on the EMTALA, and then reading about general insurance coverage and pre-existing conditions.
I’m actually studying for my licensing for health insurance sales right now. It’s really not that bad. Seems like something that would just about eliminate itself as long as employment numbers went up, since there are limits on exclusionary periods for pre-existing conditions if you get a group plan through your employer.
In 2001 – 69% of non-elderly Americans got health care through their jobs.
In 2008 – that number was down to about 60%
That trend isn’t going to reverse itself.
Furthermore, the answer to long term global competition is certainly not further loading the cost of goods with employee health insurance.
We’ll have a single payer system in the not too distant future – faster if reform gets repealed as the spiral will speed up – but it is coming.
I couldn’t live with myself if I received the amnio and accidentally killed or hurt a healthy baby.
I’m so sorry Sophia that your mom could not see past her own hurt and pride to realize that you were lovable just the way you were. It’s because of beautiful little girls and boys like you that we will continue to fight until abortion is illegal again.
Your prolife family.
Navi says:
April 12, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Trisomy 18 is worse than Trisomy 13, and both are worse, by far, than being mongoloid.
“That’s a pretty horrible thing to call someone with Down syndrome. You couldn’t have just gone with retarded?”
“Retarded” doesn’t have to be Down Syndrome. And “mongoloid” has been in use since the Civil War or earlier.
Ex-GOP April 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm
“I’m saying I’m equally horrified at the thought of somebody being okay with their kid dying because the family didn’t have insurance. If you are cool with that, that’s fine – I’m just saying that I’m not.”
Arizona’s Governor Brewer has cut funds for transplants, including those needed to keep people alive. She said, “we can only provide so many optional kinds of care and those are one of the options that we had to take,” even though, simply put, this will mean that some people will die. Just as anti-life as you can get.
Courtnay to Colleen: how does wantedness confer humanity and/or worth?
I assume you mean “being human” by “humanity,” Courtnay, and wantedness doesn’t affect that – that’s an external, physical issue. Worth *is* wantedness – has to be “somebody” around wanting, having feelings of positive value, etc., in the first place for “worth” to be conceived, even thought of.
Courtnay: Not doing the douggoround. Not tonight, not again. Peace.
Fine, and the point (of course) stands.
Xalisae: Alright. Let me go tell Jack how worthless he is because his parents didn’t want him.
You’re a sicko, Doug.
X, do you think there is nobody else in the world except Jack’s parents? Had you, me, Jack – anybody – not been due to our parents having an abortion, a miscarriage, or had conception never occurred in the first place, then there never would have been any of “us” to care or know about anything. Jack is a good guy, and I’m glad he’s here. To his credit, even though he and I differ on a few issues, he’s friendly, gives credit where credit is due, calls things like he sees them, has a good sense of humor, and doesn’t have such a weak position that he feels the need to pretend that people who have different opinions from him are nasty, or devils, or sick, etc.
Doug,
There is a difference between “not being” and being and then being killed. Your attempt to whitewash your deplorable position by lumping it in with occurrences like natural death or lack of conception/existence only goes to show how weak YOUR position is. There was a time in Jack’s life (as in all our lives) at which point nobody knew him but his parents. In a sick mind like yours, that excuses any harm to befall a gestating human being. But that wouldn’t make the human being that is killed any less dead.
And, I don’t think you know Jack as well as you think you do. He’s just a lot more cordial than I am.
Doug,
Apologies for not getting back to you on the “relativism” idea, on the other thread (whichever it was); I was out of town for a few days, and I’ve just recently returned.
Re: my claim (that moral relativism results ultimately in one of three ends: solipsism, insanity, or conversion away from relativism), I wasn’t suggesting that you had actually attained (God forbid!) either of the first two… and I’ll trust that, if the third happens, you’ll be kind enough to let me know! :) Rather, I was using plain logic, coupled with the definition and character of relativism, and watching what I take to be an inevitable progression… much as one might watch a heavy, 100-car freight train hurl head-long toward a cliff at 140 kph.
Relativism leads to solipsism in that it’s utterly self-centered (not in the sense of being snooty or arrogant, but in the sense of defining the world in terms of oneself); if one believes that there are no objective standards for anything, then one’s only standards are hand-picked and chosen on the basis of one’s personal tastes/impulses (i.e. “I do, because I do”), and everything but the self will ultimately prove to be artifice, unravelling in an infinite spiral of question-begging.
Relativism leads to insanity (side note: I do believe that solipsism is a form of insanity, but we’ll leave that aside, for the nonce) in the cases where the relativist tries to maintain a semblance of objectivity in behaviour, even in the face of a foundation which is eroding into solipsism.
Or, of course, if one awakens to the futile life of relativism, one can (through the grace of God) escape it, and try to cling to solid rock, instead. It really *does* affect one’s outlook to do so, you know.
Xalisae: There is a difference between “not being” and being and then being killed.
Of course, X, but that doesn’t preclude there never being “anybody” there as far as a sentient, aware, person in all those cases. The perception of that difference, and any caring about it, is on the part of others.
____
Your attempt to whitewash your deplorable position by lumping it in with occurrences like natural death or lack of conception/existence only goes to show how weak YOUR position is.
No, I’m not attempting to “whitewash” anything. I’ve already agreed that a life ends when abortion is chosen. The question is how bad is that, necessarily, versus allowing the pregnant woman to decide. Does society have a compelling need to have every pregnancy continued, at the cost of denying the pregnant woman what she may want? I, as many people do, think it’s “deplorable” to impact people’s freedom without a good enough reason. I realize that “good enough reason” is at issue here.
____
There was a time in Jack’s life (as in all our lives) at which point nobody knew him but his parents. In a sick mind like yours, that excuses any harm to befall a gestating human being. But that wouldn’t make the human being that is killed any less dead.
This is essentially just stomping your feet and acting like people who disagree with you are “sick,” and that’s not true.
____
And, I don’t think you know Jack as well as you think you do. He’s just a lot more cordial than I am.
You may be right. X, you brought up Jack, and I don’t know how he feels about his parents, really. Perhaps he will weigh in here.
Paladin, no worries – I was traveling all day yesterday and these are busy times.
Relativism leads to solipsism in that it’s utterly self-centered (not in the sense of being snooty or arrogant, but in the sense of defining the world in terms of oneself); if one believes that there are no objective standards for anything, then one’s only standards are hand-picked and chosen on the basis of one’s personal tastes/impulses (i.e. “I do, because I do”), and everything but the self will ultimately prove to be artifice, unravelling in an infinite spiral of question-begging.
It’s all the same thing. Even if one does think there are “objective standards,” it’s still the individual acting, thinking, etc. “I do, because….” Regardless of what we may ascribe things to, i.e. either simply, “I want,” or “I want, because….” – we’re still picking or attempting that which we want the most, from among our available options, or that for which we have the least distaste. On “self-centered,” yes – the motivation comes from the self, but the individual’s desire may be to be “altruistic,” for example. Does one want to get a couple extra cheeseburgers for oneself, or does one want to feed the starving man next door for a bit? It still comes down to what one wants.
It’s not that “everything but the self will ultimately prove to be artifice,” but rather that human nature and our world tends to be quite constant, overall. Sure, things change (a lot) throughout history, but how we are and how we act really doesn’t change much, if any.
____
Relativism leads to insanity (side note: I do believe that solipsism is a form of insanity, but we’ll leave that aside, for the nonce) in the cases where the relativist tries to maintain a semblance of objectivity in behaviour, even in the face of a foundation which is eroding into solipsism.
The notion of “objectivity” in the moral realm is pretense, from the get-go. The individual may feel some “erosion” as far as the state of things, but that’s usually proportional to one’s own emotional state, i.e. perhaps, “The world is going to hell in a handbasket,” and to how far one’s own opinions diverge from other people.
____
Or, of course, if one awakens to the futile life of relativism, one can (through the grace of God) escape it, and try to cling to solid rock, instead. It really *does* affect one’s outlook to do so, you know.
I realize that some people feel that way, but it’s not a “futile life,” it’s the life we have – again, regardless of any beliefs we may have that cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary. We’re on this planet, we have societies, and individuals, to varying degrees, want to be in society, and tend to have the same desires. Thus most laws, societies and cultures tend to be similar, regardless of whether the individuals, variously, are “religious” or not.
Of course, X, but that doesn’t preclude there never being “anybody” there as far as a sentient, aware, person in all those cases. The perception of that difference, and any caring about it, is on the part of others.
Nope. This is just your subjective, wishy-washy, unprovable bullcrap. If I can biologically prove that a human being is living anywhere, there is SOMEBODY there. We don’t flippin’ hallucinate the beings on our ultrasounds into creation when we’re pregnant. Take your philosophical navel-pondering crap elsewhere. I deal in objective facts.
This is essentially just stomping your feet and acting like people who disagree with you are “sick,” and that’s not true.
Nope. This is you trying to distance yourself from your own position because you don’t like the implications that you actually support parents legally killing their children. All this *Tommy Chong stoner voice impression* “But hey, man, is there REALLY ‘somebody‘ there? Is there ‘really’ somebody there? Yeah man, but are they really ‘there‘? Get it, man?” garbage is your attempt to make yourself seem reasonable when really you are not in the least. You don’t like having to think of the very real people that are killed, trashed, and thrown away in abortions, so when I try to get you to think about them, you skirt the issue, accuse me of throwing a tantrum, and fall back once again into your philosophy term paper. Sorry if you’re not comfortable with the idea that what you support costs real, actual lives of real, honest-to-God people, buddy. But I’ve been there, so I know it. You haven’t, so you don’t.
Too bad. Live it. Love it. Embrace who and what you are, Doug. Don’t fight it.
Take another drag, hold it in, and blow it up someone else’s rear next time, because I’ve had enough from you.
Doug: “
Doug wrote:
It’s not that “everything but the self will ultimately prove to be artifice,”
(??) Really? In your scenario, however would it NOT prove to be such? As a thought experiment: pick something which you feel you would never do, under any circumstances, so long as your free will were intact… and then tell me WHY you’d refuse to do so. I claim that your idea of “I do what I do, and that’s that” gives no grounding for any free choice to hold to any code or imperative, whatsoever… and that your own will is set up as a sort of (forgive the term) “god”, thereby. If you disdain murder, you cannot give me any reasons, I think, which do not ultimately degenerate into “because of my personal tastes”… which is ultimately solipsism (i.e. the idea that only you are relevant in the grand order of things, and all other “externals” will prove to be mere illusion).
but rather that human nature and our world tends to be quite constant, overall.
You don’t seem to be able to abstract from that fact, and examine the “meta-question” of: “SO WHAT if things seem constant? Is that good, or evil, or neither? Should this status quo be accepted, or should I try to change it?” It’s often said that one can miss the forest for the trees; but you’re in the curious position of acknowledging a forest which, upon closer examination, has no trees within it (i.e. the “macro-sense of things” is “quite constant”, but the local issues, which consume the lives of average persons… such as the decision to help or hurt a neighbour, to cuddle or kill a child, etc… are opaque [or even invisible] to you)!
The notion of “objectivity” in the moral realm is pretense, from the get-go.
:) …and you have a proof for this claim, I assume, which refutes my own belief that objectivity is, in fact, true?
The individual may feel some “erosion” as far as the state of things, but that’s usually proportional to one’s own emotional state, i.e. perhaps, “The world is going to hell in a handbasket,” and to how far one’s own opinions diverge from other people.
“Usually?” Do you mean to say that there are circumstances, however rare, in which such “erosion” is not merely a morass of relativistic comparisons with the opinions of the people down the street?
I realize that some people feel that way, but it’s not a “futile life,” it’s the life we have –
Surely you realise that this reply is (no offense) mere wind, not addressing the issue at all (and question-begging, at that)? To say that “this is the life we have” is a tautology; it says nothing to support (or diminish) your point or mine, whatsoever.
again, regardless of any beliefs we may have that cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary.
…such as the existence of an external world, you mean, Mr. Solipsist? :)
We’re on this planet, we have societies, and individuals, to varying degrees, want to be in society, and tend to have the same desires.
“Tend” is rather meaningless, save for those who are fascinated with trends; surely you also know that there are also individuals who seek either to ignore such “rules” of society, or who seek to “game the system” so as to gain things for themselves at the expense of others? Are you utterly indifferent to every last crime on earth (i.e. have you gone completely insane [option #2!], in the sense of becoming a sociopath)?
Thus most laws, societies and cultures tend to be similar, regardless of whether the individuals, variously, are “religious” or not.
Yes, they tend to be similar… except when they are not. :)
X, I think I just laughed iced tea through my nose. You go, girl!
Glad I could brighten you day, Courtnay. :P
Of course, X, but that doesn’t preclude there never being “anybody” there as far as a sentient, aware, person in all those cases. The perception of that difference, and any caring about it, is on the part of others.
X: Nope. This is just your subjective, wishy-washy, unprovable bullcrap. If I can biologically prove that a human being is living anywhere, there is SOMEBODY there. We don’t flippin’ hallucinate the beings on our ultrasounds into creation when we’re pregnant. Take your philosophical navel-pondering crap elsewhere. I deal in objective facts.
No you don’t. You project your subjective feelings onto the unborn and act like that construct represents some sort of “objective reality,” which of course it does not.
Already agreed on the physical reality of “human being,” but in no way does that mean that there is “anybody” there as far as a sentient, aware, person, as I said.
Paladin: April 17, 2012 at 11:41 am
Nice that comments are enabled beyond two weeks – not that it’s a real danger, here, yet, but I will definitely get back to you.
“It’s not that “everything but the self will ultimately prove to be artifice,”
Paladin: (??) Really? In your scenario, however would it NOT prove to be such? As a thought experiment: pick something which you feel you would never do, under any circumstances, so long as your free will were intact… and then tell me WHY you’d refuse to do so. I claim that your idea of “I do what I do, and that’s that” gives no grounding for any free choice to hold to any code or imperative, whatsoever… and that your own will is set up as a sort of (forgive the term) “god”, thereby. If you disdain murder, you cannot give me any reasons, I think, which do not ultimately degenerate into “because of my personal tastes”… which is ultimately solipsism (i.e. the idea that only you are relevant in the grand order of things, and all other “externals” will prove to be mere illusion).
Paladin, in my scenario, we are all individuals making some unprovable assumptions. Don’t we all assume things well beyond the self, from the get-go? And I mean that regardless of whether we believe in external morality or not. What proof of all things beyond the self being “artifice” could there be, anyway?
It’s not my idea, as far as “I do what I do, and that’s that.” Those are your words, your concept. I say that we pick or attempt that which we want the most, from among our available options, or that for which we have the least distaste. I think that explains our free choices and our motivation well. And yeah, it’s our “personal taste” regardless of any ascribing of our feelings to other things that we may do. Recognizing how we operate as individuals is not “solipsism.” It’s not saying that all else beyond the self is illusion. In fact, it’s taking the existence of others for granted – again, the assumption being that it’s not only “me” here on earth, and that there are others with varying degrees of commonality of opinion.
Okay – something I’d never do, no matter what – I’d never deny the fact of my own consciousness. That’s the one sure thing – the old “I think, therefore I am,” deal. Other than via assumption, what, really, beyond that can be proven? If you want a physical action as the answer – how are we to know? We’d have to consider the situation. Somebody might say, “Oh, I’d never do that…”, but how are we to really be sure? Talk about a thought experiment – things come to mind like, “While you wouldn’t normally kill anybody, what if it was the case that unless you pushed a button, which would mean the death of somebody on the other side of the world, all your family and friends would die?”
____
“but rather that human nature and our world tends to be quite constant, overall.”
You don’t seem to be able to abstract from that fact, and examine the “meta-question” of: “SO WHAT if things seem constant? Is that good, or evil, or neither? Should this status quo be accepted, or should I try to change it?”
I’m saying there could never be proof of such a negative as “all else is artifice,” in the first place. On “so what if things seem constant?” – I’m just saying that’s the way people are. I’m saying it’s a given. All the feelings of good, evil, neither, and should something be changed or not, will be in the eye of the beholder.
____
It’s often said that one can miss the forest for the trees; but you’re in the curious position of acknowledging a forest which, upon closer examination, has no trees within it (i.e. the “macro-sense of things” is “quite constant”, but the local issues, which consume the lives of average persons… such as the decision to help or hurt a neighbour, to cuddle or kill a child, etc… are opaque [or even invisible] to you)!
Not at all – again, we pick or attempt that which we want the most, from among our available options, or that for which we have the least distaste, and we’re operating this way all the time, on those local issues you mention. In no way are those issues opaque or “invisible.” It’s the real world as we have it. Those trees are there, no argument about it, and so is the forest for us all – in all our commonality and divergences.
____
The notion of “objectivity” in the moral realm is pretense, from the get-go.
…and you have a proof for this claim, I assume, which refutes my own belief that objectivity is, in fact, true?
Logically, I’m saying there has to be a mind involved, in the first place. There has to be “somebody” to have feelings, or there could be no morality. I am not saying there are not “objective, externally existing things that are separate from us” – I’d point to matter and energy as things that so exist. But as far as morality, it’s an internal thing, even if one posits that the “mind” is the mind of God. I’m saying that morality is relative to the one having the feelings. The existence of consciousness, for example, “is.” When it comes to the “shoulds” and “should nots” of morality, then there has to be a mind to have those thoughts.
____
The individual may feel some “erosion” as far as the state of things, but that’s usually proportional to one’s own emotional state, i.e. perhaps, “The world is going to hell in a handbasket,” and to how far one’s own opinions diverge from other people.
“Usually?” Do you mean to say that there are circumstances, however rare, in which such “erosion” is not merely a morass of relativistic comparisons with the opinions of the people down the street?
I mean there is a difference between being dissatisfied with one of society’s laws, for example, and throwing up one’s hands and declaring that the end of civilization is here. Rationally, we can’t expect to be 100% happy with all things, all the time. That’s a far cry from saying, “This country is going to the dogs,” however. In the more-rare circumstances where it’s less a matter of emotion, and the individual still thinks real “erosion” is taking place, then either they are focused on one or a relatively very few things, or – the times really are unusual, and big changes for society are happening, for the worse, or soon to. For what it’s worth, I do think the US Gov’t’s debt is taking us to such a place, a place we’ve never been, or at least like nothing in the “modern” economic age – since the 1940’s, the 1930’s, even the late 1800’s. I’m not running around saying the sky is falling, but this is one very “real” occurrence.
____
Or, of course, if one awakens to the futile life of relativism, one can (through the grace of God) escape it, and try to cling to solid rock, instead. It really *does* affect one’s outlook to do so, you know.
I realize that some people feel that way, but it’s not a “futile life,” it’s the life we have –
Surely you realise that this reply is (no offense) mere wind, not addressing the issue at all (and question-begging, at that)? To say that “this is the life we have” is a tautology; it says nothing to support (or diminish) your point or mine, whatsoever.
Hang on here, Hoss – you asserted “the futile life of relativism,” and I’m saying that really does not matter, since it’s all relative anyway. It’s all us “having our say,” as individuals, regardless of whether we posit external morality or not; it’s internal to us by definition and from the get-go. If we all have one vote, one or more opinions, etc., it’s still “our mind” at work, regardless of other beliefs that mind may hold.
___
“again, regardless of any beliefs we may have that cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary.”
…such as the existence of an external world, you mean, Mr. Solipsist?
No, not an “external world.” I grant you there is external physical reality. My point is that morality is inside the mind, and thus is subjective, by definition. If a planet orbits a sun, that is true whether “somebody” knows it or not. But for there to me morality, there has to be “somebody” to have the feelings.
____
“We’re on this planet, we have societies, and individuals, to varying degrees, want to be in society, and tend to have the same desires.”
“Tend” is rather meaningless, save for those who are fascinated with trends; surely you also know that there are also individuals who seek either to ignore such “rules” of society, or who seek to “game the system” so as to gain things for themselves at the expense of others? Are you utterly indifferent to every last crime on earth (i.e. have you gone completely insane [option #2!], in the sense of becoming a sociopath)?
I’m not indifferent, but those tendencies are there. Sure – there are the “outliers,” the people farther along to one side or the other of the bell-shaped curve of distribution. Not everybody wants to be in society enough to follow the rules – that’s a given. Doesn’t change the fact that most people’s desires, the world over, tend to be very similar. One thing that sets the abortion debate apart is that here we have lots of people on both sides of the issue. Most of the time, with most laws, things are much more one-sided.
____
Thus most laws, societies and cultures tend to be similar, regardless of whether the individuals, variously, are “religious” or not.
Yes, they tend to be similar… except when they are not.
Well sure, as above with the distribution curve. Not “always” the same, no, but nobody is saying they would be.
I’m really glad that I didnt make the same decision about my daughter who has Trisomy 13…she will be 21 this November! I am so happy for every day that I have with her…that being said…no one has the right to judge someone else’s decision of what is right or wrong for them…truly unless you have been in the situation…you don’t really know what you would do…I dont care who you are.
I’m sorry you and your husband have gone through this, but there is no way to know for sure that your daughter’s death would be immiment. My daughter has Trisomy 13 and just turned two years old. I will cherish every day she is with me. I’m sorry that you will not have that opportunity with your child, but the choice was yours to make. I hope you find peace with it, I truly do.
yep. Nobody has the right to judge someone else’s decision of what is right or wrong for them. That’s why no mom should have the right to decide that living is not right for her child.
I read this and felt sympathy for this woman! I can see both sides of this hard issue. I was in her very situation and my husband and I made the same decision. It wasn’t out of selfishness like some say. It wasn’t because I didnt want to be inconvienced by having a child with a birth defect. It was out of love and mercy for that beautiful baby I carried in my womb. It was by far the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. I questioned that decision for years. But being a strong believer in god I have faith that he knows what my intentions were….and my precious angel watch over me in heaven…holding Jesus’s hand and never to feel pain again! Sometimes we have to make hard decisions in life and not everyone will agree either right or wrong! Don’t be so judgmental of decisions you have never had to make yourself. I don’t believe this woman was looking for sympathy. I think she shows courage for telling her story. To give comfort to other mothers in her situation. Everyone is intitled to their own opinion. This is mine.
Aborting a child to prevent his/her suffering is no different from killing a born person for the same reason. Why don’t we round up the homeless, amputees, and the sick and kill them too? They are also experiencing physical suffering. Would we be doing them a favor out of love and mercy by killing them?
There are other types of suffering too; psychological, emotional, etc. If we included those groups, I’m fairly certain no one would be left alive.
Life is suffering. There is no one who does not suffer.
I know these must be hard things to consider, but you must allow yourself to. Violent killing is not mercy.
If any of you stop being so ignorant and look past your own personal believes then maybe you would understand. This has nothing to do with “god”. Bringing a child into this world to do nothing but suffer in pain is selfish. Keep your religious views to yourself and reason with the ethical solution. No one said this was easy for a mother to do. Letting go is much harder.
Melissa,
If any of you stop being so ignorant and look past your own personal believes then maybe you would understand.
Aren’t you telling us your personal belief? Why can’t you look past that and just understand what we’re saying?
You obviously haven’t read the comments at all. My brother was born with Trisomy 7, a condition far worse than Trisomy 13. He lived 4 and a half years, and had a joy-filled life. Of course he suffered, but that doesn’t mean he should have been killed. If we killed those who were suffering, there would be none left alive. Life is suffering.
There is nothing merciful about violently ripping your child limb from limb. If she was really trying to be “humane,” it would have made a lot more sense to simply deliver the child, give her pain killers, and cradle her as she died. They didn’t even do that.
I hope my argument is non-religious enough for your personal beliefs.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. John 8:7
How dare you cast such judgement you have no idea what this woman went through to have to make a decision like this! I suffered two miscarriages and second was Trisomy 13. The heart stopped developing at 13 weeks, I had to have a D&C. I was mortified. I did research on the genetic disorder and the odds of my baby making it to full term were 80%. I very well might have been faced with that same decision, I can not judge. And it is not just the baby who dies, a part of the family dies as well. It is a life long suffering for everyone involved.
I’m sorry you all can’t be open minded to what someone else has been faced with.
LisaAnn,
I sympathize greatly with the pain you’ve had to deal with. I’m so sorry. It’s hard to process everything in a complex situation like this. I know. My brother was born with trisomy 7. My parents spent almost a decade fully processing what had happened those 4.5 emotional, wonderful, nerve-racking, exhausting years that he was with us.
But the sentiment most people here were trying to express is not one of judgment so much as one of sadness; at least that’s where I’m coming from. You see, my brother suffered a lot. So did our family, our extended family, and our friends. But that suffering in no way made my brother’s life less valuable. At no point after his birth did anyone suggest killing him to save him the suffering. Even typing that sentence makes me shudder. It’s unthinkable.
Yet, that’s exactly what Kimberly did, just a few months earlier. She has no idea what a blessing her daughter would have been in her and her husband’s lives. She’ll never know. She never gave her the chance. That is an enormous tragedy. Choosing to kill your child is not mercy. Ever. Especially by dismemberment.
I’m so sorry you had to make such a difficult decision. I know there are so many people (especially on here) that don’t understand why people make decisions like this. Just ignore them. Your body, your choice. And if this is what you felt was the right thing to do for you and your baby, then I’m proud of you for not letting anyone push you around and take your choice away from you. I pray that your heart heals quickly <3
Yes, just ignore the people who’ve been through the exact same thing but made the right choice; the choice that didn’t brutally dismember their innocent child.
Your body, your choice.
But it wasn’t her body that was killed in her abortion, Erica. Just like it wouldn’t have been MY BODY killed by my abortion if I’d done what would have been “the right thing to do for [me]” (fiscally-speaking) when I was with an abuser, had no job, no money, no place to live and found myself pregnant with his baby that he wanted me to kill, because it was “right for us” since we weren’t ready.
Andrea Yates felt like killing her children was “the right thing to do” for her and them. You must be so proud, Erica! Her choice, right?
This thread attracts some of the most irritating trolls.
And from the looks of the comment “like” counts, it attracts a lot of them, and they’re all too A.D.D. to read past the first 30-or-so comments.
Andrew, thank you. However I still can not wrap my mind around all this negativity that is being hurled at the writer.
Comparing Andrea Yates, who killed her 5 children because she was mentally unstable and tried for help many times but was turned away because they couldn’t afford it and finally lost it completely, is in no way shape or form in the same category as what this woman did. She made a choice, that she will have to live with, not any of you. And if faced with the exact same circumstances, you might have made the same decision. If I was told there was zero chance of my child living to full-term, I very well could have made the same decision.
How dare any of you people condemn this woman. Before you start casting stones make sure your hands are clean . No one is powerful enough to judge. and *IF* the day comes and her maker decided her eternity, it has nothing to do with any of you!
Before you start casting stones make sure your hands are clean .
I’ve never arranged, paid for, or in any way contributed to the premature demise of any of my children. So…check.
I don’t believe in a “maker”. I’m non-religious. And judging actions for how they hurt or help our fellow men is basically our one and only job as the most intellectually-developed species on this planet. So yeah, I’m going to judge. Depriving your child of the only life they will ever have, and acting like you did them a favor because they were “defective” is wrong. It’s not a parent’s right to be judge, jury, and executioner for their children.
And if faced with the exact same circumstances, you might have made the same decision.
How dare any of you people condemn this woman.
Apparently, you haven’t read anything on this page.
Before you start casting stones make sure your hands are clean . No one is powerful enough to judge. and *IF* the day comes and her maker decided her eternity, it has nothing to do with any of you!
Are you a Christian LisaAnn? You seem to be making Biblical references. If so, you must have missed Matthew 18:15-17:
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
And Proverbs 24:11:
11 Rescue those being led away to death;
hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
The word “slaughter” could not be more appropriately applied to this situation.
You have judged us for judging.
How dare any of us speak out against the unspeakable???!!!
The killing of innocent human beings. I speak out against murder.
As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing inherently wrong with being judgmental. In order to determine whether or not it’s ok to be judgmental in a particular instance, one must first make a judgment about that which is being judged.
I’ve seen quite a few things in my life, I’ve been through a lot. You don’t know me, you don’t know the writer, why is it SO important to be an internet warrior to try to condemn people?
I was born and raised Catholic – and what I believe more so than anything else is forgiveness. My relationship between myself and God is much more important than having to be righteous. I will not judge anyone for what they do or have done. And it is no one else’s business but theirs.
I’d love to see your opinions of this situation had it been you mother, sister, or daughter. Would you support them? Or disown them as easy as it has been to make such harsh commentary on someone you don’t know?
Lead by example.
And I have not judged anyone, everyone IS entitled to their opinion, as I am as well.
This story hits far too close to home. And I can’t imagine the pain and suffering that any woman who is faced with this sad and tragic decision must endure.
I suffered three miscarriages, one was Trisomy 13, the other two did not have an autopsy or genetic testing. I do have a healthy daughter, and am currently pregnant – hoping every single day that I am not faced with having to make decisions, just as this woman has. I would hate to have to go through another D&C, it would break me into pieces, but if I was told that my baby didn’t have a chance, I don’t know what I would decide but I would hope people could be open minded and supportive either way.
I just still can not wrap my mind around how un-supportive people can be. I can not comprehend how against one another people are. It is tremendously sad that a decision that someone else made, having zero effect on anyone other than close family, has any relevance to anyone else’s life?
I’d love to see your opinions of this situation had it been you mother, sister, or daughter.
Did you forget what I wrote in the comments you replied to? It was my mother. There is no condemnation of people here; only actions. That’s what you are missing.
I will not judge anyone for what they do or have done. And it is no one else’s business but theirs.
I wonder if you would say the same to someone condemning the Holocaust of WWII.
If it’s no one else’s business what people do, then why do we have laws against murder? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once famously said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Killing an innocent, fully-alive human being is unjust, and we have a duty to fight all injustice.
I’d love to see your opinions of this situation had it been you mother, sister, or daughter. Would you support them? Or disown them as easy as it has been to make such harsh commentary on someone you don’t know?
Why are those the only two options?
I am very sorry for the losses you’ve endured. Please take heart in knowing that no matter what happens over the course of your current pregnancy, you need not be “ faced with having to make decisions.”
Well let’s just bring up Roe vs. Wade….You’re comparing apples and oranges. One mans army of complete destruction and a woman’s unfortunate life altering decision are not in the same category.
I did read about your mother and brother. Which is even more why I can’t understand that of all people you should be the most supportive, you’ve seen it first hand. Your family suffered, it was hard. What if her situation simply couldn’t afford medical costs, could sufficiently raise a child with special needs, I could go on, but the point is, you just don’t know what all of her reasoning was to make this be the final decision. I discovered that my child, had the heart not stopped on its own, had approx an 80% chance of surviving to full term, and even less odds of living to a year. Some people just can not cope with that.
What other options are there? You tell me? Let your baby die or let your baby suffer.
“I just still can not wrap my mind around how un-supportive people can be.”
And I can’t wrap my head around the fact that you believe we should be supportive of a mother killing her child.
“It is tremendously sad that a decision that someone else made, having zero effect on anyone other than close family, has any relevance to anyone else’s life? “
So when a rapist decides to rape a woman I don’t know, I shouldn’t care because it doesn’t affect me? In the 1800’s when a slave owner decided to beat his slave, neighbors shouldn’t have cared because it didn’t affect them? When one gang banger decides to kill a rival gang member, I shouldn’t care because it doesn’t affect me? What the heck is that?
What other options are there? You tell me? Let your baby die or let your baby suffer.
How about let the child live and offer palliative care once born? Why should we kill a child instead of letting them die? Why let a baby suffer when there is care that can help the baby be comfortable?
Well let’s just bring up Roe vs. Wade…
Yes, let’s.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Am I? Everything Hitler did was legal . The constitution once allowed slavery, and the supreme court upheld it. Was slavery ok when it was legal too? It was once illegal for women to vote. Please tell me more about how legality is the ultimate authority on justice.
What if her situation simply couldn’t afford medical costs, could sufficiently raise a child with special needs, I could go on…
When did I give you any indication that my parents could afford the costs? Good grief. Talk about making assumptions. My parents are still paying off debts 25 years later.
I discovered that my child, had the heart not stopped on its own, had approx an 80% chance of surviving to full term, and even less odds of living to a year. Some people just can not cope with that.
That is tragic, and being the father of (so far) only one healthy child, I can only imagine what you’re going through. But nowhere in there do I find justification for the brutal, violent dismemberment of your own child out of “mercy.”
What other options are there? You tell me? Let your baby die or let your baby suffer.
There are two problems here. One, this is a false dilemma. Your children – and mine – will all suffer and will all die some day. There is nothing we can do about that. It is a reality of life. Second, abortion neither “let[s] your baby die” nor “let[s] your baby suffer.” It actively kills your baby.
I would – ever so daringly – suggest that you do whatever you can for your child instead of killing him/her. Forgive me if I seem terse, but I’m losing patience for the seemingly willful negligence of simple facts that you display.