The Glade 4.0

A woman whose pregnancy ran into complications was legally prohibited from getting an abortion because she was at 22 weeks, even though there was virtually no chance of the baby surviving anyway. Seems wrong to me, and it's a very moving article, so figured I'd post it here as food for thought. Apologies in advance to anyone who finds it upsetting though. Spoilered the article's opening paragraphs, and perfectly willing to take this down if requested.


Like I said, this just seems wrong. I'm all for limiting "convenience abortions" after a certain developmental stage, but in situations where the child is very likely to die or be severely disabled, it should absolutely be up to the parents to decide what's best. I'd analogize it to pulling the plug on a life support machine or deciding on euthanasia for a person who is terminally ill and unable to act on their own behalf.

Sorry, not a big fan of euthanasia.

_________________

Really? Even in situations where it's consciously chosen by the patient?

There's a difference between euthanasia and suicide. I'll leave you to figure it out ...

By the way, I have no sympathy for the woman mentioned in your article. In fact, I think she's nothing short of monstrous.

_________________

Ah, well I don't believe there's a clear distinction between the two, as the term "euthanasia" generally includes certain types of suicide. That said, I see the distinction you're making, and that seems more in line with what I would have expected your position to be.

This is where I find it gets into trouble. I don't think it's her right to decide what quality of life is acceptable.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Aye, I'm a bit torn on that issue myself, but I think quality of life is a legitimate factor in the decision. I'm just not sure where to draw the line.

Well now that is a fascinating contradiction. If it was God's decision, why not leave it in his hands? God decided my child would die but I should have been allowed to take the timeframe out of his hands... Perhaps I'd feel differently if she hadn't invoked him but I feel like this person is a hypocrite.

_________________

This would have been a convenience abortion. The convenience of not having to watch or care for a dying child, and the convenience of not having to care for a disabled child if she lived.

I admit I am moved, but not in the direction I think you expected. I'm saddened by not only the loss of the baby but the "outrage" her parents feel by her being given a chance.

I'm disgusted by the parents.

Exactly. But then again, I roll with people that carry any living baby to term. Even if all the child knows is two and half minutes of her parent's love before she dies.

I'm fascinated by the difference between your (collective) reactions and mine.

I read this:

and I hear a person of faith accepting the near-inevitability of her child's death but wanting to mitigate the suffering involved. Hopwin reads it and hears hypocrisy.

I read this:

and I think it was a horrific situation in which the parents had to choose between a quick, clean death for their child or a 90% chance of a painful death or, in the unlikely event that was avoided, a 98% chance of a life of severe disability and dependency. Arathain reads it and thinks it was a choice of convenience.

Not necessarily saying y'all are wrong, but wow, talk about different perspectives!

It's pathetic to me that people aren't willing to afford our own species the same courtesy that we provide to dogs.

If you found a dog in anything close to similar a situation that this child was going to be in, most anyone would provide it a mercy killing to put it out of it's misery.

I think it's pretty pathetic you see a dog and a child as the same. I think you are and your ilk are the ones with the issues.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Not what I said, but I wasn't expecting you to be able to understand what I said anyway.

**** you you stupid piece of ****. **** baby killer. I hope your stupid *** never has kids, would be the worst thing for that child.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Since when is eugenic euthanasia a courtesy?

_________________

Even if it is a mercy call, which I am willing to believe (giving the parents the benefit of the doubt), it's still a choice of convenience. It's certainly not necessary, it is mercy. A choice of convenience for the child, if not for the parents.

Dude, learn how to handle disagreement. WTF.

That depends on who you think the courtesy applies to, Khross.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Considering Nitefox has recently lost two children to similar complications, I'd say the only person being totally disrespectful here is Aizle. It seems to me that despite the difficulty of the decision, Nitefox and LadyKate arrived at the most humane and appropriate conclusion possible: they could no longer attempt to have children. I can't even pretend to understand the pain and gravity of that decision. Yet, we have the woman mentioned in the original post ...

The fact that the woman mentioned in the original post miscarried 4 times prior over the same complication that ultimately ended this child's life indicates that she is biologically incapable of producing a healthy baby. It was the height of selfishness and arrogance to assume she could have a child successfully; and it is the height of monstrosity to abort a child that may or may not survive and may or may not suffer from debilitating conditions due to one's own inability to reproduce.

Beyond that, we have Aizle talking about abortion as a mercy killing the same as it is for an already dying dog? Far be it for me to suggest anything is beyond the pale, but I'm fairly certain Aizle just rocket jumped past the point of propriety.

_________________

It isn't, but this isn't really about eugenics, it's really a quality of life issue.

No, it's about eugenics. You're advocating the abortion of a potentially non-viable fetus because of some indeterminate loss of "quality of life." That's about as **** subjective and disgusting as anything I can possibly imagine. Abortion wouldn't have been a mercy killing; it was an option of financial convenience for a set of parents who weren't ready to handle the consequences of their actions.

_________________

While obviously the exact result is not possible, there seems to have been a lot of statistical hard data for the family to go on, that no only would the child not survive, but it would be a significant struggle with a high likelihood of pain. I don't see how attempting to avoid that is a bad thing.

Meh, whatever. I can certainly understand his sensitivity on the subject, and I can see how it would elicit such a response. However, that's not Aizle's problem. If Nitefox is too sensitive to rationally discuss opposing viewpoints, he shouldn't click on the thread.

Personal issues are no excuse for muzzling opposing viewpoints, no matter what they are. To my knowledge Aizle and Nitefox do not know each other personally, so personal sensitivities should not come into play.

Be able to take it, or don't involve yourself. Nobody can blame him for not wanting to be involved.

My understand is that LK and Nitefox's situation was nothing remotely close to this. Both their loses were unexpected and sudden. So my comments are in no way directed at them.