Babies with club feet aborted

[Brennin]

(Originally posted to my blog)

Excerpt:

MORE than 20 babies have been aborted in advanced pregnancy because scans showed that they had club feet, a deformity readily corrected by surgery or physiotherapy.

According to figures from the Office for National Statistics covering the years from 1996 to 2004, a further four babies were aborted because they had webbed fingers or extra digits, which are also corrected by simple surgery. All the terminations took place late in pregnancy, after 20 weeks.

Last year, according to campaigners, a healthy baby was aborted in the sixth month at a hospital in southeast England after ultrasound images indicated part of its foot was missing.

News of the terminations has reignited the debate over how scanning and gene technology may enable the creation of “designer babies”. In 2002 it emerged that a baby had been aborted late

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2200495,00.html

This is absolutely repugnant. Abortions of convenience such as these, championed by "reproductive rights" advocates, are a devaluation of human life and should not be tolerated in a civilized world.

 

[£amb]

I work in a Preschool and a boy in my class just had surgery done on May 12th for club feet. Simple procedure but a long recovery, and well worth it for this child.

 

[Jasminrose]

(Originally posted to my blog)

Excerpt:

MORE than 20 babies have been aborted in advanced pregnancy because scans showed that they had club feet, a deformity readily corrected by surgery or physiotherapy.

According to figures from the Office for National Statistics covering the years from 1996 to 2004, a further four babies were aborted because they had webbed fingers or extra digits, which are also corrected by simple surgery. All the terminations took place late in pregnancy, after 20 weeks.

Last year, according to campaigners, a healthy baby was aborted in the sixth month at a hospital in southeast England after ultrasound images indicated part of its foot was missing.

News of the terminations has reignited the debate over how scanning and gene technology may enable the creation of “designer babies”. In 2002 it emerged that a baby had been aborted late

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2200495,00.html

This is absolutely repugnant. Abortions of convenience such as these, championed by "reproductive rights" advocates, are a devaluation of human life and should not be tolerated in a civilized world.

I think this is sickening, the least they could do would be to put the child up for adoption, and then most likely they would see their child and love them and want to keep them, but how would they know if they just abort them.

 

[happygrl35]

Babies with club feet aborted

I don't see anything morally or legally wrong with abortioning a baby because of deformation,IMO however I see a problem with WANTING to abort a previously "wanted" baby at such a late date for mere clubfoot? I just don't understand the reasoning in that.This leaves me with only two conclusions 1# The parrents of the aborted *midly deformed fetus* really didn't want the baby to begin with and used it's mild deformation as an excuse to abort,or 2# The parrents of the aborted *midly deformed fetus* are EXTREMELY vain and shallow,wanting only a phyisically perfect child,thus proving to be unfit parrents anyways.

 

[NateBlack]

Abortion should be safe, legal & rare. Hearing these kinds of things is heartbreaking.

 

[michabo]

Abortions of convenience such as these, championed by "reproductive rights" advocates, are a devaluation of human life and should not be tolerated in a civilized world.

And where do you see abortion rights advocates championing abortions based on physical characteristics? I've never seen this. I've seen them say that it is a decision which should be left to the parent.

If you want to get all ****y, then attack the parents. It's "absolutely repugnant" to disingenuously lie about those with whom you disagree. You have a problem with abortion rights advocates, then attack them for their own actions, not those of unrelated individuals (and only four individuals at that!).

 

[Brennin]

And where do you see abortion rights advocates championing abortions based on physical characteristics? I've never seen this. I've seen them say that it is a decision which should be left to the parent.

If you want to get all ****y, then attack the parents. It's "absolutely repugnant" to disingenuously lie about those with whom you disagree. You have a problem with abortion rights advocates, then attack them for their own actions, not those of unrelated individuals (and only four individuals at that!).

As far as I am concerned, anyone who supports late term abortions in any circumstance other than a medical emergency is complicit

 

[levi501]

Whatever reason a mother has for destroying her property isn't my concern or anyone elses.

 

[Brennin]

Whatever reason a mother has for destroying her property isn't my concern or anyone elses.

The fetus is not her "property."

 

[ApocryphaNow]

This is absolutely repugnant... a devaluation of human life and should not be tolerated in a civilized world.

So is war. Fortunately, abortion hasn't gone nuclear yet, so we have bigger fish to fry.

I probably will never understand why people get so upset about abortion. If you don't like it... don't get one. Now, again, a lot of people don't have that option when it comes to war...

 

[Jasminrose]

Whatever reason a mother has for destroying her property isn't my concern or anyone elses.

"property" is that all a child is to a mother?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Aborting a child you wanted to bear just because of a physical and mental deformity is in my opinion LAZY and superficial. Your concern should be for the child's welfare, not how people are going to look at you about how "ugly" your baby may be. If surgery is available to fx a deformity, utilize it instead of terminating a life because you don't like how the child looks. It's not a freakin' dating service where you can pick and choose what you want based on looks.

 

[levi501]

The fetus is not her "property."

yes it is.

 

[levi501]

"property" is that all a child is to a mother?

no, and my post didn't suggest otherwise.

 

[Jasminrose]

no, and my post didn't suggest otherwise.

Of course you did, when ever you call someone property you are making them out to be inatimate object that doesn't have any rights of their own.

A baby is not property.

 

[levi501]

A baby is not property.

Of course not... but a fetus is.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I guess Lord Byron lucked out by several hundred years.

 

[Brennin]

yes it is.

Wrong. We don't countenance chattleship in this country.

 

[YellowSapphire]

Sick. My legs were deformed at birth and my mom had to drag me to the doctor's every few weeks to get casts put on and cut off while I screamed in fear from the cutter. That must have been quite a bit of work. Maybe my mother should have aborted me.

 

[Harpuia]

Aborting a child you wanted to bear just because of a physical and mental deformity is in my opinion LAZY and superficial. Your concern should be for the child's welfare, not how people are going to look at you about how "ugly" your baby may be. If surgery is available to fx a deformity, utilize it instead of terminating a life because you don't like how the child looks. It's not a freakin' dating service where you can pick and choose what you want based on looks.

Shockingly enough, this was what pro-lifers I know said was going to EXACTLY happen if abortion were kept legal...

Man... I don't know...