question for pro-choicers

[Jade Margery]

First, I preface this by saying that I do not want this to become another typical abortion debate thread, so I'm getting this out of the way early:

Abortion is wrong and immoral and murder and life begins at conception and GOD hates baby killers etc. etc. etc.

Therefore, if your post is at all similar to the above quote, I reserve the right to politely request that you bugger off. This question is not for you. Feel free to express your opinions on another topic.

This hypothetical situation is aimed at Pro-Choice advocates, specifically girls although guys are welcome to reply if they wish.

Situation:

So, despite taking contraceptive precautions, you find yourself pregnant. You're trying to decide whether or not to keep the baby, which you did not want in the first place but now that you've got a cute little parasite of your very own, you're not so sure you want to get rid of it.

Still debating on the issue of abortion, you nevertheless go to the doctor for a round of tests and to check up on the health of the fetus. About halfway through your first trimester, you get the news: genetic diagnosis on the fetus shows that the kid is going to be developmentally disabled. Severely.

Does the knowledge that your baby would be born with either a crippling mental condition, physical deformity, or life-threatening genetic defect have any effect on your decision whether or not to get an abortion?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I would imagine it might make the decision a bit easier, especially if they were already leaning that way. I suppose if I thought abortion was okay that's the way I'd go. At least I'd feel as though I had a more valid excuse than "I didn't want a kid".

Anything else I say would violate the terms of your OP, though.

 

[GhostSlug]

My husband and I have had several conversations about this very topic. As I said in another post, under normal circumstances, I do not agree with abortion. This is one of those circumstances that are on the fence. I would want to know what are the exact issues with the fetus and what kind of life will the fetus have post-birth. Then we would make that decision. I know that in several cases, doctors aren't 100% sure of the situation. One of my friends was told that judging by the first ultrasound, there appeared to be a large mass on her son's head. They told her that she had the choice to either continue, abort, or wait 2 weeks for another ultrasound. She picked 2 weeks and on that ultrasound, there was no mass. Now she has a beautiful 8 year old. Before making any decision about aborting a fetus due to medical issues, I would want to make sure the doctors are absolutely 100% sure there is in fact an issue, and then what that issue will cause post-birth.

 

[wanderingone]

No, because I wouldn't choose to have an abortion. I'm pro choice, I believe abortion should be legal and safe and a private decision. My personal choice when faced with unplanned pregnancy has not included abortion.

 

[HighwayMan]

It would be quite cruel to bring this kid out in the world and subject him to a life of suffering. And if you believe in souls - surely a straight pass to the next world would be much kinder.

 

[Nathan45]

Does the knowledge that your baby would be born with either a crippling mental condition, physical deformity, or life-threatening genetic defect have any effect on your decision whether or not to get an abortion?

I'm not female, but if i was that would 100% guarantee an abortion....

Halfway through first trimester... i didn't even know it was possible to do tests that early.

anyways:
1) An actual existing embryo is not more entitled to life than a possible future embryo.
2) if she don't have this kid, she could have a different one later.
3) Abort and retry, better to have a kid that doesn't have serious genetic problems.

 

[David Brider]

Honest answer? I don't know. If, when my fiancee and I are married, a situation like that were to arise, we'd have some pretty serious discussions about it, but it's difficult to say what sort of decisions we'd come to. Personally, although I'm pro-choice in principle, I'm not necessarily in favour of abortions in every situation, and ultimately it would be Sarah's (my fiancee) decision. Personally, the potential of a child of mine being born with such a condition as you describe would be worrying; we'd also have to take account of how it would impact us financially - an unplanned pregnancy would almost certainly have to mean us moving house, as the house Sarah's got at the moment is barely big enough for the two of us; and also, how the child being born with any specific condition would impact us, in terms of extra care needs and things like that.

OTOH, the child would be loved by God. But that wouldn't necessarily make things any easier.

Ultimately, I'd hope we'd be able to decide to keep the child, but if we were to decide to terminate the pregnancy, it wouldn't be a decision we'd make easily or lightly.

(And as Nathan45 says, is it actually possible to perform such tests on a foetus that early?)

 

[Ectezus]

I've actually had this discussion with my girlfriend before.

We're both pro-choice and a severe abnormality in the embryo would most certainly influence the outcome of the choice.

I can't imagine how hard it must be to actually remove the embryo but if you think at it logically it doesn't make sense to keep a baby if you don't want it. The baby isn't better off mutilated and/or with parents that would rather not have it (in case of rape or other horrible circumstances) or those who simply can't afford it, like a good education!
Sure you can learn to love it, as with anything but what’s so special about a few embryonic cells clumped together that would prevent you from making a logical choice?
The potential for life is lost every time you pleasure yourself.

I'm not saying I don't think it's a big deal to remove an embryo. I just think that bringing a child into this world for the wrong reasons is worse.

However, no matter what anyone’s opinion is, they must have some set of balls to enforce it onto other people and limit their choice. What if roles were reversed and pro-choicers would enforce abortions on people where having the baby would be a wrong idea (like not enough money to take good care of the child)... Equally bad scenario but no pro-choicer would ever consider such a thing.
I find it odd that it's most often the religious people that are trying to limit the rights of others...

I guess it makes sense from a religious point of view though, just like how the pope doesn’t want you to use condoms. If you don’t use condoms you’ll get pregnant more often and that combined with the idea you absolutely can’t use abortion will result in more children. And we all know that religious parents + innocent child = religious child
Score 1 for spreading religion!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I guess it makes sense from a religious point of view though, just like how the pope doesn’t want you to use condoms. If you don’t use condoms you’ll get pregnant more often and that combined with the idea you absolutely can’t use abortion will result in more children. And we all know that religious parents + innocent child = religious child
Score 1 for spreading religion!

Talk about jaded and painting with a wide brush!! :o

I honestly don't think proliferating the Catholic Church is the reason behind the Papacy's restriction on condoms.

Of course, you also fail to take into account that while the Catholic Church does restrict birth control usage, it's also one of the largest providers of adoption services, with some pretty well-run orphanages throughout many countries. And hmmm...I was adopted from Catholic Social Services and guess what? I'm not Catholic.

 

[lawtonfogle]

First, I preface this by saying that I do not want this to become another typical abortion debate thread, so I'm getting this out of the way early:



Therefore, if your post is at all similar to the above quote, I reserve the right to politely request that you bugger off. This question is not for you. Feel free to express your opinions on another topic.

This hypothetical situation is aimed at Pro-Choice advocates, specifically girls although guys are welcome to reply if they wish.

Situation:

So, despite taking contraceptive precautions, you find yourself pregnant. You're trying to decide whether or not to keep the baby, which you did not want in the first place but now that you've got a cute little parasite of your very own, you're not so sure you want to get rid of it.

Still debating on the issue of abortion, you nevertheless go to the doctor for a round of tests and to check up on the health of the fetus. About halfway through your first trimester, you get the news: genetic diagnosis on the fetus shows that the kid is going to be developmentally disabled. Severely.

Does the knowledge that your baby would be born with either a crippling mental condition, physical deformity, or life-threatening genetic defect have any effect on your decision whether or not to get an abortion?

Well, first off, I can't get pregnant, so are we talking about a hypothetical wife, or hypothetical girl friend having this happen.

Next off, I would say it would be a combination of the severity and how the wife/gf feels about this, since in the end, it is her choice by law (though I can support it or be against it). Now, before you think negatively of me for saying this, give me a chance to say what I consider server enough to abort. I will not choose to abort if the child is healthy or only has a genetic disorder along the lines of downs syndrome, on the other hand, I would not be against one in the case of the child not having brain development (I forget the name of the disease right now, but it is where the child does not have the upper brain at all, only the brain stem, and it is 100% fatal, if you could even called the child living to begin with, as it is very comparable to someone who is completely brain dead due to having most of their brain removed to get rid of a brain cancer, but who is kept alive on breathing machines). Now, what about the inbetween, where there is a 99% chance of death, a 98% chance of death, ect. I am not sure.

 

[Jade Margery]

Hmm, the topic be gettin' a little off what I had intended. Thank you for your post, Ectezus, but it did not have much to do with the question at hand.

See, I used to work for a camp for children with disabilities. The attitude at the camp was one of love and respect and care and it was really beautiful to see, but at the same time horribly depressing. Looking at those vacant-eyed children, the eighteen-year-olds who couldn't use a toilet, the severely autistic who would never be able to communicate or relate to anyone.. and their sad, tired parents, sadder and tireder as their kids got older and bigger and harder to take care of... I suppose I would not mind at all if my child had a physical disability. Folks come in all shapes and sizes, after all. But a mental one? If I could know that was going to happen, I would indeed terminate, even if I had intended to get pregnant in the first place. There are pretty much no other circumstances where consensual sex would lead to my getting an abortion.

And so, for a few years now, I've wondered if I that made me a bad person, to base whether or not I have a baby on how mentally capable it would be. I'm actually kind of surprised that so many other people would do the same.

I guess the question is more about whether the quality of the life inside you would affect your decision to keep it, than it is about if you are for or against abortion. Is it moral to base the choice on something like this?

And no, I do not think there are currently any tests that can detect genetic defects at early stages. This hypothetical situation takes place at some unspecified futuristic date with flying cars and routine gene screening.

 

[Ectezus]

Hmm, the topic be gettin' a little off what I had intended. Thank you for your post, Ectezus, but it did not have much to do with the question at hand.

Margery, I just gave you a detailed explanation on why the scenario you presented would have influence on my decision.
Plus the reasoning behind that opinion and a likely cause of the whole issue.
I understand that you probably find that last segment a bit offtopic but don't say I didn't answer your question when I in fact, did.

Besides, birth control and abortion are directly related to eachother. Humans have sexual needs. If you prevent birth control then the issue of abortion is a direct result because of that.


PreachersWife2004, I'm glad you're an exception of the rule. However when you look at the facts it clearly shows religious parents have a major influence on the outcome of the child's believes.

I honestly don't think proliferating the Catholic Church is the reason behind the Papacy's restriction on condoms.

Why not? It certainly does seem to help the cause.
What do you think is the reason for restricting condoms is despite all the dangers of aids and such?

- Ectezus

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Jade Margery, I think in order to really get a grasp on what it's like to raise a child like that, you gotta be that parent (this is a general you, not specific). One of my close friends sons was born with a very long, very terminal disease. She could've aborted, but chose not to. Her son lived to be 14 years old and wasn't much good on his own. He was, for all intents and purposes, a quadriplegic. He had the intelligence of an 6 year old. He couldn't eat on his own. But I tell ya, when that kid smiled, oh my word the whole room lit up. When he laughed, it was musical. We all grieved when he passed, and yes, the mom was somewhat relieved when it happened and who can really blame her. However, she wouldn't change it for the world. It was a challenge, yes, but she loved him dearly and you could tell that he enjoyed his life, even though it wasn't a life one chooses.

I know more than a few people like my friend, but I was close with her and I saw first hand some of the reactions from people when she gave his history. How hurt she was when someone asked "why didn't you just save yourself all this effort and abort?" Articles and opinion pieces which basically asked the same question hurt her, too.

It honestly felt to her like her choice would've been heralded had she chosen to abort, but because she chose to keep her child, people looked down on her. And perhaps some of them did - perhaps some of them really did believe that she had done some horrible thing by bringing him into this world.

But again, this boy, regardless of the quality of his life, was a godsend to everyone who knew him. I don't know how that could possibly be bad.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

PreachersWife2004, I'm glad you're an exception of the rule. However when you look at the facts it clearly shows religious parents have a major influence on the outcome of the child's believes.

Well, I dont' think I'm the exception to any rules. Full disclosure, I was adopted from Catholic Social Services but I was raised Lutheran and still am Lutheran to this day, but not because my parents are Lutheran. I know many religious parents whose children are not religious, mainly because the parents are of two differing denominations and the parents have decided to let the child choose their religion, probably with little or no education on religion.

Why not? It certainly does seem to help the cause.
What do you think is the reason for restricting condoms is despite all the dangers of aids and such?

- Ectezus

Well of course it helps the cause, but that's not what they had in mind. Condoms prevent the natural outcome of pregnancy. BC can be an abortificaient (sorry for spelling that wrong...too lazy to do spell check). Catholic Church teaches natural family planning (which never worked quite right for me, that's for sure) so that there's nothing "unnatural" preventing a pregnancy. And that's as much as I know about the CC's stance on birth control.

 

[wanderingone]

I guess the question is more about whether the quality of the life inside you would affect your decision to keep it, than it is about if you are for or against abortion. Is it moral to base the choice on something like this?

Why would it NOT be moral? In my personal opinion the individual who is anti abortion but who would have an abortion under certain circumstances is far more questionable in their ethics than the person who is pro choice and would decide for themselves to terminate a pregnancy only for specific reasons.

 

[Jade Margery]

PreachersWife, I know what you mean, and I have incredible respect for the parents and caregivers. There are a lot of touching stories and experiences involving disabled children and I know that if I were to have such a child, I would love him or her just as strongly as I would any of my other kids. It would be very insensitive and cruel to ask a mother why she didn't abort in any circumstances, as it implies that the child they love wasn't worth having, and I don't believe that.

It's not really about saving the effort. I don't know many mothers who wouldn't do anything they could for their kid. But what is it worth for the child? I guess my opinion stems from the personal feeling that if I were given a choice between being dying or being mentally disabled, I would choose the former, hands down.

 

[Polycarp1]

Well id be [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed at the aliens that impregnated me.
I assume this is directed at women?

Somebody threw cold water on you! Leave yourself open fpor that line with that username, why don'tcha?

Actually, the OP (original post or poster) made clear it was directed at pro-choice women, with men welcome to give their views as well.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Frankly, I don't know what my wife and I would have done in that case -- definitely we'd have prayed about it, then acted on what we felt led to do or not do.

(And the issue came dangerously close to being a real one: while we never had kids despite wanting them,. we had two 'false alarms' where we mistakenly thought she'd 'caught' -- and the second time she was past 40, in the period when first pregnancies have a lot higher potential for genetic or congenital problems than earlier in life.)

 

[PreachersWife2004]

PreachersWife, I know what you mean, and I have incredible respect for the parents and caregivers. There are a lot of touching stories and experiences involving disabled children and I know that if I were to have such a child, I would love him or her just as strongly as I would any of my other kids. It would be very insensitive and cruel to ask a mother why she didn't abort in any circumstances, as it implies that the child they love wasn't worth having, and I don't believe that.

It's not really about saving the effort. I don't know many mothers who wouldn't do anything they could for their kid. But what is it worth for the child? I guess my opinion stems from the personal feeling that if I were given a choice between being dying or being mentally disabled, I would choose the former, hands down.

Which then begs the (moral) question of why do we feel this way? Has society contributed to that, or do we personally just believe that being handicapped in some manner is somehow that bad? I know that I personally wouldn't want to have any such malady as that, but were I to be paralyzed today in a car accident, I don't think I'd think my life was horrible or unlivable. I'm sure I would be depressed at times, and I'm sure that I would wish that I wasn't paralyzed, though. I guess, where is the distinction?

We've had some similar scares like your OP in our family. We've been blessed that every case turned out to be perfectly normal, although in one case we were actually fairly certain that the child was going to be born severely disfigured based on the ultrasound pictures and then the child looked fine. I won't say that science was just plain wrong, but we like to think of her as our miracle baby. (This is one of my nieces, by the way). In every case that we've gone through, the parents had decided to continue the pregnancy, and again, we were blessed that test results were incorrect.

 

[QuakerOats]

My husband and I have had several conversations about this very topic. As I said in another post, under normal circumstances, I do not agree with abortion. This is one of those circumstances that are on the fence. I would want to know what are the exact issues with the fetus and what kind of life will the fetus have post-birth. Then we would make that decision. I know that in several cases, doctors aren't 100% sure of the situation. One of my friends was told that judging by the first ultrasound, there appeared to be a large mass on her son's head. They told her that she had the choice to either continue, abort, or wait 2 weeks for another ultrasound. She picked 2 weeks and on that ultrasound, there was no mass. Now she has a beautiful 8 year old. Before making any decision about aborting a fetus due to medical issues, I would want to make sure the doctors are absolutely 100% sure there is in fact an issue, and then what that issue will cause post-birth.

+1 That's the view I take as well. Good post.

 

[jayem]

My wife and I don't have children. But we've talked about this situation. And assuming the diagnosis is as indisputable as medically possible, I know she would terminate the pregnancy. Other people would not, and that's fine. The contentious issue in abortion is the role of the state. Some strong anti-abortion advocates would favor passing laws that would make it a crime to perform such an abortion. To me, that's excessive government intrusion, and is a worse evil than allowing an early term abortion for non-compelling reasons.