|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "Tentative pregnancy"/prenatal euthanasia
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I stole my OP title from a book of this name, which deals with the way in which (the author contends) the increasing recommendation and use of prenatal diagnostic procedures encourages a tentativity toward the child, that it is "tentative" until it's been proven by such testing to be good enough to live. If you're interested, the first several pages of her book may be viewed on Amazon here The Tentative Pregnancy: How Amniocentesis Changes the Experience of Motherhood
As she sets forth, there is a terrific opporunity but also tremendous risk to the parent-child-society relationship presented by the increasing use of prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities followed (nearly always) by abortion. Her thesis is that it presents a conundrum. What prenatal testing & abortion as a regular phenomenon does, is to set up situation in which the mother wants the fetus, and therefore, embraces it as a "baby", but must also simultaneously feel willing to abort it if it proves not good enough to live.
The way this works in real life* is that over 35 you are offered amniocentesis. The chances of anything being really wrong are generally low. Non-invasive tests can now identify pretty well the women at higher risk. But the only way to find out for sure is an invasive procedure that raises a 1/200 to 1/500 risk of miscarriage. So you have this bizarre conversation in which you say, "I really want this baby if it's healthy and really don't want to risk a miscarriage, but I want to be able to abort the fetus if it's really damaged". You see how weird that is?
Her thesis is that this interferes with the total acceptance that parents must give children and that the effects of that failure of total acceptance are more pervasive than just resulting in a "happy reduction" in numbers of damaged people.
Now she recognizes that there are circumstances in which it seems totally understandable, as with people who carry Tay-Sachs or other very rare but fatal genetic conditions. But as she notes, the vast majority of testing is to get at more common things that are not as serious.
Anyway, very long OP for which, apologies, but it's something very much on my mind that seems to deserve discussion.
*I know about this first-hand because a "friend" is going through it now. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[thread title changed to more accurately reflect topic of discussion; later edited for archiving]
[ 06. September 2005, 05:08: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I should hasten to clarify that this is not a "pro-life" standard position she's putting forward. It's more of a philosophical exanination of what these testing procedures mean for parent/child relations and how society views and supports children who are disabled. It's not a long reach from "you can abort the disabled child" to "you ought to abort" that child. The societal implications of that shift are by themselves, huge.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Our last experience with this was roughly three years ago when my wife was pregnant with our daughter. I don't know if things have changed since then.
This also is more along the lines of medical background for the OP, rather than an opinion on the central point of the impact or lack thereof on the 'indecisiveness' about the fetus/baby status on our views of pregnancy, birth and humanity. Sorry if this appears to be a bit of a rant, but there is a pet peeve of mine here (unrelated to abortion or politics). Apologies to all for whom this information is 'old hat'.
In our neck of the woods, women were not 'routinely' offered amniocentisis. Rather, they were offered that procedure if a screening test of the mother's blood (drawn from the arm) indicated an increased likelihood of age-related chromosomal deficiencies in the fetus compared with that of a 35 year old mother (or if there was evidence of the possibility of hereditary disorders).
Important points - 1) age-related chromosomal deficiencies include Down's syndrome, spinobifida, and some other very rare outcomes that are truly beyond bearing - organs forming outside the body of the fetus, etc. There may be others that I'm missing out.
It does not include hereditary genetic disorders such as Tay Sachs. Separate genetic history and counseling for the parents is involved with persons of certain heritage (e.g., myself as French Canadian) to estimate these risks. These risks may separately inform the decision about whether to have amnio or not.
The more common of the age-related chromosomal issues, Down's and perhaps spinobifida, are not nearly as bad as the very rare ones, but they do require that parents be capable of dealing with 'special needs'. I didn't think I was that kind of parent, but other people might believe they are. And we can always be wrong about ourselves, one way or the other.
2) ...as compared with a 35 year old mother. On average, if you were 35 years or older, you would have a positive screening test. That did not mean your baby had problems, but rather that your risk of problems was higher than for a fetus of a 35 year old mother. I don't recall if they gave an estimate of how much higher.
3) Why 35? Because the estimated risk of miscarriage due to the amniocentisis was break even with the risk of one of these age-related chromosomal issues.
It is #3 that I have the biggest problem with. I will bet that 80% of those who receive that blood test and get genetic counseling don't understand what a screening test is, or how to interpret a relative risk. But implicit in the decision of whether to have amnio is balancing the risk of the miscarriage against the other outcome. If you are content to have a Down's baby, then age 35 is not the break-even point for you in terms of risk. Even if you thought you'd have an abortion in the presence of one of the other genetic disorders, this is not the appropriate break point for a rational decision on the matter.
In our case, we did not get the amnio, despite a slightly elevated risk of age-related chromosomal problems. I am far from convinced that this practice really involves 'informed consent' of the parents; not because hospitals don't try, but because the grasp of mathematics by so many of our population is so woefully inadequate. I know for a fact that our discussions with our genetic counselor got a lot easier when I told them I was a biostatistician and they could use some of the technical terms. The English language equivalents turn into phrases that are extremely cumbersome!
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
...So you have this bizarre conversation in which you say, "I really want this baby if it's healthy and really don't want to risk a miscarriage, but I want to be able to abort the fetus if it's really damaged". You see how weird that is?
Her thesis is that this interferes with the total acceptance that parents must give children...
I have no problem of any sort with abortion. I think that the conflation of language involved in referring to a fetus as a "baby" is intrinsically political. There is nothing at all weird about saying that you want to continue a pregnancy if there is a strong possibility of the newborn being physically normal, and not otherwise. The fact that checking involves some increased risk of creating abnormality is an important point to consider when deciding whether or not to perform the test.
I do, however, find something totally bizarre about saying that a parent must (or even can "totally accept" their children. In my experience, it is often barely within a parent's reach to even tolerate their children (a fact that goes both ways). Setting up a Hallmark greeting card view of parenting and family is massively counter-productive.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
How much value do we place on human life if we are only willing to accept the ones we consider good enough?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
English Ploughboy.
Ship's tiller
# 4205
|
Posted
I would agree with the OP that the whole issue unsettles me. I think we are in a very consumer orientated society when everything has to be perfect and there must be a pill to cure every ill.
One can understand why a forty year old lady with a diagnosis of downs syndome in her foetus would want an abortion but one can also understand how this must make people with said syndrome feel living in a society that would idealy see them never born.
The cleverer we get at medical technology the larger the can of worms that is opened up. We can keep babys alive at younger and younger stages of gestation but how often are they brain damaged.
We spend millions in the west and look to Niger with thousands starving for want of simple nutrition.
We need to get our priorities right as a world as well as individuals.
--------------------
Christmas: celebration of un-created love let loose upon a needy world,
Posts: 386 | From: Sussex and Rwanda | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Tom:
With respect, the author is not remotely putting that forward - the Hallmark thing.
But let's set her aside and talk about us people of faith in situations like this -- I just used the Op as a starting point for this very loaded topic.
I do think that the availability of these technologies raises ethical issues yet I don't see most people actually grappling with them much -- most over-35s simply follow recommendations and have the amnio. I have in front of me a guide to that procedure the last paragraph of which deals with "termination" in case of bad outcome but says nothing about gathering information about the diagnosed problem to make an informed decision about how bad that condition really is. There's a pretty big scope of difference between sickle cell anemia, Tay Sachs, Cystic fibrosis and Down's Syndrome in terms of real outcome.
For example, in the case of anencephaly, I think I can say wouldn't hesitate to teminate, because death upon birth is certain in that case, the chance of life is nil and therefore going forward you have the risks inherent in childbirth with no countervailing benefit. (I do know, before anyone points out, that anencephaly and other gross organ problems are generally diagnosable by non-invasive sonogram and not by amniocentesis or CVS).
I think also that a lot of people don't understand statistics at all. If your assessed risk of having a kid with Down's Syndrome is 1/1400 (mine was thus assessed this last time by a genetic counselor by non-invasive testing) and the risk of miscarriage from the amnio is at best 1/500, well, I do understand statistics.
But what that analysis does not take into account is what your risk-tolerance is. That is, even though your risk of having a baby with a major defect is low, how do you feel about your ability to tolerate having a kid with that sort of defect?
But then, maybe, if one has no tolerance for defects, perhaps one oughtn't to be in the business of having children at all. There's no guarantee after all, that your apparently normal child won't develop autism or something far worse than a mild case of Down's syndrome.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
O.K., now about the OP. I do think the whole age-related chromosomal thing is overblown.
Does the tentativeness of that state prior to receiving amnio results change our opinion of motherhood or the fetus? I think in my own personal situation it did not affect my view of my wife's pregnancy and our fetus one bit, but we didn't get an amnio. We were always in a constant state of anticipation on so many questions about our child until birth (and it continues); a few more questions didn't change my perception of her abstractness as a person prior to birth, and her concreteness afterwards.
But does the availability of screening and amnio change our perception of motherhood and creating children generally? Perhaps it has, but it is part and parcel of a whole raft of other changes in society, not the least of which being the increased age at which women become pregnant compared with some years ago [I do wonder where the point in history should be for comparison - what did the pioneers in the west do? Are women pregnant at an increased age compared with then?]
Suppose none of this testing were available, but we knew that there was an increased risk of age-related chromosomal defects as age increased. Would 'older' mothers-to-be be just as tentative about the status of their baby until birth as they supposedly are now until the amnio results come back? The difference would be that it would be too late for an abortion, but the tentativeness would remain.
Does any affect of this tentativeness on the mother-child relationship survive the confirming results / birth? Are our relationships so conditioned by the time of birth? I have to expect that any real effect, if it exists, diminishes rapidly over time and is probably non-existent by an early age.
If this affects anything, I think it would be women's decisions to become pregnant as they approach 40, and our general policy decisions regarding childbirth - all very important stuff. But I don't think it impacts particular mother-child or parent-child relationships in the long term.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
... maybe, if one has no tolerance for defects, perhaps one oughtn't to be in the business of having children at all. ...
Like anything in life, there are no guarantees about the future. Some actions/activities may bring about unintended/unexpected/undesired results.
If you don't think you could consider life without seeing, should you undergo a procedure that has a 1/500 chance of loss of sight? If you could not consider life without walking, should you particpate in activities with a chance of paralying you?
Does not the same thinking apply to conceiving a child?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Interestingly, I read a study which stated that even though women were enterprising pregnancy more often later than 35, the rate of invasive testing had actually dropped off a bit. OBs see this as good to the extent that it drives them nuts that most of the "positives" from screening tests turn out upon invasive testing to be normal, in which case, the risk of miscarriage looms larger than the other risks. They hate the notion that most of those miscarriages weren't "worth" the risk. They really want there to be non-invasive true diagnostic tests, which the new nuchal translucency screening comes pretty close to.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
... maybe, if one has no tolerance for defects, perhaps one oughtn't to be in the business of having children at all. ...
Like anything in life, there are no guarantees about the future. Some actions/activities may bring about unintended/unexpected/undesired results.
If you don't think you could consider life without seeing, should you undergo a procedure that has a 1/500 chance of loss of sight? If you could not consider life without walking, should you particpate in activities with a chance of paralying you?
Does not the same thinking apply to conceiving a child?
Well, driving carries fairly significant risk of major bodily harm, and that doesn't stop most people, yet it could hardly be said that they were accepting a 1/x risk of harm -- it's a trade-off. Driving confers a benefit which balances the risks (whatever they are).
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
I do think that the availability of these technologies raises ethical issues yet I don't see most people actually grappling with them much -- most over-35s simply follow recommendations and have the amnio. I have in front of me a guide to that procedure the last paragraph of which deals with "termination" in case of bad outcome but says nothing about gathering information about the diagnosed problem to make an informed decision about how bad that condition really is. There's a pretty big scope of difference between sickle cell anemia, Tay Sachs, Cystic fibrosis and Down's Syndrome in terms of real outcome.
One limitation is the timing. Amnio results take a couple of weeks to process (or at least we were told so). If you get your test at say 22 weeks, and have the results at, say, 24 weeks and now have to start research and decision making, how late a term abortion are we talking about? This only matters in those "gray area" conditions, but those are the hard ones.
People clearly need to be well prepared in advance of getting the results. I'm convinced that occurs in the case of inheirited defects - there is at least a potential of family history, and you can screen this _very_ early as it is about the parent's DNA. I'm less convinced this research and education happens early with respect to the age-related chromosomal defects.
quote:
But what that analysis does not take into account is what your risk-tolerance is.
Amen again. Investors do this kind of personal risk tolerance assessment all the time - why should it be so much harder for hospitals to offer some sort of personal risk assessment tool?
[ 02. August 2005, 18:09: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I have a particular problem with abortion as a means of treating birth defects -- and not because I am opposed to abortion. Rather, I am opposed to eugenics.
In fact, I am so strongly opposed to it that I'm not sure I can discuss it in purgatory. I'd probably better stop now, and think some more. And maybe I can come back to the topic later.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Interestingly, I read a study which stated that even though women were enterprising pregnancy more often later than 35, the rate of invasive testing had actually dropped off a bit.
[....]
They really want there to be non-invasive true diagnostic tests, which the new nuchal translucency screening comes pretty close to.
Was it a big decline? I'd be curious about the rates of obtaining amnio given a postive screening test and how they changed over time. Do you have the reference handy?
Surely the latter point would greatly ameliorate the problem. Unintended miscarriage from amnio could soon be a moot point, at least as far as age-related defects go (which is the lion's share of the problem).
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I recently read an article on the growth of what the author called "eugenic abortion". While hardly objective and disinterested, the article did present some statistics that I found chilling:
quote:
Medical researchers estimate that 80 percent or more of babies now prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. (They estimate that since 1989, 70 percent of Down syndrome fetuses have been aborted.) A high percentage of fetuses with cystic fibrosis are aborted, as evident in Kaiser Permanente's admission to The New York Times that 95 percent of its patients in Northern California choose abortion after they find out through prenatal screening that their fetus will have the disease.
Having known people both with Down Syndrome and with Cystic Fibrosis, and seen the good that they can bring into the world, I can't help but see this as saying something extremely troubling about us humans.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Interestingly, I read a study which stated that even though women were enterprising pregnancy more often later than 35, the rate of invasive testing had actually dropped off a bit. OBs see this as good to the extent that it drives them nuts that most of the "positives" from screening tests turn out upon invasive testing to be normal, in which case, the risk of miscarriage looms larger than the other risks. They hate the notion that most of those miscarriages weren't "worth" the risk. They really want there to be non-invasive true diagnostic tests, which the new nuchal translucency screening comes pretty close to.
But is the reason that, based on the uninvasive tests, more women are having abortions immediately rather than undergoing the invasive tests?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I have a particular problem with abortion as a means of treating birth defects -- and not because I am opposed to abortion. Rather, I am opposed to eugenics.
In fact, I am so strongly opposed to it that I'm not sure I can discuss it in purgatory. I'd probably better stop now, and think some more. And maybe I can come back to the topic later.
Josephine:
Your strong views are welcome in Purgatory, as you know. It'd be a shame if you stayed out of the debate.
The reason that I raised the issue is that I think eugenic abortion is what really concerns me, in terms of what it says about us as people of faith and how we view people and children. But it's an issue I can see many sides of, very easily.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
But is the reason that, based on the uninvasive tests, more women are having abortions immediately rather than undergoing the invasive tests?
No. It's very unusual for people to abort because of the early screening tests -- they don't give you enough information. All they can do is give either peace of mind that a problem is unlikely, or they provide a higher risk assessment in which case amnio is recommended. For a wanted child (which the kids under discussion are, typically) there's no reason to have an abortion without further testing.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
A tangent, but:
I was shocked a few years back when a friend who was also an adoptive mom shared with me some stats she'd heard when she was adopting.
Apparently, there's an even greater "consumer mentality" with adoptions; a significant percentage of adopted children get returned.
She learned this because it had become apparent that her own daughter had serious learning differences, and had sought advice (NOT an effort to return the child) from the agency overseeing the adoption.
Aside to Laura: Not all anencephaly leads to immediate death. I once knew a 21-year-old person with only a brain-stem. About the size of a 3-month-old baby, no apparent meaningful responses to stimuli except reflexes, but alive at age 21 in the institution where he'd been committed shortly after birth.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
What bothers me about the whole amnio thing is precisely what somebody above mentioned, that so many folks simply do it because "I'm 35 or older, and that's what you do, there's no real choice here." Either the medical people haven't explained the reasoning adequately (or at all), or the woman wasn't listening well enough (likely when discussing such a stressful subject). And so we get a bunch of folks risking miscarriage when at least some of them would not if they only got the message straight.
It hits home particularly because of a friend and church member of ours who was the one in two hundred who miscarried a fine, beautiful baby due to an amnio she didn't understand. We were the ones who rushed to the hospital and baptized the child as soon as it was born, too early to live, and then held her and grieved with the parents and planned the funeral. It was the last child she would ever have.
I don't know what the answer to this is. Would it be possible somehow to make "not-having-an-amio" the default position for normal pregnancies, with amnio mentioned and offered as an option, but perhaps not so prominently stressed? I'm considering another pregnancy and will certainly be offered amnio due to my age--offered by the doctor; pushed by well-meaning family, friends, etc. etc. etc.
I'm sorry to have wandered from the OP. I do think that all pregnancies normally start out "tentative" just because it takes time to comprehend and reconcile oneself to the fact that another person has just arrived in one's life, and will be taking it over for the next twenty years!
But since amnio comes so late in the pregnancy and (for some) raises the thought of termination), I do think it heightens and prolongs the tentative-ness. But I guess any late term screening test would do the same.
In older days, when we didn't have these tests and had to go by guess, I would imagine the "tentative" period went much quicker. Since you weren't going to find out till birth anyway, you might as well get on with the bonding process.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Having known people both with Down Syndrome and with Cystic Fibrosis, and seen the good that they can bring into the world, I can't help but see this as saying something extremely troubling about us humans.
FCB
Yes, they can bring much good into the world. And they can be wonderful people.
However, if parents really don't feel that they can cope with bringing up a disabled kid, then said child will be born and put into care. And people looking to adopt kids don't go for the 'damaged' ones. So you get a sizeable proportion of kids in care homes being disabled. And they'll be in care/a special service all their life.
How is this a good outcome?
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It's a crappy outcome. But I do think it's better than being dead.
And yes, I would (and may soon!) take a damaged child.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
A tangent, but:Aside to Laura: Not all anencephaly leads to immediate death. I once knew a 21-year-old person with only a brain-stem. About the size of a 3-month-old baby, no apparent meaningful responses to stimuli except reflexes, but alive at age 21 in the institution where he'd been committed shortly after birth.
Okay. That's actually worse than death shortly after birth. Yikes.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Oh, meant to say--one of the smartest things I read about testing during my first pregnancy said basically,
quote:
Go ahead and get the tests done if you want, but don't kid yourself about losing your worries, since you will simply and surely replace the fear of Down's, etc. with the fear of cleft palate, ears like Uncle George's, etc. that are not testable. Pregnancy is the beginning of a slippery slope of worry you will careen down all the rest of your life.
Maybe an overstatement, but there's some truth in it!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Too late to edit my previous post...
I'm not sure that the position stated above in my post is a good one. It's one that makes me sad. It doesn't say good things about us as people of faith.
It is, however, realistic - it's what society tends to think. And society isn't composed exclusively, or even sizeably, of people of faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's a crappy outcome. But I do think it's better than being dead.
Watch me not joining in this tangent into the rights and wrongs of abortion.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
However, if parents really don't feel that they can cope with bringing up a disabled kid, then said child will be born and put into care.
Maybe. Or maybe the parents will find strength and resources they didn't know they had. That's what you have to do if your two-year-old has a stroke, and you suddenly have on your hands a child who is hard of hearing, blind, and paralyzed on one side. Or if your ten-year-old falls out of the tree and lands on his head and is paralyzed from the neck down. Or if your 16-year-old has a head-on collision with a drunk driver and suffers traumatic brain injury and has to relearn how to walk, how to talk, how to tie her shoes.
I assume that you are not willing to euthanize those children.
I would also assume that you wouldn't euthanize the apparently perfect infant that later turns out to be autistic or mentally retarded. You'd just expect the parents to deal with it.
Some can't, of course. But the child shouldn't be killed because of the parent's inadequacy.
Eugenics is wrong. It's evil. And it's just as evil at 24 weeks gestation as it is at 24 months or 24 years.
When evidence was found that a group of the ancestors of the human race had cared for one of their own who could not care for himself, this was nearly universally noted as the dawn of true humanity. What does it say about us if we're not even willing to care for our own children?
May God have mercy on us all.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
It's a very hard call, any way you look at it.
I live in a state where the possibilities of placing a severely disabled child in care are very limited -- no public institution for same, and a foster-care system which is severely underfunded.
I have also seen what happens when parents who cannot cope are expected to bring up a child who needs heavy-duty support. Some pretty horrific abuse can go on.
What really wrenches my heart is to see moms in their 70s and 80s, often now widowed or divorced, struggling to lift and change and clean their now middle-aged offspring -- some of them bigger and heavier than their moms.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
However, if parents really don't feel that they can cope with bringing up a disabled kid, then said child will be born and put into care.
Maybe. Or maybe the parents will find strength and resources they didn't know they had. That's what you have to do if your two-year-old has a stroke, and you suddenly have on your hands a child who is hard of hearing, blind, and paralyzed on one side. Or if your ten-year-old falls out of the tree and lands on his head and is paralyzed from the neck down. Or if your 16-year-old has a head-on collision with a drunk driver and suffers traumatic brain injury and has to relearn how to walk, how to talk, how to tie her shoes.
...
Or, your grand-father has alzheimers. Or your spouse suffers a paralyzing stroke.
Once we start deciding who is worthy of life, we start pretending we are God, rather than relying on God for strength to deal with life.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
or, josephine, maybe they'll find that they can't deal with it. as my parents couldn't deal with very well with my brothers autism. oh they tried hard enough. they tried until it nearly tore them apart. and it was a miserable way for the other two of us to be brought up. now mind you, theres no prenatal test that would have revealed my brothers problem before he was born, so its a moot point. but i get so sick of this "god never gives you a burden to heavy to bear" crap that some people spout to other people who are struggling. because its not true, and sometimes they _can't_ handle that burden.
i don't understand your position, actually. you said several posts up, that you have no problem with abortion. but you do have a problem with abortion for eugenic reasons? so what reasons do you think do justify an abortion? only if the fetus is perfectly healthy? that seems convoluted somehow.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Dang. Now I feel guilty for opening the gate into Dead Horse territory. *beats breast*
I don't think God ever intended a nuclear family to handle such a situation. That's what relatives, friends and neighbors are for. Pity so few come through.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
I live in a state where the possibilities of placing a severely disabled child in care are very limited -- no public institution for same, and a foster-care system which is severely underfunded.
If eugenic abortion were only for truly severe disabilities, I could deal with it. No matter how strongly I feel about it in the abstract, I honestly can't say what I would do if I were told that a child I was carrying had anencephaly. Those are truly hard choices, and all I can really say is, may God grant them grace and mercy.
But eugenic abortions aren't done just for severe disabilities. They're done for all kinds of things.
It's not talked about, as the article FCB linked to pointed out. But it's done.
And what effect does that have on people with disabilities? Autistic adults know that the "support organizations" who are raising funds and working with researchers, looking for a "cure" are looking primarily for genetic markers. Their opinion of that is clearly expressed here. Scroll down for the editorial cartoon. Then look at the green poster, and click the Then and Now link.
If we accept eugenic abortions, where do we stop? We saw where the eugenics movement led in the last century. How do we keep from going there again?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
It's okay -- it's hard to set aside personal feelings about abortion, but we need to treat that as "grey area" for the purposes of this debate (or you know where the thread will end up!)
The point is that abortion for eugenic or non-eugenic purposes is in fact legal, but how does that possibility along with the availability of prenatal testing inform us as people of faith in dealing with these issues?
Interestingly, from a political point of view, abortion for perceived strong eugenic justification is pretty non controversial, inasmuch as abortion is ever noncontroversial, and I think this says a lot about us, too. I've been having a variation of this discussion with a lot of friends lately, and they all, to a person, said that they'd abort for Down's or one of the other trisomies without much thinking about it. It was self-evident that this was the better choice.
To those who've asked for statistics on the rate of invasive testing/relation to abortion, I'll try to find the article I was reading and post it here for you.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
And what effect does that have on people with disabilities? Autistic adults know that the "support organizations" who are raising funds and working with researchers, looking for a "cure" are looking primarily for genetic markers. Their opinion of that is clearly expressed here. Scroll down for the editorial cartoon. Then look at the green poster, and click the Then and Now link.
From that link of Josephine re: the eugenics movement, it shows a photo of an old sort of light display that was used to make people aware of the frequency and cost of the birth of "defectives":
quote:
A popular 1926 exhibit from the American Eugenics movement reads, "Some people are born to be a burden on the rest. Learn about heredity. You can help to correct these conditions." Five panels are displayed, with flashing lights on them.
The top one is captioned, "This light flashes every 15 seconds. Ever 15 seconds $100 of your money goes for the care of persons with bad heredity such as the insane, feeble-minded, criminals, and other defectives."
Under "America needs less of these," there is a light that flashes every 48 seconds -- "Every 48 seconds a person is born in the United states who will never grow up mentally beyond that stage of a normal 8 year old boy or girl" -- and one that flashes every 50 seconds -- "Every 50 seconds a person is committed to jail in the United States. Very few normal persons ever go to jail."
Under "America needs more of these," there is a light that flashes every 16 seconds -- "Every 16 seconds a person is born in the United States", and another that flashes every 7 and a half minutes -- "Every 7 1/2 minutes a high grade person is born in the United States who will have ability to do creative work and be fit for leadership. About 4% of all Americans come within this class."
Which is totally horrifying and also probably bullshit to boot. But as Josephine indicated, even the most anti-eugenics position stalls at anencephaly. So (to sum up) there is still a line where eugenic abortion is okay, it's just a question of where the line is.
[ 02. August 2005, 19:14: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
i don't understand your position, actually. you said several posts up, that you have no problem with abortion. but you do have a problem with abortion for eugenic reasons? so what reasons do you think do justify an abortion? only if the fetus is perfectly healthy? that seems convoluted somehow.
I didn't say that I don't have a problem with abortion. I said that my opposition to eugenic abortion is not based on my feelings about abortion, but on my feelings about eugenics. I am absolutely and unequivocally opposed to eugenics.
Abortion is another matter entirely. My view on that topic is actually rather complex. I think some abortions are appropriate, and some are not. But I have no interest at all in discussing abortion per se. It's a dead horse.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
We were offered amniocentesis with one of ours - can't remember which now. I think in the UK it is/was offered to over-30s. Our decision was that as its result wouldn't change our view about the continuance of the pregnancy we saw no point in facing the risk.
On the subject of the OP: Don't all parents have a tentative approach to pregnancy? The mere fact of pregnancy is not secure until about twelve weeks (spontaneous abortion being not uncommon before then), and the outcome remains tentative until you actually hold a living breathing human being in your arms. We didn't talk about it much beforehand, but I know I at least (and I am sure SisJames too) were well aware of those we knew or had met who had not had that straightforward outcome - for al sorts of reasons. They were the exception - we knew many more who had had perfectly normal deliveries - but you can't help wondering 'What if that happened to us?'
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
The unfortunate thing to me is that the children or potential children in question never get to state their preference. To be born or not to be born - that is the question.
Of course, God has never made that an option for any of us; those with good outcomes or bad. Perhaps that's an indication that we as adults shouldn't have that power over the unborn of questionable quality either.
Just my opinion and not needing to have my hooves shod. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Though I hold to the official heartless Catholic line on abortion (i.e. I'm against it), I would still distinguish between something like anacephaly and Down Syndrome, in that one could plausibly argue that one in aborting an anacephalic fetus one was only marginally shortening its life and that they primarly intention was to prevent its suffering. I can't imagine making the same argument for a fetus with Down Syndrome. The people I have known with Down Syndrome have been, in their own distinctive ways, lovely people, and the only suffering they experience from their condition is the suffering that others inflict on them. I wouldn't pretend that raising a child with Down Syndrome is a cakewalk, but, as others have pointed out, there are all sorts of things that happen after the birth of a child that make parenting difficult.
I suppose my only point in all this is that "eugenic abortion" is an indicator of something ugly about the human race -- something that we are called as Christians to resist in some way.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Go ahead and get the tests done if you want, but don't kid yourself about losing your worries, since you will simply and surely replace the fear of Down's, etc. with the fear of cleft palate, ears like Uncle George's, etc. that are not testable. Pregnancy is the beginning of a slippery slope of worry you will careen down all the rest of your life.
Maybe an overstatement, but there's some truth in it!
It is a slight overstatement, but the point is very sound. Especially regarding this question of the "tentativeness" of bonding with the fetus at early stages. The status of the amnio is just one of a million things to worry about, and I think the author of the book may be overemphasizing this particular stage of development in terms of its lasting effects on the parent-child relationship.
I think as people of faith, or even as a bipartisan coaltion of the left and the right, we could advocate better standards for genetic counselling, including forming a personal risk tolerance profile prior to obtaining the screening test or an amnio. This at least would have the result of reducing the number of miscarriages due to the amnio among healthy fetuses, and may well reduce the number of abortions of those with positive results.
[fixed code]
[ 02. August 2005, 20:19: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
when you think about it, though... did women in the past "bond" with theit unborn (fetus or baby, your preference) anyway? when infant mortality rates were so high, there was no guarentee that just because a child was born it would live to any viable age. i've heard it suggested that parents didn't really bond with young children because the pain of losing them over and over and over again would just be to high.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
The big mistake is naming them. You really get attached once they have a name.
Seriously though, does anyone have concrete knowledge on this or is it just urban myth. I've heard that in the middle ages, one didn't get attached to children under the age of 5 because of the mortality. I am quite prepare to believe otherwise if people have any good historical sources .
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I have no idea what people did in the middle ages, but it's hard to imagine that adults could live with small children without becoming attached to them. I don't even particularly like small children as a class of people, but I see my best friend's little two-year-old girl every week*, and that's been enough to make me very attached to her.
*I see my best friend as well, but let's face it, when the kid is at that very cute stage, everyone else is just entourage. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I've read historians contend that people in the Middle Ages and at other times that children were likely to die of assorted diseases didn't get attached to them, but I tend to think that what small evidence we have suggest that's ridiculous. I think they did love them and suffered terribly, but didn't complain in 200 page books about their grief the way a modern person might, so we don't have any lasting record.
FCB, that OPEd may not have been unbiased but it provided some fairly scary stuff from mainstream sources. I think it's fair to say that this eugenic abortion movement is going forward with very little public debate and you better believe it's discussed in the "disabled community," who have not failed to notice that certain disabilities are basically being eliminated from the population through selective abortion.
For example: quote:
Now prenatal screening can identify hundreds of conditions. This has made it possible for doctors to abort children not only with chronic disabilities but common disabilities and minor ones. Among the aborted are children screened for deafness, blindness, dwarfism, cleft palates and defective limbs.
I can testify from personal and family experience that these enumerated things are either reparable or have very little effect on the ability to live a life of joy and love. I'm not sure where my "line" is, these problems are well below my threshhold.
quote:
As Andrew Imparato of the [American Association of Persons with Disabilities] wonders how progressives got to this point. The new eugenics aimed at the disabled unborn tell the disabled who are alive that "disability is a fate worse than death," he says.
"What kind of message does this send to people living with spina bifida and other disabilities? It is not a progressive value to think that a disabled person is better off dead."
God this is hard stuff.
[ 02. August 2005, 21:35: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
its hard to believe, for me at least, that a woman could go through a pregnancy without becomeing attached to what shes carrying, but thats what this thread is about. theres another thing, btw, it sounds at least as though people are assuming that women are having abortions lightly, like "oh well this one didn't work, lets just end it, its not like i got attached to it or anything.". i don't think thats ever the case. even when thats the choice thats made, everything i've ever heard about it has indicated that its a pretty wrenching decision.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I've read historians contend that people in the Middle Ages and at other times that children were likely to die of assorted diseases didn't get attached to them, but I tend to think that what small evidence we have suggest that's ridiculous.
I've read other historians agreeing with you and completely trashing that idea, which I think does approach urban myth.
There is a fair amount of documentary evidence (letters, etc) suggesting that people in the middle ages felt much the same about their young children as we do.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
As Andrew Imparato of the [American Association of Persons with Disabilities] wonders how progressives got to this point. The new eugenics aimed at the disabled unborn tell the disabled who are alive that "disability is a fate worse than death," he says.
"What kind of message does this send to people living with spina bifida and other disabilities? It is not a progressive value to think that a disabled person is better off dead."
I guess it's my lot to be the curmudgeon here. The idea that a couple should continue with a pregnancy that they find intolerable to avoid sending the wrong message to any group is just silly. So much of the abortion discussion acts as if there is only one person involved -- the only one that is not obviously a person at all. When a couple come to the decision to have an abortion, it is made from a context that is not available to anyone else. It is far from clear that this is an easy and simple choice for most. It is also far from clear to me that it is an abomination to the Lord.There is no shortage of life to value endlessly. Let's start by valuing the lives of the couple.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But then, maybe, if one has no tolerance for defects, perhaps one oughtn't to be in the business of having children at all. There's no guarantee after all, that your apparently normal child won't develop autism or something far worse than a mild case of Down's syndrome.
I think this is pretty much where I stand on this. Some here will know that I have a baby son who has Spina Bifida. This was diagnosed ante-natally through an ultrasound scan - so not an invasive test procedure. Without venturing into Dead Horse territory, my husband and I were profoundly grateful throughout the pregnancy that we already knew where we stood should we find that our baby had some sort of disability. If we were not prepared to face the possibility of bringing up a disabled child, we would not have started a family. I hope that doesn't come across as a twee, Hallmark-type sentiment - I'm not saying that it isn't hard, and that it doesn't terrify the living daylights out of me on occasion!
On the whole testing/screening issue, I think that the failure of most people to understand statistics and expressions of risk as a percentage, for example, is very important here. I don't know how it works for women over 35 here, but for me (aged 28 when I got pregnant), I was offered blood tests which were described as 'screening', and which would give a percentage risk for conditions such as Down's Syndrome. If your risk came out as higher than a certain point, you would be offered amnio. (We were told this carried a 1 in 100 chance of miscarriage - different numbers to Laura's example).
I am sure that most people who have a higher than average risk indicated from the screening then go on to have amnio, although from what I could see (I'll see if I can dig out the leaflets) the risks were still pretty small - I am fairly sure smaller than the risk of miscarriage. I didn't have the screening done, as I would not have had amnio even if the screening had indicated a high risk, because of the risk of miscarriage, and didn't see the point of worrying myself over a screening result.
We were offered amnio again after finding out about Evan's Spina Bifida, as there can be chromosome defects associated with it. Again, we declined this.
Something else that worries me about this whole area (especially having been 'in the system' with an ante-natal diagnosis of disability), is that it seems to me people think that they can get far more definitive information about their child than is actually the case. In many cases, although a diagnosis is made, there is no way of knowing how that diagnosis is actually going to affect the child once they are born. My son is 7 months old now, and so far his development has been no different to any other child. We don't know what the future holds, but what parent does?
The board with the lights shown in the link Josephine posted, and Laura quoted, is one of the most chilling things I think I have ever read. It does worry me very much that we may get to a point where there is pressure from society on parents to terminate pregnancies when abnormalities/disabilities are detected. You do come across that attitude but thankfully, in my experience at least, this is rare. One friend of mine, when she informed her midwife she didn't wish to have screening for Down's was asked "do you realise how much disabled children cost the NHS?", but no-one ever said anything like that to us. A good thing, because I don't think I could have been held responsible for my actions....
This has been long and rambly, and any point I may have had appears to be buried, but, having been there, I thought I'd post.
If my thoughts clarify at all overnight, I'll post again!
b
[cross-posted with a ton of people]
[ 02. August 2005, 22:28: Message edited by: birdie ]
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
...If we were not prepared to face the possibility of bringing up a disabled child, we would not have started a family. I hope that doesn't come across as a twee, Hallmark-type sentiment - I'm not saying that it isn't hard, and that it doesn't terrify the living daylights out of me on occasion!
Your decision is clearly moral and laudatory. My posts are not at all intended to suggest otherwise. My only point is that I have no right making such a difficult decision for you. Nor do I have the right or desire to judge anyone faced with a similar choice for whatever they decide is right for them. I believe that the Christian thing that I am called to do is offer my support in helping the couple deal with whatever decision they deem best.
What raises my hackles is when people act as though raising a family is an unalloyed joy and blessing, and our part is to get with the divine program. At best, raising a family is a very alloyed joy and blessing.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HopPik
Shipmate
# 8510
|
Posted
Not read all this thread, so apologies if any of this has been covered. We had our two kids latesish so had amniocentesis, but by the second time were thinking, as it happened, why are we doing this? Because with one kid in the nest, aborting another just because was downs suddenly seemed inconceivable. Never mind the fact that when the needle went into our firstborn's amniotic sac I'd seen her flinch, and she was born with a snick out of her ear like somone nicked it with a holepunch.
Second thing for me was, years later, working with adult disabled students, mostly suffering from cerebral palsy, dyspraxia, autism and the like. In the main these guys were so happy! Their lives were good, they were having fun. I remember one student in particular, a woman in her twenties with cerebral palsy, couldn't move without an electric wheelchair, could barely co-ordinate to push a button to do anything, spoke at the rate of one syllable maybe every three seconds if that... but her name was Joy and I never met anyone with a more appropriate name, that woman was so exuberant, she had wit and intelligence, was an inspiration to anyone who knew her. And yet with different parents, or different advice, she might have been flushed down a sink. What a thought.
--------------------
Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and supposedly the pig enjoys it. G.B. Shaw
Posts: 2084 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HopPik:
And yet with different parents, or different advice, she might have been flushed down a sink.
With different parents she might have been parked in a "home." Or shaken till her brain was bruised from bouncing against her skull. Or beaten to within an inch of her life. I'm glad Joy's life is so good. But many severely disabled people's lives are not so good, and the "they're always so happy" thing makes me want to puke. The one young woman with Down Syndrome with whom I am acquainted is not happy all the time, and she is quite aware of the limitations of her life. She sees her younger brother growing much taller--all her family are extremely tall, but her growth has been stunted--she knows her gait is more awkward than other people's, she knows she won't go to college but her brother will. She lives with her parents while her contemporaries leave home and make their way in the world. She knows her life is different from other people's, and though her parents have done a fabulous job of helping her to love and accept herself, I get the impression that if given the choice, she'd rather be like other people.
Some years ago I had a student in his early 20s who had CP; he was extremely bright and very funny, and with his inquisitive and insightful mind he was a positive delight to teach. But he wasn't happy all the time, and he was anything but joyous. Some things were very painful for him, I think. For instance, young women weren't rude or cruel to him, but they just didn't see him as a sexual being because he walked very awkwardly, held his hands at odd angles, and spoke with difficulty. The evils of eugenic abortion are getting discussed here at length, but this guy's genes were going to have a hard time getting passed on if he never met someone to whom the effects of CP were unimportant. (And I pray he did--if I'd been ten years younger and not his professor, I'd have asked him out myself.)
None of this is to say that some people are just better off dead. But we've had two posts already about how great severely disabled people's lives can be, and while they can be great, I think it's dishonest and mean to talk as if it's all sunbeams and daisies to live with severe disabilities.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
....There is no shortage of life to value endlessly. Let's start by valuing the lives of the couple.
So, we pick and choose what lives to value? I thought the Christian answer was that all human life had value; none more so than any other. At least, that is what I believe.
God grants us life. Who are we to decide that He made a mistake?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
