 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: North Dakota, abortion, and Down Syndrome
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
North Dakota has recently banned abortions for conditions such as Down Syndrome. Most folks who have significant disabilities, or who have children with significant disabilities, see this as a very good thing.
Others aren't so sure.
If we really want to protect the lives of the disabled, is an abortion ban the right way to do it? Will it work? Is the messaging important enough that it doesn't matter whether it works or not?
And what about the argument the author makes about what we should do, instead of restricting abortion?
quote:
If North Dakota really does want it to be “a great day for babies in North Dakota” and wants to prove that “a civil society does not discriminate against people … for their sex or for disability,” it should make the state a welcoming place for people with disabilities. The state could take the cash reserves it has put aside for legal challenges to its laws and use those funds to train public schools to be meaningfully inclusive (as all the best research shows is the way to go). It could provide easily accessible medical care and early intervention. The state could develop independent — but supported — housing for adults with intellectual disabilities so that there are not waiting lists years long. It could improve criminal justice responses to rape — indeed, North Dakota could become a state that works to prevent rape by training men not to be rapists.
It doesn't have to be either/or, of course. It could be both/and.
But if we want to protect the lives of children with disabilities, does it actually do any good to prevent them from being aborted, and not provide them with what they need for a decent life?
Is there any way to build bridges between (usually conservative Republican) people who oppose both abortion and welfare programs and (usually liberal Democratic people) who support a strong welfare state and the right to choose?
It seems to me that they should be able to craft an alliance that would be good for everyone (and in particular for people with significant disabilities).
So ... what do y'all think?
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If we really want to protect the lives of the disabled, is an abortion ban the right way to do it? Will it work? Is the messaging important enough that it doesn't matter whether it works or not?
It is a fact that having a child with Down Syndrome is a lot more work than having a "normal" child. I have a relative with Down's, and she's wonderfully loving, and an absolute joy to be around, but raising her has been significantly more work for her parents, and that work will continue throughout her adulthood, because she's not able to live an unassisted life.
I wouldn't want to be without her.
However, if we are to permit people to abort their babies because they're not ready for a child, or for whatever reason a child doesn't fit in to the current circumstances of their life, surely we must permit people who think they have the resources - time, emotional, financial, whatever - to raise a normal child but not the extra required to raise a significantly disabled child to make that choice.
The only position I think is pretty much untenable is the one that says "abortion is wrong, unless the kid is disabled".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The only position I think is pretty much untenable is the one that says "abortion is wrong, unless the kid is disabled".
Which is, weirdly enough, more or less the law in much of Britain. Abortion on grounds of disability, including Down's, can be carried out at any point up to birth, rather than the 24 week limit for "healthy" foetuses. It's not an idea that sits comfortably with me, I have to say. I can understand it for serious life limiting deformities, but the breadth of what is permitted seems excessive.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Josephine
If we really want to protect the lives of the disabled, is an abortion ban the right way to do it? Will it work? Is the messaging important enough that it doesn't matter whether it works or not?
In a word, NO.
Worse, you are trying to argue for two different things: one, to protect (I think you mean improve) the lives of people already born; second, whether or not to allow the termination of foetuses before birth.
The church - we - should do out utmost to promote the passage of laws that make the practical elements of day-to-day life better/easier to manage for people with disabilities (and their carers if they cannot care for themselves). Under this umbrella should come legislation to protect such persons from discrimination on the grounds of their disability.
However, this is not the same as preventing people with those disabiities from being born.
Since it is biological fact that foetuses under a certain age are incapable of independent existence it should be argued that any "rights" they may have at a later stage in their development/life cannot be similarly applied before they reach that developmental stage since their very existence is entirely and wholly dependent on another (the mother) who cannot at this stage in their development be replaced by a third party.
As/when/if we reach the stage that a foetus can go from conception to full-term entirely outside the uterus then the situation will be very different.
Any proposed "ban" on abortions is effectively saying that for a period of time - from when pregnancy is known up to and including birth - a woman ceases to have full and final control over her own body: in effect, the state is placing itself as guardian ad litem automatically and, in so doing, depriving her of civil and human rights.
So, nice liberal people who aren't pro-choice: where next?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Can I just clarify, L'Organist, you support allowing abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Let me preface this by saying I wish abortion were much more rare than it is. However, I am not comfortable with making abortion illegal.
----------
Simple answers are simply insufficient.
Downs Syndrome children are generally capable of a high quality of life. As adults they can maintain employment. There are congenital problems with which a person would have no quality of life, Downs Syndrome is not one of them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet, I think that is a distortion of L'organist's position. S/he clearly said: quote:
...foetuses under a certain age are incapable of independent existence it should be argued that any "rights" they may have at a later stage in their development/life cannot be similarly applied before they reach that developmental stage since their very existence is entirely and wholly dependent on another (the mother) who cannot at this stage in their development be replaced by a third party.
In other words, until the foetus is independently viable the mother should be allowed to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy. Once the pregnancy reaches a stage where the foetus is viable, if the mother does not wish to continue the pregnancy, the state's interest in preserving the lives of its (potential) citizens would be best served by inducing the birth early and putting the baby in an incubator, not by forcing the mother to continue the pregnancy against her will.
Of course if the state has to pick up the bills for neonatal care, finding adoptive or foster parents and funding all the services that the baby will need for the rest of its life, the state may decide it is not quite as interested in preserving life as it thought it was. Intensive care for babies is expensive, and the adoption/fostering system is overloaded already.
UK law does recognise viability as an important developmental stage; 'normal' foetuses can theoretically be aborted up to 24 weeks, though in practice most abortions take place before 12 weeks. The recent attempt to lower the limit to 20 weeks was based on the argument that medical science has advanced to the point where babies born at this stage of a pregnancy can survive.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It doesn't have to be either/or, of course. It could be both/and.
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
In other words, until the foetus is independently viable the mother should be allowed to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy. Once the pregnancy reaches a stage where the foetus is viable, if the mother does not wish to continue the pregnancy, the state's interest in preserving the lives of its (potential) citizens would be best served by inducing the birth early and putting the baby in an incubator, not by forcing the mother to continue the pregnancy against her will.
But on what basis are the rights of the mother being made more important than the rights of the child?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
But on what basis are the rights of the foetus being made more important than the rights of the woman?
Of course, the choice of nouns may be taken to indicate a particular slant on the part of the questioner. There are no neutral ones. Mother/child implies the primacy of the latter, since the woman is defined by her relatuonship with the offspring. Woman/foetus, by being opposed to the other version cannot be neutral, but implies the woman to be first in consideration, being the sentient party.
This is a tricky argument, of course, and not one which I would like to see being dealt with glibly, but a woman died in Ireland recently when one side of this argument was taken as more powerful than the other.
[ 17. April 2013, 12:26: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
But on what basis are the rights of the mother being made more important than the rights of the child?
Mostly on the basis of personal autonomy. The woman is considered to have a greater right to her own body, mostly because it is her own body, than the fœtus has to the woman's body. The alternative is that another individual has a greater right to control a woman's body than she does herself, and that this right can be legally enforced by the state. A situation where someone has a greater right to control your body than you do is sometimes referred to as "slavery".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by arethosemyfeet
Can I just clarify, L'Organist, you support allowing abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy?
No.
What I support is for a woman to be able to have an abortion on demand up to the stage where the foetus could survive independently of any outside aid suxh as ventilation, steriod injections to make lungs work pre-term, etc. So that would be at about 28 weeks.
After that abortion only on grounds of foetal viability OR after sexual assault.
Do I approve of terminations? No, but I can see ghastly situations where an abortion can be the only reasonable solution.
And before the howls start I very much do NOT imply that the lives of people with disability are not of worth; but I do think it reasonable to give the parent(s) of a foetus who can be proved to be going to be profoundly disabled the choice of whether or not they carry such a pregnancy to full term. Remember, not everyone has it within themselves to be able to cope with either the practical or the emotional demands of caring for and bringing up a profoundly disabled child and adult; as for the state stepping in, I think there is plenty of evidence that the state makes a poor parent.
And to ask someone who knows they are pregnant with a profoundly disabled foetus to give birth because there may be a chance that someone may wish to adopt such a child, personally I think that is cruel.
[ 17. April 2013, 15:48: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Luke
But on what basis are the rights of the mother being made more important than the rights of the child?
On the basis that the mother has already been born and is an independent being able to care for herself. The "child" (unborn so actually a foetus) having not been born is not an independent being and will not be so until it is born - in other words is outside the uterus, detached from the umbilical chord and breathing independently.
I think this is absolutely a given until you reach the stage where the unborn can survive independently without intervention - and by putting that at 28 weeks I'm being pretty optimistic.
Rather than arguing against all abortion the pro-life lobby would do better to argue against the sometimes laissez-faire attitude of some women towards contraception.
And to be taken seriously the pro-life lobby needs to stop punishing victims of sexual crime by trying to force them to give birth to their attacker's child, thus imposing a further burden of suffering on someone already traumatised.
There are no perfectly right answers in these sad cases but there can be absolutely wrong ones - and making a rape victim bear her rapist's child is definitely wrong.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by arethosemyfeet
Can I just clarify, L'Organist, you support allowing abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy?
No.
What I support is for a woman to be able to have an abortion on demand up to the stage where the foetus could survive independently of any outside aid suxh as ventilation, steriod injections to make lungs work pre-term, etc. So that would be at about 28 weeks.
And to ask someone who knows they are pregnant with a profoundly disabled foetus to give birth because there may be a chance that someone may wish to adopt such a child, personally I think that is cruel.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but are you saying the rules should be different, as they are in Great Britain currently, for disabled foetuses or are you saying the 28 week limit you propose should apply to all viable foetuses except for protecting the life of the mother?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet
I am saying that until c28 weeks we should have abortion on demand - but with greatly increased effort to prevent repeat terminations (in other words get women to manage their fertility responsibly by using contraception properly).
After 28 weeks I think there are situations where a termination can be justified: - serious malformation - where the foetus would not be capable of independent existence
- pregnancy resulting from serious sexual assault where the victim requests it
- pregnancy resulting from incest - this is most likely in underage females who may well have been unable to report the pregnancy earlier
In the last two cases - pregnancy resulting from assault or incest - then it may well be that, rather than a termination, it is in fact induced labour: in which case the woman can be asked if she wishes to keep the child or not but NO pressure should be brought to bear to make her do so; moreover, in cases of incest any would-be adopters of such children must be made aware that the baby is the product of incest from the outset.
In the first case, if tests show there is catastrophic malformation then the pregnancy can either be terminated or labour induced: if the foetus breathes independently after birth and without medical intervention then the fact that the woman who carried it requested termination should mean that the child becomes a Ward of Court at birth and, if it remains alive, it is put up for adoption - if adopters cannot be found it is the state's responsibility to care for the child for its natural life.
Not perfect, I know, but then these are far from perfect circumstances. In a perfect world there would be a test for every abnormality, moreover all such tests could be carried out early in a pregnancy so that late terminations would become a thing of the past; however there are still foetuses that have abnormalities that don't show up on any scan, nor do they manifest themselves through amniocentesis or CVS.
The threat originally referred to Down's Syndrome: this can be tested for relatively early and so the decision whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy can be taken within the 28 week time limit.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
After 28 weeks I think there are situations where a termination can be justified: - serious malformation - where the foetus would not be capable of independent existence
- pregnancy resulting from serious sexual assault where the victim requests it
- pregnancy resulting from incest - this is most likely in underage females who may well have been unable to report the pregnancy earlier
I can't help but notice that "danger to the life or health of the mother" is absent from your list, despite being one of the more common reasons aborting a late-term pregnancy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
... Because I said on demand. After 28 weeks in England, Wales & Scotland you'd have an emergency caesarean if the health of either mother or foetus was at risk. Northern Ireland is another matter - but then you'd be in deep s**t if you lived in the Province in any case ... better than the situation south of the border on paper but the reality?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... Because I said on demand.
So if you're having a medical emergency (or anticipating something that will become an emergency if not dealt with), you have to claim to not want to do anything about it? Does asking for help while you're hemorrhaging count as a "demand"? The "on demand" terminology seems deliberately opaque. It's certainly not a phrase we ever see applied to any other medical procedure.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Luke: quote:
But on what basis are the rights of the mother being made more important than the rights of the child?
I think Croesus, L'organist and Penny S have already answered this. But on what basis do you think you have the right to force an unwillingly pregnant woman to carry a foetus to term, regardless of any risk to her own life and health?
As a man, you will never be in this situation yourself. Perhaps you could consider how much you personally would be willing to risk - in time, money and physical danger - to save the life of a total stranger? If the answers are not 'nine months', '$X' [where X = whatever it costs to have a baby in North Dakota; presumably quite a lot of money if the woman has to pay medical bills herself] and 'willing to throw up every morning for about three months, look like a blimp for 4-5 months, endure agony for 24 hours or so and have your private parts permanently scarred' then you would probably have an abortion if you didn't want the baby, too. And that's not even considering situations where continuing the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman's life or where the foetus is so badly deformed it will die almost immediately after birth.
I do know someone who became pregnant after being raped and chose to keep the child, and I admire her greatly. But I don't think it is right to force someone to do this; as Croesus says, hijacking someone else's body for your own ends is usually called slavery.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
IANAL, and laws differ in different places.
That said, where I live, the legal code requires parents to support their children. Where parents fail in this duty, parental rights can be terminated, the parents subjected to criminal penalties, and the children, if not adopted, can become wards of the state.
Given a legally-imposed duty to support children once they're born, I think the state should not also be able to mandate that families must bear children they have reason to believe they cannot support. Where I am, state and local supports for families with disabled children are, well, dismal.
This means that families pretty much bear the full physical, emotional, social, psychological, and financial costs of rearing a child with one or more disabilities. These can be enormous, and they're generally life-long.
Families who produce a child with a disability have a 1-in-4 chance of remaining intact. A horrifying majority of families with kids who have disabilities are headed by single moms (who, if they can work at all, earn at best 3/4 what a similar male head-of-household can earn), which effectively consigns those moms to public assistance where the disabled youngster requires full-time care. In addition, there are the sometimes daunting burdens of advocating (constantly!) for a child's learning needs in a public school system which has NO incentive to meet those needs (and the paperwork burden for this alone can be staggering); overseeing that child's possible unusually high medical expenses; purchasing fitted equipment for a child whose size naturally changes; dealing with the higher-than-average emotional and psychological issues that may accompany that child's development, and the fact that even where there are two parents, one may have to abandon his/her career in order to ensure the child's ongoing care -- give me strength.
Rearing a disabled child can be isolating, impoverishing, stigmatizing, and can eat up every iota of energy, time, and attention the responsible parent(s) can muster.
Since my state also has a loooong waiting list of adults with disabilities in dire need of services (and I suspect there are other states in this situation), with only a slim chance at present of seeing that list eliminated or reduced (budget constraints), I say, if states hold parents responsible for care, then parents must be able to decide for themselves about bringing disabled children into the world. There will still be disabled children born. Not every disability can be revealed through prenatal testing. And there's no shortage of disabilities which only appear (or are incurred) after birth.
If we're going to prevent families from electing termination where they lack the financial, emotional, physical, social, and psychological resources to cope, then states had damn well pony up with the Cadillac services and supports those families often need.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Too late to edit, but forgot to add:
Children with disabilities are twice as likely to be abused as nondisabled children.
Children with disabilities are five times as likely to be bullied as nondisabled children.
If Birth, excuse me, North Dakota wants to protect the lives of people with disabilities, start with what happens to them once they've been born. When we've got those issues sorted, they can start implementing their version of The Handmaid's Tale.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Croesos
So if you're having a medical emergency (or anticipating something that will become an emergency if not dealt with), you have to claim to not want to do anything about it? Does asking for help while you're hemorrhaging count as a "demand"? The "on demand" terminology seems deliberately opaque. It's certainly not a phrase we ever see applied to any other medical procedure.
??? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
We're talking about a woman wanting or needing a termination here.
Pre-natal bleeding, up to and including haemorrhaging will always be seen as cause for concern and any woman will seek medical advice/help in a situation like that.
"On demand" means exactly that: I am pregnant, I don't want to be, the pregnancy is less advanced than 28 weeks therefore I want AND GET a termination.
As for a phrase not applied to other medical procedures: aesthetic cosmetic surgery? vasectomy? vaccination before travel? None of these are strictly necessary, all have to be requested by the person on whom the procedure is to be performed.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Porridge
If Birth, excuse me, North Dakota wants to protect the lives of people with disabilities, start with what happens to them once they've been born. When we've got those issues sorted, they can start implementing their version of The Handmaid's Tale.
Agree totally.
And that situation is the same for the UK.
In the UK you can even be disabled BY THE PROCESS OF BEING BORN and not get help: friends with a severely disabled child (can't sit/swallow/speak) have only now been given a court date for a hearing - and now, finally, the hospital have admitted negligence: the child has just had 20th birthday... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
???
We're talking about a woman wanting or needing a termination here.
Pre-natal bleeding, up to and including haemorrhaging will always be seen as cause for concern and any woman will seek medical advice/help in a situation like that.
But what kind of help could she get, given that "medical necessity" doesn't appear on your list of legitimate reasons a pregnancy shouldn't be carried to term (if past the 27th week of gestation)?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Croesos
But what kind of help could she get, given that "medical necessity" doesn't appear on your list of legitimate reasons a pregnancy shouldn't be carried to term (if past the 27th week of gestation)?
Croesos: do you not understand how a late termination is carried out?
Pre c14 weeks a termination can be achieved by using the so-called abortion pill (mifepristone) which can be taken at home - result is something like a very heavy and painful period. Other methods are ventouse (suction) or D&C (also known as a scrape).
Post c14 weeks and pre-23 weeks you can still use mifepristone but (a) a much higher dose is required; and (b) it requires medical supervision in a clinic or hospital; it is vital that medical staff ensure the uterus is clear otherwise patient may get septicaemia. Plus in very rare cases there may be a risk of haemorrhage - so supervision. This need for supervision is why it can be preferable to use D&C for later terminations since one can then be sure that the uterus is clear.
Post 23 weeks foetuses are only going to get out by either vaginal delivery or caesarean.
If a later termination is necessary it will be achieved either by inducing labour or by performing a caesarean - they may call it "surgical termination" but a caesarean is what it is. So, a late termination is really early birth.
Croesos: your "medical necessity" is covered by the three grounds I give where a termination is sought. If you are thinking of a case where the mother's life or health is in danger then an early delivery will be done. - and whether or not the foetus survives is in the lap of the gods. If it is a late termination then no efforts will be made to assist the early foetus to breathe; if not, then medical intervention may be made to help the new-born breathe.
Late termination is very distressing for everyone - the mother as well as the medical staff. THAT is why any attempts by legislators, however well-meant, to make early termination more difficult or to bring down the gestation limit on terminations - may well bring about the very kind of terminations that they are most against.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... pregnancy resulting from serious sexual assault ...
WTF is a "serious" sexual assault? Are there light-hearted or humorous sexual assaults? Flippant or casual sexual assaults? Or is this just another way of saying women lie about rape?
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Soror Magna: I'm in total agreement with you about sexual assault - perhaps I've spent too long around people who frame charges etc? I didn't and don't wish to offend and I certainly do not view any kind of sexual assault as anything other than a violent infringement of basic rights.
I used the expression "sexual assault" because conception can occur without penetrative rape - rare, I agree but has been known.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Post 23 weeks foetuses are only going to get out by either vaginal delivery or caesarean.
If a later termination is necessary it will be achieved either by inducing labour or by performing a caesarean - they may call it "surgical termination" but a caesarean is what it is. So, a late termination is really early birth.
Other way around. They may call it a cæsarian, but an early termination is what it is. Unless performed at full term, a cæsarian is a method of ending a pregnancy early. The pregnancy is being terminated prior to full gestation.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Croesos: your "medical necessity" is covered by the three grounds I give where a termination is sought. If you are thinking of a case where the mother's life or health is in danger then an early delivery will be done.
Which is still a form of aborting (i.e. prematurely ending) a pregnancy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Croesos
Which is still a form of aborting (i.e. prematurely ending) a pregnancy.
...err in which case any woman whose live, wanted baby is delivered by caesarean section is, in fact, having an abortion???
Sure
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Croesos
Which is still a form of aborting (i.e. prematurely ending) a pregnancy.
...err in which case any woman whose live, wanted baby is delivered by caesarean section is, in fact, having an abortion???
Only if the cæsarian is performed before full gestational term is reached. Abortion is the early termination of a pregnancy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Croesos
Which is still a form of aborting (i.e. prematurely ending) a pregnancy.
...err in which case any woman whose live, wanted baby is delivered by caesarean section is, in fact, having an abortion???
Only if the cæsarian is performed before full gestational term is reached. Abortion is the early termination of a pregnancy.
Where "early" means "before viability."
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Thank you Josephine ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Where "early" means "before viability."
This is a term whose definition alters with every infant and every technological advance in life-saving measures.
I was born 2 and 1/2 months premature (birth weight: 1 pound, 13 ounces) after a pregnancy complicated by hyperthyroidism and heavy smoking. I was "set aside" at birth as probably not viable and doctors went urgently to work on my mother, who was presenting life-threatening issues of her own (and already had three kids at home). When I failed to croak while they saved my mother, I was then provided with care myself.
My parent were advised to institutionalize me, since docs claimed I would never develop normally, either intellectually or physically. I am grateful to my father for rejecting this idea outright.
Nevertheless, it's also true that in that time and place, few children born this early or this underweight survived, partly because efforts to save them were then less advanced -- and also less often attempted.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Jane, being a person I think I'm uniquely qualified to talk about whether or not unborn children are persons. The general consensus on this thread so far seems to be that the mother's "rights" (that's assuming "rights" are the best way to think about ethics) are more important then her baby's because she has, to borrow Crœsos' phrase, "personal autonomy."
However that's an inadequate definition of a human person. Does autonomy mean freedom to breath and eat? Surely there's more to a human person then whether or not they have the freedom to exercise their legal rights or whatever it is that being 'independent' means.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Luke
Jane, being a person I think I'm uniquely qualified to talk about whether or not unborn children are persons. The general consensus on this thread so far seems to be that the mother's "rights" (that's assuming "rights" are the best way to think about ethics) are more important then her baby's because she has, to borrow Crœsos' phrase, "personal autonomy."
However that's an inadequate definition of a human person. Does autonomy mean freedom to breath and eat? Surely there's more to a human person then whether or not they have the freedom to exercise their legal rights or whatever it is that being 'independent' means.
"unborn children". I'm interested that you use that expression: do you refer to the undelivered progeny of equines as "unborn horses/mules/zebras"; do you eat "roast unborn calf" with your Yorkshire pudding? etc, etc, etc
"autonomy" - generally taken to mean freedom and/or independence: a creature attached to another by an umbilical cord which is its sole source of nutriment and life-sustaining substances cannot be said to be autonomous. We're not talking "freedom to breath and eat" as if this is an exercise in choice but as an ability to breath and eat without the intervention of another - human being or machine.
"independent" means exactly that.
If you want a literal, accurate definition of what a foetus is biologically then the answer is a parasite - an organism that lives on or in an organism of another from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
And before the howls of protest start:
Although rare, there is a condition that occurs where one of a set of mono-zygotic twins will become embedded within the body of the other and will be present as a mass of cells - sometimes teeth, hair, etc being present: these masses are called "parasitic twins".
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Luke: quote:
Jane, being a person I think I'm uniquely qualified to talk about whether or not unborn children are persons.
I'm a person, so I am also uniquely qualified. I happen to be a person who has undergone the experience of carrying and bearing a child, so I think that makes me more of an expert on the *practical* aspects of pregnancy and childbirth than you. This doesn't seem to have slowed you down at all, so let's move on. Unless you wish to argue that women are not really people?
You haven't answered my other question. How much trouble would you personally be prepared to go to in order to save the life of a total stranger?
[ 23. April 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
being a person I think I'm uniquely qualified to talk about whether or not unborn children are persons.
Using this standard also qualifies a pigeon to discuss the flight potential of eggs, and a kumquat to hold forth on the juiciness of seeds.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Porridge
Using this standard also qualifies a pigeon to discuss the flight potential of eggs, and a kumquat to hold forth on the juiciness of seeds.
How do we know that pigeons don't discuss the flight potential of eggs?
Actually, provided they are thrown the correct way an egg can be "flown" for quite a distance - I know because our quaint village fete has an egg-throwing competition (done in pairs) and the winning distance is usually somewhere near 30 feet. The rule is the egg must be caught intact for distance to count.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Jane, being a person I think I'm uniquely qualified to talk about whether or not unborn children are persons. The general consensus on this thread so far seems to be that the mother's "rights" (that's assuming "rights" are the best way to think about ethics) are more important then her baby's because she has, to borrow Crœsos' phrase, "personal autonomy."
I think you missed the most important part of what Crœsos said, which is as follows:
quote:
The woman is considered to have a greater right to her own body, mostly because it is her own body, than the fœtus has to the woman's body. The alternative is that another individual has a greater right to control a woman's body than she does herself, and that this right can be legally enforced by the state.
It's not that her rights to her body are more important because she has autonomy. Her rights to her body are more important because it's her body.
That's why no one can demand that you donate a kidney, a lung, and half your liver to keep them alive, even if you are the only person on the planet who is a good match they will surely die if you don't. You can live perfectly well with one kidney, one lung, and half a liver. But they are your kidney, lung, and liver. You have a greater claim to them than anyone else, not because you are autonomous, but because you are a person, and you have the right to the integrity of your body.
That is the argument that is being made here. It's not about an abstraction like autonomy. It's about a woman's body -- her womb, her abdominal muscles, her blood, her skin, her heart, her lungs, her pancreas, her joints, her ligaments, her kidneys, her teeth. It's not an argument about whether the fetus is a person. It's about whether a woman has the right to control what another person does with her body.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Jane, being a person I think I'm uniquely qualified to talk about whether or not unborn children are persons.
This is clearly a new use of the word "uniquely" with which I was not previously familiar.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Luke, though, you got me sidetracked. I didn't want to argue about abortion rights on this thread. I wanted to explore what we might do to make it less likely that a woman who finds out she's carrying a child with significant disabilities will choose to have an abortion.
As an ardent pro-life Christian, what would you propose?
--------------------
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
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Josephine: quote:
It's about a woman's body -- her womb, her abdominal muscles, her blood, her skin, her heart, her lungs, her pancreas, her joints, her ligaments, her kidneys, her teeth.
Sorry, I got sidetracked as well. Let's not forget:
Her time (going to medical appointments, giving birth, caring for the child, etc etc)
Her money (paying for aforementioned medical expenses, even if the child is given up for adoption)
And in some cases:
Her job (pregnant women are more likely to be sacked; women with children are perceived as being less reliable than other employees)
Her marriage/Significant Relationship (some men can't cope with the strain a disabled child puts on a relationship)
Her family (there is quite a lot of stigma to having a Downs Syndrome child, as if it were catching)
These are all issues that increase the likelihood that women will choose to have an abortion. They aren't doing it in a vacuum; the support they can count on from members of their family and the rest of society, the medical care available and the effect it will have on their job are all things they need to take into account. If they have no family willing to help, have to pay all their own medical bills and are likely to lose their job as soon as they reveal that they are pregnant, making abortion illegal is likely to drive them to suicide or a backstreet abortionist.
Making medical care free at the point of use in North Dakota would probably do more than any other single measure to reduce the number of abortions. Improving support services for families with disabled children would help as well. Educating people about Downs Syndrome and changing attitudes towards disability would perhaps remove the social stigma, though prejudice is often very deeply entrenched and difficult to change.
Of course, these measures would cost a lot more than simply making abortion illegal and don't come with a heartwarming dollop of misogyny.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Jane R
Improving support services for families with disabled children would help as well. Educating people about Downs Syndrome and changing attitudes towards disability would perhaps remove the social stigma, though prejudice is often very deeply entrenched and difficult to change.
...You are still working on the premise that money, support, education will work like magic.
What you fail to address is that there are some people - men and women - who have the honesty to admit they do not want to be the parent of a severely disabled child.
Whether you consider this acceptable or not is beside the point: forcing someone to give birth when they don't want the foetus and don't want to go through the process of giving birth is unreasonable.
It is NOT the business of the state or the church or the "pro-life" lobby to force a woman to give birth to any foetus, regardless of condition of that foetus and regardless of whether the intention is that the woman be made to bring it up or it is given to others for adoption. It is her body, the foetus is in existence only through her, it is up to her what happens to it.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
L'organist, I agree that nobody should force women to give birth if they don't want to. I am not a hardline pro-lifer as you've probably gathered. What I was trying to do was answer Josephine's question about what other measures (besides making the procedure illegal) might reduce the number of abortions. I don't think anything will get the number down to zero; the best we can do in an imperfect universe is remove the practical difficulties in the way of continuing the pregnancy.
Nobody has yet pointed out that in some cases the woman is persuaded or forced into an abortion by her family or husband/boyfriend. The anti-abortionists don't seem to be so interested in condemning them, for some reason.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What you fail to address is that there are some people - men and women - who have the honesty to admit they do not want to be the parent of a severely disabled child.
I don't think very many people want to be the parent of a severely disabled child. But many are willing to be the parent of a severely disabled child, if they can figure out a way to manage it.
The practical difficulties of being a parent of a child with even mild or moderate disabilities are significant.
If a pregnant woman knows that the child is likely to be disabled, and is willing to be the mother of that child, what do the rest of us owe her and the child to allow her to do that? Is it "her choice, her problem"? Or do the rest of us have an obligation to help? If so, how?
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The practical difficulties of being a parent of a child with even mild or moderate disabilities are significant.
. . . do the rest of us have an obligation to help? If so, how?
So let's consider what the rest of us already do for the nondisabled child.
1. In the U.S., at least, at a minimum, we school that child from K-12 (or K through dropout age, where that may be a factor and differs from age 18). We all kick in for the cost of this through various tax structures.
2. We require that parents provide adequate food, shelter, & clothing for that child birth through 18, and where parents cannot do this, we provide a range of public benefits in an effort to ensure adequate food, clothing, shelter.
3. Where parents refuse or can't begin to do this, we provide a foster care system in an effort to ensure that kids get all the above.
4. In some states, we also provide low-income kids with basic medical and (sometimes) dental care.
So we can start with the assumption that these items must be provided to all living children, with or without disabilities, since to do otherwise is to discriminate against a class of humans on the basis of characteristics over which they have zero control.
I.D.E.A., or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is meant to ensure a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities. This would work significantly better if it were funded differently. Right now, it's funded (at least in my state) primarily with local property taxes. This turns local taxpayers into adversaries of the families among them whose kids have larger-than-typical educational needs. If the feds would pony up the money for kids' SPED services, it would make Town Meeting Day in my state less of a horror show for the family whose kid needs hearing aids, a wheelchair, special transport, and a full-time aide in class, along with services from a speech therapist and an OT.
It would also help to recognize that some people with disabilities are able to do some work, and to set up the disabilities benefits system (not to mention the work "system" in such a way that those able to work are not penalized for doing so. Having a disability should not condemn an individual to permanent cripplingly-desperate poverty.
Respite care needs expansion. We need more respite workers, more kinds of respite, and more in-home supports.
I have a client who needs total care. When she awakes in the morning, she begins to vocalize her one and only word: "Ma!"
She utters this word roughly once every two seconds the entire time she is awake (less often while being fed, though it doesn't stop, and she often chokes as a result), and she is awake about 18 hours a day. She is "Ma!" now 32, "Ma!" and she "Ma!" has been "Ma!" doing this "Ma!" from about "Ma!" age 6 "Ma!". Her mom is single, has no other children, and gets 5 days of respite care a year where she gets some quiet time by herself. I can't speak for anybody else, but I personally am ready to bite holes in the windshield by the time I leave my home visits with this client, and how her mother has managed to keep from going utterly bonkers all these years I cannot begin to imagine. So: more respite care.
Supported work: This needs some re-thinking. Too often I've seen companies "hire" a worker with a significant disability, along with the support person, and "design" the supported job by dumping into it all the tasks that other workers would rather not do. NO. NO NO NO NO NO. If you're going to hire a supported employee, carefully design the job to fit the individual's strengths and skills. Carefully eliminate all the stuff that will frustrate, unnerve, rattle, and otherwise discombobulate the individual. Do NOT expect/demand the support person to pick up all the slack and do the job FOR the person with the disability.
Aargh. I have lots, lots more. But I just can't. It means, I guess, re-designing the entire universe.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
L'organist: So you're saying a human person is someone who can eat independently?
Jane R: Not sure why I need to answer that question. (I suspect it's a trick question designed to make me look like a meany, which you probably assume I am already.)
Jospehine, surely the unborn baby isn't merely an extension of the mother's body? For most of history and in much of the world the woman continues to sacrifice her body, her sleep, her energy and in some cases her job prospects for the infant, who for a while, is completely dependant on her care, just as he or she was inside the womb. In addition what you're saying seems ethically dubious: 'That someone dependent on another has fewer rights than the person they are dependent on.' To put it another way, autonomy should not equal preeminence over another's rights.
quote:
As an ardent pro-life Christian, what would you propose?
What you suggested earlier, better support for parents of disabled kids. I'd also want to see less of the first trimester scan for Down-syndrome.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Josephine
I don't think very many people want to be the parent of a severely disabled child. But many are willing to be the parent of a severely disabled child, if they can figure out a way to manage it.
OK - so they're willing. And, as you say, they then have to figure how a way to manage it - which is for THEM, not the rest of us.
quote:
If a pregnant woman knows that the child is likely to be disabled, and is willing to be the mother of that child, what do the rest of us owe her and the child to allow her to do that? Is it "her choice, her problem"? Or do the rest of us have an obligation to help? If so, how?
What do we owe her: sympathy, compassion, such help as we (individuals) are prepared and able to give freely.
But if she makes that choice - and it is choice if she has been told pre-natal that she is carrying a foetus who will be severely disabled and she chooses to go forward to the pregnancy anyway - then it is up to her to find the way forward. Standard help as it available for all children - child benefit, etc - but it is not fair to expect "society" to pick-up an open-ended tab because she has made a conscious choice to have a severely disabled child.
"Society" should pay as much as it takes for children who are severely disabled because of catastrophic accident during the process of birth because that is not predictable. But it is entirely unreasonable to expect "society" to fund the long-term care of a child who has been born after tests have been carried out which show there is no chance of independent living.
If the woman, or couple, in the case are "pro-life" that is their choice, but equally it is then up to them to find a way - perhaps with other "pro-lifers"? - to make it possible for the damaged child to be cared for.
It cannot be right or fair for a particular interest group to force the rest of us to give them a blank cheque to fund the consequences of their beliefs when those consequences are not inevitable.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by porridge
I have a client who needs total care. When she awakes in the morning, she begins to vocalize her one and only word: "Ma!"
Do we assume that this "client" has never been able to communicate in any way? If so, then how have they become your client: it is the mother who is your client, surely? (Sorry to be nit-picking, but...)
The birth of this person, at 32 years old, presumably took place before reliable testing was available and therefore her mother is due all the help it is possible to give to enable her to cope with this severely damaged child.
However, had she had a reliable test and then CHOSEN to have the child anyway I would say that society had no more duty to provide, either financially or practically, for this child than for any other.
Luke
Like the way you pick me up on one thing - yes, children can't eat independently until they can use a knife and fork, I'll give you that. So, I should have said a foetus who has the potential to eat independently.
I note you make no attempt to answer any of my other points.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Do we assume that this "client" has never been able to communicate in any way? If so, then how have they become your client: it is the mother who is your client, surely? (Sorry to be nit-picking, but...)
Personally, I work pretty hard at not assuming things about my clients (I'm human and fail, of course). What I know is that my client, and that IS the nature of our relationship, has not yet consistently made other word-like vocalizations, and frankly, "Ma!" may only be a noise and not a word, since I have no evidence the syllable carries actual meaning (i.e. a label for her primary caretaker) for my client. Her mother believes the syllable is a referent to herself, and I go along with this, as she seems to derive comfort from her belief, and this in turn is of benefit to my client.
When pregnancy began, mom was a low-income single teen (and though never in the disabilities system herself, might actually qualify; she seems pretty slow on the uptake) on her own mom's state public assistance. The pregnancy + her single status made her eligible for state aid. Grandmother has since passed away.
Theoretically, pregnancy also entitled mom to prenatal care in the state where I live. Unfortunately, my state's Medicaid reimbursement rates for OB-GYN services are so low (and malpractice suits so common, according to docs) that very few doctors will take on such patients, and the few who do are solidly booked-up. Mom got free pregnancy testing from Planned Parenthood, plus a couple of checkups as pregnancy progressed when she could actually make it to the clinic (no transport, public or private). If there was prenatal testing, there's no record of it in my agency's files.
Why is her daughter my client and not the mom?
Daughter was clearly disabled at birth. Birth to age 3, daughter was therefore entitled to Early Intervention Services under state law; then entitled to FAPE in public school under state and federal law, and on reaching age 21 and aging out of the public school system, was "entitled" to disability services under state law. I use scare quotes because the original legislation was in fact a guarantee of fairly good services, which the state ran under Medicaid, for adults we were then busy restoring to community settings under supervision while we closed down our one and only institution serving people like my client.
During my client's growing-up years, that law was gutted, and basically means that adults like my client are "entitled" to whatever services the state scrapes up a few dollars for, and which vary enormously from one legislative session to the next. My client is currently on a waiting list for housing, a waiting list for several specific therapeutic services, and a waiting list for a case manager. My job is to design services intended to keep the client from deteriorating, apparently in order that she can be placed on further waitlists for those services.
Whatever I/my agency recommends that can actually be implemented must be justified as being for the client's benefit, not the mom's. We can never assume their interests are the same.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
However, had she had a reliable test and then CHOSEN to have the child anyway I would say that society had no more duty to provide, either financially or practically, for this child than for any other.
I wasn't involved in this particular case that early on (only in the last roughly 10 years).
But as noted above, the mom currently presents as somewhat cognitively challenged. I have no idea if she could have grasped the implications of any testing if she'd had tests, and if they were then available. It's quite possible the pregnancy resulted from rape, at least statutorily. She has never shown the slightest interest in men (or women) or sex since I've known the family. Caring for my client -- which she actually does quite well -- is pretty much the sum total of her existence.
Beyond that, I fail to see why, when a parent makes a decision we disagree with, we should take our anger out on the kid. If client's mom were smart, had had tests, knew her baby would never be self-supporting, and decided to go forward anyway, what happens to the baby when mom, 2-3 years later, abruptly realizes it's all much harder than she expected?
Do we really want to penalize the child for the parent's lousy judgment?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
