a question of compassion

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-11-2003
a question of compassion
47
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 12:32am
to any and all

my thought is this. when we have a pet that is suffering do we not have the compassion to put that pet to sleep? How many of you who are PL have ever let a beloved pet go by putting it to sleep? It is commonly accepted practice to do this with suffering animals. Why is it that this level of compassion and caring for another creatures suffering cannot be extended to our unborn. My question is meant to deal solely with those abortion due to medical reasons involving problems with the fetus in which the fetus is possibly suffering, going to, or may ie in utero or shortly after birth. Why can we care so much about our beloved pets and 'play God" with them but we are supposedly wrong for extending that to our suffering unborn? Even in nature there are animals that kill their own when they are unable to hunt/are too old...ie wolves. Isn't this God;s way of showing us that allowing suffering to continue is wrong? that compassion for the suffering of our unborn should allow for us to abort the poor suffering fetus....and yet there are some PL's on here that i ahve read posts from that state that the mother should have faith in God, wether she beleives in God or not doesn't seem to matter, and still try to carry that pregnancy to term. To me that seems to la the very compassion that we all give even the most simple and small of pets. we dont like to se our pets suffer but it is ok for the fetus to suffer? this seems very wrong to me.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 2:51am
Here's what I think. I have had one major occurence in my life where my boyfriend and I decided that I was going to get an abortion. Not because the baby had a defect or was suffering, but simply because we knew we couldn't take care of one right now. We don't have the money, or the knowledge of childcare. We both need to finish college, get our lives started...etc. Now I've read many of these posts, and I can comfortably say that the majority of these women are PL. But why shouldn't they be? Who would want to kill a tiny innocent child? No one should. But I do believe that there are some instances where an abortion may need be had. Then again, that's just my opinion. But I am for abortions 100% if the timing is bad, or you can't afford one..there's tons of reason to have one. And I am not stuck on only getting one if there's something wrong with the child. Yes, I am aware of the horrible long term effects that having an abortion may cause, but that happens to all of about 2% of women that get them. It saves the majority of women's lives just by making the right decision about holding off.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-21-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 8:48am
Let's take God out of this. Yes we have prenatal testing. For some diseases we know there is little hope. But for things like Downs, there are varying degrees of disablity. Have you worked with these kids? I have. I spent a couple years volunteering at a special riding program for children with disabilities. No their lives are not easy, but they can know and expereince love. They can show compassion for others. These children absolutely loved the ponies (even the cranky one that I hated because she would kick and nip the walkers).

In the womb, there is no way to be absolutely certain that these children will be born and live horribly. Compassion is more than culling out those who cannot "keep up with the herd". Animals do not have the same thinking processes that humans do. We do not need to cull from our herd when we are capable of supporting these people.

Have you read any of Matty Steponi's (sp?) books? Here is a kid who is living with a terrible disease. It will kill him, but read his writings. How can someone who is suffering write such inspirational words?

People say, oh I couldn't deal with a sick child. Well, you don't have any guarantee that a "healthy" child will not become sick. My son, born healthy as a horse, got sick with RSV and then spent three years battling asthma. Mercifully, he's outgrown the condition. A good friend of mine is going through cancer treatments on her son who is the same age as my dd, not yet 4. He was perfectly normal at birth. Will you abandon your husband, your parents your sister/brother if they get a terminal illness?

Then there is the question of what warrants these abortions. Do you know that even children with cleft palats are aborted? Something so minor and easily corrected. Children are abandoned or worse, aborted because of these sort of defects. You may believe that these people would be better off dead, but there are those of us who believe that there are small miracles in our lives and that EVERY person has a purpose and a right to their life.

Kim 

Mom to Brad, Ma

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 9:03am
Good post. Thanks for saving me from typing out a response;)~Lisa.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-01-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 9:54am
very well said.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 10:11am
You're right. Even a healthy child can become sick. But only the people who will be the ones taking on the responsibility of a child with birth defects have the right to make that call. There are varying degrees of Downs and other disabilities. I grew up with 2 disabled children on my street.

One has a degree of independence and a lot of functionality. The other needed round-the-clock care, couldn't eat or go to the bathroom by himself. His parents were loving and compassionate...and exhausted. It's beyond me how people can be so comfortable judging a family for choosing not to go that route. Unless the person judging is going to personally be involved in the care of that child, they have no right.n I would rather an abortion be done as quickly as possible than to see our most vulnerable people at the mercy of a resentful family or an abusive system.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 10:12am
So if my child is injured during birth and is born with severe cerebral palsy, you would advocate that I should put her to sleep so that she won't suffer?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 10:29am
Well... who defines "possibly suffering"? I mean, where would we draw the line exactly? Would we draw it at conditions obviously incompatible with life, like anencephaly? Or would we draw the line at the "handicapped"? Fetuses with Down's Syndrome? Perhaps cleft palate? Or even club foot? Euthanizing the handicapped or imperfect - whether fetus or already born person - sounds a heck of a lot like a way of thinking that we fought against in WWII to me.

Oh, and if you don't see the difference between a pet and a fetus or a child... then I don't really see how we can debate this. I value human life far more than animal life.

-Deb

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-21-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 11:11am
And you make a good point. However, there is exhaustion in caring for any child. Trust me on this one ;) There is exhaustion in caring for the elderly, esp alzheimers patients. Sometimes there is exhaustion in just trying to take care of ourselves. We as a community need to be mroe supportive of each other. Help out in programs, visit the elderly, offer free sitting services for your neighbor who is running ragged. The only way to prevent abuse is to be more involved and offer help. We should not say that because someone might abuse this person, we should abort them to protect them. That is something that could be said about all children.

Kim 

Mom to Brad, Ma

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 11:25am
Yes, of course, but you are making the argument using already born human beings. If someone finds out that this is a probability in their fetus they should absolutely have the right to end the pregnancy. It is not up to society to make that call. Let's not forget, also, the woman's health is *always* an issue in pregnancy and delivery. The amount of risk and possible outcome is something that family can only take on for themselves, not at the whim of people who are not impacted. That's just cruel.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-21-2003
Mon, 06-16-2003 - 12:05pm
And this is what we are talking about, the result of a pregnancy when there is an issue with the child. We're talking about making a choice on the life and death of a person based on the condition in the uterus. Tests are improving, but the degree of handicap cannot be measured. Take into concideration a child that seemed normal but because of lack of oxygen during delivery he now has mental handicaps. Should the doctors not try to revive him since he was without oxygen? We're talking the difference of taking a breath and I don't feel it should make a difference. I'm also not talking about the severe cases where the child is without a brain or has severe deformities where it is obvious that the second the cord is cut the child is going to die. Taking your arguement a step further and as genetic testing expands, will we abort because the child has the propensity for asthma? or some other disease which is not necessarily life threatening through the used of technology and medication?

Kim 

Mom to Brad, Ma

Pages