Feelings Amniocentesis Results...

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 7/27/2009 12:55:56 PM
Author: kennedy

Date: 7/27/2009 11:46:28 AM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 7/27/2009 8:36:09 AM

Author: steph72276

Date: 7/27/2009 8:23:42 AM

Author: Pandora II

Sorry I probably didn''t make the highlighted section clear - I''m talking about when the abnormalities will mean the baby will die at or shortly after birth - not conditions like Downs where I understand why people make the choice to continue the pregnancy.



What I ask is: If the child had a condition that was incompatible with life, and you found this out, would you continue the pregnancy in the knowledge that the birth process or whatever number of hours the child could survive after birth could potentially cause extreme suffering to that child?

Yes, I would still continue with the pregnancy. I have a friend going through this very thing at the moment. Her baby wasn''t given much of a chance to live past a few days/weeks. She has now had numerous surgeries and is 6 months old and while she still has complications, she is a happy, loving baby doing all of the things a baby does (smiling, rolling over, clapping, laughing, etc). Doctors are not Gods and can''t predict exactly how a baby will do after delivery 100% of the time. Some babies overcome huge challenges to go on to live happy lives.


I do think it takes a special kind of person to bring a special needs child into the world. I was halfway through getting my Master''s in Special Education and have worked in school with special needs children, so perhaps that skews my views on the subject. But I also think your view on abortion also skews your feelings on the subject. You ask if I would terminate if I feel like they are going to suffer outside the womb, and my answer is no because I feel like terminating the pregnancy would also cause the baby to suffer as they have a heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. so it is not a choice I am willing to make.

I will piggy back Steph on this. We''re very much on the same train of thought here, as we seem to value life to the same degree.


As a parent, I see my job as being one that is first and foremost to love my child, and in that, I would fight for my child under any circumstance, I would fight for my baby to have a healthy life, to be protected. If my child were to have any medical conditions, any medical condition with whatever ''outcome'' my Dr. would describe to me, my child would be carried to term and loved with all of my heart and my husband''s heart (and my family''s as well). Would it be easy to see a child ''suffering'' or in pain or to know that my baby may not live to see the age of maturity, or to be able to drive a car? Of course, because I would want only the best things in this world for my child. However, if my baby was born with horrible conditions which limited their lifespan/quality of life, I would still make every effort in this world to have my child experience life to the fullest, and that would mean receiving good care, unmeasurable love, and as many good times as possible. I don''t think it''s right for anyone to think that a child with a condition (any condition) is not allowed to live, or shouldn''t be brought into this world. Every person has purpose and value. Every person. If I''m given the opportunity at motherhood, no matter which additional challenges may come my way (whether through physical conditions, intellectual conditions, mental health issues, or simply a super high-spirited and strong-willed natures), I will gladly and lovingly guide my child through what this world has for him/her. I cannot wait to have this opportunity, and while I will be very sad (for a time) if my child has any issue, however, I will not stop caring for my child, fighting for my child, or learning more to make my child as comfortable and as loved as is possible for the entire time I am blessed to have that child on this earth with me.


To me, that is what being a mother is. I realize some see it other ways, and while I wish it weren''t so, I realize I can''t sway anyone''s decisions/choices, but abortions can bring ''excruciating'' pain in themselves to the child, we as parents simply don''t have to witness it first hand, which to me would be a parent choosing to NOT make a ''difficult decision,'' because it''s so much easier to simply kill (which is what ''termination'' is, and such a weak adjective for the extreme measures of pulling apart of body parts and sucking of brain tissue that is what an abortion really consists of) your child rather than endure the struggles of being a parent to that child with special needs. To me, that''s absolutely about the parent and not the child.


So to the highlighted portion above, I absolutely would brith my child if they were determined by others to be ''incompatible'' with life. Because life is life and my baby will have a mother''s arms wrapped around him/her to bring whatever comfort this mother could provide. Extreme suffering is experienced in whichever of the options is chosen, because abortion is also an extreme force of pain to the child which we don''t have to see (which is why I think so many people to react so flippantly to it, as if it''s simply gutting out some tissue and cells, when in fact by the time this testing/screening can be done, there are brainwaves, heartbeats, legs, arms, a face, AKA: a baby there). So what I think you''re asking is if we *knew* our child would only live a number of hours after birth, would we? I would absolutely--- given the opportunity to comfort my child through the pain of death or to simply allow his/her brains to be plunged out of her/his skull so *I* wouldn''t have to suffer, I would choose to be there for my child through any and all struggles in this life. Without a doubt.


I think the statements that it takes a special person to be a special needs parent are true, but I also think that we''re not given more than we can handle and that we are more equipped to handle things than we realize. Think of any time you were handed a difficult situation; you muddled through and likely came out stronger for it. I think just being a parent provides for us to learn and to be better people, more patient and caring people and I think that faced with a certain position, anyone can rise up and come through a struggle, and be glad for the experience. If I had a special needs baby, I would absolutely be a proud parent to that child. Regardless of what changes that child''s life made in my own. That''s what a parent does. You don''t get a guarentee as to what kind of person your child will be... a baby could be born fine with no issues and suffer a terrible fall as an infant and your life as a parent, as a family, is never the same. Things happen that aren''t always ''fair,'' and while we''d all like the benefit of having healthy children, it sadly doesn''t always work out that way. So you take what you''ve been given, you grow, and you go forward, finding joy in this life, because it''s the only life we get.

I understand your position and think it''s wonderful you would have the CHOICE to do what you feel so strongly is right for you and your unborn child. That said, shouldn''t other women have the same choice you have to do what they feel is right for them, even if it means terminating the pregnancy? You have every right to feel exactly as you do, but I have to admit that I found the tone of your post somewhat offensive. You seem to imply very strongly that a woman who might choose to terminate her pregnancy in order to spare her child from suffering outside the womb is both selfish and flippant about what can only be seen as a devastating choice. I resent the implication that those who feel differently than you do ''value life'' to a lesser degree. My heart goes out to any woman who has ever been in the awful position of having to make a choice like this and would never suggest that one decision is easier than another. That, to me, is not valuing the life of the mother.

I also think a child has a CHOICE to experience life. My intent was not to be "offensive," and I don''t think I was condescending in the slightest. It''s not what a lot of people want to hear, but that doesn''t make my "tone" offensive.

As I said, I have no doubt that posting on a forum intended for exploration of diamonds will have much of any (if any) effect on a person''s point of view regarding this topic, but when presented with the opportunity to express the depth of what abortion is, I will take it.

I "resent" no one as I see no point in it and simply think that feelings/thoughts are being expressed on the topic, which will not always be the same. And it is a topic of great heat at times, but I have made no attempt to *slam* at anyone and have instead taken the option of expressing what I believe on the topic and have expressed that until a person knows that a baby wants to die, saying that the child may not wish to have lived is silly, as any person with a medical condition later in life, or at birth (complications do happen), or a person with a mental health issue or a horrific accident could also state the same thing, and there are no gaurentees in life. There just aren''t. So I''m not going to just "guess" that my baby would be *miserable* and would *hate life* and then be "humane" and kill the child. No way. No how.

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 7/27/2009 1:25:33 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/27/2009 12:55:56 PM
Author: kennedy




I understand your position and think it''s wonderful you would have the CHOICE to do what you feel so strongly is right for you and your unborn child. That said, shouldn''t other women have the same choice you have to do what they feel is right for them, even if it means terminating the pregnancy? You have every right to feel exactly as you do, but I have to admit that I found the tone of your post somewhat offensive. You seem to imply very strongly that a woman who might choose to terminate her pregnancy in order to spare her child from suffering outside the womb is both selfish and flippant about what can only be seen as a devastating choice. I resent the implication that those who feel differently than you do ''value life'' to a lesser degree. My heart goes out to any woman who has ever been in the awful position of having to make a choice like this and would never suggest that one decision is easier than another. That, to me, is not valuing the life of the mother.

Not to mention the word ''killing.''

I know people have strong opinions, but watch how you phrase things for goodness sake.

Fisher, out of curiosity, are you opposed to IVF as well?

Tgal, do you seriously not think of abortion as killing life? What is it, then? Terminating is the ending of something, and that something can only be life. I don''t say "killing" in order to be flippant or anything like that, I say it because abortion has become such an easy term for people to see as simply a "procedure." It is a procedure and it does result in the death of something living, and that is killing a life. What term would better express this?

I''ve posted several times about my feelings on IVF, and it has been more of a difficult "area" in the arena of babies and life than that of abortion. The reason being is because abortion is ending life and IVF is about people desperately seeking parenthood. I''m not sure if you follow the TTC thread at all, but my husband and I have been trying for quite some time for a baby, and at times, I''ve wondered if IVF would be the only way we''d be able to reach parenthood. I don''t necessarily *not* agree with IVF, but the struggle for me comes in with the freezing and selective termination issues that come into IVF. I know that if you stand strongly in one area of life vs. choice, you have to stand firm (or at least that''s how I see it), and because of those issues (freezing, selective downsizing), we will not opt for IVF. IUI is another matter, and is something we may explore more in depth in the future, as long as it would not include multiple medications that would increase my chances of conceiving more children than we could carry to term.

 

[anchor31]

Date: 7/27/2009 11:45:34 AM
Author: vespergirl
I know that this gets into a sticky topic, but some posters mentioned whether the parents should decide which lives are worth living, and which aren''t.

A few years back, I read a heartbreaking article by an adult woman with debilitating spina bifida. In the article, she said that she wished her parents had terminated the pregnancy, and that she had never been born. It was shocking and saddening to read this, especially because the woman was highly accomplished - she had a doctorate and a pretigious career. However, she said that her life was not at all fulfilling, and was frequently excruciating - both physically and emotionally. Besides the obvious physical disabilites, she also lamented the fact that she had never been kissed, and probably never would. She never went to a school dance, never had a boyfriend, would never marry, and would never have a child. She said that all of her degrees and professional accomplishments could never make up for the fact that she never felt like a healthy, vital woman - she felt that her disability defined her to the point that it robbed her of a happy life and that she felt it was more humane to terminate a pregnancy that would result in her type of hanicapped and depressed life.

After reading that, it made me wonder if sometimes when parents choose to continue those pregnancies that will result in severe handicaps, if they''re doing it more for themselves, because of an idea of what their religion expects them to do, rather then what''s actually the most humane choice for the child. Even though the parents will certainly have a lifetime of hardship caring for a severely disabled child, that it no way matches the agony of being the severely handicapped child - also, in the case that the child were to outlive the parents, they would most likely have to spend the rest of their lives at the mercy of strangers in an institution, who may not be as caring and compassionate as the parents were.

I''m just throwing this out there to pose the perspective of the disabled woman who wrote the article - it seemed to me that her unique perspective should be voiced in this type of discussion - that of the severely disabled child, and whether the child would choose that handicapped quality of life for themselves, if given the choice.

This truly breaks my heart. I went through times like that, times where I was so severely depressed, so tired of the pain and tests and all the things the doctors put me through (some things I wonder if they really helped), so convinced that all anyone would ever see was my disability and that nobody would ever love me that I wished I had died, or that my parents had let me die. But I pushed through, and here I am. I pray that this woman has since found what she is looking for. I know of people with more severe disabilities than me who have married and had a family, so it''s not impossible to have the life you want. Sometimes it''s just harder.

 

[anchor31]

Date: 7/27/2009 11:47:50 AM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/27/2009 11:40:56 AM
Author: anchor31
For us, termination is out of the question no matter what since we believe that life begins at conception, so we chose to not have the first trimester screening done. My 20-weeks ultrasound is next week, so hopefully everything will be well.

The whole disabled child debate is hard for me because it''s very personal. My sister and I were born at 30 weeks. I had brain hemorrage and had to go into emergency surgery at 3 months old. The doctors said I wouldn''t be able to walk and would possibly have developmental and learning disorders. I have CP and I did have a very tough childhood. I''ve had multiple surgeries and all sorts or rehabilitations and I did go through a lot of pain. I can''t imagine how difficult it must have been for my parents. But I walk (I can do pretty much anything, actually), I have a university degree, I''m very happily married and expecting my first child. If my parents had listened to the doctors and given up on me... well, I can''t even think about it. You never know what''s going to happen, or how your child will turn out. And miracles do happen.

Genetic abnormalities aren''t the only way a child can be disabled. So I wonder... Those who said they would terminate, what would you do if you had a disabled child because of something that happened after the birth? Would you still say that you want to spare them the pain and refuse the surgery or treatment that might save their life?

I''m not saying this out of anger or spite. I''m genuinely curious. And I wanted to put it out there... a little food for thought.

Anchor I don''t think this is comparing apples to oranges. How you feel about your baby pre-birth and after you meet the tot are two different things. That affects any and all decisions.

And these days, I am not sure how much parents can refuse life saving treatment (like that kid that was recently in the press.)

That is very interesting about you! I am glad to hear how much you have overcome. How does your CP affect you these days? I am trying to learn more about it and am curious.

TGal - I see your point and I understand that pre-birth the baby may seem abstract to some parents, so it''s not as difficult. I guess we''ll have to agree to disagree, because I don''t see any difference pre or post birth. My baby''s heart beats at 150 bpm. S/he has hands and feet and can hear sounds. S/he''s alive, and I love him/her with all of my being. I''m not saying that people who have chosen to terminate didn''t love their child. I''m just saying that to me, terminating now wouldn''t feel any differently than letting him/her die later.

Like I said, there is little that I can''t do at all now that I''m grown up. I have yet to learn to ride a bike, but if I get to it, I probably could.

My left foot is smaller than my right and my left leg is shorter, so I have to wear othopedic insoles in my shoes (and shoe shopping is a nightmare). The height imbalance can cause some backpain on occasion (like early pregnancy), but nothing a little physiotherapy can''t fix. I''d say that the biggest challenges I face now are still some self-confidence issues. The many procedures left some pretty important scars, both physical and psychological. I don''t show my legs in public, I hate hospital and have a hard time trusting doctors and I''m learning to live with and control some tactile/sensory defensiveness. But all in all, it''s not so bad compared to what some other people go through.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 7/27/2009 1:37:59 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 7/27/2009 1:25:33 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/27/2009 12:55:56 PM
Author: kennedy




I understand your position and think it''s wonderful you would have the CHOICE to do what you feel so strongly is right for you and your unborn child. That said, shouldn''t other women have the same choice you have to do what they feel is right for them, even if it means terminating the pregnancy? You have every right to feel exactly as you do, but I have to admit that I found the tone of your post somewhat offensive. You seem to imply very strongly that a woman who might choose to terminate her pregnancy in order to spare her child from suffering outside the womb is both selfish and flippant about what can only be seen as a devastating choice. I resent the implication that those who feel differently than you do ''value life'' to a lesser degree. My heart goes out to any woman who has ever been in the awful position of having to make a choice like this and would never suggest that one decision is easier than another. That, to me, is not valuing the life of the mother.

Not to mention the word ''killing.''

I know people have strong opinions, but watch how you phrase things for goodness sake.

Fisher, out of curiosity, are you opposed to IVF as well?

Tgal, do you seriously not think of abortion as killing life? What is it, then? Terminating is the ending of something, and that something can only be life. I don''t say ''killing'' in order to be flippant or anything like that, I say it because abortion has become such an easy term for people to see as simply a ''procedure.'' It is a procedure and it does result in the death of something living, and that is killing a life. What term would better express this?

I''ve posted several times about my feelings on IVF, and it has been more of a difficult ''area'' in the arena of babies and life than that of abortion. The reason being is because abortion is ending life and IVF is about people desperately seeking parenthood. I''m not sure if you follow the TTC thread at all, but my husband and I have been trying for quite some time for a baby, and at times, I''ve wondered if IVF would be the only way we''d be able to reach parenthood. I don''t necessarily *not* agree with IVF, but the struggle for me comes in with the freezing and selective termination issues that come into IVF. I know that if you stand strongly in one area of life vs. choice, you have to stand firm (or at least that''s how I see it), and because of those issues (freezing, selective downsizing), we will not opt for IVF. IUI is another matter, and is something we may explore more in depth in the future, as long as it would not include multiple medications that would increase my chances of conceiving more children than we could carry to term.

Fisher, my point is this: You are going to believe what you want to believe. As you said, posting views like this is not going to sway anyone on PS. However there are women on this board who may have had abortions and probably did not make the decision lightly. So this is isn''t an abortion debate board, would it not be better to refrain from words like "killing" in order to avoid offending women who have gone through a very personal thing?

And if life at conception is black and white (as most pro life people would say), then IVF is black and white too. What the intent is is totally irrelevant. With an abortion, a life is ended, as are any embryos that are discarded. There is NO difference when it comes to a life being created and then intentionally terminated.

I know how much you want children. You''ve dreamed of wanting one since you were little. If in another 5 years you''ve had no success via natural methods, then I guess you will adopt? Because that is what my friend went through. 6 years of infertility with nothing wrong with either them. Her inlaws forbade adoption. She wanted a child and finally came to grips with IVF, which was a very hard process in and of itself. Now she''s facing the struggle of being pregnant with triplets and has 7 embryos waiting in the wings that will never be implanted. She''s a pro life as you are, but now her world is colored with gray.

And btw, if you can''t come up with a better term for abortion than "killing a life," then I have to say, I''m really not impressed with your vocabulary skills.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 7/27/2009 2:16:55 PM
Author: anchor31

Date: 7/27/2009 11:47:50 AM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/27/2009 11:40:56 AM
Author: anchor31
For us, termination is out of the question no matter what since we believe that life begins at conception, so we chose to not have the first trimester screening done. My 20-weeks ultrasound is next week, so hopefully everything will be well.

The whole disabled child debate is hard for me because it''s very personal. My sister and I were born at 30 weeks. I had brain hemorrage and had to go into emergency surgery at 3 months old. The doctors said I wouldn''t be able to walk and would possibly have developmental and learning disorders. I have CP and I did have a very tough childhood. I''ve had multiple surgeries and all sorts or rehabilitations and I did go through a lot of pain. I can''t imagine how difficult it must have been for my parents. But I walk (I can do pretty much anything, actually), I have a university degree, I''m very happily married and expecting my first child. If my parents had listened to the doctors and given up on me... well, I can''t even think about it. You never know what''s going to happen, or how your child will turn out. And miracles do happen.

Genetic abnormalities aren''t the only way a child can be disabled. So I wonder... Those who said they would terminate, what would you do if you had a disabled child because of something that happened after the birth? Would you still say that you want to spare them the pain and refuse the surgery or treatment that might save their life?

I''m not saying this out of anger or spite. I''m genuinely curious. And I wanted to put it out there... a little food for thought.

Anchor I don''t think this is comparing apples to oranges. How you feel about your baby pre-birth and after you meet the tot are two different things. That affects any and all decisions.

And these days, I am not sure how much parents can refuse life saving treatment (like that kid that was recently in the press.)

That is very interesting about you! I am glad to hear how much you have overcome. How does your CP affect you these days? I am trying to learn more about it and am curious.

TGal - I see your point and I understand that pre-birth the baby may seem abstract to some parents, so it''s not as difficult. I guess we''ll have to agree to disagree, because I don''t see any difference pre or post birth. My baby''s heart beats at 150 bpm. S/he has hands and feet and can hear sounds. S/he''s alive, and I love him/her with all of my being. I''m not saying that people who have chosen to terminate didn''t love their child. I''m just saying that to me, terminating now wouldn''t feel any differently than letting him/her die later.

Like I said, there is little that I can''t do at all now that I''m grown up. I have yet to learn to ride a bike, but if I get to it, I probably could.

My left foot is smaller than my right and my left leg is shorter, so I have to wear othopedic insoles in my shoes (and shoe shopping is a nightmare). The height imbalance can cause some backpain on occasion (like early pregnancy), but nothing a little physiotherapy can''t fix. I''d say that the biggest challenges I face now are still some self-confidence issues. The many procedures left some pretty important scars, both physical and psychological. I don''t show my legs in public, I hate hospital and have a hard time trusting doctors and I''m learning to live with and control some tactile/sensory defensiveness. But all in all, it''s not so bad compared to what some other people go through.

Anchor, wow, I had no idea. I just saw you as a beautiful, smart woman - obviously you are more beautiful and smart than I thought! Thank you very much for sharing.

As for pre and post birth, just let me know if you love the baby the same as before he was born, or if you feel like you could not have imagined loving anyone THAT MUCH. I''m curious.

 

[anchor31]

Date: 7/27/2009 2:22:29 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/27/2009 2:16:55 PM
Author: anchor31

Date: 7/27/2009 11:47:50 AM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/27/2009 11:40:56 AM
Author: anchor31
For us, termination is out of the question no matter what since we believe that life begins at conception, so we chose to not have the first trimester screening done. My 20-weeks ultrasound is next week, so hopefully everything will be well.

The whole disabled child debate is hard for me because it''s very personal. My sister and I were born at 30 weeks. I had brain hemorrage and had to go into emergency surgery at 3 months old. The doctors said I wouldn''t be able to walk and would possibly have developmental and learning disorders. I have CP and I did have a very tough childhood. I''ve had multiple surgeries and all sorts or rehabilitations and I did go through a lot of pain. I can''t imagine how difficult it must have been for my parents. But I walk (I can do pretty much anything, actually), I have a university degree, I''m very happily married and expecting my first child. If my parents had listened to the doctors and given up on me... well, I can''t even think about it. You never know what''s going to happen, or how your child will turn out. And miracles do happen.

Genetic abnormalities aren''t the only way a child can be disabled. So I wonder... Those who said they would terminate, what would you do if you had a disabled child because of something that happened after the birth? Would you still say that you want to spare them the pain and refuse the surgery or treatment that might save their life?

I''m not saying this out of anger or spite. I''m genuinely curious. And I wanted to put it out there... a little food for thought.

Anchor I don''t think this is comparing apples to oranges. How you feel about your baby pre-birth and after you meet the tot are two different things. That affects any and all decisions.

And these days, I am not sure how much parents can refuse life saving treatment (like that kid that was recently in the press.)

That is very interesting about you! I am glad to hear how much you have overcome. How does your CP affect you these days? I am trying to learn more about it and am curious.

TGal - I see your point and I understand that pre-birth the baby may seem abstract to some parents, so it''s not as difficult. I guess we''ll have to agree to disagree, because I don''t see any difference pre or post birth. My baby''s heart beats at 150 bpm. S/he has hands and feet and can hear sounds. S/he''s alive, and I love him/her with all of my being. I''m not saying that people who have chosen to terminate didn''t love their child. I''m just saying that to me, terminating now wouldn''t feel any differently than letting him/her die later.

Like I said, there is little that I can''t do at all now that I''m grown up. I have yet to learn to ride a bike, but if I get to it, I probably could.

My left foot is smaller than my right and my left leg is shorter, so I have to wear othopedic insoles in my shoes (and shoe shopping is a nightmare). The height imbalance can cause some backpain on occasion (like early pregnancy), but nothing a little physiotherapy can''t fix. I''d say that the biggest challenges I face now are still some self-confidence issues. The many procedures left some pretty important scars, both physical and psychological. I don''t show my legs in public, I hate hospital and have a hard time trusting doctors and I''m learning to live with and control some tactile/sensory defensiveness. But all in all, it''s not so bad compared to what some other people go through.

Anchor, wow, I had no idea. I just saw you as a beautiful, smart woman - obviously you are more beautiful and smart than I thought! Thank you very much for sharing.

As for pre and post birth, just let me know if you love the baby the same as before he was born, or if you feel like you could not have imagined loving anyone THAT MUCH. I''m curious.

Heh, I hear you. Doesn''t change my viewpoint on termination, but I get your point. Thanks for your lovely compliments, they mean a lot to me. And with that, I''m leaving this thread. It''s all way too close to home.

 

[vespergirl]

Anchor, thanks so much for your perspective on this - I have so much respect for your opinions on this topic, seeing as what your life experience is. It''s really interesting to hear the perspective of people who have been personally affected by these issues. For people like myself and others who haven''t gone through the type of life experience that you have, it''s easy to theorize, but difficult to know how one would really react when facing this situation.

I also wanted to congratulate you on your marriage - it sounds like things are going really well for you guys!

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 7/27/2009 2:52:08 PM
Author: vespergirl
Anchor, thanks so much for your perspective on this - I have so much respect for your opinions on this topic, seeing as what your life experience is. It''s really interesting to hear the perspective of people who have been personally affected by these issues. For people like myself and others who haven''t gone through the type of life experience that you have, it''s easy to theorize, but difficult to know how one would really react when facing this situation.

I also wanted to congratulate you on your marriage - it sounds like things are going really well for you guys!

I meant to congratulate on your pregnancy too - forgot in my last post!

 

[Circe]

TravelingGal, I love you - your posts are always so measured, eloquent, and empathic towards others.

Moving back to the topic at hand ... I''m not going to quote anyone, because I do not want this thread to devolve into the usual internet slapfight over abortion. But I would like to clarify one thing: I think we may be talking about different conditions. Tays-Sachs is a recessive condition that results in death by the age of 4 and causes tremendous suffering. Trisomy 18 kills most carriers by 15 days. Less than 1% of carriers live till 10, and their lives are unspeakably difficult. These are not conditions that children can recover from, or circumstances where doctors can make mistakes regarding the severity of the condition. If it''s not a misunderstanding, then it strikes me as being misleading and emotionally cruel to dismiss the concerns over incurable and unalterable conditions as things that might "get better."

I''ve always felt that the phrase "God''s will" is frequently misused, either in a hubristic way, or as a copout from responsibility. In the former, it seems to function under the assumption that man''s scientific accomplishments were achieved in opposition to God. Me, I''ve always believed that man''s intellect is one of the blessings bestowed upon us, and that the ability to better care for ourselves is one of God''s blessings. And in the latter case, it seems a way of dodging the consequences of choice - anything bad that happens is on God, inexplicable but probably for the best. But free will cuts both ways: choosing not to act is still choosing. Both of these positions are objectionable to me, to put it mildly: they seem to insult god and man alike.

This isn''t really the best time for me to be measured and rational, since I''m going to be having amnio in a week, and I''m steeling myself for whatever the results may be. It takes things out of the abstract. That said, I think the important thing to keep in mind is that we all want what is best for our children: we just might have very different ideas of what constitutes "best." Even when I''m irked with a particular position/poster, I find it''s a helpful thing to keep in mind - here''s hoping it works in the other direction, too.

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 7/27/2009 3:40:43 PM
Author: Circe
TravelingGal, I love you - your posts are always so measured, eloquent, and empathic towards others.

Moving back to the topic at hand ... I''m not going to quote anyone, because I do not want this thread to devolve into the usual internet slapfight over abortion. But I would like to clarify one thing: I think we may be talking about different conditions. Tays-Sachs is a recessive condition that results in death by the age of 4 and causes tremendous suffering. Trisomy 18 kills most carriers by 15 days. Less than 1% of carriers live till 10, and their lives are unspeakably difficult. These are not conditions that children can recover from, or circumstances where doctors can make mistakes regarding the severity of the condition. If it''s not a misunderstanding, then it strikes me as being misleading and emotionally cruel to dismiss the concerns over incurable and unalterable conditions as things that might ''get better.''

I''ve always felt that the phrase ''God''s will'' is frequently misused, either in a hubristic way, or as a copout from responsibility. In the former, it seems to function under the assumption that man''s scientific accomplishments were achieved in opposition to God. Me, I''ve always believed that man''s intellect is one of the blessings bestowed upon us, and that the ability to better care for ourselves is one of God''s blessings. And in the latter case, it seems a way of dodging the consequences of choice - anything bad that happens is on God, inexplicable but probably for the best. But free will cuts both ways: choosing not to act is still choosing. Both of these positions are objectionable to me, to put it mildly: they seem to insult god and man alike.

This isn''t really the best time for me to be measured and rational, since I''m going to be having amnio in a week, and I''m steeling myself for whatever the results may be. It takes things out of the abstract. That said, I think the important thing to keep in mind is that we all want what is best for our children: we just might have very different ideas of what constitutes ''best.'' Even when I''m irked with a particular position/poster, I find it''s a helpful thing to keep in mind - here''s hoping it works in the other direction, too.

Thank you Circe for your post.

Your are talking about exactly the conditions that I am thinking of.

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 7/27/2009 2:20:03 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/27/2009 1:37:59 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 7/27/2009 1:25:33 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/27/2009 12:55:56 PM
Author: kennedy




I understand your position and think it''s wonderful you would have the CHOICE to do what you feel so strongly is right for you and your unborn child. That said, shouldn''t other women have the same choice you have to do what they feel is right for them, even if it means terminating the pregnancy? You have every right to feel exactly as you do, but I have to admit that I found the tone of your post somewhat offensive. You seem to imply very strongly that a woman who might choose to terminate her pregnancy in order to spare her child from suffering outside the womb is both selfish and flippant about what can only be seen as a devastating choice. I resent the implication that those who feel differently than you do ''value life'' to a lesser degree. My heart goes out to any woman who has ever been in the awful position of having to make a choice like this and would never suggest that one decision is easier than another. That, to me, is not valuing the life of the mother.

Not to mention the word ''killing.''

I know people have strong opinions, but watch how you phrase things for goodness sake.

Fisher, out of curiosity, are you opposed to IVF as well?

Tgal, do you seriously not think of abortion as killing life? What is it, then? Terminating is the ending of something, and that something can only be life. I don''t say ''killing'' in order to be flippant or anything like that, I say it because abortion has become such an easy term for people to see as simply a ''procedure.'' It is a procedure and it does result in the death of something living, and that is killing a life. What term would better express this?

I''ve posted several times about my feelings on IVF, and it has been more of a difficult ''area'' in the arena of babies and life than that of abortion. The reason being is because abortion is ending life and IVF is about people desperately seeking parenthood. I''m not sure if you follow the TTC thread at all, but my husband and I have been trying for quite some time for a baby, and at times, I''ve wondered if IVF would be the only way we''d be able to reach parenthood. I don''t necessarily *not* agree with IVF, but the struggle for me comes in with the freezing and selective termination issues that come into IVF. I know that if you stand strongly in one area of life vs. choice, you have to stand firm (or at least that''s how I see it), and because of those issues (freezing, selective downsizing), we will not opt for IVF. IUI is another matter, and is something we may explore more in depth in the future, as long as it would not include multiple medications that would increase my chances of conceiving more children than we could carry to term.

Fisher, my point is this: You are going to believe what you want to believe. As you said, posting views like this is not going to sway anyone on PS. However there are women on this board who may have had abortions and probably did not make the decision lightly. So this is isn''t an abortion debate board, would it not be better to refrain from words like ''killing'' in order to avoid offending women who have gone through a very personal thing?

And if life at conception is black and white (as most pro life people would say), then IVF is black and white too. What the intent is is totally irrelevant. With an abortion, a life is ended, as are any embryos that are discarded. There is NO difference when it comes to a life being created and then intentionally terminated.

I know how much you want children. You''ve dreamed of wanting one since you were little. If in another 5 years you''ve had no success via natural methods, then I guess you will adopt? Because that is what my friend went through. 6 years of infertility with nothing wrong with either them. Her inlaws forbade adoption. She wanted a child and finally came to grips with IVF, which was a very hard process in and of itself. Now she''s facing the struggle of being pregnant with triplets and has 7 embryos waiting in the wings that will never be implanted. She''s a pro life as you are, but now her world is colored with gray.

And btw, if you can''t come up with a better term for abortion than ''killing a life,'' then I have to say, I''m really not impressed with your vocabulary skills.

I agree completely with this, which is why IVF is not something we will do. I simply meant by that comparison that I have more of a sense of compassion for those who enter into IVF as opposed to those who enter into abortions, because of the different reasons people enter into either of those procedures. That was all I meant by that, and I was trying to answer your question. We even struggle over the use of medications (mild ones at that) to help with conception, it''s all such a fine line for us.

If we cannot have children, we will either seek out adoption or we will be child-less. I''m still feeling confident and hopeful that we just need more time, though. For whatever reason, I can''t let go of hope.

I''ve been following the thread on your friend and I hope they come up with a plan that they are comfortable with.

As for my vocabulary, I''m not really here to impress anyone, and never have been, that''s not important to me. But I just don''t believe in sugarcoating terminology to make people feel better about choices they make. Abortion causes death; I don''t know of anyone who denies that. Comments that I consider rude and distasteful include the "M" word in relation to abortion. I think that''s just mean and not called for, because it''s a term of attack and I''m not trying to attack, as it does no good to come from that stand point. I have no doubt a lot of women who have had abortions are sensitive to the terminology of the procedure. I''m not slamming at anyone, and have no intent to do so, but was merely responding to a comment that was made on the first page when a poster stated that someone who opted to have their child was simply choosing "not to make a decision."

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 7/27/2009 3:55:33 PM
Author: Pandora II

Date: 7/27/2009 3:40:43 PM
Author: Circe
TravelingGal, I love you - your posts are always so measured, eloquent, and empathic towards others.

Moving back to the topic at hand ... I''m not going to quote anyone, because I do not want this thread to devolve into the usual internet slapfight over abortion. But I would like to clarify one thing: I think we may be talking about different conditions. Tays-Sachs is a recessive condition that results in death by the age of 4 and causes tremendous suffering. Trisomy 18 kills most carriers by 15 days. Less than 1% of carriers live till 10, and their lives are unspeakably difficult. These are not conditions that children can recover from, or circumstances where doctors can make mistakes regarding the severity of the condition. If it''s not a misunderstanding, then it strikes me as being misleading and emotionally cruel to dismiss the concerns over incurable and unalterable conditions as things that might ''get better.''

I''ve always felt that the phrase ''God''s will'' is frequently misused, either in a hubristic way, or as a copout from responsibility. In the former, it seems to function under the assumption that man''s scientific accomplishments were achieved in opposition to God. Me, I''ve always believed that man''s intellect is one of the blessings bestowed upon us, and that the ability to better care for ourselves is one of God''s blessings. And in the latter case, it seems a way of dodging the consequences of choice - anything bad that happens is on God, inexplicable but probably for the best. But free will cuts both ways: choosing not to act is still choosing. Both of these positions are objectionable to me, to put it mildly: they seem to insult god and man alike.

This isn''t really the best time for me to be measured and rational, since I''m going to be having amnio in a week, and I''m steeling myself for whatever the results may be. It takes things out of the abstract. That said, I think the important thing to keep in mind is that we all want what is best for our children: we just might have very different ideas of what constitutes ''best.'' Even when I''m irked with a particular position/poster, I find it''s a helpful thing to keep in mind - here''s hoping it works in the other direction, too.

Thank you Circe for your post.

Your are talking about exactly the conditions that I am thinking of.

I can only speak for myself, but whatever issues my child had, I would have my child.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 7/27/2009 4:04:54 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

I agree completely with this, which is why IVF is not something we will do. I simply meant by that comparison that I have more of a sense of compassion for those who enter into IVF as opposed to those who enter into abortions, because of the different reasons people enter into either of those procedures. That was all I meant by that, and I was trying to answer your question. We even struggle over the use of medications (mild ones at that) to help with conception, it''s all such a fine line for us.

If we cannot have children, we will either seek out adoption or we will be child-less. I''m still feeling confident and hopeful that we just need more time, though. For whatever reason, I can''t let go of hope.

I''ve been following the thread on your friend and I hope they come up with a plan that they are comfortable with.

As for my vocabulary, I''m not really here to impress anyone, and never have been, that''s not important to me. But I just don''t believe in sugarcoating terminology to make people feel better about choices they make. Abortion causes death; I don''t know of anyone who denies that. Comments that I consider rude and distasteful include the ''M'' word in relation to abortion. I think that''s just mean and not called for, because it''s a term of attack and I''m not trying to attack, as it does no good to come from that stand point. I have no doubt a lot of women who have had abortions are sensitive to the terminology of the procedure. I''m not slamming at anyone, and have no intent to do so, but was merely responding to a comment that was made on the first page when a poster stated that someone who opted to have their child was simply choosing ''not to make a decision.''

Fisher, I think it would benefit humanity more if one could have a sense of compassion for ALL people, regardless of why they are in the situation. Even nutters like Octomom.

The second line I highlighted is the problem that I have with hard core pro lifers. You are choosing the feelings of an unborn life over the feelings of human who is living in our world now.

As for abortion causing death and you not knowing anyone who denies that - expand your circle of friends there Fisher. There are plenty of people who don''t agree with that because there are some people who believe life begins outside the womb, not inside. Your view that life begins at conception is as foreign to them as you wondering how someone could think otherwise.

If you have no doubt that women who have had abortions are sensitive to the terminology, then I would encourage you to be sensitive yourself. If you would rather make your point instead of sugarcoating, I think that says a lot, and is a major problem in the world today.

 

[Circe]

Date: 7/27/2009 4:07:01 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

Date: 7/27/2009 3:55:33 PM

Author: Pandora II

Date: 7/27/2009 3:40:43 PM

Author: Circe

TravelingGal, I love you - your posts are always so measured, eloquent, and empathic towards others.


Moving back to the topic at hand ... I''m not going to quote anyone, because I do not want this thread to devolve into the usual internet slapfight over abortion. But I would like to clarify one thing: I think we may be talking about different conditions. Tays-Sachs is a recessive condition that results in death by the age of 4 and causes tremendous suffering. Trisomy 18 kills most carriers by 15 days. Less than 1% of carriers live till 10, and their lives are unspeakably difficult. These are not conditions that children can recover from, or circumstances where doctors can make mistakes regarding the severity of the condition. If it''s not a misunderstanding, then it strikes me as being misleading and emotionally cruel to dismiss the concerns over incurable and unalterable conditions as things that might ''get better.''


I''ve always felt that the phrase ''God''s will'' is frequently misused, either in a hubristic way, or as a copout from responsibility. In the former, it seems to function under the assumption that man''s scientific accomplishments were achieved in opposition to God. Me, I''ve always believed that man''s intellect is one of the blessings bestowed upon us, and that the ability to better care for ourselves is one of God''s blessings. And in the latter case, it seems a way of dodging the consequences of choice - anything bad that happens is on God, inexplicable but probably for the best. But free will cuts both ways: choosing not to act is still choosing. Both of these positions are objectionable to me, to put it mildly: they seem to insult god and man alike.


This isn''t really the best time for me to be measured and rational, since I''m going to be having amnio in a week, and I''m steeling myself for whatever the results may be. It takes things out of the abstract. That said, I think the important thing to keep in mind is that we all want what is best for our children: we just might have very different ideas of what constitutes ''best.'' Even when I''m irked with a particular position/poster, I find it''s a helpful thing to keep in mind - here''s hoping it works in the other direction, too.

Thank you Circe for your post.


Your are talking about exactly the conditions that I am thinking of.

I can only speak for myself, but whatever issues my child had, I would have my child.

Er ... okay? I''m not trying to talk you out of your position - choice is something I rather obviously believe in - just clarifying the terms of the discussion. I''m not quite sure what you''re trying to say/do in this post.

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Circe,

I added what I added because Pandora seemed to be saying that she didn''t know if myself or anyone else who''s said they would not have an abortion if our child had abnormalities was taking into consideration the more serious illnesses, disabilities, etc. than simply downs or something of that nature. I was clarifying for her that, even with a more serious issue, I would not terminate.

 

[Circe]

Ah, okay - thank you for clarifying that for me, in turn. Sorry for any confusion!

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 7/27/2009 4:17:20 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 7/27/2009 4:04:54 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

I agree completely with this, which is why IVF is not something we will do. I simply meant by that comparison that I have more of a sense of compassion for those who enter into IVF as opposed to those who enter into abortions, because of the different reasons people enter into either of those procedures. That was all I meant by that, and I was trying to answer your question. We even struggle over the use of medications (mild ones at that) to help with conception, it''s all such a fine line for us.

If we cannot have children, we will either seek out adoption or we will be child-less. I''m still feeling confident and hopeful that we just need more time, though. For whatever reason, I can''t let go of hope.

I''ve been following the thread on your friend and I hope they come up with a plan that they are comfortable with.

As for my vocabulary, I''m not really here to impress anyone, and never have been, that''s not important to me. But I just don''t believe in sugarcoating terminology to make people feel better about choices they make. Abortion causes death; I don''t know of anyone who denies that. Comments that I consider rude and distasteful include the ''M'' word in relation to abortion. I think that''s just mean and not called for, because it''s a term of attack and I''m not trying to attack, as it does no good to come from that stand point. I have no doubt a lot of women who have had abortions are sensitive to the terminology of the procedure. I''m not slamming at anyone, and have no intent to do so, but was merely responding to a comment that was made on the first page when a poster stated that someone who opted to have their child was simply choosing ''not to make a decision.''

Fisher, I think it would benefit humanity more if one could have a sense of compassion for ALL people, regardless of why they are in the situation. Even nutters like Octomom.

The second line I highlighted is the problem that I have with hard core pro lifers. You are choosing the feelings of an unborn life over the feelings of human who is living in our world now.

As for abortion causing death and you not knowing anyone who denies that - expand your circle of friends there Fisher. There are plenty of people who don''t agree with that because there are some people who believe life begins outside the womb, not inside. Your view that life begins at conception is as foreign to them as you wondering how someone could think otherwise.

If you have no doubt that women who have had abortions are sensitive to the terminology, then I would encourage you to be sensitive yourself. If you would rather make your point instead of sugarcoating, I think that says a lot, and is a major problem in the world today.

I do have compassion for everyone, I said I had *more* for people in the other situation, Tgal. Nutty Octomon included. I''d be insane to have her number of children running around in front of me, for sure!

I don''t think any life is more important over another, that''s the point. It is the root of the whole abortion issue. Sure people can say life isn''t life until there is an actual baby outside of the womb, but I don''t know anyone who denies there is LIFE within, babies move, kick, grow, develop. Sure there is an expansion of the life and a lot more development and a higher range of organs working along the timeline of prenatal development, but you simply cannot have no life prior to birth and *bing!* baby''s born, and there''s life. Even science explains that. That''s just another example of the sugarcoating that goes into making things more and more socially acceptable. I would rather make my point than sugarcoat, and I do think that says a lot. I however, do not make a point of being rude or incompassionate, and I have done neither here.

I''ve made no comments about anyone''s ability to parent, their ability to use impressive vocabulary, nor have I stated that any views not in alignment with mine are offensive. I''ve simply pointed out a viewpoint in the world of abortion, and no matter what disabilities a person has, that person doesn''t deserve any less than it''s mother or anyone deserves.

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 7/27/2009 4:37:23 PM
Author: Circe
Ah, okay - thank you for clarifying that for me, in turn. Sorry for any confusion!

I think it''s easy to mistake what people are saying on posts, Circe. One comment made for the sake of clarification for another person can in turn appear to be a snide comment at times. I have no intention of doing that, so if anyone thinks I am or that I''m just typing for the sake of making another post, I like to know that so I can clarify.

That said, I''m on vacation right now and my nieces are over, so I may not be rapid-firing but will continue to follow this thread from my phone (which I cannot figure out for the life of me how to post from. It''s a Palm, anyone have any ideas how I can do that?).

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 7/27/2009 4:39:12 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

I do have compassion for everyone, I said I had *more* for people in the other situation, Tgal. Nutty Octomon included. I''d be insane to have her number of children running around in front of me, for sure!

I don''t think any life is more important over another, that''s the point. It is the root of the whole abortion issue. Sure people can say life isn''t life until there is an actual baby outside of the womb, but I don''t know anyone who denies there is LIFE within, babies move, kick, grow, develop. Sure there is an expansion of the life and a lot more development and a higher range of organs working along the timeline of prenatal development, but you simply cannot have no life prior to birth and *bing!* baby''s born, and there''s life. Even science explains that. That''s just another example of the sugarcoating that goes into making things more and more socially acceptable. I would rather make my point than sugarcoat, and I do think that says a lot. I however, do not make a point of being rude or incompassionate, and I have done neither here.

I''ve made no comments about anyone''s ability to parent, their ability to use impressive vocabulary, nor have I stated that any views not in alignment with mine are offensive. I''ve simply pointed out a viewpoint in the world of abortion, and no matter what disabilities a person has, that person doesn''t deserve any less than it''s mother or anyone deserves.

And I''ll maintain that saying here (on PS) that women who had abortions are killing babies is quite incompassionate. And my opinion that your vocab must not be very impressive if you couldn''t think of another way to put it (especially since you insisted on putting it that way) was my way of saying that I think it''s rude. And no, I have never had an abortion.

Are you so vocal when it comes to women doing IVF? Would you tell them they are killing lives if they don''t use those embryos? I mean, it''s a life, right? You wouldn''t sugarcoat it if a dear friend was going through the process, would you?

I DO agree with you that there is life before birth. What I don''t agree with is that everyone should value that life the same way you do (nor am I saying you are making that argument).

And on the note of bringing in children with death sentences - I would rather in the case of something like taysachs opt to give that child a more humane death in the womb than watch her as she ceases to have the ability to swallow (something we don''t even think about and do everyday), become blind, deaf, paralyzed and die a horrible death. But that''s just me.

 

[Allisonfaye]

Date: 7/24/2009 3:10:12 PM
Author: lucyandroger
What a tough question, NF - one that a lot of couples unfortuately don''t discuss until they''re confronted with it.

My SO believes that life begins at conception. While I''m more iffy on where that line is, I chose him as my partner and respect his views on the situation. Therefore, we will not be having kids anywhere near 35 to reduce the risk of a defect. And we would skip the amniocentesis b/c abortion would not be an option.

As Mara pointed out, the results of the amnio are not exact - they tell you there''s a good risk of there being a defect. A family friend and her husband were told that their baby had a risk of a defect and they made the decision to keep the baby. Well, the baby was born perfectly healthy. Now the fact that they were considering aborting their perfectly healthy baby makes my friend sick to her stomach.

Date: 7/24/2009 3:10:12 PM
Author: lucyandroger
What a tough question, NF - one that a lot of couples unfortuately don''t discuss until they''re confronted with it.

My SO believes that life begins at conception. While I''m more iffy on where that line is, I chose him as my partner and respect his views on the situation. Therefore, we will not be having kids anywhere near 35 to reduce the risk of a defect. And we would skip the amniocentesis b/c abortion would not be an option.

As Mara pointed out, the results of the amnio are not exact - they tell you there''s a good risk of there being a defect. A family friend and her husband were told that their baby had a risk of a defect and they made the decision to keep the baby. Well, the baby was born perfectly healthy. Now the fact that they were considering aborting their perfectly healthy baby makes my friend sick to her stomach.

Are you sure that was the result of the amnio? I think the amnio results are pretty solid. Not like that one blood test they do that gives so many false positives and scares the crap out of everyone.

I had three amnios. I was 40 and 41 when I had my kids. Everything was ok, but there was one point my husband made when discussing what we would do if anything was wrong. If you KNOW your child will have Down''s and they need a high level of care, who takes care of the child (or disabled grownup) after you die? Thankfully, we never had to make a decision on whether to terminate but I know it would have been a hard decision to make.

 

[waxing lyrical]

Date: 7/27/2009 3:40:43 PM
Author: Circe
TravelingGal, I love you - your posts are always so measured, eloquent, and empathic towards others.


Moving back to the topic at hand ... I''m not going to quote anyone, because I do not want this thread to devolve into the usual internet slapfight over abortion. But I would like to clarify one thing: I think we may be talking about different conditions. Tays-Sachs is a recessive condition that results in death by the age of 4 and causes tremendous suffering. Trisomy 18 kills most carriers by 15 days. Less than 1% of carriers live till 10, and their lives are unspeakably difficult. These are not conditions that children can recover from, or circumstances where doctors can make mistakes regarding the severity of the condition. If it''s not a misunderstanding, then it strikes me as being misleading and emotionally cruel to dismiss the concerns over incurable and unalterable conditions as things that might ''get better.''

[. . .]

Who is the bold directed at? I''m curious because I know I don''t hold some misleading or false idea that T18 and 13 and in some cases T21 aren''t fatal. That the vast majority die in utero and the ones that don''t typically only live days or weeks. Very rarely do babies with T18 make it to 2-3 months of age. I know there are ones that do, but it''s extremely rare.

I haven''t gotten the impression from the posters that would carry to term are somehow lacking in understanding the prognosis or mortality rate of the fatal trisomies and NTDs. The few of us that have expressed not terminating a pregnancy after receiving an adverse dx have made mention to the scenario you present unless I missed it somewhere.

 

[Circe]

Date: 7/27/2009 5:20:14 PM
Author: waxing lyrical

Date: 7/27/2009 3:40:43 PM

Author: Circe

TravelingGal, I love you - your posts are always so measured, eloquent, and empathic towards others.



Moving back to the topic at hand ... I''m not going to quote anyone, because I do not want this thread to devolve into the usual internet slapfight over abortion. But I would like to clarify one thing: I think we may be talking about different conditions. Tays-Sachs is a recessive condition that results in death by the age of 4 and causes tremendous suffering. Trisomy 18 kills most carriers by 15 days. Less than 1% of carriers live till 10, and their lives are unspeakably difficult. These are not conditions that children can recover from, or circumstances where doctors can make mistakes regarding the severity of the condition. If it''s not a misunderstanding, then it strikes me as being misleading and emotionally cruel to dismiss the concerns over incurable and unalterable conditions as things that might ''get better.''


[. . .]

Who is the bold directed at? I''m curious because I know I don''t hold some misleading or false idea that T18 and 13 and in some cases T21 aren''t fatal. That the vast majority die in utero and the ones that don''t typically only live days or weeks. Very rarely do babies with T18 make it to 2-3 months of age. I know there are ones that do, but it''s extremely rare.


I haven''t gotten the impression from the posters that would carry to term are somehow lacking in understanding the prognosis or mortality rate of the fatal trisomies and NTDs. The few of us that have expressed not terminating a pregnancy after receiving an adverse dx have made mention to the scenario you present unless I missed it somewhere.

There was a poster a page ago who mentioned that a friend of hers had received a poor diagnosis whose child was now thriving: I didn''t quote her directly because I don''t want to pry into her friend''s exact circumstances, and I don''t think it was a deliberate conflation. But I do think that over the course of the thread there''s been a blurring of the line between fatal and nonfatal genetic conditions that muddies the waters a bit, and I wanted to distinguish between them to avoid any confusion.

We may be reading from different perspectives: I have gotten the impression that some posters do feel that those who would abort under extreme circumstances are taking the decision on a bit lightly: I think it''s a fairly commonly leveled accusation/idea, the notion that women who selectively abort will do it on a whim, or out of a socially sanctioned "designer baby" eugenics movement. I may be overlaying the second clause onto the first, and if that''s the case, I can only plead hormones.

 

[steph72276]

Date: 7/27/2009 5:36:14 PM
Author: Circe

Date: 7/27/2009 5:20:14 PM

Author: waxing lyrical

Date: 7/27/2009 3:40:43 PM


Author: Circe


TravelingGal, I love you - your posts are always so measured, eloquent, and empathic towards others.




Moving back to the topic at hand ... I'm not going to quote anyone, because I do not want this thread to devolve into the usual internet slapfight over abortion. But I would like to clarify one thing: I think we may be talking about different conditions. Tays-Sachs is a recessive condition that results in death by the age of 4 and causes tremendous suffering. Trisomy 18 kills most carriers by 15 days. Less than 1% of carriers live till 10, and their lives are unspeakably difficult. These are not conditions that children can recover from, or circumstances where doctors can make mistakes regarding the severity of the condition. If it's not a misunderstanding, then it strikes me as being misleading and emotionally cruel to dismiss the concerns over incurable and unalterable conditions as things that might 'get better.'



[. . .]

Who is the bold directed at? I'm curious because I know I don't hold some misleading or false idea that T18 and 13 and in some cases T21 aren't fatal. That the vast majority die in utero and the ones that don't typically only live days or weeks. Very rarely do babies with T18 make it to 2-3 months of age. I know there are ones that do, but it's extremely rare.



I haven't gotten the impression from the posters that would carry to term are somehow lacking in understanding the prognosis or mortality rate of the fatal trisomies and NTDs. The few of us that have expressed not terminating a pregnancy after receiving an adverse dx have made mention to the scenario you present unless I missed it somewhere.

There was a poster a page ago who mentioned that a friend of hers had received a poor diagnosis whose child was now thriving: I didn't quote her directly because I don't want to pry into her friend's exact circumstances, and I don't think it was a deliberate conflation. But I do think that over the course of the thread there's been a blurring of the line between fatal and nonfatal genetic conditions that muddies the waters a bit, and I wanted to distinguish between them to avoid any confusion.


We may be reading from different perspectives: I have gotten the impression that some posters do feel that those who would abort under extreme circumstances are taking the decision on a bit lightly: I think it's a fairly commonly leveled accusation/idea, the notion that women who selectively abort will do it on a whim, or out of a socially sanctioned 'designer baby' eugenics movement. I may be overlaying the second clause onto the first, and if that's the case, I can only plead hormones.

Circe, since this was directed at me, I just have to say if you go back to the first page of this thread, you will see that we were never just talking about fatal defects. Many posters stated that they would terminate for disabilities simply b/c they didn't have the time/resources to care for a child that was disabled.

Oh and btw, the friend's baby was born with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, not exactly a minor defect. And I never said the baby was "thriving" I said she is happy, smiling, giggling, etc. The parents cherish every moment with her and never for a minute wished they would have aborted.

 

[Circe]

Date: 7/27/2009 6:06:29 PM
Author: steph72276

Circe, since this was directed at me, I just have to say if you go back to the first page of this thread, you will see that we were never just talking about fatal defects. Many posters stated that they would terminate for disabilities simply b/c they didn''t have the time/resources to care for a child that was disabled.


Oh and btw, the friend''s baby was born with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, not exactly a minor defect. And I never said the baby was ''thriving'' I said she is happy, smiling, giggling, etc. The parents cherish every moment with her and never for a minute wished they would have aborted.

I know, Steph - it''s why I did leave it as an open-ended clarification instead of quoting you directly, since it was the thread in general rather than your statement that felt as though it needed clarification. If it did not, my apologies for derailing, and thank you for expanding on your friend''s situation. It is wonderful that her daughter is doing well.

 

[steph72276]

Date: 7/27/2009 6:24:08 PM
Author: Circe

Date: 7/27/2009 6:06:29 PM

Author: steph72276


Circe, since this was directed at me, I just have to say if you go back to the first page of this thread, you will see that we were never just talking about fatal defects. Many posters stated that they would terminate for disabilities simply b/c they didn''t have the time/resources to care for a child that was disabled.



Oh and btw, the friend''s baby was born with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, not exactly a minor defect. And I never said the baby was ''thriving'' I said she is happy, smiling, giggling, etc. The parents cherish every moment with her and never for a minute wished they would have aborted.

I know, Steph - it''s why I did leave it as an open-ended clarification instead of quoting you directly, since it was the thread in general rather than your statement that felt as though it needed clarification. If it did not, my apologies for derailing, and thank you for expanding on your friend''s situation. It is wonderful that her daughter is doing well.

Gotcha, Circe

. Thanks for the good thoughts for my friend''s baby. I think it hits closer to home if you actually know someone dealing with this situation.

 

[waxing lyrical]

Date: 7/27/2009 5:36:14 PM
Author: Circe

Date: 7/27/2009 5:20:14 PM

Author: waxing lyrical

Date: 7/27/2009 3:40:43 PM


Author: Circe


TravelingGal, I love you - your posts are always so measured, eloquent, and empathic towards others.




Moving back to the topic at hand ... I''m not going to quote anyone, because I do not want this thread to devolve into the usual internet slapfight over abortion. But I would like to clarify one thing: I think we may be talking about different conditions. Tays-Sachs is a recessive condition that results in death by the age of 4 and causes tremendous suffering. Trisomy 18 kills most carriers by 15 days. Less than 1% of carriers live till 10, and their lives are unspeakably difficult. These are not conditions that children can recover from, or circumstances where doctors can make mistakes regarding the severity of the condition. If it''s not a misunderstanding, then it strikes me as being misleading and emotionally cruel to dismiss the concerns over incurable and unalterable conditions as things that might ''get better.''



[. . .]

Who is the bold directed at? I''m curious because I know I don''t hold some misleading or false idea that T18 and 13 and in some cases T21 aren''t fatal. That the vast majority die in utero and the ones that don''t typically only live days or weeks. Very rarely do babies with T18 make it to 2-3 months of age. I know there are ones that do, but it''s extremely rare.



I haven''t gotten the impression from the posters that would carry to term are somehow lacking in understanding the prognosis or mortality rate of the fatal trisomies and NTDs. The few of us that have expressed not terminating a pregnancy after receiving an adverse dx have made mention to the scenario you present unless I missed it somewhere.

There was a poster a page ago who mentioned that a friend of hers had received a poor diagnosis whose child was now thriving: I didn''t quote her directly because I don''t want to pry into her friend''s exact circumstances, and I don''t think it was a deliberate conflation. But I do think that over the course of the thread there''s been a blurring of the line between fatal and nonfatal genetic conditions that muddies the waters a bit, and I wanted to distinguish between them to avoid any confusion.


We may be reading from different perspectives: I have gotten the impression that some posters do feel that those who would abort under extreme circumstances are taking the decision on a bit lightly: I think it''s a fairly commonly leveled accusation/idea, the notion that women who selectively abort will do it on a whim, or out of a socially sanctioned ''designer baby'' eugenics movement. I may be overlaying the second clause onto the first, and if that''s the case, I can only plead hormones.

I see. I guess I was assuming it was known what conditions were being discussed -- the conditions that are screened for.

I will say I''m extra sensitive and defensive about this topic, as I''m sure many are that have had child with a trisomy or ended up being faced with a tough decision. I certainly don''t think choosing to terminate or interrupt the pregnancy is easy by any means. I''ve watched other mothers make the decision. I remember talking to a mother in one of my due date groups that was reluctant to reach out to me because she wasn''t sure if I would be offended by her story since she and her husband chose to terminate. My heart aches for all parents faced with that decision or lose a baby. I know it has been expressed amongst us mothers of trisomy babies that sometimes we''re made to feel like our loss is minimized due to having a less than perfect baby. That it shouldn''t be as difficult or hard because the baby was defective or "damaged goods." I know one mother who was told this. Likewise, there are mothers who do decide to terminate that are made to feel like their loss was insignificant or that they just should get over it because it was for the best. It''s sad all around. I can tell without a doubt the mothers I know who chose to terminate love their babies immensely.

I guess, for me, it''s arguments that center around "value" and suffering that tend to strike a nerve. Each side or perspective takes both into account, just in a different way. To one, they value life and therefore would not wish to see their baby suffer. To another they value life and would not want their baby to suffer an abortion (D&E or IDX). They value it enough to allow them to live until it is their time to go. Everyone has their own idea on what classifies as suffering. I know I wish for mothers who make the decision to terminate choose the alternative route (induction). I wish for them to meet their baby and spend moments with him/her. I know that isn''t what some want or desire, but it is an option.

Someone else brought up the argument of when life begins. That to some it doesn''t begin until first breath or after birth. It''s probably for a different debate, but it''s an interesting one when it''s tied to pregnancy loss. I sometimes wonder about the different perspectives and how the individual sees her own baby.

P.S., are you due in January?

 

[waxing lyrical]

Steph, my friend''s daughter was born with CDH. She found out about her condition around 20 weeks. Her daughter was given a 40-50% chance of survival. Her case was severe. It definitely was a long road for them. I believe she was "counseled" or given the option to terminate around the time it was diagnosed.

 

[cara]

The woman in the original posting may be completely cool and casual emotionally in discussing terminating a wanted pregnancy because its not real yet. Its still in the abstract, but it might well be much harder emotionally if it actually came to pass, even if she remained as sure of her decision. Or she could really be cool and clinical about it even if it did come to pass, if that is either her character or training, like a battlefield surgeon performing triage and deciding who will get treatment and who will get none. It may be making life and death decisions, but there is an order to it and its his/her job to do it, and so they will and remain as even-keeled as possible.

Heck, I had an actual casual discussion about this around the proverbial water cooler at work that involved a similarly casual statement, granted by a woman past childbearing so she could afford to hypothetical. This coworker was expressing amazement at Sarah Palin's VP candidacy combined with a newborn with Down's, 4 older kids and impending grandmotherhood. This woman had 2 kids and said she didn't know how SP did it, as having her own kids when she was younger and more spry was still completely exhausting and that if she had gotten preggo at 40-something with a special needs child she would have aborted. Said completely earnestly. Not because of the child being less human or deserving, but because she didn't know if she could do it, if she could provide for her special needs child without sacrificing the care and raising or her existing children, if her marriage would survive (she had seen marriages break up with the stress of sick kids), and she didn't want to burden her other children with the care of their disabled sibling after she and her husband had passed on. And implicitly, because she doesn't consider ending a twenty-week along pregnancy the same as killing a baby. Because she doesn't think a twenty-week along fetus, tethered and dependent upon its mother's umbilical cord and nestled intransferably in her womb, is the same thing or in the same position as a breathing baby in a crib.

Which is why anyone considers it.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I have only had time to skim this, but do plan on reading this in depth. I just wanted to say my piece before I start working on my presentation that is coming up, because i have been forced to face this issue over the last three years, and feel like there has really been no where to talk about it because my friends just have trouble handeling this stuff.

I have spent a lot of time in the NICU, and have seen bad things happen to pregnant women, and bad things happen to babies. At our hospital, we require that every baby who is born 24+0 week and up be resuscitated. I personally have a problem with that because that is not standard in the US and many other developed countries (it is usually a choice at that age), and I would not want my 24+0 week baby put on life support. I have seen the months of suffering they go through day in and day out, only for about 1/2 to survive, and most of the survivors to have a major disability. I feel that 23-24 weeks are the limits of viability, and those are not limits I would want to push with my child. For a couple years, I felt conflicted about this. I finally talked about my feelings with a neo who practiced in another hospital. He told me that I was normal, and that a pediatrician or NICU nurse in preterm labor at 24 weeks want nothing to do with the conversation. I kind of found that shocking, but kind of didn''t. The way I see it is that with this age group, we are pushing the limits of nature, and I would rather let nature have its way it I can''t win. As the babies, get older, I would be more conformable with a preterm birth.

If I was pregnant with a baby who had a lethal condition, I would terminate. Pregnancy is not without risks. I have seen women almost bleed out, have classical c-sections, and bad tears that will probably make them incontinent later in life. I think that if there is no potential for life, the risk is not worth the benefit.

I have a harder time with a special needs kid. I am not sure what I would do. A patient with Trisomy 21 is a difficult baby to raise. But most of the special needs kids I followed either had no prenatal diagnosis and were born with their problems, or got diagnosed in early childhood. And then there are those "normal" kids who get cancer, and the treatment leads to damage that leads them to be special needs kids. In the end, I have come to realize that no child comes with a clean bill of health, and that if you want to be a parent, you need to be ready for anything.