Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Test Subject
Original Poster
#1 Old 15th Apr 2012 at 1:49 AM
Default Fetuses with Anencephaly - Should their abortion be allowed?
First, just to make things clear, I live in Brazil, where abortions are illegal unless the pregnancy is a result of rape or if the mother's life is at risk (maybe there are some other cases where it's allowed but you get the point).

These last few days there's been a huge debate about this because some politicians wanted to make it legal to abort anencephalic (?) fetuses (and the mothers of babies with this condition went mad - the "abortion is murder" way of thought is very, very common in here) so I wanted to hear you guys' opinions on this.
I personally think it should not only be allowed but stimulated as well. "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain" - why would someone want to raise a child that cannot see, hear, talk or feel at all? What would be the point? You can't even say the poor child is like an animal and that it follows it's own instincts because even animals have brains and can develop affection.
And in the end, they don't live very long.

Why should someone be forced to give birth, take care and spend money on a baby that is technically unconscious, can't feel pain or see or hear and that is going to die in a few years?
Advertisement
Banned
#2 Old 15th Apr 2012 at 2:45 AM
Frankly, I think someone should be allowed to have an abortion if they please. I think it's rude to make an exception for a certain condition. An abortion is an abortion, but either way, I don't see anything wrong with it.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#3 Old 15th Apr 2012 at 2:47 AM Last edited by maxon : 15th Apr 2012 at 2:58 AM.
Anencephaly is extremely harsh and, as I understand it, most babies with the condition die within a few minutes never mind years (though there are some exceptional survivors). Personally, I think that abortion should be an option but then I come from a country and culture where that is accepted.

As for mothers of these children not wanting to allow abortion as an option for a baby with the condition, I'd say two things: 1. I can really understand why some women would want to take the child to term and give birth naturally - I think that's a perfectly normal and understandable response (though perhaps hopeless in most cases) but 2. no-one should have the right to dictate other people's decisions - if a woman wants to abort a child with this condition on her doctor's advice, then she should be allowed to do so. But, as I say, I come from a country and culture where this is accepted.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Alchemist
#4 Old 15th Apr 2012 at 8:12 AM
all of what maxon said.

additionally, i personally think that people who want to push for a severely disabled child to be born should be made to experience caring for a severely disabled child before they are allowed to finalize their vote. call it a lesson in empathy.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Instructor
#5 Old 15th Apr 2012 at 7:49 PM
I think sometimes a person may not have the resources to care for a disabled child who is terminally ill.

It is up to that person to decide whether to carry such a child to term, and not up to me to decide or judge them for it.
Test Subject
#6 Old 16th Apr 2012 at 3:59 AM
I was under the impression that babies with Anencephaly would pass within a few hours and some are lucky to live to be a few days old?

I've never heard of a baby born with Anencephaly that lived for a few years.


Anyways... I think regardless of the reason that a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion at any time. But starting out small... in the case of Anencephaly and other fatal birth defects, it should definitely be a choice, no doubt about it. I would not go through the pain of labor for a baby that will most likely die within minutes. It seems like it would be far less traumatizing for the mother to terminate early. Although, Anencephaly is usually not diagnosed until the later half of the pregnancy so the pain of a PB abortion would most likely be similar to the pain of labor...

-shrugs her shoulders-

No matter what, it should be a choice that a woman can make for herself and not a choice that the government makes for her.
Forum Resident
#7 Old 27th Apr 2012 at 4:44 PM
I am pro choice and I believe every woman should have the right to choose.

As for foetuses with severe disabilities: of course that should be allowed. It is not fair on the child nor the parents. I know for a fact that I am not mentally strong enough to ever bring up a child with severe disabilities and I am glad I live in a country where I have that freedom to not have to.

As an aside: I recently read that the country with the largest difference between male and female pay is Chile, where abortion is illegal. On the other hand, the most equal country is Iceland, which has allowed abortion since 1935. Allowing a woman to make her own decisions over when to start a family is the hallmark of a modern society.
Banned
#8 Old 27th Apr 2012 at 7:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by narainu
First, just to make things clear, I live in Brazil, where abortions are illegal unless the pregnancy is a result of rape or if the mother's life is at risk (maybe there are some other cases where it's allowed but you get the point).

These last few days there's been a huge debate about this because some politicians wanted to make it legal to abort anencephalic (?) fetuses (and the mothers of babies with this condition went mad - the "abortion is murder" way of thought is very, very common in here) so I wanted to hear you guys' opinions on this.
I personally think it should not only be allowed but stimulated as well. "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain" - why would someone want to raise a child that cannot see, hear, talk or feel at all? What would be the point? You can't even say the poor child is like an animal and that it follows it's own instincts because even animals have brains and can develop affection.
And in the end, they don't live very long.

Why should someone be forced to give birth, take care and spend money on a baby that is technically unconscious, can't feel pain or see or hear and that is going to die in a few years?


Well, babies born with anencephaly can't really survive a few years. That would be a miracle, and yes, I have seen such a miraculous case on Youtube where an anencephalic baby turns two. Normally, they would survive a few days outside the womb, since they basically have no brain. In addition, I have heard that mothers of anencephalic babies are free from any responsibility of the child, let alone support the child with their own resources. I have read a story about an anencephalic baby on Wikipedia, and the reason why the little girl was born was that her mother was "pro-life". The daughter died, but the special case does raise special questions and concerns about babies born with serious defects.
Mad Poster
#9 Old 30th Apr 2012 at 6:07 PM
This is a very sad thing to happen..... It's hard.. but yes abortion should be allowed, because these children can't live. It's terrible though, but it is necessary.

I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
Needs Coffee
retired moderator
#10 Old 6th May 2012 at 11:32 PM
Quote:
I personally think it should not only be allowed but stimulated as well. "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain" - why would someone want to raise a child that cannot see, hear, talk or feel at all? What would be the point?



I don't normally debate about things on line, but as the mother of a baby diagnosed with anencephaly you have no idea what you are talking about. Are you even a mother? Do you think when we make plans to have a child that we have any idea the precious baby we are carrying has such a birth defect? You don't normally discover until 20 weeks that the baby you have nurtured and loved and felt kicking is 'not compatible with life' Do you know how horrible it is to hear that repeatedly from a DR with as much bedside manner as a fly lava. Do you know how attached you can be to your unborn child by 20 weeks? It isn't just a nothing that you casually get rid of. I'm sure all mother who terminate at this point are heartbroken and those of us who decide to carry our babies until it's their time to die should be supported not ridiculed or pushed to end the lives of their unborn child sooner. Who gains from this? Most do not make it to term and many of the babies are born already dead. My own daughter lived for 40 minutes and we got to hold and cherish her for that time. No parent except I believe in one rare circumstance has had a child to raise. I believe this child is now three. Put bluntly they die as newborns. My question to you is not why would someone want to give birth to a baby with such deformity -no one wants a child with any kind of disability, but why wouldn't a mother want some precious time with her child before she/he dies? I have a grave site, a birth certificate as well as some tiny feet impressions in clay. Just because my child had a sever deformity didn’t make her any less of a person. To what prepose and gain do you think the mother will get from being encouraged to kill her baby a few month before she/he would be born and die anyway?
Alchemist
#11 Old 6th May 2012 at 11:42 PM
Quote: Originally posted by joandsarah77
My question to you is not why would someone want to give birth to a baby with such deformity -no one wants a child with any kind of disability, but why wouldn't a mother want some precious time with her child before she/he dies? I have a grave site, a birth certificate as well as some tiny feet impressions in clay. Just because my child had a sever deformity didn’t make her any less of a person. To what prepose and gain do you think the mother will get from being encouraged to kill her baby a few month before she/he would be born and die anyway?


Quote: Originally posted by narainu
Why should someone be forced to give birth, take care and spend money on a baby that is technically unconscious, can't feel pain or see or hear and that is going to die in a few years?


"forced" kind of implies that the mother doesn't want to carry the baby to term. in those cases, i don't think her reasoning is up for questioning, but that her will should be respected. i dont think anyone here was replying as if the mother actually still wanted to carry the child to term.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Needs Coffee
retired moderator
#12 Old 6th May 2012 at 11:56 PM
Quote:
stimulated as well
Is what I take issue with. Stimulated in this context means encouraged to terminate not just allowed to.

I was also replying to this question.
Quote:
why would someone want to raise a child that cannot see, hear, talk or feel at all?
Alchemist
#13 Old 7th May 2012 at 3:00 AM
Quote: Originally posted by joandsarah77
Is what I take issue with. Stimulated in this context means encouraged to terminate not just allowed to.

I was also replying to this question.


true, though stimulation is a bit different than being held at gunpoint. the difference between persuasion and threatening. if a person believes it to be in their best interest, wouldnt it be the natural response to "stimulate" them to choose differently?
(for example, people who want to kill themselves. most people would agree that its correct behavior to "stimulate" them to choose differently--doesnt really mean that they have to, though. more or less i think they meant that it should be affirmed that the choice exists, in case the person has any doubts about it, but im not them so i dont know about that.)

and, that could have been a rhetorical question. personally, i will never understand why someone would want to tattoo their genitals. they still do it, but i still wonder why anyone would ever want to. but thats where it becomes a matter of opinion--i doubt they were intending to attest that there was no actual reason behind it, or say that because they didnt agree with it, it shouldnt be done at all.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Instructor
#14 Old 7th May 2012 at 3:22 AM
I think it should be the woman's decision if she want's to abort or not, it's her body and no government agency ( or religious groups or anti abortion groups) should have the right to tell her what to do with it.

You can find more of my stuff here: http://www.blackpearlsims.com/downloads.php
Inventor
#15 Old 12th May 2012 at 5:28 AM
If it were me in that situation and the laws regarding abortion were irrelevant, I would definitely abort. So I think parents should be given the right, it is their life and free will and shouldn't be a governmental decision.

Just putting it out there, but imagine if it were illegal to have an abortion in every country and every state? Can you imagine the population increase? It's just another form of birth control, it just happens after the fact and when the foetus is in such an early stage of development that it isn't even able to comprehend what is happening, and neither feel it. It's about as murderous as picking a tomato.
Field Researcher
#16 Old 12th May 2012 at 7:57 AM
Even though I personally believe abortion is wrong (I'm still pro-choice, don't get me wrong) in that situation, I would probably get an abortion. I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself, but I would get one. Therefore, I think that abortion should be legal in those circumstances. To the people that think that it shouldn't, how would it affect you in anyway? The only real person that is being affected is the mother, and therefore, it should be her choice.
Instructor
#17 Old 15th May 2012 at 4:47 PM
In this case, absolutely. Up until such a cure is found for this disorder. After that, that would be up to the laws of your jurisdiction. And your own choice of course.

Based on the Wikipedia article on the subject it seems one would have to take precautionary measures instead of waiting for the signs to prevent themselves.

"There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for patients is death. Most anencephalic fetuses do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest. There are longer-surviving examples, namely Stephanie Keene, who lived for 2 years 174 days and Nicholas Coke, who as of 2010, survived to 2 years old."

Makes it a pretty open and shut case.
Theorist
#18 Old 15th May 2012 at 5:27 PM
First of all... if you're not a woman, you don't have the right to make a decision for any woman. Secondly, IMHO, the woman can solicit opinions from friends and family and doctors but they can only be opinions on the subject, they shouldn't be to encourage/discourage that woman to proceed/not proceed with the procedure. Ultimately, the person herself has to make the decision on whether or not this is the best thing to do for her, not for anyone else, but HER and the child. Friends and family should always be supportive of any decision she makes.

Having said that, if this person has abortions everytime she gets pregnant because she doesn't want to have the child is another story. If you don't want to have children, use protection and make sure you don't get pregnant - or get a ligation. I know that in the US and Canada most doctors won't do a ligation or a hysterectomy for women under the age of 35 unless its a danger to her health - i,e. cervical cancer so until that time ladies, practice safe sex

Life is short, insecurity is a waste of time. ~Diane Von Furstenburg
You don't get out of life alive. ~Jimmy the Hand

♥ Receptacle Refugee ♥
Instructor
#19 Old 15th May 2012 at 7:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by lisfyre
I know that in the US and Canada most doctors won't do a ligation or a hysterectomy for women under the age of 35 unless its a danger to her health - i,e. cervical cancer so until that time ladies, practice safe sex


And isn't that just the biggest pile of double standards ever.

Just so we are all clear the legal limit is 18 years of age. The doctors however are protesting that for some unknown reason and want to make sure you've had a fuckton of children first to appease their God. (What does their God need with so many children anyway? Sounds dubious to me).

Guys usually just get a "Are you sure, son? How abouts you freeze some of those wigglers up just in case?"
Theorist
#20 Old 15th May 2012 at 8:52 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Elyasis
And isn't that just the biggest pile of double standards ever.

Just so we are all clear the legal limit is 18 years of age. The doctors however are protesting that for some unknown reason and want to make sure you've had a fuckton of children first to appease their God. (What does their God need with so many children anyway? Sounds dubious to me).

Guys usually just get a "Are you sure, son? How abouts you freeze some of those wigglers up just in case?"


Yes it's very unfair. I have a friend who at age 35 was very very sure she didn't want kids but no doctor she went to would give her a ligation. She tried at 40 and at 45 but they still wouldn't give her a ligation. Today she's 61, married to a guy who had children from his first marriage and is a grandmom.. well.. step grandma but still, I always thought it was funny.

To those of you who disagreed with my original post, lets talk. I'd like to hear some of your opinions.

Life is short, insecurity is a waste of time. ~Diane Von Furstenburg
You don't get out of life alive. ~Jimmy the Hand

♥ Receptacle Refugee ♥
Lab Assistant
#21 Old 15th May 2012 at 8:53 PM
Just to put in my two cents. I am pretty much pro-choice, though I get annoyed with women who have abortions every time they get pregnant because their boyfriend refuses to wear a condom or the girls themselves don't want to take any precautions. But on this it should be the mother's decision.

For one there's the fact that the child doesn't feel anything, is unconscious. It would be like taking care of a doll. To me that's the same as making a person live by machines when there's nothing there, mentally. I don't believe anyone should be forced to live under such conditions.

Second is the fact that it's cruel to force a woman to go full term only to lose her child shortly after it's born. What that alone could do to a woman's psyche is one of the worst things. Women who have miscarriages often feel like they've failed in something that should be natural. This would be worse.

If a woman wants to go through with the pregnancy, then she should be allowed. It's all in how she sees the situation.
Mad Poster
#22 Old 16th May 2012 at 12:21 AM
Pro-circumstance here. I think that yes, it should totally be legal for anybody to get an abortion, but for my sense of necessary and unnecessary, this is more leaning towards the necessary side. It's cruelty to do that to a woman (have her child die soon after birth), and though there are people who have lived like this, I don't think it's really fair to anybody at all. If a woman were completely able and financially sound enough to care for a healthy child, then I think that that's just stupid to abort it - like EliDawn said, if they didn't wear a condom, you don't have to get one every time, dammit! That just irritates me when people abort for no reason at all. Adoption would be a better choice (and this is coming from an adopted kid!) than terminating it. But if it were the same situation and the child was severely disabled, I would totally understand. Of course, there are unique emotional and situational implications surrounding every pregnancy, so that's why I'm pro-circumstance. My opinion is none until I hear the circumstance, and even then, I feel no need to say one way or another. I support legal abortions totally, but at the same time it's not the best solution in every situation, and it's not for everybody. In this one, where the child would die soon after birth anyways, I'm, again, leaning towards the abortion side of things because it seems like the moral and humane thing to do.


Angie/DS | Baby Sterling - 24/2/2014
This account is mostly used by my sons to download CC now, if you see me active, it's probably just them!
Alchemist
#23 Old 16th May 2012 at 1:32 AM
Quote: Originally posted by lisfyre
First of all... if you're not a woman, you don't have the right to make a decision for any woman.


yes.

Quote: Originally posted by lisfyre
Secondly, IMHO, the woman can solicit opinions from friends and family and doctors but they can only be opinions on the subject, they shouldn't be to encourage/discourage that woman to proceed/not proceed with the procedure.


no.
people are allowed to ask others for help on tough decisions. if she herself doesnt have an opinion either way, it may help her to form one by hearing the opinions and reasoning of others. i think its just a little unrealistic, and unfair, to expect her to make the decision entirely alone if shes not prepared to.
and it depends on who this decision is impacting. if the woman lives with her parents, damn straight she should talk to them about it. if their own lives are going to be impacted by her decision, she should at least give them a chance to put in their own two cents, for better or for worse--she doesnt have to OBEY them mind you, but hearing them out would be the decent thing to do.

Quote: Originally posted by lisfyre
Ultimately, the person herself has to make the decision on whether or not this is the best thing to do for her, not for anyone else, but HER and the child. Friends and family should always be supportive of any decision she makes.


again, not a terribly realistic thing to say. people will have their own opinions, and expecting them to toss them aside in the face of a major life choice is like telling people that they cant be unsupportive of anyone that does something that they disapprove of--namely, rapists, murderers, etc, simply on the grounds of being family.
not advocating that they hate/bash her at every minute of every second, but i think everyone should have the right to at least be able to openly express a difference of opinion.

Quote: Originally posted by lisfyre
Having said that, if this person has abortions everytime she gets pregnant because she doesn't want to have the child is another story. If you don't want to have children, use protection and make sure you don't get pregnant - or get a ligation. I know that in the US and Canada most doctors won't do a ligation or a hysterectomy for women under the age of 35 unless its a danger to her health - i,e. cervical cancer so until that time ladies, practice safe sex


agree, though its easier said than done in some (birth control) or most (hysterectomy) situations.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Needs Coffee
retired moderator
#24 Old 16th May 2012 at 3:55 AM
The trouble with all of these things people are adding in other things to the original question. This wasn't a question over raising disabled children or rape or social circumstances, but about anencephaly. As I am most likely the only person here who has actually had a baby with anencephaly no one but me knows what it is like. If you have also lost a baby to a birth defect you would know somewhat but not totally. So while advice from others around you might be helpful, those people probably don't know what they are talking about. You can't unless you have been through it.

Quote:
it depends on who this decision is impacting. if the woman lives with her parents, damn straight she should talk to them about it.

Of course the woman needs to talk to her parents or husband or SO. But the diagnosis impacts them no matter what.

If the child is birthed at 20 weeks or 40 the end is the same-you will have a baby who dies just before, at or just after birth and then you have to deal with the grief. Having the baby at 20 weeks does not make everything better or change the outcome. The only difference is yes you would be carrying the child for longer, but people forget these are usually planned for babies. If the baby was unwanted the woman wouldn't be going for the 20 week scan. Anyone who uses abortion as some kind of birth control (absolutely abhorrent in my view given that birth control is easy to get) would have had one long before 20 weeks. Let me say again-you don't normally discover you are carrying a child with anencephaly until the 20 week scan. This is the normal time that a scan is offered to a healthy mother. Certainly it is in our country anyway. You are only offered one sooner if you have had some previous problems.


Quote:
Second is the fact that it's cruel to force a woman to go full term only to lose her child shortly after it's born

So having your child at 20 weeks and having them die isn't cruel and horrible too? You are talking about a fully formed baby at 20 weeks (apart from their birth defect which doesn't change) You think having a baby at 20 weeks magically makes things better? Do people realize at 20 weeks you still have to give birth? You get induced, you go through labour and you give birth.

There should be no encouragement or coercion to have the baby at 20 weeks. It's a well known fact that parents handle the death of a baby far better if they can hold, see and touch their baby. Used to be 50 years ago still born babies would be whisked away and parents would not even see them, that policy changed because they realized it wasn't helping. People need closure to death and holding your baby and even giving them a burial does help. Encouraging birth at 20 weeks denies the parents/ mother the right to a funeral. Funerals also help give people closure. In our country at least a baby must be 21 weeks to get both a birth certificate and a proper burial. In fact it's illegal to not formally bury a baby at 21 weeks or over.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#25 Old 16th May 2012 at 10:12 AM
You're right, of course, JoandSarah - as I said in my original post, I can understand why a woman would want to carry a child to term with this condition. I think you agree anyway that it's up to the woman concerned (and her family to a certain extent) to make the decision about whether to abort immediately or go ahead and carry the child to term.

You're right also in that many of the subsequent posts are referring to abortion in general which is not what this discussion is about (and it's not like we've not had that long and combative debate elsewhere).

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top