Late-term abortions of 'deformed' babies.

I just read this article; it's probably had more press in Britain, though. I use quotes around the word 'deformed' because many people have differing views on what exactly constitutes a medical deformation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104475,00.html

Uh-oh.... this topic got pretty hot last time.

ok. i'm one that does not believe that living any life is better than not living at all.
myself, i want to have the plug pulled when it comes time.
similarly, i can understand the abortion of a fetus if it is going to lead a less than happy life. this, to me, means severe brain or bodily damage that interfere with everyday functioning.
this does not mean something cosmetic like a cleft palate.
jeez.

[Edited on Dec 01, 2003 by invaderkim]

i don't see what the big deal is-unless it's out of the womb it's not even a baby, RIGHT?

While, not completely cosmetic, a cleft palate is not a severe medical handicap that cannot be corrected by a medical means. I don't believe it's right.

I am not a pro-lifer by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't believe that late term/partial birth abortions should be an option for anyone unless the mother's life is in imminent danger.

I wouldn't exactly consider my stance pro-choice, either. Sadly, in the world we live in abortion is a necessary evil. As a society (not everyone...this is a generalization which is not exactly inaccurate), we're motivated instant gratification in almost every aspect of our existance. Sex is often indulged in irresponsibly by irresponsible people who have no cares other than the now. It would be a travesty to allow a child to grow up unwanted and unloved by irresponsible parents who think of nothing other than their own personal and instant gratification.

I do understand that there is another option: adoption. Unfortunately, the current system doesn't work the way it should, and many decent people who would probably be good parents are denied adoption rights for insignifigant reasons or because of mistakes they made in their distant past. Until a system that actually works is concieved and inplemented, abortion is something that we will continue to need. I'll be the first to agree that abortion should NOT be an alternative to birth control. But as long as there are children who are having sex at 12 years old and younger, there will be irresponsible people getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant.

There are many children who wait for adoption in vain. They grow up without knowing the love of a parent. Had I not grown up with loving parents, I have little doubt that I would be a total asshole right now. I have a hard enough time relating to people as it is.

Sorry for being long winded...I just don't want to be misunderstood.

i suppose i'm pro-choice. it really is their decision.
but to me i would take almost any other reason over a cosmetic reason for abortion.
to me, even if they said they didn't want it, or changed their mind, that is more valid to me than not wanting something because it isn't pretty.
i'm not sure why it is that resonates so wrongly within me.

ooh. not longwinded at all.
i agree with everything you said there.
i'm also against late abortions. it's like, if you've gone that long why not just go all the way and choose adoption?
i'm definitely not against abortion before the last trimester in many instances, and i'm for it in some instances. however, i just can't fathom justifying it with something mostly cosmetic. even if it doesn't have a cleft palate, it's not going to be perfect. it doesn't seem rational to abort everytime you feel your child isn't going to be perfect.
i'm also lacking eloquence, because i wrote papers all day all.

While a cleft palate CAN be nothing more than a cosmetic deformity, it can also in some cases lead to the baby being born badly brain damaged.
The curate who brought this case up has no way of knowing any details beyond that the foetus has a cleft palate (and probably wouldnt understand if she did).

Right. The fetus should not be granted rights until it's born.

The question is why is it considered a baby the second it exits the womb. Of course, it's impossible to call a bundle of a dozen cells a human beings. I think it makes sense to say the thing becomes a human at some point in the gestation period, if only because I can't see what phenomenon makes it become a human being the very moment it exits the birth canal.

I think it's when it stops being part of its mother's body and therefore its own person. Any other defined point ("second trimester", etc.) seems disturbingly arbitrary. I don't think a woman should have to carry a fetus that she doesn't want, no matter what.

There is a compromise:

"I've made it quite clear that I'm pro-choice because, although I believe fetuses have little tiny souls, I'm dead enough inside to quite simply not care."

Umhhh...the baby is not being forced into the woman. It's a developing foetus from a pregnancy. There's no connection between it and rape. If one's going to get an abortion, please do so before there's brain activity and a heartbeat in the developing foetus...otherwise, it's just murder in my eyes (exception being when SEVERE deformities are found in a sonogram, not a cleft pallett.) If one's so close to carrying to term, one might as well just pop out the kid and give it up for adoption. If 6 months is too short a time to make a decision on carrying the child to term, then i would seriously question one's decision making abilities.

I'm pro choice, but i feel there's a huge difference between getting an early term pregnancy aborted and aborting a late term foetus for something as trivial as a cleft pallett.

I love that link...just gave me an idea for a video game in which Jesus plays a crime fighting detective in gothic 1930's New York, trying to stop the Nazis or something.

Well if someone doesn't want the developing foetus within them to come to term, they have around 6 months to decide. That's more than enough time in my book.

Except "your book" shouldn't have anything to do with what she can do with *her body*.
If she wants the parasitic lump of cells that's growing inside her and feeding off of her removed, she should be able to get that done. If you don't like the idea of a late term abortion, don't get one, and convince your friends to not get them either. Leave other people's rights alone though.

a great man once said, "you're not a human 'til you're in my phone book."

So does that mean you're saying it's more ethical to carry the foetus to term?

[Edited on Dec 03, 2003 by Max16Characters]

I am pro choice....do whatever the hell you want to the foetus before the third trimester keeping in mind that those actions can have dire consequences on the full term baby--defects and deformities etc... But once that foetus has a brain wave and a heartbeat, in my eyes, it's a human being. You can't convince me otherwise or insist that jsut because it's not out of the womb yet and in open air then it is not a human...just a lump of "parasitic cells."

maybe i have the moral compass of the average pebble, but, to me, this seems about on the same lines as throwing out a mostly-done sketch you are unhappy with. why not?

in an already overpopulated world, why force someone create yet another human- especially one that will suffer even more than the average person with the average human condition? are we really all that hard up for more human life? why not spend the energy to take care of the people who are alive, and stop worrying so much about the people who are not....