Spina Bifida

fbmandy55

I'd abort.

Everyone knows that having a child with disabilities would be difficult. More than I can imagine. But parents of those children don't just say, "I can't do it.." They JUST DO IT. To me, aborting a child because it has a deformity or disabilty is sick. It's like shopping for a good one- "I don't like this one, or this one or this one... Oh, this one is good. I'll keep it."

Isn't it also "shopping for a good one" with wannabe adoptive parents who only want a healthy white newborn? Most people who are looking to adopt won't even consider a minority (unless they are one), a handicapped child, or an older child. Do they make you sick too?

Apples and oranges. Aborting your blood child because it has a flaw and adopting a child that isn't yours are two very different things. You aren't obligated when looking into adoption, when deciding to conceive, well you pretty much are.

Also, there's the defining line between "child" and "fetus" as well.

As I said, Apples and oranges.

Regardless. My opinions are bsed soley on morals. I am a pretty liberal person when I comes to some things but when it comes to life or a beating heart and people making choices based on selfishness. I'm pretty stubborn.

adrian_indy

I'd abort.

Everyone knows that having a child with disabilities would be difficult. More than I can imagine. But parents of those children don't just say, "I can't do it.." They JUST DO IT. To me, aborting a child because it has a deformity or disabilty is sick. It's like shopping for a good one- "I don't like this one, or this one or this one... Oh, this one is good. I'll keep it."

Isn't it also "shopping for a good one" with wannabe adoptive parents who only want a healthy white newborn? Most people who are looking to adopt won't even consider a minority (unless they are one), a handicapped child, or an older child. Do they make you sick too?

Apples and oranges. Aborting your blood child because it has a flaw and adopting a child that isn't yours are two very different things. You aren't obligated when looking into adoption, when deciding to conceive, well you pretty much are.

Also, there's the defining line between "child" and "fetus" as well.

As I said, Apples and oranges.

Regardless. My opinions are bsed soley on morals. I am a pretty liberal person when I comes to some things but when it comes to life or a beating heart and people making choices based on selfishness. I'm pretty stubborn.

I personally think life begins with a fully functional kidney.

Windchild

I'd abort.

Everyone knows that having a child with disabilities would be difficult. More than I can imagine. But parents of those children don't just say, "I can't do it.." They JUST DO IT. To me, aborting a child because it has a deformity or disabilty is sick. It's like shopping for a good one- "I don't like this one, or this one or this one... Oh, this one is good. I'll keep it."

Isn't it also "shopping for a good one" with wannabe adoptive parents who only want a healthy white newborn? Most people who are looking to adopt won't even consider a minority (unless they are one), a handicapped child, or an older child. Do they make you sick too?

Apples and oranges. Aborting your blood child because it has a flaw and adopting a child that isn't yours are two very different things. You aren't obligated when looking into adoption, when deciding to conceive, well you pretty much are.

Also, there's the defining line between "child" and "fetus" as well.

As I said, Apples and oranges.

Regardless. My opinions are bsed soley on morals. I am a pretty liberal person when I comes to some things but when it comes to life or a beating heart and people making choices based on selfishness. I'm pretty stubborn.

Your opinions are based solely on YOUR morals. If YOUR morals say that life begins at conception, then that is YOUR moral compass. Someone who does not believe that, or who doesn't see a non-viable(outside the womb) fetus as child has a different moral compass.

However, I have to say, I don't think it is entirely selfish of parents who want their offspring to live a LONG and PAINFREE life. If they discover a fetal abnormality that would lead to a child living a short life full of pain and decide to do the merciful thing, how is that selfish?

And before I get jumped on: I am not saying that all people who might be born with disabilities live short painfilled lives. However, the more intense forms of Spina Bifida can cause pain and early death.

The adoption thing where parents pick and choose which infant/child they want, is no different to me than when parents abort because they feel they can't be what that eventual child will need or vice versa. The ONLY difference I see, is that the children who are up for adoption and are not chosen after years in the system, often KNOW or FEEL that they are unwanted, whereas a fetus that is aborted never has to go through that emotional trauma.

This is my 2 cents on the subject, not that its worth anything to anyone but me.

california_peach

My only sibling was born with Spina Bifida. So, no I would not abort a fetus with this or any other Neural Tube Defect. I would also want to know if my unborn child had Spina Bifida so that he/she would receive the best of care from day one or pre-day one as they can now preform spinal surgery in the womb. Spina Bifida has wide ranging effects on newborns and I assure that not all people with Spina Bifida lead a horrible existence. My sister has many health issues, but she is an amazing person and I love her dearly.

castadiva

So for thsoe who would terminate, what if the child was BORN with an issue that was not previously found? What would you do in that scenario?

I would consider terminating and more than likely would if I knew about it very early.

For me personally if I found out too late or gave birth and then found out I would make peace with the situation and try to give it the best life that I could. But at that point to me you're dealing with a person who has rights and feelings just like anyone else. I don't look at a 12 week fetus the same way I do a child who is born. (or even close to being born)

Exactly. If I had foreknowledge of a serious medical issue at an early stage, before the foetus is independently viable (as was the point of the OP's question), I would make the choice I believe to be least selfish ie. not putting a potential child through a shortened life of poor quality and pain. If a medical issue doesn't become obvious until birth (or is caused by birth trauma), then you have an entirely different scenario, and I'll be honest and say I don't know what I'd do, though I suspect I would also find a way of making peace with the situation and move forward. For me, the two situations are very, very different.

In response to your later statement about people making choices through selfishness, fbmandy55, may I suggest that choosing to terminate a much-wanted pregnancy because you are aware that the potential child will be born only to suffer through a pre-existing medical condition, is anything BUT selfish.

summertime_girl

I don't know. It would depend on how early in the pregnancy I received the diagnosis, the likely prognosis, and I would need to do research on quality of life.

TheRoadDog

Yes, I probably would vote in favor of aborting. However, if my wife wanted to go through with the pregnancy, I would support her and utilize every source available to me to raise that child. I would also love and care for that child as I have my other children. If the choice is mine, though, I would pass and try again.

I realize this is the unfavorable vote, but that is my honest answer.

summertime_girl

Regardless. My opinions are bsed soley on morals. I am a pretty liberal person when I comes to some things but when it comes to life or a beating heart and people making choices based on selfishness. I'm pretty stubborn.

Do you have any knowledge of diseases where the child has an extremely poor quality of life? Where their short lives are so full of suffering that every day is agony? I don't have enough knowledge about spina bifida to know how awful a condition it is, and if there are varying degrees of severity.

But I'll tell you this, to say it is selfish to make the absolutely agonizing decision to terminate a very much wanted pregnancy where for a case of say, Tay Sachs, is the height of ignorance. It is selflessness in the extreme. It is a soul-crushing choice in the best interest of the baby, not the parent.

I saw another post that you made that indicated you are quite young. Perhaps that skews your responses, as you don't have the age to have a well-rounded world view. But step outside your narrow view for a minute, and view from the eyes of a parent who is faced with an impossible choice with a horrible outcome either way.

bathsheba_c

I don't know enough about spina bifida to say what I would do in that specific situation, but here are my general beliefs regarding fatal illnesses that can be detected prenatally.

The Bible strongly suggests and the Talmud clearly states that fetuses have no souls and are NOT people. Willingly giving birth to a baby that is going to have a few short years at most of constant suffering before it dies (I'm thinking a la Tay Sachs here) is sick and inhumane.

So remember folks. Being pro-life is murder! (Well, negligent homicide in any event.)

summertime_girl

Willingly giving birth to a baby that is going to have a few short years at most of constant suffering before it dies (I'm thinking a la Tay Sachs here) is sick and inhumane.

Along the same lines, I think it is incredibly inhumane that the US doesn't allow for end of life procedures to stop the suffering of mentally competent people with fatal diseases. We treat our pets with more dignity.

rml_16

Spina bifida can be very minor. I had that test come back positive for that (or it was possibly a cleft palate, they can't tell the difference) and went through all sorts of expensive, high-powered ultrasounds to see if they could spot a problem. They saw nothing, but said it could still be an issue because it can be a very small hole that doesn't really cause serious disability.

Anyway, the test was wrong in the end and my daughter doesn't have anything like that.

But, yeah, I probably would have the baby no matter what in that situation.

macpatti

The Bible strongly suggests and the Talmud clearly states that fetuses have no souls and are NOT people.

Could you provide some references from the Bible for your claim, please?

bathsheba_c

The Bible strongly suggests and the Talmud clearly states that fetuses have no souls and are NOT people.

Could you provide some references from the Bible for your claim, please?

Exodus 21:22-25 says that, if two men are fighting, and one of them knocks into a woman, causing her to miscarry, he must pay a financial penalty. But if he causes the woman herself any physical damage, then it's eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.

From this, we see that killing a fetus is a lesser crime than causing even non-fatal injuries to the woman, which suggests that a fetus is not considered a person. Additionally, whereas the crime for manslaughter is essentially exile, there is no such punishment here.

Furthermore, Genesis 2:7 says that G-d formed Adam out of dust and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The Hebrew words for soul and for breathing have the same root (n-sh-m). From this, the Talmud understands that life begins when the baby's head first emerges at birth, which is when it takes its first breath and gets a soul.

By the way, I think what the Talmud has to say on the subject ought to interest Christians since it says what Jewish practice was at the time of Jesus. For example, the Mishnah (the part of the Talmud that was written between 200 BCE and 200 CE) says: "If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another."

Some other examples of Jewish practices from the time of Jesus that show that a fetus is not a person:
-The fetus is considered a limb of the mother as regards ownership laws, conversion, and purity laws
-Mourning rites are not observed in the event of a miscarriage or a stillbirth as a fetus is only considered a potential person, not an existing person

The Talmud also says that a fetus "is considered as mere water" until the 40th day of pregnancy.

macpatti

\Exodus 21:22-25 says that, if two men are fighting, and one of them knocks into a woman, causing her to miscarry, he must pay a financial penalty. But if he causes the woman herself any physical damage, then it's eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.

I suspected this would be the quote you'd use. The Old Testament also includes texts that speak of human persons as having a meaningful identity before their birth (Jeremiah is the classic example, Jeremiah 1).

By the way, I think what the Talmud has to say on the subject ought to interest Christians since it says what Jewish practice was at the time of Jesus. For example, the Mishnah (the part of the Talmud that was written between 200 BCE and 200 CE) says: "If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another."
Some other examples of Jewish practices from the time of Jesus that show that a fetus is not a person:
-The fetus is considered a limb of the mother as regards ownership laws, conversion, and purity laws
-Mourning rites are not observed in the event of a miscarriage or a stillbirth as a fetus is only considered a potential person, not an existing person
The Talmud also says that a fetus "is considered as mere water" until the 40th day of pregnancy.

The Talmudic notion that the soul enters when the first breath is taken is simply an outmoded understanding. We know oxygen is flowing through the child's body through its mother's blood long before birth. As a Christian, the "soul" is not merely the influx of oxygen into the lungs but, rather, the life-principle, something clearly present long before birth. Third, we now know that all the essential components of human nature are present from conception (all the relevant genetic information that "informs" the human organism). Older interpretations of abortion were often based on understandings of science that are no longer relevant to this issue. From the standpoint of Christian ethics, there is a growing depth of understanding and appreciating the uniqueness of human nature and its value from conception to natural death that takes place in the scriptures as well as in the growing moral conscience of the Church.

Although interesting, ancient positions on this issue found in the Talmud are not the final authority for us.

KaleidoscopeEyes1056

I'm kind of on the fence with this one. I don't know a lot about Spina Bifida, so that contributes to me being unsure.

However, my boyfriend has MD, so I know how expensive it is to take care of somebody with a disability. I know the struggles he goes through with his waning strength and discrimination in the work force. I know that he has to have several doctor's visits a year, all kinds of equipment and personal assistants to help him live every day. This is more expensive than most of us can even imagine. If I don't have the amount of money it would take to care for this child, and reading what I did from the others in the thread about the disease, I would probably abort. I feel like I could not give the child a good life, and if it's going to suffer every day then it would be better for both of us. If it was a different disease (maybe MD or CP) and later in my life, I would consider keeping the child.

macpatti

I think it is sad to base the value/worth of a human's life on productivity.

Turtlehurdle

To be honest, I am not sure what I would do.

summertime_girl

I think it is sad to base the value/worth of a human's life on productivity.

Who said that? There's a big difference between valuing a life on productivity (and I can think of an awful lot of able-bodied people who are a complete waste of skin) and valuing a life, indeed, loving a future child, enough to spare them the agony of some genetic diseases.

KaleidoscopeEyes1056

I think it is sad to base the value/worth of a human's life on productivity.

Many people value a person's life based on productivity. Why do you think so many people hate welfare?

k8blujay2

Considering that many of the tests are flawed and are not always accurate. Yes, I would keep the child. To be honest we don't test so as to not worry about things that have a small chance of happening. I know mothers that went through all the tests, were told their child had some sort of disease and came out perfect. I also know mothers who had the vice versa happen.

rml_16

Considering that many of the tests are flawed and are not always accurate. Yes, I would keep the child. To be honest we don't test so as to not worry about things that have a small chance of happening. I know mothers that went through all the tests, were told their child had some sort of disease and came out perfect. I also know mothers who had the vice versa happen.

I was 17 and scared, so when they said, "Have this test," I did. If I were every to get pregnant again, I would NOT have that test! Even now, since I'm 35 and at a higher risk of having a child with Down Syndrome (I would want to know to be prepared), I wouldn't have the test because of my previous experience.

k8blujay2

Considering that many of the tests are flawed and are not always accurate. Yes, I would keep the child. To be honest we don't test so as to not worry about things that have a small chance of happening. I know mothers that went through all the tests, were told their child had some sort of disease and came out perfect. I also know mothers who had the vice versa happen.

I was 17 and scared, so when they said, "Have this test," I did. If I were every to get pregnant again, I would NOT have that test! Even now, since I'm 35 and at a higher risk of having a child with Down Syndrome (I would want to know to be prepared), I wouldn't have the test because of my previous experience.

That's horrible... I wish doctors wouldn't push things on people... especially the impressionable... I am thankful my OB didn't push the tests... but even if he did, I would have refused... mostly because it wouldn't have mattered to us... Yeah, I was hella scared of things like spina bifida... actually, I was more scared of it than I was of even downs syndrome or cerebral palsy.... but I'm glad we didn't test. I probably won't even if we have our next child at 35...

zcb94

california_peach wrote: »

My only sibling was born with Spina Bifida. So, no I would not abort a fetus with this or any other Neural Tube Defect. I would also want to know if my unborn child had Spina Bifida so that he/she would receive the best of care from day one or pre-day one as they can now preform spinal surgery in the womb. Spina Bifida has wide ranging effects on newborns and I assure that not all people with Spina Bifida lead a horrible existence. My sister has many health issues, but she is an amazing person and I love her dearly.

That was my parents' wish for me. Other than a li'l chronic backache, I love my life!

Azdak

The answers to this hypothetical only prove that decisions like these are not easy, not cut and dried, and intensely personal. They lead to the only rational answer: which is that these decisions should be left to the mother and her healthcare provider, without the intrusion of government.