"Abortion makes infanticide ok if we call it Post-birth-abortion" Two profesors state in article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Vegemite - posted on 03/03/2012

Jodi I understand that you are allowed to put forward your opinion otherwise I wouldn't have posted the OP.



I'm not upset because of the topic I'm upset because you have accused me of wanting to kill people. Just because you use a round about way to insult doesn't mean it escapes me.

"...when the OP is half about killing the authors of the article, then I think that is inappropriate."

and

"I don't feel like threatening death to the authors..."



"No, you still are not understanding at all Chrissey, but I give up trying to explain it. It is quite clear you don't understand philosophy."

You are questioning and insulting my intelligece.



I know it's a little silly to do so but I'm now locking this debate because clearly you are out to make someone you have no clue of to be someone of no understanding. It's petty and not worth my time or anyone elses.

Jodi - posted on 03/03/2012

Seriously Chrissey? Firstly, thank you for the insult. I have no sand down my pants at all. I'm not the one who had to calm down. Obviously you were frustrated and upset if you had to calm down in some way.



Secondly, this is a debate. I have put forward a very sound point of view in relation to the ACTUAL article and its authors, and I understand the art of philosophy. If people choose to consider that, then get over it. That's what debating is about. I have every right to put forward my view.



Believe it or not, I understand why, at a personal level, this upsets you so much. The *topic* of the article upsets me too, I find it very distasteful and disturbing. BUT, I don't feel like threatening death to the authors because I don't believe that the authors are considering this as a realistic option, simply a philosophical one. So yes, I disagree with you. If you think I have sand in my panties because I disagree with the way you have interpreted this article, and I have chosen to debate that, then maybe you need to stop taking things quite so personally.

Mother - posted on 03/02/2012

I have never said anyone`s opinion doesn`t count. I am pro-choice.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/02/2012

Nope - I do not think this debate brought forth is an anti-abortion crusade. Not one bit. It is an eye opener in the least. It gives complete perspective to those that do agree with abortion and those that do not. It gives much more insight to the topic in hand "anti-abortion or pro-abortion". It makes a hell of alot of sense too. Honestly, I love it (not literally but philosophically). I like the approach and that is not because I am anti-abortion. It is because it makes sense. It is literal not psychological. Which is what we often base our opinion on for this topic. Our feelings, our moral and ethical beliefs that stem from our thoughts and feelings. This is an unbiased approach. It explains abortion to it's fullest.



So, yep, maybe pro-choice and pro-abortionists need to really think about what they are implicating by their beliefs and thoughts. It also provides anti-abortionists with better footing into how the other side may think and why. I see a bigger picture now, in the heart of parent's struggling with a fetus/newborn that has been given an absolute diagnosis of a fatally or painfully agonising disease. I still require much thought in it but can feel myself understanding it with much deeper depth. So, it is not an anti-abortion crusade. It is to get you thinking! ;)

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/02/2012

Mother B... Whatcha tryin to say? That those that are anti-abortion are not worth their opinion?? You know I may have a completly different opinion, if the option wasn't abused as it is today. I can completly see some reasoning of a parent when struggling with a seriously ill fetus/newborn. There are many factors in place for that type of decision, one that most, if not all, don't make lightly. BUT (and is a damn big but) too many are allowed to abuse the option and it makes me friggen sick, so sick almost irrational.



So, maybe my view does need to change slightly. After getting a full and complete perspective of these philosopher's I can see some damn good points in the eye of a parent facing a seriously ill (never in the view of a perfectly healthy fetus/newborn - NEVER (yes I said never)) fetus/newborn. I get that it happens and I get that there needs to be a choice for many reasons, in these type of devastating circumstances.



I don't know, it's a difficult subject. I fully and completely believe in life once it is created. I believe in accepting what is given to you. I feel that if you were able to make your bed, you should damn well be able to lie in it. Mistakes are just simply not allowed to have a reverse affect in a pregnancy scenario. There is enough support for contraceptives and morning after pills that there is NO abort for unfathomable reasons.



However, I also get that not everyone is as strong as I. Not everyone can do what I know I can do. In the instance as Krista gave, finding out from multiple sources that your baby "does" have Tay Sahcs disease (or something as serious) than maybe, just maybe a choice should be allowed (I am really leaning to Yes, there should be). I currently can only go on my beliefes and my moral principles and my experience with being told my son had a 75% chance of DS and what I did (a child can live happily with DS). I cannot say with definite, what I would do in a more horrific situation, though . There are just too many factors with a serious illness, that I cannot determine appropriately in the postion I am in right now. I most definitely do not think, these parents that choose to spare the child are wrong (I say spare in regards to take their life to end any suffering that may occur upon birth). It appears to me they have good reason to make the decision they make and perhaps should have that choice after birth too.



However, I am not pro-choice. If I were to be pro-choice then I am saying that "anyone" has that choice regardless of the situation. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. I cannot agree to unjustifyably killing a fetus/newborn just because of weakness to support a healthy baby, for whatever reason. Be it rape, finances, uneducated, abuse, drug addiction, single, a teenager and anything else that falls in these categories. Nope, can't do it. It is WRONG!



Although, I do agree that if the mother will die if she continues the pregnancy, then yes, she should have a choice. Especially if she has other children. I would fight for the right's of the already born, than the "to-be" born.



So, here ya go Mother B. You are my first.. **wink wink** Tell us, if you are not against abortion, than you must be either pro-choice OR pro-abortion. Either one of them needs to answer this question or in the least think about it.



If you feel it is OK to abort while in fetal growth, are you saying then that you are OK with after-birth abortion? After learning what I have today, I am interested in your response. Please also give reasoning to why you feel what you feel, so I can understand fully, not partially. ;)

Jodi - posted on 03/02/2012

Ah, but is it an anti abortion crusade?

Mother - posted on 03/02/2012

Good grief. Anti-abortion crusades need to give it a rest.

Jodi - posted on 03/02/2012

Exactly Meme, which is why I was trying to explain that it has to be looked at as a philosophical debate rather than a debate about right, wrong, repulsive, etc, because that is the way it is intended. It is a paper intended to provoke people into changing the way they think, or strengthening their position, rather than a position within itself. If nothing else, it is certainly thought provoking.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/02/2012

BTW - this also gave me a new and fresh perspective on the entire abortion topic. I now have a good question to pose to those (when in debate) that say a fetus is not a person, thus the mother has the choice. I have the question of, if they do not think a fetus is a person then how do they explain a newborn being a person... ;) Thanks to these philosophers I have more of an understanding and am more apt to argue my stance! ;)



ETA: COM, sure gets my brain going and gets me in the thinking mode. It gets me interested and I am able to learn much more than if I was not thinking of many of these topics we discuss (debate).

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/02/2012

Wow, very interesting and I sure see where they are coming from. I am, as we all know here, against any abortion. However, I do see their point and in a way I do agree with them. If one is acceptable then the other should be too. Those that believe in abortion should in rights have the option at post birth too. I don't agree of course because I think both should be illegal but I see what they are saying. If you accept one then it is only morally and ethically correct to accept the other. The same premises reside in both situations.



If the fetus is not considered a "person", well a newborn cannot be either. They are a human being but they are not a "person" per se. They are a potential person and it is so true, it is the decision of the "persons" in control of that fetus or newborn on whether they become a "person". It is true even in the instance of who the guardian is and what type of "person" the newborn gets to become, if life is spared, all due to how they are raised and so forth.



I also completely agree with the end of the second link you provided. I seen this when I read the OP link. That sometimes you have to really open the eyes of the beholder. What is accepted now needs to be blown up into the big picture in order to get people thinking about what is currently occurring and what it really means.



Understanding what they are debating and fully rationalizing it makes a lot of sense. It doesn't mean it is right, it does, however, mean some people do not see the entire implications they are in agreeance to.



Currently what is accepted by many is truly the middle of the road and if you accept late term abortion then you most definitely are saying that after birth abortion is OK too (even if not in so many words). It is no different, the only difference is the baby has been seen and heard but has not become anything more than what it was 5 mins before birth. I can appreciate that and the way the debate was explained and brought forth.



I would only hope it would make those for abortion re-think their premise and veer towards NO abortion is right. However, I know that is more than likely not the way it would end.



Thanks Jodi, I really enjoyed reading those links. Very interesting, yes disturbing but it is a question I think needs to be presented. It is important to really understand what is being accepted now and what is being tolerated, could and should mean more.

Jodi - posted on 03/02/2012

For anyone who is interested and hasn't seen anything other than the news reports, here it is:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03...



Here is also an interesting response to it:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03...

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/02/2012

Yeah, it may have been better to word it differently. I think it was just a quick thought jotted down. No biggie. When most read the article they are not thinking perspectively. Sometimes you only see the basis of the information not the perspective of how it is intended... I think everyone now knows it was not the opinions of the authors but rather a philosophical idea of abortion and where should the line be drawn, if at all...



Yes, I was also going to mention that they also debated this in context of a healthy newborn.

Jodi - posted on 03/02/2012

"I see what Jodi is saying BUT I also see from reading Chrissey's OP that she intended to debate the idea that the article is based on. What else would there be to debate if not? "



Yes, I do see that Meme, but when the OP is half about killing the authors of the article, then I think that is inappropriate.

Jodi - posted on 03/02/2012

Actually, I will also state the authors discuss this with reference to perfectly healthy babies that parents just aren't ready to raise, and as an alternative to adoption.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/02/2012

No one should be killed, end of story. As of 3 weeks inutero they should be given the chance to life.... I got to see my boy inutero at 9 weeks and he was a jumping bean! He was having a blast in there and he was ONLY 9 weeks from the first day of pregnancy (not conception) when the fertilized egg implanted in the wall of my uterus. I was told he had a 75% of DS and he had nothing! It shows that doctors can be wrong too. I was told this by my pediatric doctor and those at the IWK Children's hospital. However, once I had an indepth ultrasound at 20 weeks (for high pregnancy) it was shown that there was only a 30% chance - big difference. Now what if I had aborted at 12 weeks (when I was told there was a 75% chance)? I would not have my little boy now would I...

Amanda - posted on 03/02/2012

In addition to the authors discussing the 'thought' of killing a newborn due to disability, they may be opening the door to other uncomfortable topics. They stated that their ability to realize that they are alive may be the reason it is moral to kill them to stave of being a burden to the parents and society as a whole....alhezmiers patients come to mind and others with similary horrible illnesses.



I also see the hypocrsy from the pro choice movement - they have been outraged when mothers in India drown their new born girls for not being a boy, but are ok with killing a down syndrome infant?

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/02/2012

That's good to hear, I know it isn't easy for everyone. I was a lucky one I guess.. Although, I just wanted the damn baby out of me after 36 hours! LOL I didn't care at that time if it had to come out of my ear... just get it out and make the pain stop!! hehehee

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/02/2012

Yeah I had a hard time dealing with it MeMe. My midwife on my second (vbac) actually is the one that helped me heal and move one. She was pretty fantastic.

Laura Zoey - posted on 03/02/2012

It's got to get out one way or another, dead or alive! So induce, section, either one. I'm sorry but once viable it's not the moms choice if it lives or dies IMO.

It's a living human being and it can survive without her.

It's NOT ok to kill it, cut it up, and suction it out when it could survive on its own. Just because it's mom doesn't want it.

No, I can't agree with the dismembering of a viable baby.

IMO its the same exact thing as doing it to a newborn or a toddler.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/02/2012

Wow, that's terrible Little Miss..



I have had two of them. 1st one was after 25 hours of labour and the 2nd was after 36 hours of labour. No ill affects here, other than the regular 2 weeks of getting back on my feet and moving around normally. My 3rd, if there is a 3rd, will be a planned c-section, no more labour for this girl. ;)

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/02/2012

But, if that is the alternative to killing a baby when it is born. Hell, they can still deliver and not have a c section. Just get induced.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/02/2012

Laura, just section it? C sections are traumatic enough, then giving up your baby after major surgery....I am not sure about that one. I had a c section. It took me a long ass time to recover from it, physically, and it took almost 4 years to recover emotionally.

Laura Zoey - posted on 03/02/2012

Personally I feel like its the same thing to kill a newborn as it is to kill a fetus.

Especially if the fetus is of viable age!

And also if it has a beating heart.

I'm my mind it's a baby from conception butit least I feel able to stand by that once its viable there should be NO option to abort.

If you don't want it, c section and the baby can have a fighting chance in the nicu and be adopted.

Before viablilty I see the reason to have abortions available

but I think there should be seriously more requirements and regulations before any woman aborts.



I feel a 3 week old embryo is a human, buti accept that others don't think it is, but by viablilty it is not dependent on the mom, just section her and let her go on her way.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/02/2012

I see what Jodi is saying BUT I also see from reading Chrissey's OP that she intended to debate the idea that the article is based on. What else would there be to debate if not?



Seriously, are we going to say. "Well the authors are just taking a philosophical approach to accepted abortion and how if some accept it, then shouldn't they accept after birth abortion too? So what does that mean to us on the end of reading the article? It says to me they have opened a debate on the subject in hand; after birth abortion. So here we are, ready to debate the idea not their opinion per se of their philosophical approach.



The author's drew a conclusion based on a medical approach The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.



However, depending on how you look at it, it could promote abortion in a wider spectrum OR it could deter abortion within a wider audience.



While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”



Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”



So, no, they aren't picking sides but they are forming a debate. They are making conclusions premised on what is already widely accepted today. They are presenting a twist, if you will, to what some agree is not immoral now (fetal abortion) and are bringing it a step further into, then neither should be after birth abortion. They are questioning it. We are answering it. Just as all the other responders that sent them hate mail and death threats...



ETA: I would not go as far to send them anything BUT both are wrong. A baby has a heartbeat at 21 days. According to science, that is now a human being and is LIFE.

Vegemite - posted on 03/01/2012

Hoorah you get it but I'm just going to let you have last word because it's getting a little pathetic and I wont stoop to that level. I was also intending to debate the topic.

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

Look, your OP is about the article, not the topic. You very CLEARLY made it about the authors of the article, and the article, NOT the topic OR the conclusion. If you wish to debate the topic, then by all means debate the topic, that is exactly what the authors intended, but your OP was suggesting death to the authors is not debating the topic at all, it is debating the existence of the article without understanding the intent of it.

Vegemite - posted on 03/01/2012

Yes Jodi. I'm talking about the conclusion not the topic of the aticle but go ahead, you know best and I don't understand philosophy.

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

Believe me, it is a paper that has been written purely to provoke debate, not for any other purpose.



And to be honest, if you read the entire paper, it is a lot worse than has been understood by anyone in this thread. Quite horrific if you were to apply it to something ACTUALLY being proposed as a reasonable option. Quite absurd, too, in parts. BUT because it is pure philosophy, and application of logical argument, then it is only a paper for debate, nothing more, nothing less.

Vegemite - posted on 03/01/2012

Yes Jodi, I understand that. What you have quoted is the editors reasoning for publishing the article. He then goes on to say he does not agree with the authors' conculsion as they did infact conclude for.

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

Chrissey, read your link properly:



"I didn’t think it was unbelievable, since I know that arguing strongly for a position with which many people will disagree and some even find offensive, is something that philosophers are often willing, and may even feel they have a duty, to do, in order that their arguments may be tested in the crucible of debate with other philosophers who are equally willing to argue strongly against them"



Nothing in that link states that the authors are for it, only that they argued for a position. They are two totally different things when one is writing a philosophy paper.

Vegemite - posted on 03/01/2012

Jodi, the editor and journal in general are the ones who published it for its philosophical and academic value and explain that they do not agree with the authors' conclusion. Make no mistake, the authors' are for it.



http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012...

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/01/2012

It actually makes me upset to think what kind of person can actually take the life of a born baby...but I guess that is how the pro-life people feel about a fetus.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/01/2012

Personally for me, when the baby has a heartbeat and starts forming a brain, that is when it is a baby. But yeah, MeMe, I was coming in here with the argument that many people feel if the baby has not breathed its first breath, it is not a baby. I DO believe abortion is a choice that needs to be protected, but I would never be able to think this was acceptable. I am not sure if under any circumstances I could be convinced otherwise.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/01/2012

Good explanation Jodi.



I feel abortion is wrong therefore neither is acceptable in my mind. I do see what you (they) are trying to get across though. If one is OK then the entire picture should be OK. I get that. I understand they are not voicing their own opinions. However, it is a sad thought. To think that if some accept abortion before birth than they should accept abortion after birth too. However, even though I do not find either acceptable, I do feel the two are very different things. Yes, it is still taking the life of a baby (fetus or infant) but in one instance they have not breathed on their own and the other they have. One instance they have not entered the world per se but the other they have. They are humans from pregnancy, IMO, but they are a part of this world once breathing the same air we breathe. They know their mother's voice and want to be fed right away (mine went right on the boob). It is far more unthinkable and cruel, once they have been born.



Both make me sick and angry though... :(

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

" even if it is just philosophical. Which it isn't."



Actually, yes it is. This PARTICULAR article is purely a philosophical argument that if abortion is ok, then by the logic they go through, this should be ok too. They aren't saying either one of them IS acceptable, it is merely an *if* this happens, then by following the same logic *this* should occur too.



In your OP you state "To me that would mean abortion is wrong not that killing a newborn is right." Well, yes, you are correct, but they are simply pointing out the opposite logic, that if you think abortion is acceptable, then this is acceptable too. When philosophers get together and debate logic, this is what happens. They come up with all sorts of crazy theories.



With regard to the Netherlands example, just remember they have legal euthanasia. This falls under that law, it isn't about killing babies willy nilly.



Now I am not saying it is right, because I actually am still on the fence about this issue, but one thing I do know is that this article is far from actually suggesting it should be acceptable, but rather debating a philosophical possibility.



It is also not the first time this has been debated as an ethical debate.

Vegemite - posted on 03/01/2012

Yes, he was born with brain damage to the cerebellum. To people who don't know him well he looks as though nothing is wrong and attends regular school.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/01/2012

See Chrissey that is exactly what I mean! I would be too worried that the opinion of the doctor was wrong. I am 99.9999999% that I would be giving a try. You never know until you try, right? I just can't justify killing a fetus or born baby. Of course the way Krista put it and after I read about Tay-Sachs disease it can be an absolute terrible, terrible disease, they can tell you with definite if the child has it. However, after doing more research, it does not mean they will suffer. About 25% will. Yes, that is still high but I like to think of the 75% that have it and live fine, productive lives... It's such a tough thing and I just could not imagine going through it. I was told my boy had a high chance of DS, now that is something I know he and I could live with forever! But he was perfect, not one problem what so ever... It really makes you wonder and question how doctors really determine their opinion.



ETA: Yes, I am referring to one doctor, mulitple as Krista puts it, well that would bring me to my 0.000000001% of really having to figure things out for the child....

Krista - posted on 03/01/2012

Was she told this by multiple doctors, Chrissey?

Vegemite - posted on 03/01/2012

My sister was told her son would never walk or talk, would have to have machines breeth for him and would never live a normal life. He's now 12 and a perfectly normal child.



This kind of argument and point of view is at the lowest level of humanity even if it is just philosophical. Which it isn't.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/01/2012

I hear you Krista. Yeah you have a great point. I dunno what I would do in that position either. I would hope they are getting all prenatal testing, as I did and go further with CVS and amniocentesis, if absolute need be. I would prefer to know early and terminate (if need be) then wait until the baby was born. In this case, I guess I would have to rethink my thoughts and stance for my unborn child. There are severe circumstances that sometimes we just have to go against our beliefs, I understand that.



I definitely would be thinking of the child over myself, so yes, I would put some serious thought into it too. If and only if it was conclusive and proven by a few opinions of specialists. I couldn't imagine though but, I most definitely would not want my child to seriously suffer and I mean serious, to where they would die after a few short years, such as infantile Tay-Sachs disease. It would kill me even more to know I put them through that....



I'd rather not think of it. I feel so sorry for the mothers and fathers that have to go through such a terrible experience in life.



However, if it were something they could live and breath on their own for years and years, then NO, I don't agree with any type of abortion.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/01/2012

But, I do believe in euthanasia for the terminally ill, but I do feel they should be the ones to decide. Yeah yeah, I know....someone in a coma or other illnesses cannot speak for themselves or infants...but they are talking also about DS babies, who CAN live out a full and beautiful life. But using the excuse of financial hardship to care for a DS as a reason to kill the baby. Nope. Not good.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/01/2012

I believe in a womens right to chose.,.but I cannot agree with this. This to me is murder. There is no way around it.

Jodi - posted on 03/01/2012

"Jodi , apologies however whether academics, scientists, or doctors, I would prefer them to spend time and energy on improving life rather than debating how and when to end it."



Oh, I understand that, but these are Doctors of Philosophy. They always debate things like this. That's why I am taking it with a grain of salt.

Krista - posted on 03/01/2012

That's not really fair, though, MeMe. This isn't necessarily about the mother handling this. In some cases, the mother is doing this in order to spare her child a short, brutal life filled with suffering and pain.



I honestly don't know what I would do if I found out that I was carrying a baby with something horrible like Tay-Sachs disease, (Infants with Tay–Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first six months after birth. Then, as nerve cells become distended with gangliosides, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs and progresses inexorably. The child becomes blind, deaf, unable to swallow, and develops atrophy and paralysis. Death usually occurs before the age of four.[1])



It's like Lou Gehrig's disease, but faster. And for babies.



Would I terminate if I had a conclusive diagnosis (by three doctors)? I'd think about it. I seriously would. Otherwise, to put my baby through four years of agony and suffering? Man...how could I do that to my child?

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/01/2012

Also, don't forget about the blood screenings and then further testing via amniocentesis... I know, there will still be some that get through but even those that don't, I don't agree with being aborted. So, go figure. I just don't agree with any type or form of abortion, unless it is going to cause the mother to fall seriously/deathly ill. You get pregnant you run many risks, one of them being an abnormal fetus and baby. If it isn't a risk you think you can handle then either don't have unprotected sex or use the morning after pill.



ETA: Too many people think of pregnancy as safe and do not appreciate everything that comes along with it. Which includes all the risks that could occur. You need to be fully prepared from the beginning to choose if you are equip and able to continue in the case of a rare serious issue. Whether it is planned or not. Not planned? can't do it? morning after pill...

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/01/2012

True and true but IMO, it is a life and it deserves a chance. You can't fight fate. If the baby "can't" survive and everything was tried than that is a sad part of life, terrible terrible part. I just can't imagine making such a decision without full and complete proof that my baby would live a devastating, poor quality life. Call it selfish but I just can't. I don't care if I live a poor life because of my baby. I would need absolute proof.



Some doctors make mistakes and are quick to make decisions when there is no solidity to their opinion but just that, their opinion.



If my baby was born and had to be on life support and would never ever get off of it. Would never ever breath, eat, think on their own. Then yes, there is my proof, the plug would need to be pulled (gives me shivers). Other than that, no. I could never make the decision to euthanize no matter what. They need to not be able to breath on their own or they get to live....

Cathy - posted on 03/01/2012

A parent might also choose to continue with a pregnancy despite abnormalities only to suffer further complications.

Krista - posted on 03/01/2012

The key word is "typical", though.



Many groups have evaluated second trimester ultrasound examination and confirmed that 70–90% of significant abnormalities should be detected



So there ARE some that slip under the radar. I could see this happening particularly with multiples, if the positioning of the babies makes it difficult to obtain accurate sonography.

Tracey - posted on 03/01/2012

Jodi , apologies however whether academics, scientists, or doctors, I would prefer them to spend time and energy on improving life rather than debating how and when to end it.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/01/2012

And a "baby" (fetus) can be born at 25 weeks and have a 50% chance of survival without their mother with today's medical technology... A baby will be put into intensive care from 22 weeks on, before that, not unless the parents fight for it, since the chances are slim to nothing....



You would typically know if there are abnormalities before your 3rd term. If you don't then IMO you have a crappy doctor.