Fetal viability, and also the idiocy of some pregnancies
How much intervention in a natural life? I'm all for fetal viability; that is, can the fetus survive outside the mother? And here we draw some distinctions:
• A baby born cannot feed itself. I do not hold this against the baby.
• I have no objections to incubating a newborn against, say, disease.
• I do however think that at some point the amount of medical science needed to give the fetus a shot outside the mother becomes an issue.
Thus, if the baby cannot survive on its own, as such--that is, if it cannot breathe on its own, if it cannot maintain its own vital functions without extended medical intervention, there is where I call abortion acceptable.
Think of it this way: if the mother were to die, but you could remove the developing fetus ... what would you have to do in order for it to survive? My cousin's child, born at seven months, required incubation and attention to allow it to finish developing its lungs. It did not, however, require any form of forced respiration. I would cast my vote against abortion in that specific circumstance--that is, were it my choice. However, I just saw an ultrasound of a friend's pregnancy and there is, indeed a heartbeat. If she were to die, however, and the fetus removed, I can't quite describe to you what would have to be done to maintain and preserve its life.
Regarding coma patients: Every chance I get I vote for the right of a person to check out. Living will, assisted suicide, and, perhaps euthanasia (per living will).
But what of the parents who have children for the same reason the anti-choice movement accuses people of aborting--e.g. convenience or other personal reasons? For instance, my friend's pregnancy--she is not financially prepared for a child; she is not mentally, spiritually, or intellectually prepared for a child; she is not chemically prepared for a child. She is carrying the pregnancy to term because she honestly believes this is her last chance to reproduce. Now, having also watched her deceive her partner while she calculated a pregnancy he didn't want to be a part of--she did, in fact, lie to him about her reproductive status--I'm starting to wonder if reproducing is really a good idea for this one. Neither one of them believe that putting the child up for adoption would be a good thing--check that ... at least one of them finds it unacceptable, and the other would rather not anyway. Well, that and it hasn't occurred to her to stop smoking an eighth of weed every day while she's pregnant. Ummmm .... This particular pregnancy is idiocy. It should not have been conceived, and one way or the other, is bound to end in tragedy. Either the fetus will miscarry, or the fetus will be born suffering developmental arrests, or else these two are going to parent the child into a pine box. It's all gloom and tears.
But we all have hope, so we all smile and cheer and make them think this is a good thing. (Well,
he knows, but she thinks people are being genuine.)
But if we're going to talk about abortion rights, I also demand that people give a moment's thought to how bad an idea carrying a pregnancy to term can be.
I mean, this child is
screwed no matter what happens. Absolutely f--king screwed.
thanx,
Tiassa
