Should a woman give birth to a child that can't survive?

Not if she doesn't want to, she shouldn't.

It will be interesting to compare and contrast the responses in this thread to those here.

 

... the world is a mad, crazy place. If she doesn't want a child, she shouldn't have to have it, I don't care whether it will die a few days after birth or live to 100 and invent the longer lasting light bulb. It should be her choice.

 

No, she indeed shouldn't.

 

Magic 8-ball says 'no'.

 

Well clearly the answer in Ireland is yes. Although I personally agree with Rally (and everyone else it seems) on this.

 

Really, she ought to hop on a ferry, go to England, and get an abortion there.

If she doesn't have the funds, she could probably convince a group like Planned Parenthood to help her out. Especially if this is getting media attention.

 

There's always those boats in the waters outside Ireland that let the Irish women come there and do their abortions.

 

How heartbreaking. No, she shouldn't have to give birth to this child. Though I have known one woman who knew the child had this condition and chose to carry it to term, anyway. That should be the mother's choice, period.

 

I certainly can't see how anyone could argue in favour of the case. It's very difficult to compare this to a regular abortion.

Not sure if some people are reading the entire of the article. The abortion laws in Ireland are a complete mess and rely on the fact that it is so easy to travel to the UK if one wishes. The problem in this case is that the girl is a minor (17) who was under a care order since before the child's condition. She cannot thus leave the country without the health service's approval. I would guess that the primary motivation of the health workers is not to be seen to be consenting to something that may be completely illegal (although whether it is or not is very unclear). I must say though that I feel it is appaling to force this girl to undergo a legal trial and a media circus on top of her present difficulties.

 

This is purely religious (Mormon theology) and not meant to seem Draconian, but yes, she should. that said, I doubt she would be criticized for an abortion by anyone on this earth under those circumstances.

The Child has an imortal soul, and if the child is born, he would need to experience Birth and Death (albeit much closer together than desirable). To abort the child denies it these opportunities and experiences.

The onus therefore is on the family, friends and any religious community that the Mother (and father if applicable) to provide the support to cary the child to term and through the birth and death of the child. We were told in the pre-mortal existence that there would be trials, but we agreed to come here. It falls to us to get through this life as best we can, calling on our family, friends and religious leaders when we need them...

 

That all depends. Do you accept mercy killings as moral options? Personally, this is a bit of grey area I hope I never have to tread.

 

Dude, you really should stick to stuff that other people actually believe. Only Mormons and a few new age types actually believe this.

 

As others have said, it should be the mother's choice.

 

Dude, you really need to cut the hatred.

But Here's another question:

What will cause less damage? If the child has had time for the rest of the body to grow to a certain point, wouldn't an abortion cause more harm to the mother than letting the pregnancy come to term and having the baby born normally? I fail to see how an invasive procedure would be less risky...

 

Hey, Gnarff, I posted that 2 days ago. No hate was intended, and judging by the fact that I was neither censured nor had my post edited by a moderator, it seems pretty clear that no one else considered the post hateful, either, since posting hate speech is against the rules at SP. My point is that if you are trying to convince someone to see things from your point of view, you need to at least start from a belief you both have in common. No matter how cogent or eloquent the argument, if it is based on a premise with which your audience doesn't agree, you won't convince anyone. Ever.

[ May 07, 2007, 21:59: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

The mother should have the right to choose.

 

Pre-mortal wha? Oh, more of that stuff we apparently find out while in a comotosed state or when we've died. No thanks, I'll base decions on real world proofs.

Mother's choice. I don't see it as accelrating the inevitable but getting the immediate over with even sooner. As for not giving the child a choice, what choices can a child possibly make when they've only got a few weeks to live after birth and must be pretty much comotosed or alseep the entire time?

If any pro-lifer supports the idea that the woman in this case should be forced to bring the child to term you're certainly not helping your argument for being against unwanted pregnancy abortions.

 

My sister was born with a genetic heart defect. I never even got to see her -- she lived her entire life in intensive care. She would cry until she turned blue and then pass out because her heart just couldn't pump enough blood when she got excited.

For some people the idea of abortion is too abhorant to even consider. In our case, the Mormon beliefs that Gnarff tried to explain made it a non-decision. To Mormons, children are born perfect and those that die young are automatically accepted into heaven. The heartbreak from burying that little box was alleviated (at least a little bit) by the belief she was granted the greatest rewards in heaven. Abonimation, beliefs such as this are a huge issue for many in the pro-life camp -- on a religious note, how could you deny such rewards to a child?

As I implied earlier, this should be up to the mother. She is the one who must live with the decision. Whether abortion is right or wrong comes down to an individual's ethics (and sometimes the ethics of the society).

[ May 07, 2007, 15:58: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Very sorry to hear that, T2...