| Subject: partial birth ban |
Author:
krz
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/14/04 4:04:29pm
In reply to:
pa
's message, "Re: health care ranting starts here" on 10/14/04 11:02:06am
I'd meant to respond to the stem cell here as well - but clicked wrong. I'd love to hear other opinions on both these topics as well - I come at them from a rather narrow focus I'm afraid, and would appreciate hearing from other perspectives.
I have much more difficulty with the pb ban than with stem cells - I think probably because I have much less difficulty considering a blastocyst (the collection of cells cloned to produce stem cells) as a 'life' than the child in the womb. It is very reasonable to argue that this distinction is invalid - I can argue that myself.
Where I struggle with a ban on any procedure is in the 'what if's'. Personally, I wish abortion did not occur at any phase of the pregnancy - early or late - when used for the purposes of birth control. The issue of viability outside the womb - which is at the heart of the pb abortion debate in my mind, is a great challenge though. For argument sake alone - the procedure is banned because the child is viable and so interfering at this point is now considered akin to something criminal. If so, then what about the situation of the drug addicted mother? Is she suddenly criminally guilty of something at (30) weeks of gestation? That's a slippery slope invited with this ban, and one that I'm not ready to emotionally embark upon. I agree, however, that it should be..., I'm just not the one to bear the torch.
I've also known a family who had to make a decision to have the procedure done - and I was witness to their pain. Their (planned) child was diagnosed at about 32 weeks as being anencephalic. Essentially, the structures of the brain controlling basic function (heart rate, blood pressure, respiration) were functioning, but areas of the brain controlling any form of cognitive function even to the point of sensory awareness were undeveloped. The child, if born - there was a good chance the child never would have gone to term, would have survived maybe 24 hours outside the womb. The baby could not be used for organ donation because the same tissues that form nervous tissue are the ones which form kidney and liver, and as such - the genetic defect would prevent transplantation.
They chose to terminate the pregnancy. I don't know what I would have done, I am blessed I've never been in their shoes. I worry about what would have happened had the option not been there for the family to consider. I pray it's never used on a child viable outside the womb.
I'm very conflicted on this issue - so likely don't have good logic behind any of these arguments. Strong emotions - no good hook on which to hang them.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 