http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health...html?hpt=hp_c1
I'd post the whole thing here but it's long. I don't know how I feel about this. But I have a feeling this is going to have a lot of attention for a week or so.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health...html?hpt=hp_c1
I'd post the whole thing here but it's long. I don't know how I feel about this. But I have a feeling this is going to have a lot of attention for a week or so.
Very interesting situation...I'm also not sure how I feel about this.
I finally finished reading it and you're right, it's long. The only thing I have a strong opinion about currently is on genetic screening being done especially if the egg/sperm came from a third party; my opinions on both parties are more mixed as they both appear to have intentions that are good and damning.
May the baby live a long and good life, it is sad to see people saying she'll be useless to society even if I can see the point they're trying to make and she may well die before even entering primary school.
I can really sympathize with the parents, because a child like that...I don't think is going to even be able to live a meaningful life. It's from a logical perspective and the one carrying the baby obviously wants to keep it, there's an emotional attachment to it. Personally I do find it selfish of her because the disabilities are not an inconvinience they are leathal, and costly.
Although it's not the same issue, I did read a story about first-time parents having a baby with very severe disabilities (How severe? We're talking issues like having almost all of his vital organs being deformed along with major brain damage) being taken off the tube by consent of the parents despite the doctor insisting he could have some quality of life. This little girl reminds me of that baby as she clearly has problems current medical advances can't cure and while she might have been given the gift of life for now how long can she hold on to it and what suffering will she go through before it all ends?
I know some people have opinions on these issues saying that if such abortions are carried out then merely imperfect babies could also be aborted, but that's just going down the slippery slope. There were times when I thought they acted harshly but there does seem to be an underlying concern about bringing in a new life to this world only to watch it fade away because they were careless, and the chance to live a normal life is very low too even if the baby survives all of the surgeries which doesn't take into account that each surgery is highly stressful to her.
Then there's the fact of how they threatened to make the kid a ward of the state...yeah, I'm still split even going through this article the second time.
If a woman has moral or religious objections to abortions, she has no business signing a contract requiring her to abort the pregnancy under certain conditions.
@Curtiss; the thing is that if the intended mother were carrying this baby, she'd have aborted without a second thought (and the doctors would have backed her up). The very basic question you're raising, of whether a malformed fetus can/should be aborted, or all of them given a chance to be born and treated as best modern medicine can, is not specific to this case.
@KhainiWest; That one rubbed me the wrong way too for the exact reason Sapta gave even if she did not go through with it.
@SaptaZapta; True, though the commentary was mostly on how either side makes their decision and on that one comment that the parents 'abandoned their daughter'. I would still side more with the parents anyway given that I do not believe abortion is an irresponsible thing to do if it's for good reasons and the parents did display emotion: They were distressed that their decision could bring about a kid who would have severe health problems that for all we know are even worse than what their kids have now.
I'd go through the surrogate mum's blog but it's rather late and I don't think her stance there would lend anything to my general commentary.
She knew what she signed up for. She was to carry the surrogate baby, she signed a contract stating that if the baby had serious life threatening problems it would be considered for an abortion.
I think she honestly had no right to refuse the abortion. It was NOT her baby, she was merely the surrogate PAID to carry it. If this was some form of informal agreement between friends or family it would be a different story. But she was under legal obligation to do good by the contract she signed, and what she was being paid for.
Why should her "religous and moral" rights be worth more than the parents who had their own moral rights regarding that they didn't want to bring another sick child into the world to suffer?
She broke her contract, tried to squeeze money out of the clearly heartbroken parents and then left them no choice but to give the baby to her. It makes it out like the parents did wrong in refusing the child, but it was their choice of whether the baby would live in suffering or not be born, and it was taken away from them by someone who had no real right to do so.
Why the hell would she take a job like this if she had moral objections to abortion? or if she was going to get attached to the child?
a truly disgusting woman in my opinion.
Also, the article seems clearly biased towards the surrogate in my opinion. Even in the title, like she's an innocent woman being bribed to do something horrible.
wow that is the most messed up story i read in a while.
so the woman that carried the baby refused to abort even though there is 50% that the child would not live a normal life(article) and then after she successfully gave birth to her she is giving that baby to another family to adopt it? i mean really? you fought all this time to keep her alive and then you let someone else raise it and carry that burden of (possibly) a disabled child with heart problems,brain problems and a cleft lip? thats is, in my opinion PURE evil, even though she is religious NO ONE should suffer living like that, and yes doesnt matter how you look at it both the adoptive family and the child will suffer because of that selfish religious woman who couldnt give up her opinion for greater good.
The other thing: Because of her actions the parents still get to know if this baby eventually dies, then there's the other family that took this baby in. Instead of the surrogate mother being miserable and the original parents being sad that the baby didn't make it after all, now there's more parties involved not to mention that her daughters got to experience some of that stress too due to moving and the legal battle can't have been good on them either.
She writes in her blog that she's taken children into custody when no one wanted them. That's nice, but it is completely different from the issue at hand which is that she's carrying someone else's child and has caused the child's parents a lot of pain beyond what they would already feel even if they had gotten to abort from the start. She writes that the baby smiles, the baby's happy but then again there are a lot of smiles that are going to disappear when the baby dies.
After going through the views and her opinion of the subject I cannot agree with her views making this much on an impact on these parents especially not when she's still not the one taking care of the baby. She has obviously mixed up the issue of her own miscarriages with this and that is just not acceptable when there's other parties involved who do not agree with her stance at all.
Edit: And naturally I find Godwin's Law being invoked in her views on abortion. Doctors can sometimes get things wrong but that is not comparable to what she's suggesting.
Fun quote:
I read your article in CNN. As a scientist, I considered both sides of the story and refrained from making judgement until the end after all facts had been presented. Throughout the article, I admired your courage to fight for the baby's life and I thought "wow, this woman is so selfless to want to keep and raise such a baby that's not even hers, knowing how much it would cost to her own quality of life."
Then I read the line where you decided you wouldn't raise it - and my opinion of you instantly turned 180 degrees. Sadly, I must tell you are incredibly selfish, heartless, stupid, and above all, a hypocrite. You fought tooth and nail to make a point, to stand up for something you believed in (or wanted the world to believe you believed in), only to talk the talk without walking the walk at the end.
Basically, you claimed that you wanted to save this poor baby that everyone else had given up hope on and abandoned, yet, what did you do in the end? You just dumped it on someone else. Why? Because you know you don't have the money nor ability to care for it. Because you DON"T WANT care for it. You just want to be the hero on newspapers who fought to save a baby but want none of the consequences.
What does that make you? Uttterly selfish, cruel, stupid, and hypocritical. Heroes own up to their actions. You're not a hero.
Well then.
it's not defying the odds, they wouldn't be odds if there was no chance of these things.But that's not the way they see it. They see a little girl who's defied the odds, who constantly surprises her doctors with what she's able to do -- make eye contact, giggle at her siblings, grab toys, eye strangers warily.
Doesn't the surrogacy agency have lawyers making sure their contracts are enforceable? Sure it may not be able to force an abortion, but the biological parents shouldn't have to deal with this crap.
The adoptive family knew what they were getting into. They volunteered to take this baby, knowing all her problems. Saints? Masochists? Who knows? But I don't count them with the people suffering from this decision.
@Razmos; Of course the article is biased in her direction. It's based on her side of things. Everyone else was "unavailable for comment".
@KhainiWest; and @Curtiss; I too find the "moment of weakness" and her immediately regretting it story a bit sickening. Good thing the parents refused this counteroffer, so we can't know whether she really meant it (as blackmail, as their attorney suggested) or not.
The problem is that the biological parents aren't actually irresponsible and even go to see the baby because surprise, parents who intend to abort can actually care for their babies! Not that you'd know that if you only read the comments of some of the people on her blog who have the idea of life shoved so far up their asses they could give birth to it while still being oblivious to what the actual issue is.
Speaking of which, I am nominating this for the Darwin award comment of the year or whatever qualifies for the 'Holy pineapple is that the dumbest comment you've ever made or is this just routine for you' award :
Everyone in this world suffers, whether it is stress caused by a job or stress caused by a lack of a job or any number of reasons. Should we exterminate all individuals who are suffering because they cannot find a job? Should we exterminate our brave veterans who sacrificed their blood and limbs so you can berate another person's morals? Of course not! Then, what gives anyone the right to end this human being's supposed "suffering" by killing it? Who declared that you are so ethically and morally sound that you can judge the morality of others? Who made you God?
Apologies. I'll remember to put a warning for aborting brain cells the next time unless the part of my brain that remembers such vital things fled in horror to another state to protect itself.
Content warning for stupidity
There's not even any fun ripping into these comments because it's too easy.
Don't ever participate in the comment section of any news outlet. The comments of religious zealots are unbearble. I can't even maintain my composure with the amount of stupidity in majority of those comments. That's saying something.
That quote annoys me even more. There is a difference between a child being born with Down Syndrome and a child being born with multiple lethal defects like this child. If it had only one, the child probably could survive and lead a somewhat happy life. With so many defects the child is not likely to survive long at all.
Whats the difference between ending it early out of compassion and the few people involved grieving over it, and waiting for the child to grow, to get attached to the child and get involved with it just for it to die an early and tragic death and cause pain to everyone involved.
These people are so far up their own asses on the "pro-life" bandwagon that they can't see legitimate reasons why a child might be better off not being born.
"No brain cells, don't do it, it's not worth it, don't jump!"Just because we are blessed with good health does not mean we should take the life of someone not as blessed. May we all grow to appreciate people no matter their "defects"
"I'm sorry, it's too much.. just too much"
Right, that's it. I'm done. Not reading any more. If I do I might lapse into a stupidity induced coma and never wake up.Children's existence bought and sold as if they are commodities to only then be discarded if they are and inconvenience and/or not "Perfect". You were very brave to defend the life of the child.
This actually is a big issue in a lot of states. I believe the term is "assisted suicide". It doesn't really apply all that well in this circumstance, but a lot of states are reconsidering and changing the laws concerning it. For example, if your grandparent is suffering, and they ask you to pull the plug, as long as you get some type of evidence to show that they are essentially begging you, you can assist in their suicide.
Currently you can't do that and it's considered murder which in, a lot of circumstances, is ridiculous
|
Bookmarks