Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Premature babies have improved survival rates...
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 16 of 22 (682989)
12-06-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dogmafood
12-05-2012 8:52 PM


Re: Best of a bad situation
Hi Dogmafood, thanks for sharing this. Please accept my apologies if I say anything here to cause you distress, and feel free to ignore.
After a week of gut wrenching deliberation we decided to abort the child.
You have obviously both just spent close to 20 weeks of excitement and joy at the prospect of having a child, and inevitable attachment that grows with your (partner's) bump. But our society has us talk to the fetus, "interact" with it, and consider it part of our family such that a bond develops so strong, that the prospect of losing the fetus through miscarriage or deliberate abortion is tantamount to losing a family member - a child, a sibling, a parent.
Now from my perspective, how is you and your partner's abortion any different to simply choosing not to have another child? Both deny a life, an opportunity of experiencing life. Obviously there is the immense emotional turmoil of the first, but that is your suffering, not that of the potential child. It's easy, flippant, and not really my place to say - but I'll say it anyway - don't be so hard on yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dogmafood, posted 12-05-2012 8:52 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-06-2012 5:31 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 22 by Dogmafood, posted 12-07-2012 9:33 AM cavediver has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 22 (683003)
12-06-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
12-05-2012 4:05 PM


What is wrong with us? Can we not just accept that gestation and pregnancy are not perfect, and many fetuses will not make it to a successful birth? Are our children not paying too high a price to ensure that we are comfortable with ourselves?
I only see a problem if there's causes of premature birth with an inheritable genetic component.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 12-05-2012 4:05 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 18 of 22 (683011)
12-06-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
12-05-2012 4:05 PM


A First Attempt
cavediver writes:
Severely premature babies: More survive being born early
...but is this a good thing?
Heh...
A deeper question with fewer words may not exist
To me, this being a good thing or not is dependent on those who are affected (the babies) and their judgement of whether or not they wanted to live.
The metrics are not appealing to go over.
1. The child lives, has no "bad defect" and loves their life - Good thing (abortion would have been a bad thing) I consider this scenario likely...
2. The child lives, has no "bad defect" yet hates their life and wishes they were never born - Bad thing (abortion would have been a good thing) I consider this scenario unlikely...
3. The child lives, has a "bad defect" and loves their life anyway - Good thing (abortion would have been a bad thing) I consider this scenario unlikely...
4. The child lives, has a "bad defect" and hates their life and wishes they were never born - Bad thing (abortion would have been a good thing) I consider this scenario likely...
Changing what you think is likely/unlikely changes the metric completely.
I don't think my feelings of likely/unlikely are all that informed here, either...
In our world (current laws, current technology)... I would say that creating this dynamic in itself is a bad thing. What a choice to have! I think our skills in medical advancement have increased at a rate which leaves our skills in legal advancement in the dust. Therefore, until laws get a chance to catch up, I think cavediver is kind of right in that we shouldn't be working too hard on trying to "save more premies" for a chance into our world.
Personally, to correct this problem, I would change certain laws.
I would have a system that would allow suicide as a viable, non-judgemental option for those who live in "too much pain." (For adults).
I would add to this system an allowance for murdering your own child after they are born if you can show they are "living in too much pain with no hope of recovery" but not able to communicate/judge such a thing on their own. (You can replace the term "murder" with "assisted suicide" or "mercy killing" if you'd like).
I would hope that our technology could advance so that we could judge the levels of pain/recoverability/self awareness (personal judgement) in babies and children to a much higher degree, as well.
As a side note, I've always thought that eugenics got a bad name from Mr. H. I think eugenics should have a place in humanity's progress through this universe. I do not support the kind of eugenics as put forth by Mr. H, of course. But I do think that the inherently evil stigma it carries in any form at all has created a horrible missed opportunity for humanity.
Or perhaps I am simply mad myself...
What is wrong with us? Can we not just accept that gestation and pregnancy are not perfect, and many fetuses will not make it to a successful birth? Are our children not paying too high a price to ensure that we are comfortable with ourselves?
The way we are right now is not right.
Going full-force in the other direction would correct some scenarios, but it would also create another "not right" situation of it's own.
For the record, I write this sat next to my youngest child - who was born with a serious congenital heart defect that required open heart surgery on his 6th day of life.
For my record; I do not have any children, and have never attempted to have one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 12-05-2012 4:05 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 19 of 22 (683012)
12-06-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dogmafood
12-05-2012 8:52 PM


Re: Best of a bad situation
Dogmafood writes:
I feel like I should have made certain that the best thing was for him to die. Society does not grant me this freedom.
I agree with you, on both statements. And yet I have no advice on how to obtain/correct either path.
If you are looking for pain/punishment... I don't think you deserve any.
If you are looking for solace/forgiveness... I think you are the only one who can grant it to yourself.
If you aren't looking for anything... I already took a moment of personal silence to consider your plight and the implications.
I respect your ability to cope through events that not many people ever have to consider in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dogmafood, posted 12-05-2012 8:52 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 22 (683022)
12-06-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by cavediver
12-06-2012 12:12 PM


Re: Best of a bad situation
Hi cavediver, dogmafood,
... how is you and your partner's abortion any different to simply choosing not to have another child? ...
Put another way, how is this different from having a miscarriage? These can happen anytime in the development process, and having an early abortion could be preferred to having a late miscarriage that causes harm to the mother.
In many ways an abortion can be considered an "assisted miscarriage" where the lack of proper development is the cause, and where it occurs in a medical facility can be better for the mother's health than a spontaneous miscarriage can be.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by cavediver, posted 12-06-2012 12:12 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 21 of 22 (683035)
12-06-2012 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
12-05-2012 4:05 PM


CD writes:
Severely premature babies: More survive being born early
...but is this a good thing?
I think it should be the parents' decision - as they will have to live with that decision.
They should be given as much information as possible and then they should be allowed to choose.
I think financial considerations are irrelevant: as a country, we piss far more money up the wall on far less worthwhile people.
One more disabled person in the world is fine by me.
I have had a couple of nights out drinking with handicapped people - I look forward to more.
And, as one said: "At least I can't fall over drunk in this fucking chair!"
Can we test people to see if they will become politicians?
When we can, I might advocate compulsory euthanasia.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 12-05-2012 4:05 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(4)
Message 22 of 22 (683073)
12-07-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by cavediver
12-06-2012 12:12 PM


Re: Best of a bad situation
Now from my perspective, how is you and your partner's abortion any different to simply choosing not to have another child?
Its different in that one is a growing foetus and the other is just in a gleam in your eye. While they are both decisions based on an assessment of the quality of the potential life one of them is quite likely to be really fucked up. The children that we don't have are jsut the paths that we don't take.
Obviously there is the immense emotional turmoil of the first, but that is your suffering, not that of the potential child.
I agree that this is the key element as you point out.
Are our children not paying too high a price to ensure that we are comfortable with ourselves?
In our case, bringing the child to term was more about discharging our own obligations. That is that we could then say 'well we did everything that was humanly possible to do to try and save this life.' Thankfully, we came to the realization that our interests were not primary. Sparing the child from early death and offering only a life of misery so that we could feel better about ourselves. Not only the child's misery but the ongoing pain of watching your child suffer slowly while it dies some hideous death.
I am confident that we made the right decision and that we prevented the most suffering. I guess that is really all there is to it. I take consolation from the thought that most, if not all, of the suffering was ours and not the child's.
I think that we see the very same thing surrounding end of life issues. Clinging on desperately just because we can. Lingering for years in some kind of madhouse twilight. Retirement homes that are full of near forgotten parents kept alive almost against their will. The Scandinavians are much better at it than we are over here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by cavediver, posted 12-06-2012 12:12 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024