Abortions for Babies without Vital Organs?

[camerong]

I’m in the midst of a conversation with someone who is arguing in favor of late-term abortions. Specifically, she asserts that this particular abortionist will only give abortions when it is clear the baby CANNOT survive out of the womb, such as if the “lungs or brain are missing.” She further asserts that the baby (she agrees it to be a baby) is in considerable pain until it is born and ultimately dies.

This seems pretty far-fetched to me, but I don’t really know about the science. But either way, it raises an interesting question. And, it seems to limit me to the Catholic-natural law not allowing mercy killings. Thoughts?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t know, but if a baby were in considerable pain, couldn’t pain meds be administered to the baby?

Also, I wonder when the “pro-choice camp” is going to pick a side. The argument is often, “Fetuses don’t feel pain…” So why abort a baby to avoid it feeling pain?

 

[camerong]

I don’t know, but if a baby were in considerable pain, couldn’t pain meds be administered to the baby?

Also, I wonder when the “pro-choice camp” is going to pick a side. The argument is often, “Fetuses don’t feel pain…” So why abort a baby to avoid it feeling pain?

Well I don’t think she is a pro-abort generally, in fact she said she is against using abortions as birth control. Hers is obviously a more sensible opinion than most pro-aborts, but it of course is still not fully correct. But it caught me off guard, and I’m not sure how to respond.

 

[kage_ar]

If the child is alive, it is immoral to kill him. Missing a pinkey toe, a kidney, or a lobe of the brain does not make this baby less human.

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m in the midst of a conversation with someone who is arguing in favor of late-term abortions. Specifically, she asserts that this particular abortionist will only give abortions when it is clear the baby CANNOT survive out of the womb, such as if the “lungs or brain are missing.” She further asserts that the baby (she agrees it to be a baby) is in considerable pain until it is born and ultimately dies.

This seems pretty far-fetched to me, but I don’t really know about the science. But either way, it raises an interesting question. And, it seems to limit me to the Catholic-natural law not allowing mercy killings. Thoughts?

so the baby will endure certain pain of having, while still alive, its legs and body outside the mother, only the base of its skull showing, having the skull pierced with surgical scissors, the contents removed mechanically or by suction, the skull crushed and then delivered. And this won’t cause pain during the 15-30 minutes required? The alternitive is possible pain during the short time she lives after normal delivery, pain which can be alleviated through normal medical means. More than one barbarian at work here it seems. To play on the parent’s fears and emotions by presenting this as a somehow more “humane” alternative exceeds any example I could find from the barbarians themselves, who were at least honest about their outrages.

as yet, even in congressional hearings, medical science has not been able to present clear evidence of any situation in which partial birth abortion is necessary at all, let alone of any positive even relative benefit to either the mother or the baby.

 

[camerong]

so the baby will endure certain pain of having, while still alive, its legs and body outside the mother, only the base of its skull showing, having the skull pierced with surgical scissors, the contents removed mechanically or by suction, the skull crushed and then delivered. And this won’t cause pain during the 15-30 minutes required? The alternitive is possible pain during the short time she lives after normal delivery, pain which can be alleviated through normal medical means. More than one barbarian at work here it seems. To play on the parent’s fears and emotions by presenting this as a somehow more “humane” alternative exceeds any example I could find from the barbarians themselves, who were at least honest about their outrages.

as yet, even in congressional hearings, medical science has not been able to present clear evidence of any situation in which partial birth abortion is necessary at all, let alone of any positive even relative benefit to either the mother or the baby.

Puzzleannie, I hope you don’t mind but I used the bolded language above word-for-word in my response. Very powerfully-put.

 

[JimG]

So the argument is that if a child is certain to die, we must kill it sooner?

I would think it preferable to let the child be born and be held by its mother, be baptized and anointed, and die of natural causes if that is to be the outcome.
But these things are seldom certain.

This woman was supposed to be born dead. Not because of a defect but because she was the target of a saline abortion. But, she was not born dead, but alive.

 

[pnewton]

I know of one situation where a twin was living off its sibling and was missing a brain and part of the stem. At what point are a partial set of organs considered a human? I would think that at the very least one would be hard pressed to accept as ensouled that which has no brain. Such are the questions our technology has brought to the fore front.

 

[vera_dicere]

There’s a new movement gaining now, pre-natal hospice. Parents of unborn children who have a terminal illness or a defect that is incompatible with life who refuse abortion now have support groups which have branched out into a hospice sort of programme. I dont’ know much about it, only what I have gained from discussing on abortion debate forums with mothers who have had children in this situation.

I do find it odd, though, that so many pro-aborts denouce the foetus’ ability to feel pain and thus that justifies abortion, and now they want abortion because they feel the foetus is in pain? That’s just further proof the pro-aborts don’t have a leg to stand on, and that they’re constantly changing their argument because they know its based on a crock of lies.

I read recently, Nebraska, I think, is trying to pass a bill that will ban abortions after 20 weeks due to the concept of foetal pain being scientifically established.

The reality is, no child should be killed, regardless of its condition. I mean, her argument could extend beyond birth, what if said child was not diagnoised in utero, and is born into horrible pain (or her concept of horrible) should the child be classed an external uterine foetus and thusly “aborted”.

Not to mention, the pro-aborts who support LTA dont’ need any moral high ground about foetal pain and suffering, because if its the woman’s body at 8 weeks and the foetus isn’t a person because its inside the woman, then its still the woman’s body at 38 weeks and the foetus is still not a person, regardless of its development. The pro-abortion movement has no sense, it has no logic, it tries to “justify” its concepts by creating other rare concepts.

Its like the rape excuse. 98% of abortions are for convienance. that means foetal defect, maternal health, rape et cetera all account for that remaining 2%.

Point out to this lady, that if she’s truly pro-abortion/choice then she has no right to be annoyed or “against” abortions for birth control reasons, the woman’s reasons are none of her business.

Again, another aspect of the flawed pro-abortion “logic”.

 

[St_Francis]

There are people who loose the use of an organ, through time or because of an accident. Should we kill them too, knowing they are going to die?

 

[Jermosh]

If the child has no brain or lungs, then I would think it would be of a certain age. Would it be immoral to induce delivery and allow the child to die naturally?

 

[Rence]

Yes, babies can be born without a brain, it’s called anencephaly. I’m sure there are people who abort when they find out about it either because they can’t deal with the thought of a dying baby in them, or it may be their way of dealing with the sadness, or they believe that since it’s going to die anyway, they feel that it would be better to abort rather than wait, or whatever their reasons are. There are even women who abort and then have the body blessed and buried with a funeral.

But there are also women who choose to deliver the baby and hold and love it until it dies, which can take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours, or maybe a day or two. Depends on how much brain is missing. Though the babies all die from this. There some websites devoted to these special babies with galleries and sometimes personal stories from the parents. I came upon it while I was doing research for a class, anencephalie-info.org/e/pictures.php I’m sure if you do searches on anensephaly, you’ll find more. There are single personal galleries too that individual parents put up. They’re really very sweet stories, pictures, etc. I got caught up in these websites and wound up finishing my homework at some ungodly hour as a result

Anyway, the Church forbids aborting and teaches that there is no justification for aborting if the fetus is still alive, even if it is certain that it will die shortly after birth. ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/bcdanen1.htm

There are cases where the fetus is dead, and when confirmed dead by ultrasound and blood tests, you can remove the contents of the uterus…because it’s dead. You can’t “abort” a dead fetus. You can only abort a live fetus, which is forbidden by the Church.

There are also cases where there is no fetus. It’s called Blighted Ovum, it’s where a placenta has formed, but a fetus never developed. It obviously happens really early on and is due to chromosomal abnormalities. And it’s usually diagnosed by ultrasound but also the hCG (pregnancy hormone) levels diminish. In this case, it is acceptable to remove the contents of the uterus because there is not fetus present, and besides that, the woman is at risk for infection. There are some women who choose to wait until they abort naturally as they need closure, but that is not required by the Church.

There are cases where fetuses don’t have vital organs, but again, the Church doesn’t allow one to abort.

I don’t think people realize what a miracle it is to have a perfectly normal baby born. Half of conceptions end up in spontaeous abortions before implantation. And you can pick up a myriad of anomalies along the way that you can see, and not see, and not even find out until years later. And if you think about it, with all the air, water, and food pollution we are exposed to, is it really that surprising to have all these problems? It actually takes considerable effort to try and eliminate the toxins we are exposed to.

Not to hijack this thread, but a fellow student has a son that has developed breasts and after numerous studies, his doctor said that it was due to all the growth hormones in our food (chicken, milk, eggs) that make animals produce more and more. As a result, he had to have a breast reduction at the age of 16 and needs to stay off of food that comes from animals that have been given hormones. That means milk and chicken. He’s the only case I personally know of but his mom did all kinds of research on it and said it was quite common. Now she gets farm fresh milk, and gets “organic” food that she has to ensure comes from animals that haven’t been treated with hormones, or he’ll just develop breasts again.

Anyway, yes, fetuses can have all sorts of things wrong with them. That’s why it’s so important to take folic acid way before you’re even thinking about babies, not smoking or drinking alcohol while pregnant and even having your medications reviewed before you think about having a baby. Even if you have medications reviewed, there are meds you shouldn’t stop taking (like hypertesive meds, etc) that we don’t know anything about having effects on a fetus.

 

[Rence]

So the argument is that if a child is certain to die, we must kill it sooner?

I would think it preferable to let the child be born and be held by its mother, be baptized and anointed, and die of natural causes if that is to be the outcome.
But these things are seldom certain.

That’s true. Evidently, a baby cannot be baptized if already dead (I didn’t know this, my mom’s miscarried baby was baptized by a priest and was buried with a relative). So by waiting until nature progresses, you can have the baby baptized before buried. If you remove it before that, you can’t have it baptized. I guess. I mean, I never knew that until I read it here on this forum. But if those are the rules of the Church than it would be another consideration for the mother to think about.

 

[pnewton]

There are people who loose the use of an organ, through time or because of an accident. Should we kill them too, knowing they are going to die?

The problem here is that the organs that are missing are one that are mandatory for life. So the comparison of killing someone without a vital organ is not applicable as they would already be dead

Jermosh has the best solution:

If the child has no brain or lungs, then I would think it would be of a certain age. Would it be immoral to induce delivery and allow the child to die naturally?

In the case that I was familiar with there was an additional complication of a twin who was being malnurished and whose life was threatened. Also, I think the absence of a brain puts a different spin on whether we are dealing with a human being or not.

I referred the person to the Catholic Bioethics Center.

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, babies can be born without a brain, it’s called anencephaly. I’m sure there are people who abort when they find out about it either because they can’t deal with the thought of a dying baby in them, or it may be their way of dealing with the sadness, or they believe that since it’s going to die anyway, they feel that it would be better to abort rather than wait, or whatever their reasons are. There are even women who abort and then have the body blessed and buried with a funeral…

I have heard of two cases where this was misdiagnosed. I don’t think that people talk about that much because it’s quite rare and they don’t want to give false hope to parents, but it apparently does happen.

 

[catharina]

There’s a new movement gaining now, pre-natal hospice. Parents of unborn children who have a terminal illness or a defect that is incompatible with life who refuse abortion now have support groups which have branched out into a hospice sort of programme. I dont’ know much about it, only what I have gained from discussing on abortion debate forums with mothers who have had children in this situation.

I do find it odd, though, that so many pro-aborts denouce the foetus’ ability to feel pain and thus that justifies abortion, and now they want abortion because they feel the foetus is in pain? That’s just further proof the pro-aborts don’t have a leg to stand on, and that they’re constantly changing their argument because they know its based on a crock of lies.

I read recently, Nebraska, I think, is trying to pass a bill that will ban abortions after 20 weeks due to the concept of foetal pain being scientifically established.

The reality is, no child should be killed, regardless of its condition. I mean, her argument could extend beyond birth, what if said child was not diagnoised in utero, and is born into horrible pain (or her concept of horrible) should the child be classed an external uterine foetus and thusly “aborted”.

Not to mention, the pro-aborts who support LTA dont’ need any moral high ground about foetal pain and suffering, because if its the woman’s body at 8 weeks and the foetus isn’t a person because its inside the woman, then its still the woman’s body at 38 weeks and the foetus is still not a person, regardless of its development. The pro-abortion movement has no sense, it has no logic, it tries to “justify” its concepts by creating other rare concepts.

Its like the rape excuse. 98% of abortions are for convienance. that means foetal defect, maternal health, rape et cetera all account for that remaining 2%.

Point out to this lady, that if she’s truly pro-abortion/choice then she has no right to be annoyed or “against” abortions for birth control reasons, the woman’s reasons are none of her business.

Again, another aspect of the flawed pro-abortion “logic”.

Nebraska passed its awesome bills into law.
It happened yesterday, I think.

Georgia Pro Life is also writing billls and passing laws.
Its new campaign is clear about the use of abortion as genocide of the black population.

 

[vera_dicere]

Yes, babies can be born without a brain, it’s called anencephaly. I’m sure there are people who abort when they find out about it either because they can’t deal with the thought of a dying baby in them,

They don’t like the thought of the child dying inside them? What the heck do they think an abortion does?

There was this case, it was quite impressive, but rare none the less.

babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/

 

[vera_dicere]

If the child has no brain or lungs, then I would think it would be of a certain age. Would it be immoral to induce delivery and allow the child to die naturally?

A good majority of these children don’t initiate birth naturally and these pregnancies often have to be induced or in the case of anaecephaly a C section may be needed, as the contractions and birth can often kill the child as there is no protection for whatever ever amount of brain they have.

However, nature is pretty quick on the ball in most cases and children with such defects are often miscarried.

As for the morality of early induction, I suppose it woudl depend when said induction takes place. Down here I’ve come across women who discovered they were carrying Down’s babies and children with other defects, and a favoured abortion method they undergo is to induce early, like 13 - 16 weeks early. No way a child born then can survive, the intention was to kill the child.

If, however, the induction was say at 28 weeks or a little later, the child could survive for a small while and pass later, as its no sin to withhold heroic life support measures. It could be aruged that survival could still transpire, and it could, in fact, be more life promoting as birth could have a higher risk of killing the child. I guess all up, it boils down to intention, is the intention of induction to assist the mother’s health, to give her time with baby, or to kill the child, is the child that is induced given to his mother to hold, or is he dumped in a bed pan in the sluice room?

 

[Jermosh]

Good points, thanks.

 

[markomalley]

I’m in the midst of a conversation with someone who is arguing in favor of late-term abortions. Specifically, she asserts that this particular abortionist will only give abortions when it is clear the baby CANNOT survive out of the womb, such as if the “lungs or brain are missing.” She further asserts that the baby (she agrees it to be a baby) is in considerable pain until it is born and ultimately dies.

This seems pretty far-fetched to me, but I don’t really know about the science. But either way, it raises an interesting question. And, it seems to limit me to the Catholic-natural law not allowing mercy killings. Thoughts?

If a baby was born with a terminal abnormality, would this person be in favor of dismembering the baby ***outside ***of the womb? (Note the specific here: I am not talking about letting the baby expire, I am talking dismembering the baby and crushing his skull without anesthesia)

Or, alternatively, would the option be to keep the baby as comfortable as possible and letting nature run its course?