Pro-Life even in the case of genetic disease

[nickybr38]

How would you defend the pro-life position when faced with someone who would abort a child who was going to die within a year of birth (due to a rare genetic disease)?

And I don’t mean a hypothetical ‘this could happen’ situation. I mean, she carried such a child once without knowing it, suffered through watching her child lead a truly miserable first year of life and then watched her child die in her arms. She has stated she would abort if she ever had a child who tested positive for this disease again.

She believes her first child had a useless life and regrets ever having had the child.

How on earth does one defend the pro-life position when speaking to someone like this? She did kind of believe in God at one point but is basically angry at Him at this point.

It is an online conversation. My last comment was that human beings are not animals. We shouldn’t take people out to pasture and kill them just because they’re sick. Every life is precious. Even the life that suffers.

But I’m not sure how to support the pro-life position when faced with her ‘sick life should be killed’ stance.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

How would you defend the pro-life position when faced with someone who would abort a child who was going to die within a year of birth (due to a rare genetic disease)?

And I don’t mean a hypothetical ‘this could happen’ situation. I mean, she carried such a child once without knowing it, suffered through watching her child lead a truly miserable first year of life and then watched her child die in her arms. She has stated she would abort if she ever had a child who tested positive for this disease again.

She believes her first child had a useless life and regrets ever having had the child.

How on earth does one defend the pro-life position when speaking to someone like this? She did kind of believe in God at one point but is basically angry at Him at this point.

It is an online conversation. My last comment was that human beings are not animals. We shouldn’t take people out to pasture and kill them just because they’re sick. Every life is precious. Even the life that suffers.

But I’m not sure how to support the pro-life position when faced with her ‘sick life should be killed’ stance.

It is very, very, very difficult to argument.
One must understand the meaning of suffering and the meaning of the cross.
And no one knows why we suffer.
Christ did not say anything about it, he just suffered the cruelest death.
Now, tell a mothere that her child’s suffering had a meaning is tough.
I am not easing things because they are not easy.
But for sure it had a meaning.
But Only God Can decipher it.
Maybe someone else can see better than me…

 

[mdkirkbride]

In my simplistic understanding, most wouldn’t considered killing that child after his birth, even with significant health issues, so why would we consider killing him in the womb?

And where’s the line there? If the child has a terminal illness, is it ok if he is expected to not make it to X age? (In reality we are all mortal (at least in this body), so is that 1 day, 10 years, 90 years?)

If not terminal, is it ‘quality of life’? I’m near sighted so there’s genetic issue. I’ve known many mentally handicapped people that seem very happy and content (and are probably much closer to God than I because they are still in a more childlike state of innocence).

It’s not an ‘argument’ but the reality is that individual should be thankful for the 1 year they had with their child, some don’t even get that long or children at all.

We should all pray for them through this difficult time of grieving and pray that they regain their faith in God’s ultimate goodness.

 

[Newbie2]

Yep. There’s a huge difference between direct, intentional killing and allowing someone to be born who we have good reason to presume is going to die…and allowing them to die.

That being said, it is a very difficult pastoral situation, as has been said.

 

[cemiller]

I would say that the most important thing to remember is that this woman just watched one of her children die. She may not even be through with the grieving process. Dealing with a person like this is walking on thin ice. You need to make sure you make your point, but at the same time keep her feelings in your mind, because it’s very likely that this is a fragile subject for her.

In my opinion you should try pointing out the positive things. She got to hold her baby, she got to see the baby, and touch it, and the baby got to experience all those things too. The baby might have suffered, but she/he still got to feel the unconditional love that a mother/father can give. The baby might not have got to experience much, but he/she did get to experience the greatest of life’s joys, love.

As bad as the situation is, taking the baby’s life even earlier would rob him/her of even those experiences. Imagine growing in the womb and never knowing the light of day, or your mother and fathers face, before the cold steel of a doctor reached in to sever your limbs and life.

That’s the best I have anyway. I know someone who went through something like this. She gave birth to a full term still born, so she doesn’t recognize the pre-born children as full members of society, but I’m almost certain that it’s a subconscious self defense mechanism that makes it easier to deal with her child’s death. It’s not an easy line to walk, and you definitely don’t want to cause undue suffering to the mother, but at the same time we have to stand up for life.

Good luck, and God bless.
.

 

[purplesunshine]

What she is saying, she’s saying in grief.

She probabaly went to birthing classes with her friends, dreamed of the child talking, walking, saying “I love you” going to school. Thinking that maybe her little boy will be best friends with his cousin and maybe fall in love with her best friend’s daughter. It’s a MASSIVE amount of grief.

Then there’s the burdan of caring for an ill infant, the heartbreak of watching a child suffer, and again the hope against hope that things will get better.

Coupled with normal things like postpartum depression!

It really wouldn’t of been any easier if the child had died at 2mo in utero, at 6 months in utero or 2 or 6 months after. Whenever it happened, it’d be devistating.

There also may be guilt. Did she accidentally prolong his/her suffering? There are SO many reasons that a person could feel bad after the death and whished that they did things differently. Would she rather have had her child and had a DNR prepared?

Basically, she needs to be emotinally healed before anything else, and perhaps a bit of that is spiritual, but more likely than not, it is something that needs therepy and time. She needs to have the ability to feel everything she wants to feel. When that battle has been faught it will be time for God to come in and work on the “why’s”.

 

[purplesunshine]

youtube.com/watch?v=lrXmHaBP-A4

Show you what it means to be loved by Mark Shultz

 

[Bezant]

How would you defend the pro-life position when faced with someone who would abort a child who was going to die within a year of birth (due to a rare genetic disease)?
And I don’t mean a hypothetical ‘this could happen’ situation. I mean, she carried such a child once without knowing it, suffered through watching her child lead a truly miserable first year of life and then watched her child die in her arms. She has stated she would abort if she ever had a child who tested positive for this disease again.
She believes her first child had a useless life and regrets ever having had the child.
How on earth does one defend the pro-life position when speaking to someone like this? She did kind of believe in God at one point but is basically angry at Him at this point.
It is an online conversation. My last comment was that human beings are not animals. We shouldn’t take people out to pasture and kill them just because they’re sick. Every life is precious. Even the life that suffers.
But I’m not sure how to support the pro-life position when faced with her ‘sick life should be killed’ stance.

What’s to say that her child had a useless life?

We’re all only a small part of a greater whole, and I don’t think we realise the impact something seemingly trivial or wasteful could have on ourselves or someone else.

 

[He_Man]

What’s to say that her child had a useless life?

We’re all only a small part of a greater whole, and I don’t think we realise the impact something seemingly trivial or wasteful could have on ourselves or someone else.

It also allows us to play God and presumes He isn’t capable of doing anything with the child, even curing them.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The husband and wife should live as brother and sister if they are concerned about the genetic effect of their union on their offspring.

 

[nickybr38]

The death of her child happened over six years ago. She has since had a new child.

When is it appropriate to stop supporting her and start debating the hard issues?

 

[silicasandra]

The death of her child happened over six years ago. She has since had a new child.

When is it appropriate to stop supporting her and start debating the hard issues?

You never stop supporting a friend. You can discuss difficult issues and still remain supportive (of the person, not the wrong ideas).

She could very well still be grieving after six years. She may grieve the loss of her child for the rest of her life.

Does this come up every time you talk? Could you say something like, “I can’t imagine what a difficult situation that was and I am sorry you had to go through with it”? I can understand her wanting to prevent the suffering of a child and trying to preserve herself from that kind of pain. It doesn’t make her conclusion correct, but her conclusion is totally wrapped up in that experience. “Debate” doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you engage a grieving mother in. I think showing Christian love may be the best way you have to convince her that God intends the things that happen in our lives. Prayer for a conversion of heart would also be appropriate.

 

[nickybr38]

You never stop supporting a friend. You can discuss difficult issues and still remain supportive (of the person, not the wrong ideas).

She could very well still be grieving after six years. She may grieve the loss of her child for the rest of her life.

Does this come up every time you talk? Could you say something like, “I can’t imagine what a difficult situation that was and I am sorry you had to go through with it”? I can understand her wanting to prevent the suffering of a child and trying to preserve herself from that kind of pain. It doesn’t make her conclusion correct, but her conclusion is totally wrapped up in that experience. “Debate” doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you engage a grieving mother in. I think showing Christian love may be the best way you have to convince her that God intends the things that happen in our lives. Prayer for a conversion of heart would also be appropriate.

Not at all. I was having a discussion about abortion with another friend and she piped in to share her viewpoint that in the case of children who are sick it’s okay to abort them. I’m just looking for ways to share the truth with her while being supportive and gentle. It is tricky to argue the truth when dealing with someone who has been through so much but I am unwilling to not speak truth just to spare her feelings.

 

[Castello]

The death of her child happened over six years ago. She has since had a new child.

When is it appropriate to stop supporting her and start debating the hard issues?

Agree with the poster who said you always support her. You can gently help her to learn the value of suffering. There are many good writings, Pope John Paul II and Fr Groeschel come to mind, CS Lewis as well.

Love her, recognize the dignity of her child. Have a mass said every year for her little one to honor that short life.

As someone with a genetic disease - and 90% of the people with my disease are aborted - I will pray for your friend.

Understand, she is afraid. She is afraid that she failed her child, she is afraid that she caused her child that pain. There may be some stories on this site that can help her.

benotafraid.net/

 

[laircy]

It reminds me of this video youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[kama3]

As bad as the situation is, taking the baby’s life even earlier would rob him/her of even those experiences.

Two words: harlequin ichthyosis (I actually recommend against looking it up, because the pictures are very disturbing).

It’s a genetic skin disease. The skin becomes abnormally hard, which causes it to crack, so the baby’s skin resembles that of the fish. Various external and internal organs are also deformed; these babies look scary, but that’s not the worst thing. You see, sensory nerves below the skin are normal, but as the skin is hard and cracked, their response is not normal. So when the baby moves, it feels pain. If it is laid down, it feels pain. If it is touched, it feels pain. It constantly cries of pain. Imagine each and every sensation you experience being replaced with pain. Open, bleeding cracks of the skin (which cover all of body in a diamond pattern) will cause all kinds of infections.

As far as survavibility goes, the disease happens roughly once per million births, but there is only a handful of people worldwide who have survived into teens (with the wonders of modern medicine and extensive care), so you can do the maths. Most will die within several months after birth, which means they will die before they can have ability to consciously experience anything. Those who don’t, are looking forward to a lifelong battle with constant onslaught of infectious disease and social rejection.

That’s the kind of experience you are talking about?

The actual dilemma here is between killing the fetus before it can even experience pain or commiting it to at least months of painful, miserable and, above all, pointless existence. That’s not murder; it’s mercy killing. Wrong? Yes. But I believe that in some situations giving birth is also wrong.

The OP stated that humans not animals. Indeed; if you commit an animal to months of pointless suffering, you will be charged with animal cruelty, but somehow doing that to a human being is a suppossed to be a heroic virtue.I have seen research animals who have been genetically modified to develop a lethal disease, so that disease could be studied. The whole purpose of their existence was to be born, get sick quickly, get an experimental treatment and die; if not euthanized right away, the disease would kill them anyway. Get that: the genetic modification they had fully determined their future. There was no way for them not to get sick; their future was actually fixed before they were born. It was fixed before they were conceived. Funny that I have never seen an animal rights activist claim that instead of euthanising them right after we are done with the experiment, we should keep them alive until they die “naturally”, errr, I mean, of the disease we gave them in the first place. That would be downright sadistic; as irritating as these folks are, they actually like their animals. Yet I’ve seen pro-life activists try to force women to give birth to children with the disease I described above. My vocabulary is missing a term to describe this.

Sure, animals are not human, but they do experience pain (Neuroscience can objectively verify that; it can even sometimes measure pain). And given what moral doubts I have had over a bunch of animals, then I can safely say that the OP’s friend has literally been living in hell for over a year. But I don’t think you can even begin to understand that. So what qualifications do you all have to lecture her about bioethics, again? Because I have a feeling that someone else should be doing the talking here, and someone else should be listening. But we can’t let our pure, perfect woldview get tarnished with real life experience, can we? After all, the example comes from the top…

What I have seen here are logically invalid attempts to rationalize infant suffering. Indeed; for a self conscious human, suffering can have positive effect. Yet one cannot rationalize suffering of a baby which is not yet self-conscious. Will it turn to God in sickness? No, for it does not yet know God. Will it suffer for its sins? No way, unless you believe in reincarnation. Its purpose was to bring a moral change to its family? Well, that’s a pretty scary theology, as that would mean God treats us like we threat the research animals. No, wait, it’s worse. There are actually regulations about what you can and cannot do to animals…

The OP’s friend was faced with two bad choices. She did what she did, and she did right. I will say a prayer for her, for she needs caritas. Yet I sensed no caritas here; I have not even sensed empathy. Instead, I have sensed a rabid defense of ideological purity.

Next time you pray, ask God that you are never put in such situation.

 

[cemiller]

Two words: harlequin ichthyosis (I actually recommend against looking it up, because the pictures are very disturbing).

It’s a genetic skin disease. The skin becomes abnormally hard, which causes it to crack, so the baby’s skin resembles that of the fish. Various external and internal organs are also deformed; these babies look scary, but that’s not the worst thing. You see, sensory nerves below the skin are normal, but as the skin is hard and cracked, their response is not normal. So when the baby moves, it feels pain. If it is laid down, it feels pain. If it is touched, it feels pain. It constantly cries of pain. Imagine each and every sensation you experience being replaced with pain. Open, bleeding cracks of the skin (which cover all of body in a diamond pattern) will cause all kinds of infections.

As far as survavibility goes, the disease happens roughly once per million births, but there is only a handful of people worldwide who have survived into teens (with the wonders of modern medicine and extensive care), so you can do the maths. Most will die within several months after birth, which means they will die before they can have ability to consciously experience anything. Those who don’t, are looking forward to a lifelong battle with constant onslaught of infectious disease and social rejection.

That’s the kind of experience you are talking about?

The actual dilemma here is between killing the fetus before it can even experience pain or commiting it to at least months of painful, miserable and, above all, pointless existence. That’s not murder; it’s mercy killing. Wrong? Yes. But I believe that in some situations giving birth is also wrong.

The OP stated that humans not animals. Indeed; if you commit an animal to months of pointless suffering, you will be charged with animal cruelty, but somehow doing that to a human being is a suppossed to be a heroic virtue.I have seen research animals who have been genetically modified to develop a lethal disease, so that disease could be studied. The whole purpose of their existence was to be born, get sick quickly, get an experimental treatment and die; if not euthanized right away, the disease would kill them anyway. Get that: the genetic modification they had fully determined their future. There was no way for them not to get sick; their future was actually fixed before they were born. It was fixed before they were conceived. Funny that I have never seen an animal rights activist claim that instead of euthanising them right after we are done with the experiment, we should keep them alive until they die “naturally”, errr, I mean, of the disease we gave them in the first place. That would be downright sadistic; as irritating as these folks are, they actually like their animals. Yet I’ve seen pro-life activists try to force women to give birth to children with the disease I described above. My vocabulary is missing a term to describe this.

Sure, animals are not human, but they do experience pain (Neuroscience can objectively verify that; it can even sometimes measure pain). And given what moral doubts I have had over a bunch of animals, then I can safely say that the OP’s friend has literally been living in hell for over a year. But I don’t think you can even begin to understand that. So what qualifications do you all have to lecture her about bioethics, again? Because I have a feeling that someone else should be doing the talking here, and someone else should be listening. But we can’t let our pure, perfect woldview get tarnished with real life experience, can we? After all, the example comes from the top…

What I have seen here are logically invalid attempts to rationalize infant suffering. Indeed; for a self conscious human, suffering can have positive effect. Yet one cannot rationalize suffering of a baby which is not yet self-conscious. Will it turn to God in sickness? No, for it does not yet know God. Will it suffer for its sins? No way, unless you believe in reincarnation. Its purpose was to bring a moral change to its family? Well, that’s a pretty scary theology, as that would mean God treats us like we threat the research animals. No, wait, it’s worse. There are actually regulations about what you can and cannot do to animals…

The OP’s friend was faced with two bad choices. She did what she did, and she did right. I will say a prayer for her, for she needs caritas. Yet I sensed no caritas here; I have not even sensed empathy. Instead, I have sensed a rabid defense of ideological purity.

Next time you pray, ask God that you are never put in such situation.

You pretend that we don’t feel bad for suffering children. Do you really believe that? Do you really think that anyone can look at a suffering child and NOT feel compassion and empathy for that child? Really? Or are you just using that as a blanket statement to level an accusation at people that you really don’t know, as a rough attempt to invalidate our statements or discredit us as heartless human beings?

You say it would be better to kill the child, so then you would be alright with looking a new born infant or even 2 year old in the eye and then pulling the trigger on a gun to end its life? Would you be ok telling this 12 YO girl with that disease that she should just die? worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhk0A758v5lEkmCKrk

I do believe that the only way to check for this in the fetus is to do an amniocentesis right? That comes with a miscarriage risk of 1 in 1,600 which is much higher than the rate of this disease. Therefore you would be killing way more children just checking than would die of the disease.

 

[nickybr38]

Two words: harlequin ichthyosis (I actually recommend against looking it up, because the pictures are very disturbing).

It’s a genetic skin disease. The skin becomes abnormally hard, which causes it to crack, so the baby’s skin resembles that of the fish. Various external and internal organs are also deformed; these babies look scary, but that’s not the worst thing. You see, sensory nerves below the skin are normal, but as the skin is hard and cracked, their response is not normal. So when the baby moves, it feels pain. If it is laid down, it feels pain. If it is touched, it feels pain. It constantly cries of pain. Imagine each and every sensation you experience being replaced with pain. Open, bleeding cracks of the skin (which cover all of body in a diamond pattern) will cause all kinds of infections.

As far as survavibility goes, the disease happens roughly once per million births, but there is only a handful of people worldwide who have survived into teens (with the wonders of modern medicine and extensive care), so you can do the maths. Most will die within several months after birth, which means they will die before they can have ability to consciously experience anything. Those who don’t, are looking forward to a lifelong battle with constant onslaught of infectious disease and social rejection.

That’s the kind of experience you are talking about?

The actual dilemma here is between killing the fetus before it can even experience pain or commiting it to at least months of painful, miserable and, above all, pointless existence. That’s not murder; it’s mercy killing. Wrong? Yes. But I believe that in some situations giving birth is also wrong.

The OP stated that humans not animals. Indeed; if you commit an animal to months of pointless suffering, you will be charged with animal cruelty, but somehow doing that to a human being is a suppossed to be a heroic virtue.I have seen research animals who have been genetically modified to develop a lethal disease, so that disease could be studied. The whole purpose of their existence was to be born, get sick quickly, get an experimental treatment and die; if not euthanized right away, the disease would kill them anyway. Get that: the genetic modification they had fully determined their future. There was no way for them not to get sick; their future was actually fixed before they were born. It was fixed before they were conceived. Funny that I have never seen an animal rights activist claim that instead of euthanising them right after we are done with the experiment, we should keep them alive until they die “naturally”, errr, I mean, of the disease we gave them in the first place. That would be downright sadistic; as irritating as these folks are, they actually like their animals. Yet I’ve seen pro-life activists try to force women to give birth to children with the disease I described above. My vocabulary is missing a term to describe this.

Sure, animals are not human, but they do experience pain (Neuroscience can objectively verify that; it can even sometimes measure pain). And given what moral doubts I have had over a bunch of animals, then I can safely say that the OP’s friend has literally been living in hell for over a year. But I don’t think you can even begin to understand that. So what qualifications do you all have to lecture her about bioethics, again? Because I have a feeling that someone else should be doing the talking here, and someone else should be listening. But we can’t let our pure, perfect woldview get tarnished with real life experience, can we? After all, the example comes from the top…

What I have seen here are logically invalid attempts to rationalize infant suffering. Indeed; for a self conscious human, suffering can have positive effect. Yet one cannot rationalize suffering of a baby which is not yet self-conscious. Will it turn to God in sickness? No, for it does not yet know God. Will it suffer for its sins? No way, unless you believe in reincarnation. Its purpose was to bring a moral change to its family? Well, that’s a pretty scary theology, as that would mean God treats us like we threat the research animals. No, wait, it’s worse. There are actually regulations about what you can and cannot do to animals…

The OP’s friend was faced with two bad choices. She did what she did, and she did right. I will say a prayer for her, for she needs caritas. Yet I sensed no caritas here; I have not even sensed empathy. Instead, I have sensed a rabid defense of ideological purity.

Next time you pray, ask God that you are never put in such situation.

Your argument is moot. There have been children born with harlequin ichthyosis who lived to adulthood. They were given the chance to live and they LIVED… and I’d bet while there are moments they wish they hadn’t, there are also moments they are grateful for their life.

My brother was born with a genetic disease. He should have died within an hour of being born - he lived twelve years. My mother FOUGHT for his life and gosh darn it, he lived.

I have great empathy for my friend. I really do. I watched her suffer. BUT I will NOT sit by and encourage her to kill any future children she might have just because they MIGHT be as sick as her first child (she did not abort her child, by the way, she just threatened that she would if any future children she carries have the same disease her first child had).