What A Woman Wants
Jennifer Carden wanted a baby, and Jennifer Carden's needs were all that mattered. Gautam Naik writes for the WSJ:
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- When Jennifer Carden was told that her unborn child had a rare and potentially fatal genetic condition two years ago, she was convinced that the diagnosis could be wrong and the baby might survive. Her doctors and husband disagreed. They tried, but failed, to persuade her to terminate the pregnancy.The Cardens' baby, Parker, was born on Valentine's Day 2007, and doctors said he had a kidney disease that often kills infants in their first year. But Parker survived and is now 20 months old. He has poor language and motor skills and may never walk. Already hospitalized three times, Parker's medical odyssey has stretched the Cardens' finances and put a huge strain on their relationship.
It started on October 1, 2006, when Carden, 19 weeks pregnant, went in for a routine ultrasound:
The doctor told Mrs. Carden and her husband, Charles, that the fetus had enlarged kidneys and a portion of the brain was thickened.According to the Cardens, the doctor told the couple that their window to terminate was small -- just five weeks -- and recommended they see a specialist to confirm the diagnosis via another ultrasound and an amniocentesis. The diagnosis: A potentially fatal genetic disorder called autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease.
...The disorder occurs in about one in 20,000 individuals, and up to 75% of babies afflicted with it die in the first year after birth. After that, their chances of survival are good. But more than one-third need dialysis by the age of 10.
...The Cardens already had a tumultuous family life. Each had an 8-year-old son from a previous relationship, and Mrs. Carden's first boy lived at the Carden home. The Cardens also had a child of their own, Jackson, then a year-and-a-half old, who was recovering from major abdominal surgery needed to stave off a life-threatening intestinal blockage. A few months earlier, Mr. Carden had moved 150 miles away to Grand Rapids to take a sales-training job with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. His wife planned to join him later.
The prospect of having another seriously ill child and the additional financial burden worried Mr. Carden. He suggested the couple terminate the pregnancy and try to have another child. When he first broached the idea during a kitchen conversation with his wife, Mrs. Carden flung his dinner plate into the sink and said: "I won't terminate. It's a marriage breaker."
...In August 2007, Parker's condition began to deteriorate. His kidneys couldn't hold on to nutrients, so he'd get dehydrated and had to drink two liters of water a day. He rarely slept through the night. He picked up infections and was often on antibiotics. He would eventually need surgery to install a feeding tube.
...In the past few months, doctors have told the Cardens that their son now has about 60% of his kidney function. Because Parker may never walk, his mother has ordered a wheelchair. His life is a series of appointments, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, feeding therapy and language therapy.
Beyond all the suffering this kid will likely go through, I'll ask what I've asked before in cases like this: Who's going to take care of him when his parents die?
But forget about then; what about now? What of the other kids the Cardens already have who will surely get greatly diminished attention and financial support from their parents?
There are all sorts of bleeding hearts bleating about this in the WSJ's comments section. One commenter, a guy named Carl Fattal, echoes my thinking on this issue:
I think it's highly irresponsible to bring into this world a kid with known serious illnesses. Of course I'm speaking as someone who does not have a problem child, which make me less emotional and more logical and thoughtful about the issue.Making the child suffer all his/her life is not fair for him/her. Don't tell me a paralyzed/ill child won't suffer because he/she smiles every now and then. Overall they are at a disadvantage and cannot live a normal life. Normal life is hard enough without illnesses. I know from seeing a lot of family friends with ill/paralyzed kids and two friends who work with "problem" children.
Also think about the huge burden you are willingly imposing on society. You will be hoarding huge resources for that one kid, resources that will not be used to make life for everyone better, provide better education for everyone, etc. That sounds like a harsh materialistic comment, but it's not. I'd say the same thing to someone who knowingly smokes or does activities that have a high chance of leading to sustained medical conditions. Keyword: knowingly.
Medical advances can now predict a lot of known diseases before the pregnancy goes too far. This is your chance to take advantage of medicine for PREVENTION rather than being selective by rejecting medicine when doctors recommend prevention. Worse is that you go back crawling to doctors and suing them so they provide a lot of medical care to your sick child after the fact, after ignoring medical advice. Put religion aside for once and think pragmatic and logical.
Another commenter, Jerry Brotherton, said it straight:
The mother is to blame for all of Parker's future torments.
Before we get started, does anyone here have the balls to Google "birth defects"?
Me neither.
> I think it's highly irresponsible
> to bring into this world a kid
> with known serious illnesses
Glib posturing. Science can do wonderful things, but it can't make this go away: In a healthy population for any organism, a lot of individuals are going to come to life with horrible limitations that can't be prevented. To assert that we can screen all human births and righteously make the call to abort is not thoughtful.
First, it imagines that social controls (and health care, for that matter) penetrate far deeper than they actually do. Things like what's quoted above are fantasies of power... Of authoritarian control over distant people in a moment of debilitating, intimate crisis.
Second, it ignores the fact that over the last few centuries, an incredible number of conditions that used to be devastating have been ameliorated by compassionate medicine. The idea that you can righteously defeat the hope for cures and good outcomes in the hearts of expectant parents who face difficulties with righteous wording suggests a cruel streak indeed.
Thirdly, it pretends that there's no boundary to the improvement we can make to the world through policy. I hate when Christians do that, and I hate when college professors do it too.
Listen... If you're going to have kids, or even if you're just going to live gratefully on a planet where other people will make babies, you ought to be consciously, stoically, humbly aware that bad shit can happen. And there's nothing to be done. And that includes harshing parents:
> The mother is to blame
> for all of Parker's
> future torments.
To say something like that is the height of arrogance. Back when I attended a Christian church, they had this saying: "But for the grace of God...."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 27, 2008 3:32 AM
A month ago, I spent 25 Euro and 3 days to screen my foetus for Down Syndrome. After the results came back really low-risk, I went ahead and told my mom about the pregnancy at week 12.
I did not feel the fast, cheap and easy test was "authoritarian control" on part of the evil medical establishment.
Now, if I had bad results, nobody would have known besides me and my husband.
So, with such a cheap, fast, non-invasive test, can you really say it is responsible to bring a disabled child into this world? I think not.
[quote]If you're going to have kids, or even if you're just going to live gratefully on a planet where other people will make babies, you ought to be consciously, stoically, humbly aware that bad shit can happen. And there's nothing to be done.[/quote]
Fortunately, there IS a lot to be done, hence the early screening even at my low-risk age. Or maybe I should have humbly, stoically and consciously taken the energy drain, sickness and risks, foregone the tests because "bad shit can happen" and just hoped the big cosmic joke that is even a wanted pregnancy did not end up with a birth defect. An avoidable outcome, at least in my society.
hipparchia at October 27, 2008 4:06 AM
In your society, in your home. You wanna demand that for everybody? Or just smugly call them names when it doesn't work out, including "lowrisk" cases like yours?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 27, 2008 4:55 AM
Surely everyone nows by now I am going to call bullshit here. First, no matter what tests say, a Dr can NEVER tell you what your child's life will be. Not if the tests come back normal, and not if they don't. On a previous thread, I posted a link to the man with literally no brain. His head is filled with fluid that somehow-no dr can say how-functions as a brain. He lives a normal life. Rare? Who knows? How many babies prior to the last 10 years had ultrasounds, the world over? And how many adults get them, on their head? I"m sure it's not common, but it happens. And if that can happen, a kid with kidney disease can be ok too.
Bravo to her for telling her DH her true beliefs-that ending the marriage was a deal-breaker. I wish more people had values and stuck to them even when the going wasn't so smooth. No one on this planet has the right to tell another she has to abort. Just like no one on the planet has the right to tell you to end your life because you are costing too much in medical care. It doesn't matter how much the kid may cost. And unless you are comfortable with your government telling you that your life costs too much because you developed type II diabetes and emphezema, you better think twice about saying it's irresponsible of her.
I love my little 11 week fetus. No matter what. As much as I love my other 3. I get no prenatal testing, because the results would not matter to me. There's nothing they can treat in-utero, and I would never abort. Yes, ther are some horrible diagnoses out there-tay sachs is one of them. But that is a very very rare disease outside of certain ethnic groups, and those groups know to test PRIOR to pregnancy. Downs syndrome is a very wide diagnosis, as is autism. You can have either and be fully functional in life. You can be normal and be such a selfish, self-centered, sociopathic homicidal shit that even I am willing to say the world's better off without you. Do you really think a Dr's capable of telling you that?
Who is going to care for the kid, if it needs it, after the parents die? The taxpayers, of course. Just like we pay for almost all elderly people. Just like we will no doubt be paying for most of you, since virtually no americans can be bothered to save enough to support themselves. DH and I are, so yeah I get to feel superior there. In fact, I bet my tax dollars are supporting plenty of your parents right now. Should we kill them?
People who actually say, like the "dad" here, to abort and have another, make me puke. Talk about treating kids like a consumer good! They are not puppies, and are not replaceable or interchangeable. People who don't get that should not have them.
momof3 at October 27, 2008 4:56 AM
Google 'T4' and 'useless feeders'. The disabled were gased before the Jews. And in China and India, you are aborted for having 2 X chromosomes. Who will be left in this brave new world? ADD should be next.
Ruth at October 27, 2008 5:06 AM
Wow. Holier-than-thou much? MY parents are paying for themselves, thank you very much, via their pensions and 401ks and IRAs that they had the sense enough to put money into when they were making it. As do my brothers and I. I refuse to be on the public dole. Once was enough for me, and that was very short term, right after #1 was born. All of you holier-than-thou types really fry my ass. You say no one has the right to tell anyone else what they should or should not do, then procede to get all snotty about it all when someone does something that doesn't sit well with you. Take your self-righteousness and shove it. You have no idea and no right to tell someone else how they should feel, or how they should handle a personal problem. And just because you would handle it differently, doesn't make you any damn better.
Flynne at October 27, 2008 5:32 AM
Momof3 ypu werent really paying attention, this kid has other problems than kidneys that only work half the time.
He has brain damage, he cant walk, he cant talk, he has to be fed thru a tube, given the sheer volume of water he has to drink he will do doubt suffer from bladder problems and is at risk for diebeates.
The abortion might have been a marrige breaker - but what do you suppoe the effect to the husband working non stop to pay medical bills while his wife spends evey waking moment hovering over an animated lawn ornament will be?
lujlp at October 27, 2008 5:59 AM
You wanna demand that for everybody?
Nobody's demanding anything for anybody. But, I find it terribly irresponsible to knowingly bring a child into the world who will very likely suck your time from your other children, eat your finances and probably eat your marriage, leaving your other children in a broken home, and then leave the rest of us to care for it when you die or run out of energy or money.
This lady felt bad about having an abortion at 18, and now she's saddling the rest of us with this burden?
Amy Alkon at October 27, 2008 6:00 AM
Children should be able to sue their parents for damages caused by avoidable defects. If this woman is so sure she's doing the right thing, she should go ahead. If her child thinks otherwise, it should have legal redress. A public prosecutor should be able to take action for children who cannot act for themselves.
Norman at October 27, 2008 6:18 AM
testing ...
Norman at October 27, 2008 6:20 AM
But, I find it terribly irresponsible to knowingly bring a child into the world who will very likely suck your time from your other children, eat your finances and probably eat your marriage, leaving your other children in a broken home, and then leave the rest of us to care for it when you die or run out of energy or money.
Exactly, exactly, exactly. You wanna talk about selfishness? Ever heard of Munchausen by proxy? This Jennifer Carden woman is the poster child.
Flynne at October 27, 2008 6:35 AM
As much as I disagree with the idea that a mother will knowingly carry to term a baby that will harm the quality of life of the family, I do see the decision as one the family has the right to make.
Unfortunately for the family, if they are getting public assistance for the care of the child (and I emphatically do not mean health insurance provided by a private carrier), then their use of taxpayer money, extracted by threat of government force from others, makes this decision open to those who are being asked to pay for it.
And in that case, I vote to withhold *my* money from the family that opted to bring the child to term.
BlogDog at October 27, 2008 6:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1600471">comment from BlogDogAnd in that case, I vote to withhold *my* money from the family that opted to bring the child to term.
I'm guessing few of the people who bring children into the world who will most likely never be autonomous and always need expensive care can actually pay the cost of their choice. So, we're the ones who don't have a choice in funding their choice.
Amy Alkon at October 27, 2008 7:00 AM
Once again, why should you have a choice in public funding for these kids? I have no choice in public funding for fatasses who ate their way to ill health-and there areplenty of those on this blog, or dumbasses who smoke their way to cancer. They are different how?
And yes, I do get to be holier than thou on the retirement thing, because I am holier than more than 80% of the US in that area. If you and your family are exceptions, bravo. You're rare. Do your parents have medicare? Most-to the tune of 95%-of the elderly do. Who do you think pays that?
I also get to look down on people who make shitty decisions in general. Just like I get to look down on pedophiles and welfare moms. You make the decision on having the kid BEFORE you get pregnant. You don't get to trade it in because it's not the model you were after.
Some of you need to go back to your ivory towers where you can support situational ethics in medical care and eugenics with others who agree. The problem with your arguments will always be that you support that crap for other people (including, apparently, your kids) but not yourself. I never hear anyone saying "Yeah, I'm costing too much in medical bills. I should check out and free up available resources for others". It's always others who should die.
momof3 at October 27, 2008 7:12 AM
Acctually everyone should die - its inevitable.
If people who smoked themselves to cancer cant afford chemo, let them die
If fat asses who destroyed their pancreas cant afford insulin, let them die too
But if your pregnant with a child that will be so fucked up as to require constant medical intervention - and will spend their entire life in pain strapped to a chair we have to help you pay for it? People put their pets down for less.
I always felt there should be a program for people who insist on having such children - pump them full of as many drugs and toxins as nessecary to reduce them to the same physical, mental, and pain levels their children can expect
lujlp at October 27, 2008 7:23 AM
And just as a side question
Why is it that those who claim most freverently that there is a god and a heaven so afraid to die?
lujlp at October 27, 2008 7:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1600481">comment from momof3I don't have a choice, but I don't think it's right to force other people to pay for one's choices. I think people who smoke, etc., should pay substantially more in health care premiums. I think it's disgusting that people just starting out are paying for the health care costs of wealthy people in addition to the poor elderly. And I have no intention of being a suck on the system. If I have dementia or become a vegetable, I'd like somebody to kill me, and I plan on doing it myself if I find out I have dementia -- before I go totally out of my mind. I'm not talking about legislating this stuff -- but I personally don't think it's moral for me, if I become a human turnip, to suck vast dollars off society for my care.
Amy Alkon at October 27, 2008 7:26 AM
...but I personally don't think it's moral for me, if I become a human turnip, to suck vast dollars off society for my care.
Amen, sister. I sincerely hope momof3 doesn't ever have to experience that with any of her family, or gods forbid, her holy precious self. Because, hey, good luck with that. Don't look at me for any help.
As for me, it's in my living will, that if I'm ever in a situation where I can't sit up and ask for even so much as a scotch, one month after I've been incapacitated, then it can be assumed I never will again, so, pull the plug, roll up the tubes and call it a day. Divvy up my worldly goods between my survivors. Any organs that are usable, take 'em. Cremate the rest, done. Hopefully the amount of money I've set aside for that will be adequate.
Flynne at October 27, 2008 7:46 AM
I look down on selfish, addled women who have feverish cases of babyrabies and think of no one but themselves, and of nothing but their own desires. This goes for women who want babies so bad they will oops a guy for one. This goes for women who want babies so bad they will use a sperm donor and knowingly bring a fatherless child into the world to raise by herself. This goes for women who would steal another woman's kid. It's all about them, them, them, and I-want, I-want, I-want. I have no problem adding this ridiculous, irrational woman to the list.
Pirate Jo at October 27, 2008 8:02 AM
[quote]You make the decision on having the kid BEFORE you get pregnant. You don't get to trade it in because it's not the model you were after.[/quote]
Enter science and modern medicine which take away the binary state pregnant/non-pregnant and instead splits the whole process into well-studies weeks and months.
Yes, I get to trade one unhealthy foetus for a healthy one that will become a kid.
Maybe something is wrong with my wiring, but I loved my cat more when she lived than I loved my 11-week foetus.
In the end, it's the family's choice, but a cheap and fast test should at least get people thinking.
hipparchia at October 27, 2008 8:19 AM
Hmpf.
Better death than a life of pain. When we make our own beds, its fine for us to lie down in them...but with the yet unborn, when we make that metaphorical bed, it is the little ones who suffer first and suffer most. Then the parents or guardians of those little ones lie down in that bed and suffer too, and any other little ones they have quickly follow their parents into that bed of suffering.
And when the parents finally perish, whether it be old age, stress induced illness, or simply cut short by bad luck, that child, like the one in this case, is still around, still suffering. Then every tax paying member of society starts to pay. Precious resources that are not as unlimited as we like to think...every dollar paid to support a pain filled life is one less available to provide care for those who can actually have a chance to LIVE...not merely EXIST.
I understand the urge to value ALL life, and all the more I understand the urge to value so highly a life that is very much a part of ourselves.
But there ARE times in this world when we have to ask the cold hard question...are we providing life...or just keeping someone from dying so they can exist in a state of near constant pain and suffering? Who would we really be doing that for? Not for the one that suffers? We do it because we want to prevent our OWN suffering, we'd sooner see them live in pain, and make sure everyone around us pays for them to continue...than live with our own sense of loss and mourning. That isn't love, that isn't parenting, that isn't responsible in any form or fashion.
I don't know if there is a God or not. But if there IS a God, and he created this world, I'm damned sure he understands that sometimes kindness means giving the lesser pain, and that love means accepting some suffering yourself in exchange for someone else. If he doesn't understand THAT, he's not a God worth worshiping.
Perhaps the day will come when we've found ways to treat all debilitating conditions prior to birth, perhaps in time cures will be found for more of life's great ailments. When that day does come, parents to be around the world will celebrate daily the knowledge that their unborn will have at least a chance of happy healthy lives.
But that day is a long time in coming, and false hope is just another form of lying, and in a case such as the above, it is no less destructive and self serving.
So until that day comes, we have to ask parents to make the tough choices, for their good, for the good of other little ones they may have, for the good of a resource limited society that still doesn't have the power to save everyone from every pain, no matter what certain individuals claim to get votes and funding, and yes, for the good of the unborn themselves, so that every breathe isn't a hardship, and a childhood is not a memory of labored breathing in a waiting room, so difficult to comprehend because the brain itself is not able to function as it should.
I hate the only option available to prevent all that as much as the most dedicated religious individual.
But as I said before.
Sometimes kindness is the lesser pain.
Robert at October 27, 2008 8:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1600503">comment from FlynneAs for me, it's in my living will, that if I'm ever in a situation where I can't sit up and ask for even so much as a scotch,
Love that.
Amy Alkon at October 27, 2008 9:00 AM
"Sometimes kindness is the lesser pain." -robert
Agreed. I'd also have to add that my relationship with my husband is more important to me than a fetus that has been diganosed with serious birth defects.
I know that a diagnosis such as this creates a series of heartbreaking decisions that must be made by the people who would be responsible for the child's welfare. Because I would not be willing to adopt a special-needs child with a condition like this (or carry one to term), I could never look down on someone who chose to terminate in this situation.
ahw at October 27, 2008 10:42 AM
Too bad living wills are merely suggestions (don't know if it's a state-by-state thing, though) and no one actually has to pull the plug b/c you said so. You just hope your living loved ones have that much mercy.
"They are different how?"
1) I agree that obese ppl and smokers should have to pay a lot more in health care premiums. Just changed my workout to get more cut. I'm at the gym AT LEAST 4 times a week (and that's a bad week). Not everyone should do what I do, but it pisses me off that I work so hard to keep my body healthy and eat the right stuff and then I have to pay for someone's type 2 diabetes treatments. I'd love to eat a Cinnabon every morning and pizza every night. But I don't. B/c I enjoy being able to do things like boogie board without suffocating under my own body weight
2) The difference is that these over weight ppl and smokers are already alive. And not everyone can agree that abortion is murder. Once we have an established, exact, "proven" point where life begins that we can all muster 'round, we cannot put the 3 month old fetus who had a cord around his neck and will be born with severe CP and the 40 year old who frequents McDonald's too much in the same boat.
Not all of us qualify non-viable fetuses as "living" persons with rights.
Gretchen at October 27, 2008 11:06 AM
Folks, really, I get Ms Alkon's point, and that of most of the comments, but really, this would read better without the pissiness.
If Old RPM Momma went to the doctor and found out her unborn child had the same condition Ms Carden's had, I have no idea what she would do, or what I would want her to do. Fortunately, our kids all came out okay, and the factory's now closed. We'll never have to worry about that.
If it's a matter of sparing a young life a pain-filled and miserable existence, I suppose I can see aborting, in the most severe cases maybe. But it seems like a lot of the comments had to do with the child's future burden on society, with the child's parents no longer around to care for him or her. Folks, do we really, in our heart of hearts, want to go there? Most of the time, we don't know for sure who's going to be a burden and who's not. And Ruth's comment above makes a good point. The criteria we use to make a determination like the one we're making now is sure to change over time. Maybe autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease is the termination tripwire now, but where do we draw the line later? Down's Syndrome? ADD? Femaleness? I suspect lots of us won't like where it's drawn, and we won't be able to say it's none of our business.
By the way, Robert, I dig the what you say, and while I'm not sure I agree 100%, I don't think I could be articulate enough to express why.
old rpm daddy at October 27, 2008 11:08 AM
...just to wrap-up the thought...
B/c we don't qualify non-viable fetuses as having rights, it isn't the same moral dilemma (re: murder) for everyone. If I just went around shooting morbidly obese people I don't think I'd be too successful because it is illegal. On the other hand many people feel that abortion of a fetus is not murder.
Gretchen at October 27, 2008 11:10 AM
When survival of the fittest stopped being applicable to certain human societies, we find we've come to this. People who insist that certain tests don't really mean anything clearly have no real knowledge of the biological, pathological, biochemical or genetic fields. Some lives are not worth living. That's not heartless, that's life. Yes, it is ultimately the family's choice, but it should be BOTH of the parent's joint agreement either way. Ideally they should have to go on the record stating that they understand the risks and the hellish existence and costs entailed in maintaining the child and should be able to, in advance, prove they can cover the costs and have a plan in the case of their deaths.
Having the baby just to spawn a living thing that depends on you and makes you feel important or because your views are skewed with religious propaganda or you think yours will be that little miracle baby that will make the news is selfish and wrong. I would never keep my child alive knowing he/she is suffering every day in nothing close to a normal or pain-free life just on the hope that someday things will magically be worth it. I thankfully have no health issues other than severe migraines- that alone makes me hesitant to have children, I inherited mine from my mother. We're not racehorses or pedigree dogs people, adopt if you want them that badly. If something happens to me and I can no longer exist as a functioning member of society, pull my plug, take my organs, and send my best to the living.
Torque at October 27, 2008 11:22 AM
What if the doctors who are diagnosing your baby in utero are.....WRONG? Because um, well, they're known to have been wrong on more than a million occasions.
I've seen what Carden was hoping for actually play out with my niece; a rare genetic birth defect (Dandy Walker's Syndrome paired with Trisomy 18) where doctors had my sister convinced the baby would be dead before her first birthday. Last I checked, she's ten years old and perfectly healthy.
Ask around (or google) and you'll hear near-miss stories of expecting parents who submit to the triple, quad, or penta tests, are advised but refuse to abort when a false positive is returned, and then deliver a perfectly healthy baby.
Mom rolled the dice and lost, and the ripple effect from her decision is huge, but to require an abortion of anyone would put us in a different kind of society altogether.
juliana at October 27, 2008 11:29 AM
Juliana - to require an abortion of anyone would put us in a different kind of society altogether.
It would, but no-one's requiring forced abortions. They're just pointing out that the child, and to a lesser extent the taxpayers, are going to pay the cost of the mother's decision not to abort.
Norman at October 27, 2008 11:53 AM
juliana: "What if the doctors who are diagnosing your baby in utero are.....WRONG? Because um, well, they're known to have been wrong on more than a million occasions."
What if they're wrong? A fetus is aborted and the parents try again. Seems pretty simple to me.
You don't know if they're wrong until it's well too late, and I'd lay odds that the deeply defective babies outnumber the "the tests were wrong" babies by a whole lot. Some of us care more about the babies after birth than we do when they're fieldmouse-sized, and think that preventing 99 horrible, tortured, too-short lives after birth, is worth losing one two-ounce cluster of cells. Others are free, of course, to disagree.
Elizabeth at October 27, 2008 11:58 AM
I sure wish more people would read and respond to what was posted rather than add their own stuff as if it was the original.
You who think genetic markers won't be used more aggressively in the future probably need to think about this graph.
One way or another, it will be "turned". So think about the world you're bringing little Susie into.
Thirty years ago, there was an exodus of pediatricians in Florida for the very reason juliana displays above. Unwarranted optimism on the part of expectant parents produced an environment where legal action would ensue if the doctor didn't deliver a healthy baby.
As a result, doctors MUST tell you the worst case, lest they find themselves in court trying to explain why "they didn't tell me!"
You want to grin and insist everything's going to be OK, you do NOT have my sympathy when it's not.
Hard question: How many millions of dollars of public money, paying for extreme medical intervention, is your newborn worth, and whose duty is it to make that determination?
Radwaste at October 27, 2008 12:08 PM
"I agree that obese ppl and smokers should have to pay a lot more in health care premiums. "
I disagree. They tend to live shorter and die at a respectable age than the health nuts, who end up living up to 100. Thus, they should pay less premiums.
Over the course of life time, the social security and Medicare cost of society is a lot higher for healthy people than the smokers. If you want to balance our national budget, you should start smoking and die at an early age after short illness without collecting any social security or Medicare benefits.
The point I am trying to make is that life is not 100 percent money. You cannot decide which fetus gets to live or die based on your current knowledge of science or finance. There are people out there who actively pursue and adopt children with severe defects.
It is not your fetus just because it is in your body. In fact, your contribution to your fetus is that you got drunk one night and got horny. That does not give you the right to kill it.
Chang at October 27, 2008 12:14 PM
Actually, Chang, the last I checked I do have that "right", and I utilized it no more than a month ago. I was pregnant with twins, went to the very best specialists in the state and had a negative prognosis. Now I said my reason for my medical termination was that I could not see making the two daughters I have presently suffer - but truly my motives were purely selfish. I could not possibly watch all four of my children suffer, two of them most likely in pain and unable to live a fulfilling life. It would have destroyed me - to a shell of a person and a mother.
But I'm not everybody and I don't encourage anyone to do what I did - that is entirely your choice - and hopefully will continue to remain your choice and your 'right'. If you don't like it, in either direction - feel free to move.
dena at October 27, 2008 12:28 PM
"I could not possibly watch all four of my children suffer, two of them most likely in pain and unable to live a fulfilling life."
Next time, you get in the mood, you should kiss a girl.
"If you don't like it, in either direction - feel free to move."
I don't think so. I swam across the Pacific to get to this paradise and the octopus was coming out of my ear when I saw the Golden Gate.
What did you do to become an American? You are lucky because the technology you used was not available to your parents.
Chang at October 27, 2008 12:48 PM
Amongst the other bullshit that momof3 spewed, flowed this;
I never hear anyone saying "Yeah, I'm costing too much in medical bills. I should check out and free up available resources for others". It's always others who should die.
Count me as yet another and in one day too.
I have a living will and thankfully live where it has the force of law. I will not become a burden to my family and my society, should I end up in a horrible accident. I will not become a burden to my family and society if I get gravely ill, with no or little hope of recovery. Nor will I become a burden to my family or society when I become to feeble to get up and go for a wee (or if I can't sit up and pour my own shot of small batch bourbon, sorry Flynne, but I don't care for scotch).
I even take it a step or two further, advocating for legal, proactive, physician assisted suicide. If I am in a horrible accident, rather than being denied lifesaving measures and left to die of my wounds, I believe it would be far more reasonable to get a shot that will put me out of my misery. Or if the time comes to cut off the lifesupport devices, again with the shot - before the plug is pulled.
DuWayne - water birthing fan at October 27, 2008 12:50 PM
To call this woman selfish for not aborting her child is incredibly cruel and heartless. Look, I don't even WANT another child, but if I got pregnant with a baby with the same medical problems, I would not have an abortion. Not because of political or even religious reasons, but because I am simply not capable of taking my own child's life. If you don't see it as taking a life, fine, but that's how I see it, and I don't give a shit what anyone thinks about it. I love my children unconditionally, and would love them the same if they each had two heads and a tail. And that love started for me the minute I knew they existed. Oh and by the way, I would never judge a woman for having an abortion under this woman's circumstances, so how dare anyone judge her for not having one. Amy, for the first time ever, I'm digusted by you.
P.S. I am so moved by Jennifer's story that I plan on sending her a check to help with her medical bills. I encourage anyone who feels as I do to do the same.
Karen at October 27, 2008 12:55 PM
I wonder how much of this has to do with the worship of suffering I found so common growing up as a Catholic. Those of us who took life's burdens upon ourselves voluntarily were more spiritual than those of us who didn't, and people who made choices that minimized their own suffering -- such as getting an abortion or getting out of a miserable marriage, or not getting married at all -- were selfish.
The glorification of human suffering is one of the reasons I'm not Catholic anymore.
MonicaP at October 27, 2008 1:01 PM
I think it is very easy for us to sit in our chairs and imagine what we'd do in a similar situation. I firmly believe the choice to abort is a personal one and should be treated as such. I understand the rationale behind Amy's criticism, but I don't think a mother's love for her unborn child can be so quickly dismissed.
Charles at October 27, 2008 1:16 PM
To call this woman selfish for not aborting her child is incredibly cruel and heartless.
No Karen, it's not. And I don't even put the cost to the taxpayers as a consideration here. She has other kids to take care of and raise - kids who are necessarily going to be neglected because of the care their suffering sibling requires. And then there is the child. A child who will have a lifetime of suffering and the requirement of far more medical appointments than anyone should have to face.
I have two children, one six, one who is ten months. When the ten month old was still gestating, an idiot nurse gave us the impression that there was a substantially elevated risk of down syndrome (turned out it was a three percent chance), that required further testing. There wasn't even much of a discussion about it, some glances and a "well if that's what it is..." "yeah, I know." Our whole family, ill prepared as we were to have another at that point, were ecstatic about the new addition. My six year old was (and remarkably, still is) absolutely thrilled at the notion of becoming a big brother.
I often mention my six year old's neurochemistry, as a important reason to terminate if the testing came back differently. Severe ADHD and probably bipolar or Lien's syndrome, make him a real handful. But honestly, even if he didn't inherit my neurochemistry, we still would have terminated if our fetus was DS. Why? Because our six year old deserves parents who can provide him with reasonable care and education.
And Karen, this would not have been anything less than heartbreaking for us. While I don't believe that a fetus is a person, I certainly felt love for the bulge in momma's belly - as did my six year old and momma. But that love was tempered by the knowledge that we have other responsibilities. Had the risk been tays sachs, or this sort of birth defect, it would have been our very love for the fetus that contributed to the decision to abort.
DuWayne at October 27, 2008 1:26 PM
"I disagree. They tend to live shorter and die at a respectable age than the health nuts, who end up living up to 100. Thus, they should pay less premiums."
I've heard that before. Lots of anecdotal evidence and not enough facts. So I can't really say for sure. But the way I see it: the way technology is these days an unhealthy person can live a very long life. Being overweight increases all sorts of health risks but most of them are controllable with meds and treatments.
So, if I'm healthy and live to 100 but never break my hip (because I lift weights and run, thus ensuring my bone density is good) or need diabetes meds or gastric bypass...how is that costing you more? I watched the Today Show this AM and the doc said "our bodies are built for 90" meaning we can make it to 90 years of age no problem. But it's our choices that make a difference. Those differences can end up killing you at 70 (like you said) or not - but you'll need insulin shots or oxygen because of emphysema (like I said). I'll take an average of the two and I think I'm still right.
People can make the choices they want but don't expect others to pick up the tab b/c you're knowingly, willingly making poor choices.
Gretchen at October 27, 2008 1:30 PM
Duwayne, I have some questions about bipolar disorder. If you have a few minutes would you mind hitting me up? gs749 at yahoo dot com.
Thanks!
Gretchen at October 27, 2008 1:34 PM
Karen she was selfish - not only in regards to what DuWanye said about her other kids - but what about the husband?
HE now has to work much harder to pay more bills and he will NEVER be able to transfer to another company unless the new job has an insurance policy willing to cover a child with so many pre existing conditions
Want to lay odds on that happening?
He probably lives every day in fear of getting laid off and losing his insurance - and probably spends more time working in an effort to keep his job no matter what
How long do you suppose it will be before she leaves him for never being home and supporting her needs?
lujlp at October 27, 2008 1:45 PM
Gretchen -
Done. Though I am having some weirdness with gmail, so if it's not there shoot me a line at duwayne.brayton at gmail dot com.
DuWayne at October 27, 2008 1:48 PM
Let me state again that I would not judge a family for choosing abortion for reasons of severe disability. I feel very bad for people who are put in the position of making that decision. But for many people, myself included, abortion is simply not an option. Can't eveyone just leave this woman alone?
Karen at October 27, 2008 1:57 PM
And now, in addition to all the problems this kid will live with, he will have to live with the fact that his father doesn't want him. Even if the guy is good at hiding it, that kind of thing bleeds out.
MonicaP at October 27, 2008 2:00 PM
DuWayne,
You make some good points, but even for you, the choice to abort would have been heartbreaking, and you don't even believe that a fetus is a person.
What ever happened to "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one?"
Karen at October 27, 2008 2:07 PM
Gretchen -
People can make the choices they want but don't expect others to pick up the tab b/c you're knowingly, willingly making poor choices.
This is one of the reasons I am big on the notion of assisted suicide. I have made some pretty bad choices and not only don't I want others to pick up the tab, I don't want to live with the longer term results.
I smoke tobacco, have for years and have had a lot of trouble quitting - though I am hopeful that I will get there. I have seen the results of longterm smoking and even if I quit today, I am still going to have hell to pay as I age.
I don't really drink anymore (a few drinks per year isn't a substantive health risk, but I figure I put down my lifetime fair share when I was young - I know that many drinkers do far more damage than I did with my stint of drinking as a youngun', but I sure as hell didn't do my body good with all of that.
I also used a lot of drugs when I was younger. Not just the more common ones either (though I at least tried almost all of them), nope, nope, nope. I tried all sorts of hallucinogens (my very favs), including a lot of highly toxic plants. Enough so that I occasionally feel the need to check my pulse and wonder if my life is a hallucination I'm experiencing as I slowly slip away - several years ago. If in fact my existence is sound, my liver most certainly isn't. (though I suspect my spinal fluid would kick ass for a hella trip)
On top of it all, I also fucked the dog with school as a youngun' and ended up working in construction. Spent almost six years as a roofer - I will be surprised if I don't get the knee's replaced by fifty. Doing this sort of work has torn up my body something fierce. I am working on the educational shortcomings, but a new career won't repair the damage, just keep me from inflicting much more.
Sorry, I really don't want to be ninety. I figure that barring some major health care breakthroughs and my ability to pay for them, seventy or so is the top end - probably closer to sixty. And I don't intend to whither and die either, I have every intention of leaving life on my terms (barring a horrible accident) and with whatever dignity I can muster (and a whole lot of LSD - about ten thousand times the normal street dose). My choices have fucked up this body and I don't see why everyone else should have to pay for it, nor after a certain point, do I want to live with them.
DuWayne at October 27, 2008 2:21 PM
Karen -
I absolutely support a woman's right to choose, including the right not to abort. That is not the same as believing they are always right in not having one.
I absolutely despise racist fuckwads who want to claim the holocaust didn't happen. At the same time, I am an ardent advocate for their right to spew their bile. Doesn't mean that I won't criticize the foul things that they have to say - just means that I support their right to say it.
I will not and never will support mandatory abortion. I will even continue to advocate for tax funded health care for the results of unterminated pregnancies, such as the one described here. Doesn't mean that I am just going to sit back and cheer her dumbass on. I believe that she is wrong and will criticize her for her shitty decision. A decision that was about as selfish as selfish can get.
DuWayne at October 27, 2008 2:27 PM
This is the last thing I will say and then I'm out of here and you can all talk about what a moron I am.
Why on earth would a woman give birth to a disabled child out of SELFISHNESS? How is her life better because of this? How does she benefit at all? I'm sure this child is a tremendous burden to her. I have to assume that she believes it is WRONG to have an abortion because it is taking a human life, and therefore is MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE to her. She made a MORAL choice, not a selfish choice. Moral, in the sense of being influenced by her morals and values.
Believe me, I can't stand women who have babies for selfish reasons, thinking of only the way her life will be made complete and giving no thought to how anyone else is affected. But a woman like this would be the first one to abort a less than perfect child, because caring for a disabled child is not the ideal vision of motherhood most women have.
So selfish? No not in a million years
Karen at October 27, 2008 2:59 PM
Karen it is selfish - look up the definition of narcicism
It is selfish beause she put er wants ahead of what was good fo her marrige and the kids they already had
Do you suppose she has time for her other kids now?
Of course her other kids would have grown up and left her - the kid chained to a wheelchair he cant even operate never will
lujlp at October 27, 2008 3:18 PM
"How is her life better because of this?"
Because abortion is ugly and for about 99% of us "pro choicers" it still seems inherently...well, I'm at a loss for words. Uncomfortable (figuratively)? Wrong? Fucked up? I mean, whether or not we can all agree on an established measurement for when life begins we're still ending a human life. It isn't like killing a spider. It's still a human life whether it's a clump of cells or not. And that's inherently difficult for most people to deal with.
We can't really say whether or not this disabled kid's life will suck or not. We assume as much b/c, compared to most of our lives, he will be dependent on others and won't have the same level of brain function. Will he be self aware? Is breathing and passing bowel movements "life"? Surely there are varying degrees of "living" that people experience but is there a line? An amputee might feel anger and resentment - but can probably lead a fulfilling and happy life with the proper therapy, pain killers and support from loved ones. But again - a shell of a human that breathes and maybe doesn't have any awareness of his/her surroundings...who and how can that call be made?
To most people that doesn't seem like an appealing life - it's basically vegetable-ism. It makes people uncomfortable to make that call for someone else, esp. someone who is growing inside of you. Someone who you created.
Even if we COULD all agree that this kid's life wouldn't be great, killing the fetus is still a difficult concept to grapple with. So maybe selfish is a strong word - but basically letting the child live is saving yourself from this horrendously difficult moral dilemma and subsequent, lifelong guilt that might ensure should you abort this troubled fetus.
People can say that we can't put a measurement on the value of a person's life. But we do it all the time and we're all intelligent enough to get a "gut feeling" about whether a severely disabled (like a person who isn't self-aware) is truly living life or not. It's just harder to reason out when it's babies that are growing inside of us. We don't want to make that tough call so we go w/ the safer bet - that the child's suffering is better than not living at all. And then we ignore what "living" means and put a smile on and say it's selflessness.
Gretchen at October 27, 2008 3:18 PM
Karen - and others - feel free to suggest what other reason the woman had. Do you really have a moral duty to bring forth a vegetable? It happens. Just as some argue for the woman to choose, others say no - and in that case, there's a big reason.
Technology will let you produce a vegetable today. Where is the burden, to see that technology is used correctly?
Is that another question too hard to answer, like the one in bold above?
Radwaste at October 27, 2008 3:25 PM
"Hard question: How many millions of dollars of public money, paying for extreme medical intervention, is your newborn worth, and whose duty is it to make that determination?"
A siderail from that is: Once upon a time, we did not have today's techniques of extreme medical intervention. Now that we do, MUST we use them? Is it not okay to perhaps let nature take its course? Or do we just not hear about the parents that let nature take its course?
Micki at October 27, 2008 3:31 PM
Karen -
Why on earth would a woman give birth to a disabled child out of SELFISHNESS?
Because in the end, she is placing her moral need to not end that life in her womb, over her moral obligation to her family's welfare. This is a question of competing moral interests. Both options have a negative moral outcome (from her perspective). On the one hand, she kills the fetus in her womb. On the other hand, she allows the fetus to gestate and has a infant that is going to monopolize all of her time. at the cost of her other children. Too, said infant is going to live in misery and at great cost medically. Not to mention how it impacts her husband.
She is selfish, because she couldn't even consider ending it. She refused to consider the affect this would have on her existing family or the fetus itself, after it was born. The only consideration for her, was her objection to abortion. Refusing to even consider the impact of this child on her family is unbelievably selfish. And while I am sure that she contemplated how it would impact her family, she didn't consider it. Because while doing so might not have changed her mind, it would have required considering abortion - something that she obviously refused to do.
Selfish isn't a black and white concept. There are many ways to be selfish and many selfish reasons for having a baby or continuing a pregnancy.
Moral conflicts are a tough nut to crack. I don't envy those who run into them, having run into a few of them myself. Such conflicts can be debilitating, or at best, are incredibly painful. Anyone having to manage one has my sincerest sympathies. But hiding one's head in the sand is not a reasonable reaction. Pretending that it doesn't exist, as this women seems to have, is reprehensible. And yes, it's also selfish.
DuWayne at October 27, 2008 3:36 PM
Oh, I see Rad just posted along the same lines, I like the way he put it.
Micki at October 27, 2008 3:36 PM
Its very simple Karen.
You think she was making a moral loving choice to bring the child forth into the world.
The PROBLEM Karen...is that doing so is like bringing that child into hell itself.
Pain, suffering, and dependency will be his life. His childhood is a menagerie of doctor visits, surgeries, and agony incomprehensible to those of us who are healthy. All the more incomprehensible because of inadequate brain development that will leave that poor innocent able to do little more than understand THAT he suffers.
Inflicting a life of pain to a child is a lot LESS moral, than giving them back to whatever God there is.
YES Karen, I understand how hard, how painful, how hellishly agonizing it is to even consider, let alone actually go through, with a termination. But part of being an adult, and a good parent, is making the tough choices, facing the hard decisions, and accepting that your private pain and mourning is less important than sparing an innocent 80 years and some of pain, for their sake, and for the sake of the healthy ones already in the world that need the attentions of their parents.
Maybe it is hard, but the refusal to make that hard choice, face those hard facts, IS selfish. I realize she believes she is only thinking of the child...but that does not make it any better, it just makes her more ignorant, because she isn't considering the KIND of existence he will have, only that he will continue to exist.
Robert at October 27, 2008 5:31 PM
You all don't read well. And make a lot of assumptions. One is that because I think babies should get a shot at life, means I think all life should be extended. And that ain't so. My uncle pulled the plug on his high school sweetheart 40 year old wife when she was braindead, and I would do the same, as would my parents or my husband. I have NO problem with people killing themselves. You think your life sucks and you parents shouldn't've had you? Don't sue, just kill yourself. Make your own decision. Because to sue, would be to say your life is worth living, with just a bit more money.
I have a living will, and my family is very clear on my wishes. BUT, other people do not have the right to kill someone who hasn't asked for it. Whether or not you think their life is worth living. You aren't God.
No dr can tell you what quality of life a kid will have before it's born. You can google any birth defect you want, you will find stories of people with it living normal lives. There is an armless legless man here in the US who does inspirational speaking, for god's sake. He's THRILLED to be alive.
All siblings take attention and finances from their older siblings. So unless you are advocating a 1 kid policy, that argument doesn't hold water.
I've had a perinatologist tell me my twins were conjoined, and offer termination. My twins are 4.5, not conjoined, and perfectly healthy. They were, however, monoamniotic, a condition with a greater than 50% in-utero deathrate. Yet again, here they are. My cousin was told her child was probably down syndrome. Being a good prolife christian, she saw no need for further testing, and had the kid. The perfectly normal kid.
The basic point here that I am making is this: you can't be pissed at giving tax money to her, unless you are pissed at giving it to anyone who needs help. And you don't get to decide who should live and who should die. You wouldn't want to live in that place.
Oh, and yeah, I believe in God and heaven (and have no doubt people who've had an abortion will be answering to god), and have no fear of death. Doesn't mean I'm going to kill my kid, to send them there early. That's psycho talk. You don't believe in god, or think he doesn't care? Great. We'll see who's right soon enough. I have nothing to fear if I"m wrong. You?
momof3 at October 27, 2008 7:44 PM
And an interesting sidebar on the "how often are drs wrong" thing:
I detailed above the situation-entirely wrong on the drs part, then beating some pretty big odds-with my twins above.
Next pregnancy, unremarkable until the preeclampsia that almost killed me.
This pregnancy, went in for what I thought was a 6 week untrasound, was told no baby, I was already reabsorbing. Go home, come back in 7 days if your body doesn't do it's thing. I went back, and got another ultrasound prior to my D&C (which is fairly common practice, to double-check the diagnosis) and low and behold, a heartbeat! So, I am 1 woman and have had 2 good drs (I go the what are considered among the best here in austin) be wrong about my babies twice. Out of 3 pregnancies. While I doubt the 66% error rate holds true across the board, I'm betting it's much higher than the 1 or 2% someone above suggested. Much much higher.
Are we comfortable with 10%? 25%? What's the line? I can quote similar wrong-dr stories all day, just from people I know. I do know a lot of people, so maybe I'm strange in the # of stories I hear.
momof3 at October 27, 2008 7:59 PM
Why is everyone so damn certain this child is going to have a horrible, pain-filled existence full of suffering and despair?
Maybe the child will never have enough cognitive skills to ever realize something's wrong with him. Maybe he'll be a happy person because he doesn't know any better. You don't fucking know that he won't. Maybe he'll be a huge blessing to his family. Just because things are difficult now does NOT mean that it will always be that way.
Take my niece, for example. She was born with terrible case of spina bifida(the abortion decision does not come into play here, my idiot sister did not get prenatal care of any kind). The doctors, some of the best pediatric doctors in the country, told us she would never walk, never talk, was most likely severely mentally retarded, etc., etc.
Flashforward twelve years and she is a smart, talented child who can walk, talk, and has the most caring heart of anyone I've ever met. Yes, she has problems, had many many surgeries, has had her moments of great pain but she is inspiring. She is worth having around. I believe she will do great things with her life.
And yet some of you would have wanted her to be terminated during the pregnancy due to the risks. You don't know the fucking future. So don't judge this poor woman for what she did. It may be well worth it in the future.
maureen at October 27, 2008 8:51 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1600628">comment from maureenMaybe the child will never have enough cognitive skills to ever realize something's wrong with him.
Do you think this is a quality employers look for? Feel free to donate liberally to pay for this child now, when his parents run out of funds, and for the rest of his life. Do let us know when you'll be over to babysit.
Amy Alkon at October 27, 2008 9:06 PM
> Do let us know when you'll
> be over to babysit.
That's a spectacularly shitty use of sarcasm.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 27, 2008 10:21 PM
Sorry Amy,
I do like you very much and I like what you say most of the time. This is not one of them. However, there are hospitals such as Shriners and St. Judes that receive large private donations so that children can receive proper care. I do donate as much as I can to these organizations so that children can have at least a fighting chance at a decent life.
You know, they do hire mentally retarded people at grocery stores and things like that. It doesn't take many cognitive skills to bag groceries.
maureen at October 27, 2008 10:29 PM
maureen, are you serious?
What part of "hospitalized three times already" and other items in the story indicate any moment of bliss?
So the toddler might be too stupid to know that anything's wrong - and that's a plus? The fetus was even less aware. You just made a fine argument for aborting when gross problems were known (yes, known, this isn't a "might-have-been" anecdote).
Use this simple test: if you were pregnant, and you were looking at your medical records before birth, would you really tell the doctor to add defects, it'll be all right? And, one more time, just how much intervention can you or should you be able to direct to get "success" - and who gets to define that?
It might be a personal whim, but I think that "love" is that condition where another's happiness is essential to my own. Just where does that turn out to "Look, baby. Something bright. Something pretty. A scalpel"?
I see everyone avoiding the question in bold. Well, well. That seems to say, "let the public decide, because I don't want to". That sort of thing comes out for the best, doesn't it?
Of course not. Such cases as above result in laws, because of the obvious complications. Think where that's going.
This woman in the story made a horrible choice, and she's not the only one who has to live with it. That's the story here, and it's pretty much indisputable. Whatever alternative we might suggest is only available to someone else now, hopefully attentive to the possibilities, and I suggest that repeating the above gross mistake would be just plain nuts. This is not something that political correctness can fix.
Ladies, it might be a gross thing to think about, but you're carrying thousands of ova, some of which are fundamentally defective. You roll the dice personally, as well as with the guy you pick. Doctors now let you have a "do-over". I'm not going to tell you to have a baby you don't want, but I insist that since you have a choice you make the best one you can, and to realize that yes, you can try again. There will be no such moral stigma as will follow you around if you decide to push a crippled infant into the world. You have the ability to produce a Nobel winner who saves us all, but only if you make the right choices. Be wrong, and you can be noble, and you will be alone, as no one wants to see deformities.
The consequences of bad, and horrible, choices are all around us. We should learn from them.
Radwaste at October 28, 2008 1:50 AM
> That's the story here, and
> it's pretty much indisputable
Don't be smug. Don't be presumptuous. Don't be silly.
> I insist that since you have
> a choice you make the best
> one you can
Christ, you guys are so authoritarian!
You really think life's pain can be made to go away by fucking with others who are skewered by the vagaries of biology.....
'Make the good choices, fellow citizens! Make the good choice! We insist!'
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 28, 2008 2:19 AM
The more I think about Raddy's comment, and so many others here, the more it pisses me off.
> I insist that since you
> have a choice you make
> the best one
Honestly, what the fuck could that possibly, possibly mean? It's like the feminists, who are just so sure of their righteousness that they can't believe that any woman would wanna grow up, get married, have some kids and stay home and raise them...
Yep, it's just like that, only the stakes are higher, if only for the flickering morality in Raddy's immortal soul.
'Make the right choice!'
People keep talking about this kid as "the huge burden you are willingly imposing on society." If that's not the most ignoble, condemnable, bloodthirsty case ever made for abortion, I can't imagine what would be. Jesus Christ.
People born with these conditions aren't 'burdens.' They're motherfucking citizens. They eat, shit, tire, sneeze, and dream. They hate it when it's too cold, they hate it when it's too hot. Mosquitoes make their skin itch.
They're every bit as fond of their next breath as you are of yours. If you hate this as much as I do, don't have kids. Otherwise, no tears, OK?
No matter what science does and no matter what society does, more of these people are coming, and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 28, 2008 2:38 AM
More! More!
>> To call this woman selfish
>> for not aborting her child is
>> incredibly cruel and heartless.
> No Karen, it's not
Yes, DuWayne, it is.
As has often been noted here, a lot of the pride women take in having kids is their simple reflection of the woman's own fertility. It accounts for many of Amy's finest posts: Kids running around in coffeehouses, diapers being changed in restaurants, etc.
And get this: It's all a matter of degree.
So you think your precious, rational nose for morality will allow to tell the difference between eager, loving motherhood and selfish, irresponsible flesh-mongering.
I think you people are blind, deaf fools.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 28, 2008 2:54 AM
Amen, Crid! Preach on!
old rpm daddy at October 28, 2008 4:46 AM
I keep hearing how the child would suffer and the family would suffer. I hear opinionated people who do not have accurate information to make such judgments.
Who is to say that child wouldn't want to live and be loved for the short period they may be here. Rather than never living or feeling the love from their family. Doctors can not say what will happen to a child, before or after birth they can guess as they do. Which will help be prepared for what may happen. Who determines quality of life? People make decisions on the information they have and the experiences they have had. To them it is right who is to say they are wrong, you may choose different, I couldn't say what I would do I haven't been there. I had no choice, but I would give up having my daughter now that I know her (who has many medical and cognitive differences).
As for our family and other children, it is crazy to think that other children would be neglected. My children are anything but neglected actually very opposite, we have grown as a family and my children have a different perspective on life one that I wish other people would have. They are more caring and more understanding that everyone is different, people make different choices.
Advice goddess I would say not, how can you give advice when you don't educate yourself on these matters. Go live the life of a family that you judge so harshly.
momtospecialchild at October 28, 2008 5:56 AM
I wouldn't give up my daughter, typo.
momtospecialchild at October 28, 2008 6:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1600706">comment from momtospecialchildYou can appreciate the humanity of an existing person while understanding that it's an enormous burden on a family and society -- one which the family has no right to knowingly place on the rest of us. Also, if you have existing children, you owe it to them to care for them adequately and not allow your life, time, and energy -- and finances -- to be sucked away wen you can prevent it. Sure, there are "miracles," when a fetus who's been diagnosed with some disease manages to make it, and maybe even make good. But, let's not tell fairy tales here: much of the time, it's possible to predict with reasonable accuracy, when a fetus is not going to be an autonomous person.
Amy Alkon at October 28, 2008 6:08 AM
Special needs children are not burdens, they are children. The don't burden our society any more than a child being born to families who don't have a stedy income. Are you to say that if a person doesn't have money to have a child they should have to abort. Since when isn't it a right to make a decision on whether your child should be born. What world are you living in, doesn't seem like the same on I'm living in.
I ask you what is your experience with children who have special medical needs.
Go live that live and then tell me you would knowingly abort a child who "may have medical issues"
Again I say you are making comments based on lack of knowledge. And I won't waste any more of my time posting here, when it clear can't be appreciated that people are different and make different choices.
momtospecialchild at October 28, 2008 6:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1600717">comment from momtospecialchildMany or most special needs children are an ENORMOUS burden to society, as they will always need care. If somebody doesn't have money to have a child they should not have one. How you get to that point is up to your beliefs. You can have an abortion (I did, when I got pregnant accidentally -- I'm a fucking fertility icon) or you can have the baby and pass it on to somebody who can afford it.
You ask a dumb question: what's my experience with children who have special needs. I have some, and it's irrelevant. Children who it seems likely can never be autonomous adults should not be brought into the world. Nor should children who will live lives of pain and suffering. It's hard enough watching an adult friend go through cancer.
I'm talking economics here and cost to society. If you cannot pay for a disabled child's care throughout their life, and see that they have nursing funded by you, you have no business having that child. (I'm talking about a child that you know will be disabled.)
I have a friend who has an autistic son and she has most wisely set things up with her older children so they will always care for him (thinking about when she and her husband are no longer around). They care for him as teenagers -- she's set this up as the family behavior, as what must be done. Few people think this stuff out.
Amy Alkon at October 28, 2008 6:36 AM
>>Sure, there are "miracles," when a fetus who's been diagnosed with some disease manages to make it, and maybe even make good. But, let's not tell fairy tales here: much of the time, it's possible to predict with reasonable accuracy, when a fetus is not going to be an autonomous person.
Amy,
Sure, there are fairy tales of fetal-triumph-over-adversity - the tabloid press love 'em, and I think a good number are bullshit.
But I'm with Crid [People born with these conditions aren't 'burdens.' They're motherfucking citizens.] and Juliana [way above].
Doctors (this was Juliana's point) are not fond of Nature's congenital screw-ups - and they can advise poorly.
When I was back in the UK recently, I read an excellent update article about the surviving Thalidomide-damaged generation - now middle-aged.
The ones who had found it hardest to prevail were those who had been given corrective surgery after birth - to trim away the unsightly "nub" and "flap" remnants of deformed fingers and toes.
This was done at the strongest recommendation of the medical profession, in part to "normalize" their public appearance, and allow better-fitting prosthetics.
It was totally the wrong decision.
The ones who didn't have the surgery were the "lucky" ones - they learned to be incredibly dexterous with their vestigial digits and live independent lives.
The ones who had the surgery and were left with vastly reduced physical capability felt they'd been doubly screwed by the medical profession.
(The Thalidomide scandal has always hit close for me. My mother has always said two of her children "would have been T-victims" - except for the fact that the doctor who had urged her to take the then morning-sickness-miracle-drug "was a ghastly little shit" - so she refused.)
Jody Tresidder at October 28, 2008 7:01 AM
How many millions of dollars of public money, paying for extreme medical intervention, is your newborn worth, and whose duty is it to make that determination?
This is a hard question? Why? For me, the honest answer is: not one fucking penny. And because it's my newborn, it's my duty, and that of the father, if he's in any way involved, to make that decision. Nodamnbody else's. What about this are you people not getting? If you have one iota of personal responsibility to yourself and your family, you owe it to yourself and your family to assess your financial situation, and act accordingly. The figure for raising ONE HEALTHY CHILD from birth to the age of 18 is well over $150K these days, and that doesn't include college tuition. If you can honestly afford at least 5 times that for health expenses for a "special needs" child, go for it. Not only can I not, but I also cannot justify putting the living members of my family through that kind of hell out of a sense of selfishness or self-righteousness. It doesn't make sense. I'm not a martyr, nor do I play one in the movie that is my life. I have more of an obligation to my children that are already here running around draining the family coffers than I do to one who isn't even fully formed yet. If I can prevent the suffering of that one child by terminating the pregnancy, and sparing the rest of my family the anguish of losing a sibling, no matter how short their life span is, I have that obligation, and that right, to do so. It is out of a sense of caring for ALL involved that I would do this.
Flynne at October 28, 2008 7:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1600732">comment from FlynneWell put, Flynne. And exactly right.
The people here who are mewling about how horrible I am are doing it without tether to reality -- especially economic realities and the finiteness of one person's time and energy.
Because it's possible, thanks to modern medical intervention (and the millions of dollars other citizens will be forced to fork over) to keep a child alive who would've died just decades ago doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Medical abilities must be tempered with real-life realities.
Amy Alkon at October 28, 2008 7:43 AM
That's nice Flynne. I can assure you I will spend no where near $600,000 raising my perfectly healthy normal kids. I doubt I'll spend a fraction of that, above what DH and I would've spent supporting ourselves regardless. But please keep repeating that unsupported number.
I'm glad you don't want a fucking penny from taxes for your healthy kid. Plan on homeschooling then? Already doing so? Goning to say no thanks to college loans? Refuse the child tax credit? You are already taking a ton of money for your kid, so stop with the noble act. It benefits society for you to do so. We have a vested interest in educating and raising the future generation. We also, as a society, have a vested interest in making sure those who can't speak for themselves are still cared for. If you think we don't, go read up on prewar germany. The disabled went first, but they didn't stop there, and wouldn'tve stopped at all if the world hadn't stopped them. There will always be someone "lesser" than those in charge. And you, not being in charge, are not safe once we start down that road.
momof3 at October 28, 2008 8:08 AM
Amy would abort any child, special needs or no. At least she's consistent, if horribly horribly wrong.
Crid, I am LOVING you right now. You always have sense, but it's especially fun when we agree.
Where's Brian?
momof3 at October 28, 2008 8:17 AM
>>The people here who are mewling about how horrible I am are doing it without tether to reality -- especially economic realities and the finiteness of one person's time and energy.
Nonsense, Amy.
It's possible you hugely underestimate the limits of patience and energy other people can find for tasks you'd find pointlessly Herculean.
I've a gentle, burly brother-in-law who works full time with severely mentally disabled adults in the UK. He has a sense of humor so dry and subtle it's easy to miss - his own teenage kids are super bright and sparky, so it's not as though he's become a self-serving saint.
He just has extraordinary reserves of patience: he's a big, placid, watchful guy - and much more tethered to hard reality than I could ever be.
Jody Tresidder at October 28, 2008 8:23 AM
Those inspiring stories about people overcoming the handicaps that they're born with...they're inspiring because they are RARE. And the fact of the matter is, that alot of those handicaps now have technological solutions to them.
Wonderful as that is, it has lead to the belief that everything can be fixed like magic.
The fact is that there is a helluva lot more that we cANNOT fix, than there are things that we can. Yes we're getting better, but we're not there just yet.
I've seen multiple posts here where people have said, "Doctors can't say what kind of life the child will have."
Well that is just plain silly.
Let me ask you something. What do doctors DO for a living? They see sick people. Its wonderful that you personally may know one person whom the doctors were wrong about.
But a doctor at a major hospital with 15 years experience behind him has seen thousands of patience, those who specialize in stuff like we've discussed, are surrounded by agony & pain from scores upon scores of people, they've gone through the routines with these people as they come into and go out of this world.
How can the doctors tell what is ahead?
BECAUSE THEY'VE SEEN IT SO MANY TIMES!!!
If a doctor who has been practicing for 30 damn years tells you what the lifestyle of someone born with certain defects is going to be like, he's not talking out of his ass with anecdotes, its 30 years of seeing it first hand.
The anecdote you have of your great aunt Tessie's nephew's cousin's newborn daughter...does NOT stack up to THAT.
Yes doctors can be wrong, but remember these are the same folks who deal with the technology y'all keep looking to for solutions, they speak from experience, and they're wrong alot less often than they're right.
Love is alot of things, but as a cure for a severely damaged brain and half functioning kidneys...it falls short.
Are special needs children a burden or not?
That is a rather loaded question. There are a great many degrees of disability, and we are a far cry from the society where you either farmed or lived off farmers.
I suppose what it boils down to is this:
Can we reasonably expect that a person born into this world will grow up, and become a functional member of society?
For some that answer is yes, even in a limited capacity.
For some, life will be a series of waiting rooms and surgeries and if they're fortunate, being able to ask for a higher dose of pain medications and getting it.
It would be wonderful if we could just clone fully functional bodies and put the brains from ill ones in it, as in "The 6th Day", but we can't.
The plain fact is that those of you who say love at all costs, are forgetting that it is almost always OTHER PEOPLE who pay those costs.
The children who get less attention...or who suddenly grow ill and then can't get the care THEY need because just last month another loan was taking out to pay for the third surgery in two years for another child...or the marriage suffers because both parents are exhausted physically and mentally...or the resources of the community are drained to provide extra care for a child that in any previous century would have already passed away. And make no mistake about that, the resources of our nation, states, cities, and whathaveyou, are NOT unlimited.
When resources are expended on such cases, that reduces the resources that are available for those who have a real shot at life.
Reminds me of an old Simpson's epside.
Grandpa Simpson has kidney trouble, so Homer...eventually...donates one of his. At the end of the episode Marge says: "Homer, you've done a wonderful thing, you've shortened your life significantly, so someone else can have a slight extension on theirs."
Fact is, people die, every single one of us here will one day, we've done a great deal in terms of delaying death, but just because we CAN ensure survival, guarantee that a heart will keep beating, and so on and so forth, that does not mean we should always do so.
And by the by, talking about a missing limb is a LOT different than a malfunctioning brain and half functional kidneys. Every disability is not equally disabling, and its pure puffery to suggest that they are.
Robert at October 28, 2008 8:43 AM
'K, so my figure was a little off:
The Cost of Raising Children
The table below shows the estimated annual costs of raising a child, based on a survey by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The table shows costs based on a family with two children on a per-child basis. The data comes from the Consumer Expenditure Survey by the U.S. Department of Labor, conducted from 1990-92.The figures have been updated to 2001 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.
The USDA ends its cost survey when a child legally becomes an adult at age 18. It does not include any estimates for sending your children to college nor does it offer any cost estimates if your child remains in your home as a dependent after the age of 18. The College Board reports that in the 1998-99 school year, a resident student at a four-year private college will spend about $23,578 a year; a student at a public college will pay $9,008 a year.
See the footnotes¹ below for further information. If you're a single-parent family, use the Single-Parent Family table.
Dual-Parent Family Age
of Child Housing Food Transportation Clothing Health Child care/
Education Miscellaneous Total
Before-tax income: up to $39,100
0 to 2 2,500 910 780 370 460 840 630 6490
3 to 5 2,470 1,010 750 360 440 820 680 6,630
6 to 8 2,380 1,300 880 400 510 560 680 6,710
9 to 11 2,150 1,560 950 450 560 340 720 6,730
12 to 14 2,400 1,640 1,070 750 560 240 900 7,560
15 to 17 1,940 1,780 1,440 660 600 400 660 7,480
Total 41,520 24,600 17,610 8,970 9,390 9,990 12,720 124,800
Before-tax income: $39,100 to $65,800
0 to 2 3,380 1,090 1,160 430 610 1,380 980 9,030
3 to 5 3,350 1,260 1,130 420 580 1,530 990 9,260
6 to 8 3,260 1,600 1,260 470 660 980 1,030 9,260
9 to 11 3,030 1,890 1,330 520 720 640 1,250 9,190
12 to 14 3,280 1,900 1,450 870 720 470 1,250 9,940
15 to 17 2,820 2,110 1,840 780 770 810 1,010 10,140
Total 57,360 29,550 24,510 10,470 12,180 17,430 18,960 170,460
Before-tax income: $65,800 and up
0 to 2 5,370 1,440 1,630 570 700 2,090 1,630 13,430
3 to 5 5,340 1,630 1,600 560 670 2,270 1,650 13,720
6 to 8 5,250 1,970 1,720 610 770 1,560 1,690 13,570
9 to 11 5,020 2,290 1,800 670 820 1,090 1,720 13,410
12 to 14 5,270 2,400 1,920 1,100 830 840 1,900 13,170
15 to 17 4,810 2,530 2,330 1,000 870 1,470 1,660 14,670
Total 93,180 36,780 33,000 13,530 13,980 27,960 30,750 249,180
Single-Parent Family Age
of Child Housing Food Transportation Clothing Health Child care/
Education Miscellaneous Total
Before-tax income: up to $39,100
0 to 2 2,240 1,010 730 330 220 530 380 5,440
3 to 5 2,550 1,060 640 350 330 720 500 6,150
6 to 8 2,710 1,340 740 410 390 650 670 6,910
9 to 11 2,600 1,550 530 420 490 310 540 6,440
12 to 14 2,600 1,550 620 710 520 400 520 6,920
15 to 17 2,760 1,690 970 830 520 300 600 7,670
Total 46,380 24,600 12,690 9,150 7,410 8,730 9,630 118,590
Before-tax income: $39,100 and up
0 to 2 4,820 1,560 2,220 470 510 1,290 1,580 12,450
3 to 5 4,820 1,650 2,130 500 690 1,620 1,690 13,410
6 to 8 5,290 1,980 2,240 570 790 1,510 1,870 14,250
9 to 11 5,180 2,380 2,030 580 950 880 1,740 13,740
12 to 14 5,190 2,380 2,110 950 1,000 1,260 1,720 14,560
15 to 17 5,340 2,470 2,290 1,090 990 1,030 1,800 15,010
Total 92,850 37,110 39,060 12,480 14,790 22,770 31,200 250,260
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Estimates are based on 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey updated to 2001 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.
¹ The figures represent estimated expenses on the younger child in a two-child family. Estimates are about the same for the older child, so a family of two would then double the total cost. Thus, a family with two children and an income of less than $39,100, could expect to spend somewhere around $249,600, for two children by the time they each had reached age 18. If you have only one child, the USDA assumes you'll spend slightly more on that child and suggests multiplying the total expense for the appropriate age category by 1.24. If you have three or more children, the USDA assumes you'll spend slightly less per child. To estimate expenses for each child in a family with three or more children, multiply the total expense for each appropriate age category by 0.77. For expenses on all children in a family, these totals should be summed.
Data providers
Copyright © 2008 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.
Quotes supplied by Interactive Data.
You can find this table at MSNdot come, in the money section.
Flynne at October 28, 2008 9:06 AM
The figures are broken down into categories like food, clothing, etc. I'll get the link so you can see what they are, give me a minute?
Flynne at October 28, 2008 9:08 AM
Here it is:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/family/kids/tlkidscost.asp
So, hey momof3, you might end up spending a little more? A little less? In any case, it AIN'T CHEAP to bring a child up to be self-supporting by age 18, eh? "Thus, a family with two children and an income of less than $39,100, could expect to spend somewhere around $249,600, for two children by the time they each had reached age 18."
So let's see, that's for 2 kids, so for 4 kids, that'd be, um $499,200. 'K, not quite $500K. Still it's a hefty sum. And that's without having a special needs child.
Now, if you're in a higher income bracket, according to the table, you'd be spending more, right? Just sayin'.
Flynne at October 28, 2008 9:17 AM
I can't help but comment again, because ignorance on this issue is so evident. I will take time to give you a little bit of information you don't have.
Doctors are wrong a lot more than you realize, it isn't just one person. Over and over again they are wrong, by no means are they above any of us in their power to read the future. They use their knowledge to predict what may happen, but they can't possible know without very detailed research being done on certain diseases. And even then there is a lot of room to gain more knowledge from more research. Then they have to keep up on all this research, which often doesn't happen even in common disease.
That is such a big misconception in our society; you cannot always go to the doctor and get answers or answers that are right. If you went to 10 different doctors knowing what disease you had but not tell the doctors you would get several different opinions.
Wow you obviously have never attended many doctor visits.
How many times have you seen a child who gets suddenly sick and doesn't get the care they need? It is a reality that people like those here are interfering in the care of the children who suddenly become sick because there is such judgment going on, that those make changes can’t. Those parents must have done something, you may say to yourself. Wait until something like this happens to your family. If things keep going as they are you may have children, grandchildren, great grandchildren who may have to face some of these things. Everything is genetic and genetic issues are on the rise, there is still so much unknown about genetics though knowledge is increasing, it is not enough. You all are no exception to life's unforeseen. We can see how you will deal with that. And just think about how those like you will react to you once there is an issue in your family.
momtospecialchild at October 28, 2008 9:22 AM
Point one: "Its wonderful that you personally may know one person whom the doctors were wrong about....." Actually, Robert, it's a matter of statistics. Do your daily travels take you into the medical field often? I'm not a professional (yet) but my daily travels do take me there and I meet these people all the time. It's a matter of whether or not your world overlaps with theirs, otherwise they're easy to overlook.
Point two....."BECAUSE THEY'VE SEEN IT SO MANY TIMES!!!" The best doctors that I've worked with are the ones who can admit it when they don't know enough about something but are looking to learn. In my experience (not to be declared as a universal, so don't everybody jump my junk for saying this) such unusual modesty was observed in university settings, and these doctors are also heavy into research. Love and adore them for their lack of Hubris.
juliana at October 28, 2008 9:30 AM
And just think about how those like you will react to you once there is an issue in your family.
If we are true to ourselves, we will act with repsonsibilty and diligence to the best of our abilities. Doctors are right more often than they are wrong, in most instances. That's why, even with all the myriad diseases and genetic abnormalites in the world, there are a friggin' boatload of healthy people walking around. I can't attest to their wellness of mind, however. Obviously, common sense is becoming rarer and rarer these days.
Flynne at October 28, 2008 9:30 AM
BTW, momof3, this I'm glad you don't want a fucking penny from taxes for your healthy kid. totally missed the point. The question was asked about paying for extreme medical intervention for a newborn, not a healthy child. But hey, good attempt on the redirect. o.O
Flynne at October 28, 2008 9:38 AM
I'm happy that you can be in your own little happy world. And it is great that you think so highly of your common sense. But common sense doesn't hold up to experience. Just as Juliana said the best doctor’s acknowledge that they don't have answer, to many things.
Those people walking around aren't always healthy. Being unhealthy isn't so obvious. More of us are unhealthy and often don't realize it. Have you ever heard of undiagnosed, one can be undiagnosed for years. People keel over and die all the time based on undiagnosed and misdiagnosed.
But you can live in your happy world.
momtospecialchild at October 28, 2008 9:42 AM
The don't burden our society any more than a child being born to families who don't have a stedy income.
Families who don't have a steady income shouldn't have kids, either. Your "two wrongs make a right" argument is flawed.
Beth at October 28, 2008 9:44 AM
Momof3,
Fair enough when you say about the essential genetic research needed: "Everything is genetic and genetic issues are on the rise, there is still so much unknown about genetics though knowledge is increasing, it is not enough."
But NOT fair enough, since you also support Sarah Palin who talks - with a great big sneer about this same, essential genetic research -thus:...
You've heard about some of these pet projects they really don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good? Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not..."
Jody Tresidder at October 28, 2008 9:45 AM
Yes I CAN live in my happy world, because I live in the real world. Where I make it a point to have regular check-ups with my doctor and dentist. Where I went diligently to prenatal care both times I was pregnant. Where I take my children to their yearly physicals, um, YEARLY. And if they get sick in between, then they go to the doctor! It's not rocket science, to be able to take care of oneself. (Physical health usually correlates with mental health, but not always. In which case, some people may seek assitance in that area, too. Again, NOT rocket science.) And of course common sense holds up to experience! How do you think I got this far? Common sense AND experience! It's a learning process! o.O
Flynne at October 28, 2008 9:52 AM
Radwaste,
"Noone wants to see deformities"? That's weak. So I should just have a "do-over" because the child that I have in my uterus isn't 100% "normal"? What happens when prenatal genetic testing becomes more advanced and they tell me that my child carries a gene for a mental disorder or that one day my child might have Parkinsons? Should I "do-over" then too? One of my nephews had a correctable speech impediment, so my sister should have had an abortion because the public school system had a speech therapist on staff paid for by tax dollars? Where do you stop?
It's a fine line we're treading. I am not going to advocate playing God. Sorry, I can't. I don't care if somebody chooses to have an abortion based on those factors and I am certainly not going to lambast a woman who chooses not to. I thought that this was part of the whole pro-choice movement, that we would have a choice. This whole conversation feels like the only recourse is to have an abortion. That abortion is the only way.
maureen at October 28, 2008 9:52 AM
See there we go with judgment again. I should let you know how your judgments don't work, wrong not a supporter of Sarah Palin. I can't speak about the fruit fly research but I know some very strange research is often behind the knowledge we have today that most take for granted.
momtospecialchild at October 28, 2008 9:55 AM
Mom-of-3-andtospecialchild,
Apologies then - you're saying just because you've defended Palin [as in "I don't think she's going to stand by as Israel gets nuked. That's one point in favor of her over foot-in-mouth-ignored-by-media Biden. She also understands energy pretty thoroughly, and I for one LIKE paying less than $80 to fill my car. I'd like it to continue"] it doesn't mean you're a supporter.
Mine was an honest error!
Jody Tresidder at October 28, 2008 10:12 AM
I thonk we should keep in mind that the figures Flynne dug up dont include vacations, new video game, name brand clothing, the cost of hobbies and after school programs - just the basics
lujlp at October 28, 2008 10:30 AM
Ah, but does it include shopping the clearance rack and hand-me-downs?
juliana at October 28, 2008 10:34 AM
Ah, but does it include shopping the clearance rack and hand-me-downs?
Speculative, based on where you do your shopping, but does it really matter? I think not. Bottom line, you gotta put clothes on their backs, it costs money to do so.
Man, there is so much redirect happening in your blog today, Amy! Izzit a full moon or somethin'? (Scratch that, I know it isn't - but man, something has got these peoples' panties in a twist! Reality bites, I guess. o.O)
Flynne at October 28, 2008 10:52 AM
Long time away but couldn't help my self AMY please don't post my e-mail publicly :).
"Many or most special needs children are an ENORMOUS burden to society" Um no, here's why. Both you, my wife and I would be termed special needs (ADD). I know each of us (wife and I) pay more in taxes than the average America makes, being a DINK sucks in new an unique ways. I'm guessing that you pay more than that. There is of course a limit to this argument as "special needs" cover a spectrum broader than almost any other term in the English language, and is more a legal term than a medical one.
Now to those supporting the women decision. I too support her right to make a bad decision. This does not change the fact that the decision is bad. First the financial cost which is cruel but valid. Most of us generate more value than we consume otherwise there would be no money for the chronically non functional (be they through illness or laziness). So the argument that the old and infirm take more than they provided on average is wrong.
However screw the financial aspect completely and look at the human end. The validity of my next example will be based on the severity of the disability. Once the parents kick and the siblings move on (most do look at the age of admission into rehab/mental hospitals as caring for a severely disabled relative puts horrendous limits on your life, god love those who stay though) make damn sure that the disabled people is self sufficient, or require some limited assistance. Going to a residence program can be a fate generally worse that Attica or Sing Sing. The first thing that gets blasted by budget cuts is special needs services, Mass. is doing that right now. Even before the cuts those facilities were under staffed now the state adjusted ratios so its worse and still legal. Now if you are in a bad state facility (some are actually quite nice), lets put it this way if there is a hell that would be it. The joys of doing EMS. Yes I did report and yes it was investigated and no problems were found. Turns our it's cheaper to rapidly clean a facility than keep it clean.
The other argument which was strangely not presented was the fact that the child's siblings would take care of them into old age. While valid is the epitome of selfish. Punishing your other children for your own beliefs. Now if they want to do it great they are wonderful people, rare though. You are knowingly and willingly placing them in a tough situation without their consent. They either have to sacrifice a chunk of their lives or live with the knowledge that they took their disabled sibling to a state home.
BTW given the industry I work in we do better when there are more disabled people so my views run counter to my financial interest.
vlad at October 28, 2008 1:34 PM
> Punishing your other children
> for your own beliefs.
"Punishing"? The childhood for which you mourn is very obviously your own. Yes, that's one reason people have multiple kids. SO THEY CAN HELP EACH OTHER.
Jesus Fuck, for most of human history, people had babies so there'd be someone to help bring the crops in. Presumably, you've all found better reasons for babymaking... Whiter, kinder, better-dressed and more sanitary reasons to reproduce. Using micro-processor controlled precision and with carbon-fibre superstructures, your own opinions about these things transcend the barriers of mere biology and culture, considerations that crippled the primitives of olden days....
But I'd be very, very surprised if we found evidence of this postmodern excellence in your own lives.
Guys, THESE ARE RISKS THAT ARE RUN BY ANYONE WHO HAS CHILDREN. Bad outcomes sometimes present before birth, sometimes after, and sometimes in each year of life that follows.
If you're so eager for absolute certainty and so weepingly worried for public finances, DON'T HAVE KIDS.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 28, 2008 1:49 PM
Actually, Jody T, I think that the mistake you've made is assuming momof3 and momtospecialchild are the same person. Note the differences in their writing styles. Momof3 DOES seem to support Palin in general; momtospecialneeds child seems to be a new commenter.
ahw at October 28, 2008 2:31 PM
"'Make the good choices, fellow citizens! Make the good choice! We insist!'"
Crid - of course, that's simply in opposition to "screw it, do what you want, you should expect everybody else to pay for it and admire your Godliness, Tarika".
Radwaste at October 28, 2008 2:31 PM
"I'm glad you don't want a fucking penny from taxes for your healthy kid."
momof3 (and maureen, later), you're employing a straw man - offering a different argument than the one proposed...
Radwaste at October 28, 2008 3:10 PM
The conversation as I understand it was, was Jennifer Carden selfish for giving birth to a severely disabled child? Should she have terminated the pregnancy?
Many of the commenters on this board have stated that yes, she was selfish and should have terminated the pregnancy because that child is a terrible burden on society. My point of view is no, she was not selfish, she felt that child was worth giving birth to. I know, I know, I used the dreaded anecdotal evidence, so sorry about that.
Just because somebody feels differently about an issue such as aborting "defective" children, does not make them selfish, it just makes them different. Because one could definitely argue that those who only want "normal" children are selfish as well. But that doesn't mean they are.
There, no straw men or anything Radwaste, happy now?
maureen at October 28, 2008 3:33 PM
Imagine 2 parents go hiking with their 3 children down into an isolated forest in Oregon. Everyone is perfectly healthy to begin with.
A day into the journey a freak snowstorm hits them, which triggers a landslide of rocks. It destroys all of their camping equipment and their cel phones. Also, the youngest child's legs are severely crushed and the father, who is a doctor, suspects that there may be internal bleeding.
The husband, being a practical atheist, believes that the only chance he, his wife, and the 2 older kids have is to immediately try to reach civilization. He knows that if they move their younger child, he'll probably die from bleeding along the way. So he feels that they must sacrifice him in order to try to save the rest of them.
The mother, who is a devout Christian, refuses to leave her youngest child.
Is the mother wrong to take her stance?
While this is not precisely the same scenario as the one described by Amy, I do believe there are some key similarities.
When it comes to abortion, I believe my own views are fairly moderate (not at either extreme) but I fully accept two things:
1. Life does begin at conception.
2. I respect those who believe that terminating any life is absolutely wrong. I won't always agree with them but I do respect them.
As for the cost issue, Amy, you're focusing on the 0.01% of cases. Let's focus on the 90% of costs which involve preserving the lives of seniors when they would otherwise die. Following your prescribed logic, a given age or cost figure should be capped. After that, if anything happens to them, they're on their own.
In point of fact, I think this uncomfortable question will become more pressing as the % of people in our society get older & older. Medical costs will go up and eventually we may reach a breaking point where such limits to medical care do need to get imposed.
Difficult questions all, folks. If you feel there are simple answers, I doubt you speak for the majority.
Robert W. at October 28, 2008 4:30 PM
Flynne, I love that you can tell me what I pay to raise my kids. Funny, I don't recall seeing you balancing my checkbook. I do know what I spend, and it ain't that. I've no doubt some do. Some people seem to think their 6 year olds need cell phones.
And don't yell about someone taking your tax money, if you are taking other's tax money. Simple. You are not more important than others, you don't somehow deserve it when they don't. Not a redirect, a fact.
I am not special needs mom. Nor did I make the genetics comment, Jody. I am a Palin fan. And I am against a lot of "research" out there right now. It's unbelievable what scientists get paid to do. Did you know our government paid scientists at the Smithsonian to put cats on tiny platforms surrounded by water, to keep them awake for weeks on end? Studying what, exactly? Sleep deprivation in felines? It's rampant (no bearing whatsoever on the subject, except someone bashing my Palin support because she made a comment against some research). Almost as rampant as MEDICAL ERROR. Doctors are very very frequently wrong. We heal ourselves of a lot of things with no intervention, thankfully. And no, I'm not an antimedicine quack. I get my kids vaccinated, and take them when they are sick. I just know drs are not infallible, and frequently have no clue whats going on. I do my own research in peer-reviewed sources, and I generally know better than the dr what's needed for X. No MD is up to date on everything out there. Impossible.
Thank you for the point on pro-choice having come to mean get the abortion or get scorned. That's some choice alright. Women-power!
momof3 at October 28, 2008 6:20 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1600897">comment from momof3And I am against a lot of "research" out there right now. It's unbelievable what scientists get paid to do.
What people who say stuff like this don't understand is that not all scientific research is for some direct purpose. Much of it is a bridge; necessary building blocks on the way to cures. Palin dismissed fruit fly research which is actually quite important in many areas with direct benefit to humans. I dismiss a lot of things, but I try to be informed about what they are before I do -- not just appeal to the yahoos who ride on emotion.
Amy Alkon at October 28, 2008 7:48 PM
> that's simply in opposition to "
> screw it, do what you want, you
> should /expect/ everybody else
> to pay for it and /admire/ your
> Godliness, Tarika".
No. As noted in the first comment to this post, this is mostly about fantasies of power. Let's review your passage again---
> I insist that since you
> have a choice you make
> the best one
I think that pound for pound, this may be the most despotic sentiment ever brought to this blog. It's got all the unconscious yet personally willful circuity of Orwell's best nightmares. For sheer fascist horsepower, Raddy, it has only one contender, Amy's classic from May of this year:
| We don't leave whether blacks
| and whites can marry up to the
| voters. This shouldn't be
| left up to the voters either.
(I hear you squirming in your seats out there... You're wondering, "Who's this we she mentions? What kind of shit is that?" Well, get over it. No, really, fergeddaboudit. It's yesterdays news, OK? C'mon, people... Let's move forward already.)
Now Raddy, the thing that came to mind last night when you said that was Islam. As we've learned in recent years, Islam defines "peace" as complete submission to Allah (usually by their own sect of Islam, but we'll get to that later. Boy will we. Will we ever...).
So when you ask a Muslim if he's into peace, he shrugs and says "Yeah... Sure. Why not?"
Then he often mutters something like "And death to Israel."
But I don't mean to compare your casual blog comments only to the most dangerous forces at work in global consciousness today. That would be unnecessarily hurtful. And in fact, just this morning (per Drudge) your reasoning was used by another proud American:
| "But I do tell you that
| if the Democrats win, and
| have substantial majorities,
| Congress of the United States
| will be more bipartisan,"
| said Pelosi.
(Squirming blog visitors will wonder if she even knows what the word bipartisan means. Or if she wants it to mean anything at all. Maybe --like Raddy's 'choice', or Islam's 'submission'-- she doesn't.)
(And at this hour, that link has a wonderful photo of her consolidating power in one wretched little fist.)
But reviewing the whole stack of comments, I think the passage most badly needing review is this one from Amy's citation:
> The mother is to blame for
> all of Parker's future
> torments.
That speaks perfectly to infantile passions being expressed in here. Is any hope more childish than that Mother can be held responsible for everything that goes wrong in life? To a two-month old, it's perfect math: If I'm hungry, it means she shoulda fed me.
This has been discussed on this blog in the past: Birth defects are the source of the word "monster":
| c.1300, "malformed animal,
| creature afflicted with a birth
| defect," from O.Fr. monstre,
| from L. monstrum "monster,
| monstrosity, omen, portent,
| sign," from root of monere "
| warn" (see monitor).
Birth defects are a horrible part of life. Hating them more than you did yesterday won't make things any better.
You wanna be daring and stalwart? You wanna be intrusive and harshly judgmental? You wanna fuck with the lives of young parents in a way that's indisputably righteous?
Have at it.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 29, 2008 2:47 AM
Woah, Crid, that infanticide thing was effed!
But I guess the point is...it really is NOT that effed. We just consciously tell ourselves it is.
Gretchen at October 29, 2008 5:12 AM
Flynne, I love that you can tell me what I pay to raise my kids. Funny, I don't recall seeing you balancing my checkbook. I do know what I spend, and it ain't that. I've no doubt some do. Some people seem to think their 6 year olds need cell phones.
Excuse me, dear, I told you nothing of the kind. I posted some facts and then speculated. I could care less what your finances are. All I know is what I saw in the table. Obviously, your income falls somewhere on that table, because, obviously, you have an income, right? That’s all I was pointing out. (BTW, my children will have cell phones when THEY can afford them. And cell phones costs were not included in that table. Nor were vacations, video game consoles, DVDs, etc., as Loojy pointed out. It was just basic costs for raising children.)
And don't yell about someone taking your tax money, if you are taking other's tax money. Simple. You are not more important than others, you don't somehow deserve it when they don't. Not a redirect, a fact.
I wasn’t yelling about anything. I pay my taxes, on time, no problems. Nowhere did I say or even imply that I was more important than others. Calm down. The redirect was when you said I shouldn't be complaining about taking tax money for my healthy child, when the question was about using tax money for extreme medical intervention for a newborn. Which I had already addressed in a previous post. So score another redirect point for yourself, and have a nice day. o.O
Flynne at October 29, 2008 6:21 AM
"Bad outcomes sometimes present before birth, sometimes after, and sometimes in each year of life that follows." There is a difference between shit happens and I pretty sure shit will happen and other should deal with it anyway so I feel better. As far as my own missed child hood, Naw pretty happy about it that might be why parents irritate me so much when the purposefully shit can the lives of their children for the parents goals. Regrdless if it's take care of them when they are old and senile, bring the family name into to elite circles or care for severely disabled siblings.
The elder care argument is a straw man. With the exception of a few old recent immigrants old timers have done their share. This kid is so unlikely to contribute to society in any way as to make it a virtual zero statistically. Resources that can be better spent helping disabled children who have a chance of joining society are not.
What would every one response be if the siblings turned to the mother on her death bed and reamed her a new one for leaving this shit in their lap. How many of you would be ok with those grown children turning on their mother for shit canning their lives, or would they "be intrusive and harshly judgmental?"
As far as selfish, guess what both having a child and not having a child are selfish. You have a child cause YOU want one, cause it gives YOU a feeling of fulfillment. You choose not to have a child cause YOU feel you won't be a good parent, or YOU don't want to be bothered. Less selfish is choosing not to have kids due to genetic issues. The only non selfish option in the whole child arena is adoption, regardless of the child being disabled or not. You get paid for foster care (though not much) so that doesn't count.
Palin is a god damn moron. The women has the intellect of road kill. I was going to vote republican until he picked this back wood cave dweller as a VP. I also have the distinct fear that should this idiot ever become president we'll be back to the cold war. That for me would mean doing a stint in Guantanamo due to my country of origin.
vlad at October 29, 2008 6:34 AM
As far as the cost of children. If you factor in college AND grad school Flynne's estimate is pretty accurate. Now if YOU choose not to pay for these things that's your right. However I still maintain the right to judge you for this decision. Right now college is starting to become what high school was and a Master degree is what college used to be. Even in engineering which is the last hold out of the career wise inherently useful Bachelor's degree. You can still get a decent job depending on the school and your chosen field. Master is becoming more and more needed for advancement to Sr. status. Even today it makes those advancements much much faster. There are exception but if you want to do the real interesting work that makes a difference, as opposed to taking orders from those who do you need Masters and quite often PhD. PhD programs tend to have housing stipends and living cost stipends, you can be an RA or TA etc. Masters programs have much less of this. Denying your kid an advanced degree leaves them ill prepared for life in the technological age. Sending them to the Military is still a feasible option but dangerous especially if they don't want to do it, then only if the do not have any of a number of learning disabilities; ADD is what kept me out of the USMC and yes still bitter.
vlad at October 29, 2008 6:46 AM
Actually, vlad, according to that table the MoneyCentral at MSN.com established, my estimate was a tad below, in some cases, or above normal child care costs, in others, according to the parents' salaries.
Flynne at October 29, 2008 6:54 AM
>>Actually, Jody T, I think that the mistake you've made is assuming momof3 and momtospecialchild are the same person. Note the differences in their writing styles. Momof3 DOES seem to support Palin in general; momtospecialneeds child seems to be a new commenter.
ahw,
Thanks.
That was a silly confusion of mine. (Although I see the new commenter to whom I was unfair refers to herself only as a mom to a "special" and not a "specialneeds child as your second cite has it).
Momof3,
I have, I hope accurately, an impression you said you studied some genetics in college?
As Amy said correctly, studying fruit flies is critical to modeling human genetics - (because the flies have a swift generation time and the females lay loads of eggs.)
Along with worms and yeast, fruit flies are one of the classic, most commonly manipulated model organisms in genetics in every single lab on the planet!
Therefore Sarah Palin's tittering "I kid you not!" specific dismissal of this potty fruit fly research being done in "Paris, France" as she so helpfully added - could NOT be more cretinous.
As you should know perfectly well even doing genetics 101 at college.
Jody Tresidder at October 29, 2008 7:02 AM
...I've just had an awful thought.
Maybe Sarah Palin assumes "fruit fly research" is suspect - because it sounds a bit gay?
Jody Tresidder at October 29, 2008 7:06 AM
Flynne: I was taking about the lower end of the MSN results. Even if your a stingy parent and all the younger kids get is hand-me downs you'll still end up with 400-500k for 3-4 children if you cover college and grad school. I did grad school with loans and my wife working and it still sucked. Alone it would have been really horrendous.
Also I'd like to point out that the lower income families have greater need to send their kids to private school. NYC inner city school are better for training mercs. and hitpeople (political correctness and all) so the cost of child care isn't as black and white as Money Central paints it.
vlad at October 29, 2008 7:07 AM
Ah, good points, vlad! o.O
Flynne at October 29, 2008 7:42 AM
All of this talk about siblings is so wrong. Show me some figures of siblings being neglected or missing out on the things suggested. I do have a child with special needs and she has siblings. My other children are not missing out on anything. They are truly gaining more from having a sibling with special needs. I see life in a whole different way than I did before, giving me a better hand on parenting my children. I have learned about development in a way that most people won't, using what I have learned benefits my other children in so many ways. They will see that people don't have to be perfect to be human. They will see so much more than I did as a child and as many of you as a child and they will learn great lesson from it to carry on into their future. Many siblings would be happy to take in a special needs sibling, but it is also ok if they feel they cannot. There may be other family or friends that are willing. And sadly the most severely disabled children will likely not live into adult life.
So the debate on what it does to the family has no hold as it like anything, could be good, could be bad. Depends on how it is handled by the family.
As well as the doctors suggested outcome could be very wrong or only somewhat wrong and rarely completely correct.
I personally, and I respect everyone else’s decisions, would not want to choose which life has the right to live.
It will not always be the case that they will burden our society, you do not see the benefits that they may offer to our society. And you will never because you have no experience, unless one day the unforeseen happens as it did to I.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 8:03 AM
I've done my fair share of reseach on fruit flies, if we need to get into this little sideline deeper, and yes it can be a building block. I have no idea what study Palin was talking about, and don't much care. My point that there are some absurd studies funded by government money, many of them actually, stands firm.
I also don't claim to be a geneticist. I've been out of school a while, and things more fast. I would beg to differ on someone's claim that ADD/ADHD is genetic and inheritable, however. I'd like to see the proof they have of that one. Heck, I'd like to see where the scientific community has agreed it actually exists and is not an umbrella to any number of behavioral issues that don't total a disease. BUt that's just me.
momof3 at October 29, 2008 8:30 AM
"They are truly gaining more from having a sibling with special needs." You sure about that? If they did resent you for ignoring them while focusing on the special needs child would you be willing to believe it?
Now the main question is due to said disability how much more time is required to devote to the special needs child. What is described in the story shows that huge amounts of effort and resources will be spent, in that act depriving the siblings and the hubby. Your case may be much less sever and therefore not comparable. It's one thing to care for a disabled child and something totally different when we are talking about a vegetable. The difference is all a matter of degree. Depending on your definition of life life can actually be prolonged almost indefinitely. Depending on the type of damage sustained and the location a person with most of the brain removed can continue to live in a vegetative state. Life by that definition only requires that the base of the brain and the spinal chord is intact. The rest of the function can be performed for them.
"I personally, and I respect everyone else’s decisions, would not want to choose which life has the right to live." Um yes you would and you did. Choosing to expend resources is doing precisely that. Your choice just happens to be that ALL possible medical effort MUST be expended so that ALL life is lived for the longest possible time. To take the view to an extreme if the tech was available (at multiple millions per I think it is, they do have artificial wombs for animals) should a miscarriage at 4 weeks be put in an incubator and carried to term even though the chance of success is almost but not completely Zero.
"And you will never because you have no experience" There you would be completely wrong. While this does not apply to a direct relative you are oh so wrong. Yes I agree it teaches more compassion and they do help us non-disabled see that life could always suck o whole lot worse, there are less clear benifits as well. It also breeds resentment as you can see on this blog alone, and conflict in addition to cost.
vlad at October 29, 2008 8:33 AM
"Denying your kid an advanced degree leaves them ill prepared for life in the technological age."
Wow. Entitlement much? Anyone hear of working for what you want? My dad is damn well off. I did loans for college and am paying them off. It's not hard. No one owes their kid a degree, college or otherwise. And not all kids should go to college.
If a person has a brain (evidenced by grades or test scores or both) they can go to college. Period. If you do not have the brain, you shouldn't go. Whether or not your parents can write out the check, or choose to write out the check. I got accepted to Harvard, for God's sake. Any college that accepts you, will make sure you can attend. Even community college. If what you're wanting is a debt-free headstart in life, well good luck with that. You're not owed it, by your parents or anyone else.
Anyway, back to the start of this all, you can not tell someone not to have their kid. Forced abortion isn't America, and you don't want it to be. You want to feel smug and superior to her, go ahead. I imagine she'll have eternity to feel smug and superior to you. YMMV.
momof3 at October 29, 2008 8:44 AM
You really want to get me started on ADD fine. How are you at reading articles? Since Amy's spam filter blocks multiple link do a google search on "Attention Deficit disorder twin studies" go to the scholarly articles section of the search. The best way to confirm a genetic link is using twins separated at birth. This would remove the environmental factor and there are a few such studies in Behavior Genetics, you can read the abstracts. BTW the argument for ADD being bad parenting sound really really close to the old refrigerator mother cause for Autism. This does not mean that some one can choose not to pay attention without ADD but if you have ADD it's really hard to pay attention even if you wanted to.
Sure there is some disagreement as to the existance of ADD. Same goes for AIDS and there are a bag of nut jobs (many with PhD and MD) who think Autism is mercury poisoning and these dip shits are gaining ground politically. The main problem everyone has with ADD/ADHD is the criteria are more subjective than they should be. They are working on FMRI test to remove this issue, with some progress. Now add to that the fact that the most effective ADD/ADHD treatment are stimulants and you have a whole new problem. They pose a risk of misuse, have a rather high street value and can be dangerous if used by someone with heart problems.
vlad at October 29, 2008 8:48 AM
"If a person has a brain (evidenced by grades or test scores or both) they can go to college." Well lets see my grades sucked but my test scores were outstanding. I'm guessing you had fantastic grades and test scores. So what job did you get after graduating from Harvard?
"Any college that accepts you, will make sure you can attend." What world are you living in? That's changed. Know plenty of people who left due to cash problems even though they were making the grade. Harvard is different cause Harvard has huge endowments.
"I did loans for college and am paying them off." Actually your husband is since you don't work. Before you jump on me for sence on entitlement look at your self first, having kids should not entitle you to a free ride. Remember the guys pee you resent cleaning up and the laundry you resent doing.
vlad at October 29, 2008 8:56 AM
No one is arguing in favor of forced abortion. We are debating the ethics of having the kid. And, yes, I CAN tell someone not to have their kid. And they can tell me to fuck off. It's a great country like that.
MonicaP at October 29, 2008 8:58 AM
No one is arguing in favor of forced abortion. We are debating the ethics of having the kid. And, yes, I CAN tell someone not to have their kid. And they can tell me to fuck off. It's a great country like that.
EXACTLY. Let's hope it stays that way. o.O
Flynne at October 29, 2008 9:03 AM
You get a government-run health-care system, and it won't.
brian at October 29, 2008 9:06 AM
I am very certain that they do not resent me, and I do not ignore my other children. I actually involve the whole family in whatever possible. We actually talk a lot about how they feel, and there is such a thing as sibling groups. My son (8) doesn't like when his sister misses school for an appt. So unfair that she gets to get poked and he has to go to school, though I completely get his point of view and we discuss it.
This is like any typical family where many children think one child gets more they do, it happens all the time. I do many things with my each of my children alone and together. Like I said it depends on the family and how they deal with it. I'm sure there is research out there on adult siblings and how they feel. And it will likely have both sides of the spectrum.
I really don't know what you’re talking about that I'm choosing which life has the right to live. You don't know our situation completely, I have not expanded resources. I have seen where families have decided to bring a child into this world and let it live as long as it can and not expand resources beyond what is necessary (family and doctors can choose what is necessary).
My daughter is 12 and yet to have a diagnosis she would have likely been abort in many of your eyes, with heart defects, inuteral growth delayed and microcephaly would have done her in. But our doctor didn't want to do an ultrasound cause everything was going great. She is cognitively impaired and has many medical issue seeing every specialty in the book, but maybe a few.
What would our society be without children like mine or the one in the story? No one can say, but I believe we need a balance of all people. It helps us see different ways, expanding our thoughts beyond what we typically think. This expanded thought leads to many advances in our world and society. Many great inventions have come from the thought of helping people with disabilities. Like someone else said, where would the line be drawn.
I would only constitute it to experience if you have love for the child and see the child as a human being and a life.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 9:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1601025">comment from momtospecialchildThere may be some special needs children who are not a vast tax on the others in the family and society. Do you think this describes this woman's child?
We don't "need" unproductive, non-autonomous people in our society. They would've died off and not been a tax on society until recently. And again, you can appreciate a living person's humanity and heart and all that and yet understand the realities of economics and the fact that the person will not be able to care for themself.
When you die, who will pay for and take care of your child?
Amy Alkon at October 29, 2008 9:39 AM
"They would've died off and not been a tax on society until recently." Actually that's not true. Only the ones that required major medical interventions would have. Down Syndrome and other developmental delays were taken care of by the village in the middle ages. The Koran refers to them as without sin and therefore blessed. The community is required by Allah to care for these people specifically. Those that go on to live normal productive lives would also have died to to non mental internal defects. Then there were and are societies that throw the children into the pyres as cursed for having a cleft pallet or an extra fingers.
Also in her defense (financially) there are plenty of normal children that grow up to be criminals and siphon off huge chunks of money for incarceration. Serial Killers come mainly from the NT population and not from the special needs. One of my main problem with her decision is that BOTH her husband and her doctor recommended abortion so she did not take into account "(family and doctors can choose what is necessary)". Disregarding everyone for ones personal feelings is selfish any way you look at it.
vlad at October 29, 2008 9:57 AM
From reading the story I don't believe this child at this time has a much greater demand on taxes. He didn't need the medical intervention that was initially thought to need. The early intervention is used for many children who have mild delays and sometimes no delays, and special education doesn't get the dollars it is suppose to anyway.
In this story we do not know whether the child will be able to care for themselves or not. Far to many times people make decisions solely on one doctors oppinion. And often times these doctors don't give or have the proper information to help make these decisions. If your doctor told you you need brain surgery, you may want to look into the outcome of such surgery and whether it is really needed. Many people would just say "ok".
"(family and doctors can choose what is necessary)" I used this in reference to a sick child already being here, and not on the story. Doctors can give the families information to help them make decisions, but they have to give them all the information not just pieces of information. And in my world we often get little pieces. The doctor and the husband wanted her to abort, but as you might have noticed the husband is is still around. I often have to break things down for my husband, and explain to him why I feel so strongly about things and he often understands. This may have been true in this case to the story doesn’t say. The fact that the child can wave to the camera and be loved and love, doesn't that say anything.
I think this comes down to our society putting doctors in the category of god. THEY CAN'T MAKE ACCURATE PREDICTIONS, without out the proper information and even then it can only be slightly close. I'm very thankful for many of my daughter doctors, but I don't hold them to know everything. I often have to bring information for them to read on some of her symptoms. So I wouldn't make decisions just based on the information they were giving me, just as this mother did. She explored other ways of finding information. And it wasn't selfish because she didn't trust the oppinions of her husband and the doctor, she need other information to help make the decision.
As for what will happen to my daughter, my parents and if they are gone, my siblings. My children are too young to make that type of decision; I believe they would support her with helping with living arrangements, what ever that might be when she is an adult. We will have a special needs trust, for her and she will get supplemental income. We pay taxes and she will use them when she needs to.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 11:08 AM
"We don't "need" unproductive, non-autonomous people in our society."
Amy, will you LISTEN to yourself? Is your heart really this black? This statement is nothing short of evil.
I resent it when people are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, but choose not to. But I do not resent helping the truly less fortunate. When I see a child in a wheelchair, I feel compassion, not scorn at his mother for allowing him to live. If compassion does not come naturally to you, I don't know how to explain it to you.
Karen at October 29, 2008 11:21 AM
I totally agree with Karen. Explaining it is going to do no good, you will have to find it yourself. To me that is considered a disability, the lack of ability to be considerate of others. I'm sure many of us have disabilities in that type of frame, because we all are not the same that is what makes this world. We all lack something or other it just isn't as visible. A child who is completely physically disable may not lack the ability to be considerate.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 11:32 AM
"The fact that the child can wave to the camera and be loved and love, doesn't that say anything." Are you sure your not projecting your own situation onto this one. I see no mention of and cognitive improvements. The child is not capable of being loved or loving (vegetable) and will never have the concept of camera.
"She explored other ways of finding information. And it wasn't selfish because she didn't trust the oppinions of her husband and the doctor, she need other information to help make the decision." She did no such thing. She refused to terminate regardless of what she was told. She made no attempt to search for other information.
As far as the husband staying. He's stuck legally for her decision. He tries to leave and the system will rape him in ways even the most pessimistic poster can only dream of. He may stay out of love he may also stay out of need and is consumed with hatred for her.
"We pay taxes and she will use them when she needs to." Fair enough but then why am I paying for it as well. I do not and should never have the option of forcing you to terminate (ever under any circumstances) but I have every right to resent you for sticking me with the bill. Just like all those welfare moms who drop their kids off at state facilities. Just like everyone who's living off the public dole. I can and will hate you for living off my sweat. I will not resent the child who the parents chose to put in that situation, I have and will continue to donate to their causes. The mentally handicapped should never be forced to starve cause their parents have their heads up their ass.
vlad at October 29, 2008 11:33 AM
"But I do not resent helping the truly less fortunate. When I see a child in a wheelchair, I feel compassion, not scorn at his mother for allowing him to live." Don't confuse the less fortunate (the child) with the willful selfish (the mother). I feel nothing but compassion for the child all of my (and everyone else (in my opinion) scorn) is directed solely at the mother.
The child must be helped but the main reason for his need for help stems from mommy dumbest's actions. Had she gotten a second opinion that differed from what her doctor said ok fine, compassion not scorn. In her case even if the child's condition was a 100% certainty and all it would have was a slow lingering death she would have still gone through it.
vlad at October 29, 2008 11:41 AM
He is not a vegetable you can’t determine a 20 month olds cognitive abilities easily it isn’t very accurate. The doctor said a potentially fatal genetic condition, leaving a lot of room for error. It would be a hard call for me if I was in her situation and I don't see it as selfish. Many of us are selfish; some of your comments are very selfish. Our decisions are based on our self then we consider all the other aspects of it and to her the other aspects didn't hold up compared to getting rid of another life(debatable to some) but not selfish in the sense that is being spoken.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 12:08 PM
>>The child must be helped but the main reason for his need for help stems from mommy dumbest's actions.
Vlad,
Sometimes I'd like to give you a time out in the next room - and yes, now means now while you sit down and quietly consider how bloody lucky you are that you were born perfectly formed and can walk down a street without snotty types shooting "scornful" and resentfully withering looks at your "dumb" momma.
Time outs never worked with my boys either:)
Jody Tresidder at October 29, 2008 12:15 PM
The story above isn't the full story out of the Wall Street Journal, which is the one I read. And the mother reached out to an organization and talked with other families with children who had the condition that they suspected.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 12:17 PM
"but not selfish in the sense that is being spoken." She had a first child that was disabled and the article states that the situation has put a tremendous strain on the finances and relationship. So she disregardful all others involved so she would not feel bad about herself. The dead, regardless of Bible bunny or atheist do not feel pain and do not suffer, not the innocent dead. Her choice was based on either her immortal soul or her own guilty. She did not take into account the child or those around her, what would you call that.
"some of your comments are very selfish." Sure no argument I don't want to pay for some else's decision. You want to make your own decision you should pay for it. I don't agree with her decision so why should I pay for it. This is the same as the pro-lifer teacher refusing to pay union due since some of them are donated to planned parenthood. She actually got to donate her money else where, I don't get that option.
vlad at October 29, 2008 12:23 PM
"We pay taxes and she will use them when she needs to." Fair enough but then why am I paying for it as well."
Because you live in this country and that is how it works.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 12:24 PM
It doesn't say she didn't consider all those aspects of the situation. Only that the decision was made, she may have a different view of those things causing people like you to believe that she didn't consider her other child.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 12:29 PM
"lucky you are that you were born perfectly formed and can walk down a street" If my mother knew I'd be permanently disabled and she had me any way I'd be giving her the same withering glances. She could have prevented this, maybe I'd be a different person maybe not. I know for my self that were I to be put in that position now as an adult I want to be put down. There is no greater hell for me than being trapped in a wrecked body especially if my mind is still sharp.
It's one thing to have the whole thing come as a surprise. Willingly doing it is something totally different. Also I do not shot said glances at those parents for the simple fact that I do not know how they got into this situation. They could be the sibling of the special child and not the parents. They could also have no idea it was happening until the child was born, or possible birth (CP) or post birth (EEE). I do not have scorn for parents that have disabled children just when they have them knowingly. Willingly bringing a severely disabled child into this world looks just plain cruel. Now there's plenty of argument room with regards to what severely disabled and burden to society means.
Friend worked with sever autistic that make more than I do as an engineer. They are a completely unbreakable computer and data repository. They can calculate interest rates faster than any desktop I know. They can not be hacked, don't understand bribery or coercion. So most disabilities can actually function quite well in society. However society should not have to bend over to do it.
vlad at October 29, 2008 12:38 PM
"Because you live in this country and that is how it works." Right hence the resentment. How do you feel about paying health care for illegal immigrants. Same justification is valid there too.
"It doesn't say she didn't consider all those aspects of the situation." then what does this passage mean "Mrs. Carden flung his dinner plate into the sink and said: "I won't terminate. It's a marriage breaker."
vlad at October 29, 2008 12:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1601087">comment from momtospecialchildThe story above isn't the full story out of the Wall Street Journal, which is the one I read.
It's called an excerpt. It includes a link -- on little word in the piece above that's a different color. Click on it and it will take you to the whole story. You've heard of copyrights, right?
Amy Alkon at October 29, 2008 12:41 PM
Oh and the fact that she was guilty of having an abortion at 18 while unwed was one of the reasons for her decision. How is that not selfish. She's not against abortion when it's not convenient to have a baby. Even if it is a perfectly healthy baby.
Vlad at October 29, 2008 12:47 PM
After reading the article completely I still think she's a selfish twit but I'm glad the kids doing better.
vlad at October 29, 2008 12:55 PM
"guilty of having an abortion" Sorry that came out completely wrong "of" should be "for".
vlad at October 29, 2008 1:03 PM
I'm very aware of that, Amy. I was pointing it out to the commenters. See it even encouraged someone to read the whole article.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 1:19 PM
>>There is no greater hell for me than being trapped in a wrecked body especially if my mind is still sharp.
Vlad,
Come on>/i>!
That's a kid's empty boast.
They look at anyone over 40 and wonder why we don't pull the trigger.
Sure, not everyone becomes a Stephen Hawking but saying you know what you'd want to happen in such imaginary rotten circumstances (i.e. death) is just spittle and hot air.
Jody Tresidder at October 29, 2008 1:57 PM
Huh, she may have actually made the correct decision for the wrong reason. If the only problem the kid has is that he can't walk and has reduced kidney function I don't think aborting him would automatically be the right decision, plus they don't specify how long he will need all the therapies, likely cause they don't actually know what's going on. He's also part of experimental research to try and cure what he has and no one used this as an example of Parker's contribution to society. Helping cure a debilitating disease is about as noble a contribution to society as one can get.
I still stand by the idea that moms a selfish ass. She should have investigated more and not locked herself out of the possibility of terminating the pregnancy. She already had a sick child at home having a second sick child at home I assume we all agree is not a good idea. The child is developmentally delayed which with the right therapies could be fixed permanently allowing him to become a productive member of society without needing constant financial support. He can't walk and he's slow is a far cry from incapable of being self sufficient.
Still resent paying for other people willful mistakes and stand by my comments in most cases like this. After some thought I can no longer justify that opinion of this one. In truth the kids picture made it a whole lot harder to think of him as an it or a mistake.
vlad at October 29, 2008 1:58 PM
"That's a kid's empty boast.
They look at anyone over 40 and wonder why we don't pull the trigger." How are you equating being a mute quadriplegic with being over 40? Either your a vegetable and the you that's you is dead (why waste money animating a corpse), or all you can do is count the spots on the ceiling. No it's not an empty boast, not being able to do any of the things I enjoy makes life not worth living.
vlad at October 29, 2008 2:04 PM
>>How are you equating being a mute quadriplegic with being over 40?
I'm not, vlad.
My point is that our beloved bratty young often have fiercely judgmental certainties about the horror of being useless and wrinkly.
"Hope I die before I get old" sort of thing (I think that's The Who - and that those old farts are on the road again even as we speak!)
They don't figure out that one of the brilliant human tricks is that we adapt, we change our perception, we might even sincerely believe that 50 is the new 30 or whatever.
That's all I meant!
Jody Tresidder at October 29, 2008 2:15 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1601115">comment from vlad"That's a kid's empty boast. They look at anyone over 40 and wonder why we don't pull the trigger."
I'm 44 and having buttloads of fun. Is there anyone who really looks at anyone over 40 and thinks that? The discussion here, lately, is descending into the absolutely ridiculous.
Amy Alkon at October 29, 2008 2:15 PM
"There, no straw men or anything Radwaste, happy now?"
Well, of course not. First, because using a "straw man" is injurious to your argument - it wasn't for me that I pointed that out; second, you missed the child's suffering.
Which makes me wonder: how can anybody miss that?
Radwaste at October 29, 2008 2:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1601123">comment from RadwasteI didn't. But, it's been glossed over by all of those trying to justify bringing a child into the world when there's a good chance of that child suffering -- anything is permissible, I guess, to relieve a woman's guilt over her past abortion. And then there are those who talk about how wonderful their disabled children are. Again, I can find value in just about any person if I look hard enough. But, that doesn't mean I want to encourage people to bring slews of non-autonomous human beings into the world; especially when there's a good likelihood that they will endure a lifetime of suffering.
Amy Alkon at October 29, 2008 2:54 PM
"For sheer fascist horsepower, Raddy, it has only one contender, Amy's classic from May of this year..."
Crid, you're a wonderful writer, a deep thinker and I imagine awesome company, but since I didn't provide a context you're inventing one which isn't mine.
Had you full access to my history, you would see that I actually insist most loudly that individual rights be protected - and that since individual rights are best protected by the careful exercise of the commensurate responsibilities, that this doesn't not support a "take, take, take" position by any citizen.
So don't misunderstand me now: my post, that I insist that when you make a choice you make the right one, is based entirely on the idea that some have that whatever harebrained whim they blurt should be publicly defended as the latest manna from Heaven. I am reactive in this case, not active; I know I cannot tell a free citizen what to do; I am exhorting them to greater care!
Radwaste at October 29, 2008 3:02 PM
>>I'm 44 and having buttloads of fun. Is there anyone who really looks at anyone over 40 and thinks that? The discussion here, lately, is descending into the absolutely ridiculous.
Amy,
I wouldn't expect you to say anything else!
Teenagers, however, can make your ears melt with their ageist assumptions. (Maybe you know tons of teenagers who think middle age is "where it's at" or something. I don't - and I've even found myself defending McCain's bloody right - as a human being - to at least exist!)
Jody Tresidder at October 29, 2008 3:17 PM
"They don't figure out that one of the brilliant human tricks is that we adapt, we change our perception, we might even sincerely believe that 50 is the new 30 or whatever."
This adaptation allows joy to be extracted from bleak circumstances, but I don't buy that the parents of the disabled are in the same boat as the Mannings (Peyton and Eli's folks).
You, yourself, are elevated or reduced by the level of success you eke out for yourself. Surprise! Other people feel that way, too, even those who cannot name the reason for the depression or delight they feel.
Radwaste at October 29, 2008 3:21 PM
I'm sorry that you will never have the joy of knowing my wonderful child.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 4:13 PM
What is your definition? this child is able to breath independently and live like other children his age though with some delays. Just as many other people and children with disabilities.
au⋅ton⋅o⋅mous /ɔˈtɒnəməs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [aw-ton-uh-muhs] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. Government. a. self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only.
b. pertaining to an autonomy.
2. having autonomy; not subject to control from outside; independent: a subsidiary that functioned as an autonomous unit.
3. Biology. a. existing and functioning as an independent organism.
momtospecialchild at October 29, 2008 4:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1601136">comment from RadwasteI am reactive in this case, not active; I know I cannot tell a free citizen what to do; I am exhorting them to greater care!
Me, too.
And whatever your choice, how about you pick up the tab?
Amy Alkon at October 29, 2008 4:46 PM
> since I didn't provide a context
> you're inventing one
Not at all... I quoted you precisely. There's no context that's been evaded. People can go back and look (October 28, 2008 1:50 AM) if they wanna be sure.
And now that I think about it, I'm pissed off anew:
> I insist that since you
> have a choice you make
> the best one
I react first to the coercion on the bottom half of the passage, where you presume to know with Godlike certainty the best course for a terrified, heartbroken parent in an instant of character-fragmenting crisis. Your confident judgment of this intimate path in the deepest soul of a person not known to you --brought to you by the clarity that comes from reading a Murdoch newspaper-- is that she should terminate her nascent child's life, thus countermanding [A] her powerful biological/hormonal signals, [B] the optimism at the base of human culture, [C] hope from the medical sciences that have miraculously brightened and extended many of our lives, and perhaps [D] the faith that's given her own life purpose and meaning. You want her to do that because you know what's "best".
(Actually, as you all shortly concede, you're trying to save a couple bucks. But let's forget about that for now, because we've already covered that part in earlier discussions.)
So let's now consider the impatience at the top of that passage... "since you have a choice." We get the sense that you think this woman shouldn't really have a choice. But shucks, she does, so that's water under the bridge, and let's get back to demanding she have a fucking abortion. Meanwhile, before the next case comes to us, you'll presumably be doing your quiet best to make sure the parent doesn't have these options... You'll abort whether she wants to or not. Fool me once, right?
Or will you simply forbid the pregnancy? You and Amy's "we"?
> I am exhorting them to
> greater care!
Care. Expressing loving, compassionate "care" by demanding abortion from strangers. I bet I could name your favorite song....
There are so many reasons to hate you guys for saying these stupid things that it's hard to pick a favorite... It would be like asking a mother to pick a favorite child!
But I'd have to go with the sunniness of your presumption. I hate it when Muslims get all mouthy about Mohammad's onrushing reign, as I hate it when anyone else presumes that everything in the world could be so much better if we would just take control.
Welp, not in this case. What happened to that woman and her child is a horrible thing. But it's a typically human, typically biological, typically Earthlike outcome. As science evolves maybe we'll have more opportunities to prevent these occurrences. But we'll never have the science to make them all go away. Our chemistry, physics and biology require wiggle room, spaces where things get spilled and broken.
Now... You guys are obviously upset about financial implications of this unpleasant truth. Let me soothe you. If you're in an American urban center, you're probably within walking distance, certainly within driving distance, of a public or community care institution for people with long-term disabilities. (Not just an Alzheimer's facility, or a group home for the mentally retarded, but a 24 hour facility for the severely disabled.) When you visit for the first time, you'll be appalled by the noise (door alarms to prevent "elopement" etc.) and the odors. But the second time you stop by with some cookies and old sweaters, you'll be amazed at the sheer number of people who are being fed, diapered, and amused with cheap ice cream. (And it is the cheap stuff.) And you'll recognize the care that they receive at community expense is a tremendous blessing conferred by life in a modern country.
The money is chump change. It's a laughable pittance compared to the monstrosity of mocking pregnant women who choose to see it through.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 29, 2008 8:58 PM
Crid: You and I have obviously been to very different establishments. It's precisely these community facilities that make her decision a poor one. The people that can go to a group home are a different story.
You are right actually most of us wouldn't notice the difference if all of those facilities were closed. I sat down and calculated out how much we would save on state tax in Ma. I could maybe buy a used video game per month with the difference. Also anyone here who thinks that were these facilities closed the state would lower income tax is deluded. They would just reappropriate the funds just like that too Patrick did in Ma. The funding issue is negligible. Also it provides jobs for recent immigrants and new college grads in psychology and business. So economically these are actually boons therefore the economic argument is invalid.
"monstrosity of mocking pregnant women who choose to see it through" my mocking of her stems from the fact that she came to a decision and THEN contacted the alliance to determine what the consequences of her decision were. Her logic is deserving of mocking. She had by pro-life standards killed before likely a perfectly health baby but it's evil for us to mock her now. Evil would be demand (and by right of law) try to force her to have an abortion. There's a big difference between your an ass and I'm locking you up and throwing away the key so you can not be an ass ever again.
vlad at October 30, 2008 6:10 AM
> She had by pro-life standards
> killed before likely a perfectly
> health baby
You have interesting ideas about reproductive freedom: If women use it, they lose it.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 30, 2008 6:39 AM
No your either pro life or pro choice. Again she has every right to choose either but doing so when it's convenient is bull shit. Abortion is evil when I'm married but before that it's ok. It's her self serving inconsistent reasoning that I have issues with. She's pro choice when it suits and pro life when she wants something else. Again I'm not saying, never have, never will that she has to get an abortion or that she has too keep the baby. Her response was I'm doing it my way and too hell with the other people involved. She has every right to do so, still the choice is selfish.
Had any of us used this kind of logic on any other topic you would be on them like shit on Velcro, why then do pregnant women get a pass? Does pregnancy make women magically stupid and thus get a pass on logic.
vlad at October 30, 2008 6:55 AM
Had her approach been. OK shit this is a bad situation. Lets explore or options. Get 2-3 opinions to confirm that the diagnosis is consistent. Determine if they are in a financial position to care for the disabled child. Then decide to keep it I'd be on your side of the argument. They know the child will be disabled but not suffer from chronic pain for the rest of his/her short life and they have the resources to care for them have at it. Enjoy and god bless. Even if the resources are tenous they at least have a plan. Otherwise why the hell would you get the test done in the first place.
Determine if you can then do not do and hope the hell that you can later.
vlad at October 30, 2008 7:04 AM
> Again she has every right
> to choose either but doing
> so when it's convenient
> is bull shit.
That's very Raddy of you!
There are two kinds of people in the abortion debate with whom I've lost patience: Those who call it "a choice", and those who call it "murder".
I think these assholes, screeching at each other in indefensibly strident postures from each side of the room for decades, have muddled your thinking about the morality of this issue. (And I suspect that their twitchy, hair-trigger moral rhetoric nourished the heartless, presumptive, clean-hands expression in this comment stack.)
You've come to assume that a woman must decide whether it's murder or not with some sort of finality, and live that way evermore.
That's not how reproductive freedom goes. Women can do what they want.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 30, 2008 7:28 AM
Another thought. Have any of you considered that a country where you can be told you have to have an abortion for the good of society, is a country where you can be told you have to have a child? I'm not talking about prolife people telling you not to have an abortion, I'm talking the government telling you it's been decided you having a child with X person's sperm will be advantageous for the greater good of society.
Ooooo, the child will suffer! Kill it now!! Everyone suffers. You bring a child into the world knowing without a doubt that it will too. Being less-intelligent than normal doesn't equal suffering. Having to have a few surgeries doesn't equal constant suffering. hell, I've had 4 and counting. Yet I am not living a life of suffering. Having 60% kidney function doesn't equal suffering. You can live a normal life with 1 kidney, which I'm assuming equates to 50% function.
Everyone makes decisions based on the sum of their experiences. Maybe guilt from the first abortion did teach her she couldn't do that again. Maybe guilt from yours makes you so certain she should have done it again? Got to rationalize yours? Who can say. To tell someone that having one means you have to have more is absurd. To tell a person to disregard previous life experiences when making a decision is absurd.
Get out of her life. And you can tell her to get out of yours (that you assume the kid will require in the future) tax money is absurd as well, unless you manage to take no tax money for anything in your life.
Why does anyone know about this? My private decisions should stay private. So who decided hers were up for discussion? Did her husband write somewhere, looking for support for his own inability to love a less than perfect child? I'm curious. Amy, do we know about your medical decisions? Want to post your medical records for review and approval? Doubt it.
momof3 at October 30, 2008 7:44 AM
No but reading the comment I made I see your point, I do sound like that. No her decision to keep the baby looked like it was based on the abortion is murder paradigm. If that is the case then her logic for keeping the baby is flawed. It's off to commit an act then magically decide it's murder later.
We can argue as to what level of justification we should or should not expect of her. We can not argue what level of justification we can demand of her as we can not demand her justification.
Not it's not as simple as a choice and it's not murder either up to a point. These are choices we can make as individuals only. The argument that life begins at conception is far from solved either medically or ethically, as spontaneous abortions occur quite frequently. No one can logically argue that it's anything but murder once the kid is out. The dicey point for most non fanatics is where does one draw the line. Personally 3rd trimester is really too late to decide as the cognitive function are forming. You also have the extremes that say either all contraception is murder like rubbers or birth control pills (my old priest) or that so long as the kids not fully out terminating at delivery is ok. Below a certain point it is little more than a choice, as a minimum prior to conception it a choice, as neither sperm nor egg are viable individually. The rest is an ethical grey area that can only be seen on an individual basis.
This does not change the fact the "I want" should always be tempered with a "should I or can I". She chose to ignore that.
vlad at October 30, 2008 7:56 AM
"So who decided hers were up for discussion?" Um they did when the chose to give the WSJ an interview. You make your life public you open it up for discussion. Had they have not made it public we would not know and couldn't judge her.
"unless you manage to take no tax money for anything in your life." So far yes. So I'd be cool criticizing her on my death bed having never used tax payer dollars my self?
"You can live a normal life with 1 kidney, which I'm assuming equates to 50% function." Actually you'd be wrong on both accounts. First having one kidney will shorten your life and you have to be careful as to how much you drink, and no I don't mean alcohol. Second your kidneys are not 50/50. The dominant kidney filters significantly more than the other. Losing the less productive one will put you down to about 75% or so. Losing the dominant one may really screw you over, varies from person to person.
"Have any of you considered that a country where you can be told you have to have an abortion for the good of society, is a country where you can be told you have to have a child?" Now we are at a stage of willful misreading.
vlad at October 30, 2008 8:08 AM
"No your either pro life or pro choice."
Well - even that can be argued. I am pro-choice for EVERYONE in the world - your body, your choice. I just know that for my body, I am pro-life. I couldn't do it.
By the way - I'm really not getting much work done this week because of the discussion on this - I get angry and agree with some, but I can't stop reading it!
Kari at October 30, 2008 8:28 AM
"I just know that for my body, I am pro-life." Technically your pro choice, you just chose to not abort. Not aborting is a choice. Pro life isn't about not aborting it's about making it illegal. Hence the issue I have with pro life. They actually want to do what some of use keep being accused of here, just in the other direction.
vlad at October 30, 2008 8:37 AM
In this case aborting quite likely may have been the wrong choice. The kid does not seem to be suffering and his tax drain status is no more certain than that of a non disabled child. Lets say that it's a different case like tasacks (sp) should the mother be lauded for bringing the child into the world against only to die horribly after a pointless expenditure of emotions and resources.
vlad at October 30, 2008 8:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1601289">comment from momof3Have any of you considered that a country where you can be told you have to have an abortion for the good of society, is a country where you can be told you have to have a child?
Nobody's telling her she has to have an abortion. I guess you missed that point. She can squeeze out as many likely-to-be-a-drain-on-the-rest-of-us children as she wants, and all we can do is pay for them.
Amy Alkon at October 30, 2008 9:12 AM
> Nobody's telling her she has
> to have an abortion. I guess
> you missed that point.
Ahem:
| The mother is to blame for all
| of Parker's future torments.
Crid at October 30, 2008 5:11 PM
Interesting article over at Slate, discussing this very subject:
http://www.slate.com/id/2203324/
An excerpt:
"It's pretty rich to see pro-lifers wring their hands about this information while, at the same time, they campaign for ultrasound laws. As Emily Bazelon has pointed out, you can't be for information when it discourages abortions but against information when it leads to abortions—not if your real purpose is, as pro-lifers insist, simply to inform women. And my libertarian hackles go up when paternalists fret that genetic tests might cause undue "anxiety" in "emotionally vulnerable" couples. If you're going to let people raise their own kids, you'd better trust them to think for themselves."
Flynne at October 31, 2008 8:35 AM
Holy shit, I thought this one died days ago...
Just a quickie Crid -
Saying that the mother is to blame for all of Parker's future torments, is not the same as saying that anyone has to have an abortion. Saying someone under the circs should isn't saying they must.
DuWayne at October 31, 2008 2:00 PM
She's got one, and only one, option to refute Amy's blame.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 31, 2008 2:35 PM
It's a short leap from should to must. And again, who are you to decide what she should do? I must keep missing that point when it's made.
One of the southern slaveowners arguments against the bleeding heart northerners was that just because northerners considered blacks to be people didn't mean everyone did, and owning slaves was an individual choice. I have no doubt history will judge the "fetus's (or handicapped people, we've thrown that in too now apparently) aren't people" pro-choicers as equally imbicilic.
momof3 at November 1, 2008 6:17 PM
crid -
So what? Amy's blame is completely and utterly meaningless in this context. Again, there isn't any compulsion being advocated here, except that many of us believe that the only reasonable option this women had, was to abort - an option she didn't take.
I find her decision absolutely repulsive and repugnant. Given the opportunity, I would happily tell her so. But this is a far cry from compulsion.
momof3 -
It's a short leap from should to must.
God's you're fucking stupid - flat fucking stupid and alarmist to boot.
It's assholes like you, who are all about infringing on everyone else's personal autonomy. That same logic is why it is illegal for doctors to proactively help someone take their own life.
It's not a short leap, it's a different fucking ballgame, a major difference. I think that repulsive little holocaust deniers should shut the fuck up, yet I have and will again in the future, argue voraciously for their right not to shut the fuck up about it. I absolutely despise inane, anti-gay claptrap - find it absolutely repulsive. Yet again, I will fight voraciously for the right of anti-gay bigots to get their idiot on - even though again, I think they should shut the fuck up.
No less, I would fight just as voraciously, the notion of forced abortions. Even though there are a number of circumstances in which I think a women should abort.
And again, who are you to decide what she should do?
Someone who hates seeing kids suffer, something that her selfish decision has ensured.
I have no doubt history will judge the "fetus's (or handicapped people, we've thrown that in too now apparently) aren't people" pro-choicers as equally imbicilic.
Too late, far too late. You lost a long fucking time ago and your attitude is just shy of anachronistic. While there is a very long way to go, we are moving into an age of personal autonomy - slowly but quite certainly.
DuWayne at November 1, 2008 9:41 PM
Alright, dumb ass, here's a list of "personal autonomies" that have gone from probably should to legally must in my lifetime:
-wearing a helmet (most states)
-buckling up
-vaccinating your child (can opt out, but is still law)
-using a carseat for your child (do you do that? Or, like keeping a roof over their head, is it just too expensive and difficult for you?)
-using a booster seat for older kids (some states)
-insuring your car
-insuring your child's health, if Obama wins
I'm sure there are more, but hey, I had 5 spare minutes. But oooo yeah, it's a whole different fucking ballgame indeed. The government never tries to legislate what we do with our bodies.
Kill your own kids if you want, don't tell other people to. Oh, and suffering kids? How about kids who's dad can't keep a place to live for them, and who's wacko mom walks out? There's some suffering.
momof3 at November 2, 2008 6:25 AM
momor3 -
-wearing a helmet (most states)
-buckling up
Neither of these should be legal mandates, if people are too fucking stupid to wear those safety devices, their loss to the gene pool isn't a bad thing.
The rest of your list has nothing to do with personal autonomy. People just don't have the right to put their kids in blatantly unsafe situations, nor should they.
I also don't believe it should be legal for people to opt out of vaccinating their kids, unless there is a medically necessary reason for not vaccinating.
Insurance requirements are just one of many requirements to enjoy the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on public roads.
The government never tries to legislate what we do with our bodies.
They do, but the public is pushing back against it and the rate at which we are doing so, is slowly but surely growing. Death with dignity acts are being considered in other states, medical marijuana (a precursor to legalization) is becoming increasingly widespread, people are becoming increasinlgy pissy about state/native monopolies on gambling, gay rights are growing and support for legal and safe prostitution is also growing.
Kill your own kids if you want, don't tell other people to.
Written by one who shows more than a second grade education, that would read;
Kill your own kids if you want, but don't expect it to be legal.
How about kids who's dad can't keep a place to live for them, and who's wacko mom walks out?
Actually, you fucking cunt, I have in fact kept a roof over their heads. I have also managed to make the transition fairly easy on them and as my son transitions to his new school, he will have a great deal of continuity, because folks at his current school, the new school and I, have spent a great deal of time making sure the new school will work with him the way that his current one does.
As for his "wacko" mom, part of the reason I chose to head back to MI, is because unlike OR (which has more funding for it), the mental health system in MI isn't completely broken.
While it has obviously been a trying time, my kids are by no means suffering. Why? Because as always, our first priority is our children's well being. The situation sucks, but we are making the best of it, priority being to minimize the difficulties of my kids (really the six year old, the ten month old doesn't really care).
DuWayne at November 2, 2008 8:53 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/27/what_a_woman_wa.html#comment-1602175">comment from DuWaynewearing a helmet (most states) -buckling up Neither of these should be legal mandates, if people are too fucking stupid to wear those safety devices, their loss to the gene pool isn't a bad
The problem is that we are forced to pay for them when they are horribly injured.
Also, I think it's important to not just blindly accept what the medical establishment says is good; whether Gardasil is actually safe is a question, for example. I have not read all the studies, but an epidemiologist/biostatician friend of mine expressed concern as to the safety of Gardasil.
Still, herd immunity is a real concern, and parents refusing to inoculate their children may mean we see a resurge of diseases like Polio that we thought we'd eradicated.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 11:27 AM
> Amy's blame is completely and
> utterly meaningless in this context.
What "context" are you talking about? And in what other context might it have meaning?
Aside from its weird counter-feminist implications, your point could be paraphrased as: I think you're a sadistic painmonger, and your decisions in a time of crisis are a monstrous, unnecessary burden to the whole of human civilization... but hey!, do what you wanna do. Really. Don't mind me none....
> God's you're fucking stupid
> It's assholes like you
> Alright, dumb ass
If you're going to ridicule, shouldn't it be fun for somebody?
Crid at November 2, 2008 6:37 PM
Amy -
The problem is that we are forced to pay for them when they are horribly injured.
I am all for putting exceptions into the law for certain behaviors.
Also, I think it's important to not just blindly accept what the medical establishment says is good; whether Gardasil is actually safe is a question, for example.
I am not keen on vaccines being introduced and made a legal requirement nearly as quickly as it happened to Gardasil in some places. That in and of itself is not a great argument for not vaccinating.
Still, herd immunity is a real concern, and parents refusing to inoculate their children may mean we see a resurge of diseases like Polio that we thought we'd eradicated.
People like to ignore them, because they aren't on a par with Polio, but we have already seen outbreaks of measles and mumps. The thing is, that while they aren't as bad as polio, there are occasional really bad reactions to either, that can lead to permanent disability.
That said, I am all about allowing parents not to vaccinate their kids, I just don't want them allowed in public schools. There are people who can't get vaccinated because of medical necessity and there are those who just don't develop the anti-bodies. These people are entirely dependent on herd immunity and both groups also tend to have compromised immune systems and can be particularly hard hit if they get the diseases we vaccinate against.
I would love to see such people keep their kids the hell out of public altogether, but stop at trying to push a law.
DuWayne at November 2, 2008 7:19 PM
thanks for sharing, i like great article at your site. good luckTutorial hijab Terbaru
Tutorial Hijab Terbaru at July 1, 2013 8:34 PM
Leave a comment