ext_7021 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
ohinternets.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
therightfangirl2009-01-31 01:41 pm
ohinternets.livejournal.com) wrote in therightfangirl2009-01-31 01:41 pm
Because it went so well the last time we let doctors decide which patients should have babies.
I've been really perplexed at the huge uproar over the woman who had octuplets yesterday. The mother is healthy, all eight babies are healthy, the family appears to be functional with plenty of (non government!) support, so what is the problem, exactly?
Apparently CNN questions the ethics of having that many babies at once. Among some of the reasons cited by experts (with obvious biases and agendas) are the usual concerns about the mother's health - which in this individual case, was never a concern - and the risk to babies in multiple births. Amazingly, though every set of triplets I've ever met was perfectly normal in every way, and being the parent of a child with special needs, I resent the implication that a disability might be a good cause to terminate a pregnancy, the scientists in the article advocate partial abortion be considered even in triplets. They do quote one guy who refers to fetal reduction as killing babies, but this is the note on which the article ends, and which is most scary to me:
Eugenics v2, anyone? Except a million times worse. She is advocating forced abortions because pregnant women can't make rational decisions. What happened to "the government should stay out of our uteruses" rhetoric that most pro-abortion people advocate? The article ends by saying that women with that many fetuses shouldn't give birth to all of them even if they are all healthy - because it might encourage other women to do it, too.
I'm so beyond horrified right now, you guys.
Apparently CNN questions the ethics of having that many babies at once. Among some of the reasons cited by experts (with obvious biases and agendas) are the usual concerns about the mother's health - which in this individual case, was never a concern - and the risk to babies in multiple births. Amazingly, though every set of triplets I've ever met was perfectly normal in every way, and being the parent of a child with special needs, I resent the implication that a disability might be a good cause to terminate a pregnancy, the scientists in the article advocate partial abortion be considered even in triplets. They do quote one guy who refers to fetal reduction as killing babies, but this is the note on which the article ends, and which is most scary to me:
[Sara] Rosenthal[, bioethicist at the University of Kentucky], on the other hand, questions the woman's capacity to make a good decision under the circumstances. Some neonatologists believe that when pregnant women are told about dangers of prematurity or have great expectations about giving birth, their judgment can be impaired, she said.
The situation raises the issue of whether a doctor ought to override a patient's wishes for the sake of saving lives, she said. Although the health care system in America gives patients autonomy in making decisions about their own bodies, when emotionally distraught, some people decide poorly, she said.
Eugenics v2, anyone? Except a million times worse. She is advocating forced abortions because pregnant women can't make rational decisions. What happened to "the government should stay out of our uteruses" rhetoric that most pro-abortion people advocate? The article ends by saying that women with that many fetuses shouldn't give birth to all of them even if they are all healthy - because it might encourage other women to do it, too.
I'm so beyond horrified right now, you guys.
no subject
Alas I think this boils down to a reading comprehension issue because as I said:
but letting children starve because their parents won't feed them? I think that's a pretty indefensible, inhumane and unethical position. Bordering on trolling, frankly.
Charity =/= anyone forcing you to do anything. I think an ethic of charity and community outreach is necessary in a civilized society. I don't want to live in a dog-eat-dog world where a baby can starve and people find it totally moral to turn their backs on it because they'll be damned if someone else perceives them as feeling obligated!!11!1!!1!
no subject
And you may favor local community and charity over government help, which okay great - but I believe in ONLY charity, which seems to be where our differences lie. I do not believe in governmental help as even a backup, because with the government that money comes from somewhere - taxpayers. ...and it isn't voluntary - at least not these days for most people.
no subject
I am pretty sure you misread (yet again) and/or jumped the gun. I do not favor government help as a back-up and nowhere implied that. You did, however, also not say that you favor charity of any kind, simply favoring children of bad parents starving, lest anyone think you felt beholden to part with one of your dollars.
no subject
And I guess I am not really the type to give to charity, so I didn't really get all gung-ho about it, but I have no problem with OTHER people giving as much as they want, if that's what they want to do.
And really, the way you phrase it with seeming disdain: "simply favoring children of bad parents starving, lest anyone think you felt beholden to part with one of your dollars" implies to me (possibly incorrectly) that you rather favor the socialist ideals of taking-a-village-to-raise-a-child tripe. I am pretty hardcore an individualist, so I get pretty up-in-arms against anything like that. We're free to disagree... at least, Obama hasn't passed a law changing that just yet, I believe.
no subject
no subject