Orlando group says Miami disabled woman will not abort fetus

http://www.miami.com ^ | 5-29-03 | AP

[OXENinFLA]

Orlando group says Miami disabled woman will not abort fetus

MIAMI - (AP) -- An anti-abortion group claims it has convinced a retarded, deaf, seizure-prone and pregnant rape victim to have surgery to deliver her baby, even though her doctors received authorization from a judge last week to abort the fetus.

The Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, a group that defends religious civil liberties, made the announcement late Wednesday and called it a major victory in the ongoing debate over abortions.

''We're very excited and very pleased with the result,'' said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Liberty Counsel. ``We're very pleased that Baby Doe will have a chance at life now.''

Circuit Judge Arthur Rothenberg gave permission last week to doctors at Jackson Memorial Hospital to abort the fetus, which is in its 24th week of development. The judge also authorized doctors to perform a tubal ligation so the woman can't become pregnant again.

[gumbo]

I'll take a shot at answering that. Because a woman might not want to carry to full term a child that bears the inferior genetics of a rapist.

I'd like you to take a good close look at this picture:

Do you know who these people are? The woman on the left was a rape victim. The woman on the right is her daughter -- the result of that rape.

Now tell me, again, that the daughter "bears the inferior genetics of a rapist" ???

More about the story of these remarkable women here

[glory]

Yes or even "my baby, no more rape" indicating she acknowledged she was pregnant and it was her baby, but did not want to be raped or put back in a place where she could be raped.

[Scothia]

That is why I would hate to see a sick child born to a lifetime of suffering.

So now you get to say whose life is worth living, and none but the perfect need apply?

What about children whose disablity comes upon them after birth? Take 'em out back and put 'em out of their (our) misery?

[hocndoc]

How sick is too sick to be protected from intentional killing by a third party or the State even when the child is no danger to the life of anyone else?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/919843/posts

Your comments about the uterus expelling an unhealthy child is not exactly correct. Miscarriages happen when the child dies or is so ill that he or she ceases to function.

On the other hand, we do interfere if there are premature contractions (i.e., the womb is trying to expell the child) but no death of the child or immediate danger to the mother.

[Scothia]

That is why I would hate to see a sick child born to a lifetime of suffering.

Been published before, but bears repeating:

Case history: A woman with chronic tuberculosis is pregnant. Her husband has syphilis. Of their three children, one is blind, another deaf, and the other suffers tuberculosis. Yet another child died in infancy. This child is at high risk for physical defects, will most likely have mental illness and eventually will go competely deaf.

Do you recommend abortion?

Congratulations, you've just killed Beethoven.

[glory]

It can and is given, oh uninformed one. Not all miscarriages are the result of deformed or ill babies. Many women have problem maintaining the lining of their uterus or what I call, hormone "glitches" and the result is the baby is sloughed off in their normal period. Thankfully these women have medications to keep their progesterone levels raised now so they don't expel healthy babies because of their hormonal imbalance in VERY early pregnancy. The course of treatment is usually continued until the first trimester is over. I happen to know numbers of babies, perfectly healthy, born from mothers with this problem having suffered infertility myself for some time.

[MissNomer]

>Anyone who would knowingly bring a sick child into the world (who would then have to spend a lifetime suffering) just to appease your version of God is sick.>

Get a clue. The child is already in the world from the moment of conception. Killing it just *you* can't possibly imagine how a life with some undetermined amount of suffering could possibly be worth it is sick. At any rate, in this case this article indicates that the baby has not been found to have any illnesses that would cause it to spend a lifetime of suffering. Ridiculous to kill it on the off-chance that something might be wrong with it in the future.

There are no guarantees in life even if you're born healthy. In fact, I know quite a few people who have suffered much in life who have come to enjoy and appreciate life more than people who have never suffered hardship.

[Blood of Tyrants]

As to what should be done with the unborn child, I'll leave that decision to the mother.

What a limp wristed, panty waist cop out. You cannot even bring yourself to say that killing an innocent unborn baby is wrong.

[unspun]

Does this mean I'm on an informal Pro-Life ping list? If so, great; let me know!

[LanPB01]

Well see if this if clear enough, moron - I'm against turning a woman into an incubator for a rapist.

[najida]

I am just guess here (the most common seizure meds being Dilantin and Depakote)....

There could be long bone deformities and non-separation of the fingers & toes...(I am going from memory here).

That negative note aside, I have a cousin with MASSIVE epilipsy who had 2 babies, very healthy and normal while on Dilantin and I think second pretty strong drug.

I am praying that the baby will be OK. I do want to know what happens to it after it is born....either way.

[LanPB01]

"The woman on the left was a rape victim. The woman on the right is her daughter -- the result of that rape."

Hey, if that woman chose to have the baby, that's her right. By the same token, if she had chosen to abort a pregnancy that resulted from such an act, I wouldn't hold it against her.

[plusone]

Congradulations, you've kept Hitler alive...

[plusone]

Ah yes, the 'suffering is the grace of God' argument. Hadn't seen that one show up in this post yet. Go tell some poor schmuck that has a sick child or a cancerous wife that this is part of God's plan. Nice touch.

[plusone]

You've sidestepped the question. Should a woman who is carrying a deformed child, and is at high risk of miscarriage to expel the fetus, be given drugs to prevent it?

[plusone]

So...you like to see kids suffer?

[cgk]

Sort of... ;). I pinged people to this thread from the original story thread. And I think I used the same ping list for the thread on the "Choose Life" license plates being upheld in Florida (Federal Appeals). I ping people from time to time if I've seen them on "like" threads. Glad you didn't mind. :)

[snowstorm12]

I really don't think the judge should put too much weight on this private group claims. This woman is highly suggestibile. They have a clear agenda and I think the person who knows the situation best, all the facts best and how best to handle this whole situation are the judge, her doctors and the mother of the retarded woman, not some unknown group who just met her 5 minutes ago. I think the abortion will happen anyways despite this groups claims because frankly it's not their choice to make even though we know they very much would like to force their religious beliefs on everyone if they could. This kinda reminds me one of the last scenes in Rainman. Get her in front of the judge again she'll probably say something different.



Doctor: Ray, do you want to stay and live with Charlie?
Raymond Babbitt: Yeah.
Doctor: Or do you want to go back to Walbrook?
Raymond Babbitt: Yeah.
Doctor: Which is it? Go back to Walbrook or stay with Charlie Babbitt?
Raymond Babbitt: Go back to Walbrook, stay with Charlie Babbitt.

[MHGinTN]

It is astonishing the lengths and obfuscations some apologists for abortion slaughter will go to defend the unwarranted hiring of a serial killer! [BTW, what does a movie script have to do with this case?]

[snowstorm12]

A severely retarded woman is highly suggestible that is what it means. If a pro life group with an agenda wants to manipulate her I'm sure they could do it. Their claims are meaningless. They don't even know this woman, but her mother does.

The only one who is obfuscatates is you.