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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You pro-murder people just don't get it. The right to live overrides ANYONE's "right to choose".

There is absolutely no doubt that an unborn baby is alive and that it is a unique individual and that it is human. By twisting the definition of the word "person" to mean only humans who have been born and cheapen the status of an unborn child to "non-person" can you justify the legalization of the murder of 40 MILLION children.

BTW, it is the DemocRat Party that supports abortion on demand and it was the DemocRat Party that supported slavery. Same party, same moral desert, different century.

[LanPB01]

Yeah. Well, you're never going to hear me say that a woman should be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that results from rape.

[OXENinFLA]

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.

So how about the mentality of some people that DON'T KNOW THE RESULT WHEN TWO PEOPLE HAVE SEX. Then use abortion the flush away what could have been prevented w/ a condom or no sex?

Once we teach children that "the very thing that propagates our species can be toss out like the trash" how can they be taught to take responsibility for ANYTHING?

[hocndoc]

I didn't read the statement that way at all. It looked as though Mr. Stavey felt that the baby got a reprieve from a death sentence.

[codercpc]

I am not going to disagree with you or try and change your mind, it would obviously be a waste of my time. I am also not going to condemn you, that isn't my place. I will however share two true personal stories that might help you see the other side.

The first is my own personel story. I don't think I was ever pro-choice, I truly probably never gave it much thought either way. I knew I would never have an abortion, but I didn't think of others. That is until I had two miscarraiges in the course of 8 months. Both were extremly early in my pregnancy, one at 6 weeks, and one at 8 weeks. I knew that those were my babies, my children. When the Dr. called them "fetuses", and when I saw my diagnosis written out "spontaneous abortion", I gently asked my Dr. to not refer to them as fetuses, but as babies.

The next scenerio goes to your point about knowingly bringing a sick child into the world. I just found out about this two days ago, as I was watching my extremly rambuncious two year old neice running around the yard, terrorizing her older sister, and her much older cousin. My sister-in-law found out at about 19 weeks gestation that she was carrying a Down-Syndrome child. She was counseled on abortion by her Dr. but after alot of tears and talking to her husband they decided God had given them this child knowing they could handle it. (She happens to be a Special Ed teacher, liberal to boot). Well you can imagine their suprize when Jessica was born a completly normal child.

I personally think alot of pre-natal testing does more harm than good. It isn't, obviously an exact science. And I thank God that my in-laws made the decision that they did. I wouldn't have my niece/Godchild today if they didn't.

[hocndoc]

There is no right to health. There is however the right not to have your health taken from you by the actions of another. The primary right is not to have your health taken from you by such force as to take your life.

I'm not sure how anyone could guarantee a right to be born healthy. Even if evil men and women acted to kill every child who looked the least bit un-healthy.

(Wouldn't that be interesting - the definition of "healthy enough" to live)

[hocndoc]

There is no right to health. There is however the right not to have your health taken from you by the actions of another. The primary right is not to have your health taken from you by such force as to take your life.

I'm not sure how anyone could guarantee a right to be born healthy. Even if evil men and women acted to kill every child who looked the least bit un-healthy.

(Wouldn't that be interesting - the definition of "healthy enough" to live)

[Blood of Tyrants]

So, your solution to a rape is to murder a baby? Also, this is a straw argument. Pregnancy resulting from rape is relatively rare. Birth control by murder is common.

[LanPB01]

Just because something is relatively rare doesn't mean the situation never arises. As to what should be done with the unborn child, I'll leave that decision to the mother.

[plusone]

The example here was rape, not consensual sex.

[plusone]

And the same God that abhors abortion visited upon you two miscarriages? From what I've read, many miscarriages result from some unhealthiness in the baby, which is detected by the mother's body. Essentially, the womb decides it isn't worth the effort to continue with the 'project' and expells the child. Some have complained with my assertion that there is a right to health, yet that is what the womb is deciding with miscarriage. If, for example, there was medicine that could be administered to high-risk (or miscarriage) women to prevent their bodies from rejecting a defective fetus, should it be given?

[plusone]

And which 'bloodthirsty god' is it exactly that I worship? I wasn't aware that I did such a thing...

[plusone]

And which 'bloodthirsty god' is it exactly that I worship? I wasn't aware that I did such a thing...

[plusone]

Thanks for a reasoned reply. Considering the state of the mother, I can't see how the baby couldn't be deformed.

[cgk]

I can certainly understand that thinking with the information FReepers have posted as to how anti-seizure drugs can cause birth defects. The mother even has something inserted into her skull to help drain fluid from her brain. She is severely ill, that is obvious.

My initial point on this story was that the judge ordered her tubes tied so she could not conceive again, and face this crisis. That surgery in itself requires her stomach being opened and I am happy they chose to deliver the baby that way, instead of aborting it. Either way, she needs to be "opened up". Sad, but true.

This baby is very lucky not to be deformed, and I am grateful he/she is being given the chance to continue to live.

[plusone]

I agree with you that most abor'n are done for convenience. As such, I am opposed to them, especially after the first trimester. But pro-lifers fall into 2 camps. The first considers that life begins at conception. For them, a woman raped is stuck with the result as much as a woman in a happy, stable marriage who wants children. The second group actually thinks that life begins before conception. I'm not sure what that means. When the husband stops at the wine store on the way home from work? Certainly, contraception for them is immoral. Either way, it's life for the sake of life, whether it ends up in a happy home or not. One of my least favorite people, Jane Fonda, made a speech were she said that for pro-lifers, 'life begins at conception and ends at birth'. That pretty much sums it up. Fill up the world with unwanted, suffering (esp. in the 3rd world) children. But hey, it keeps their version of God happy...

[VeritatisSplendor]

I believe the mother is not disabled as a result of genetics but because of brain damage as a result of meningitis at the age of four. The seizure medicine is iffy, but women on such medication have certainly delivered normal babies. And according to the doctors, they don't see anything wrong with it now.

I don't understand such a visceral antipathy to the birth of a disabled child - disability can come to anyone at any time as it did to this poor girl.

Mrs VS

[Scothia]

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.

Where is your proof that "inferior genetics" is the cause of rape? Are you advocating the extermination of children based on their fathers' violent, criminal acts?

[plusone]

Yes, it is. Either a few weeks of gestation, or several decades of suffering. Tough choice...

[plusone]

Antipathy? Just the opposite. If the baby is diabled (from new info, it seems that it may not be), I have nothing but sympathy. That is why I would hate to see a sick child born to a lifetime of suffering.