Would you have a baby with no arms / no legs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of you would opt for euthanasia (if it were available) if your child had a brain injury…as in brilliant Johnny took a bad fall from his bike, and his IQ drops from potential-Harvard lawyer to someone who can only have a simple job. I mean he won’t have the intellectual abilities of the limbless child (who we’ve already decided is a no-go). I guess what I’m trying to figure out is where will you be drawing the line? Hearing all this about what makes a child fit to live…Johnny is now going to use up financial resources that your second high IQ child could use for law school…do you really want to tell Sally no if Johnny’s highest career aspiration is to be a grocery bagger? I mean he costs a lot of money with no return on investment! The horror!

Really, this is how some of you sound.

Most parents will care for a child if they develop disability later in life (ie after birth) and it will still be very hard. Just like we care for other family members who become disabled due to accident, genes or illness. Why would you bring a child into the world if they have severe disability? That is cruel. Unless you have so much money that you can ensure a great standard of living and care for them for the rest of their natural life.

Do you care if they are sexually abused by their caregiver? Will you get their tubes tied or give them a vasectomy?

Brilliant Johnny having an accident is terrible bad luck
Severely disabled from birth Jenny has the bad luck of having cruel parents.

So, parents who choose to bring a disabled child into the world are now cruel? Is that what you think when you see a family with a disabled child? I have no words.

Yes, and yes, you should stop talking.

I don’t automatically think that, no - because when I see a disabled child I don’t know if they were clearly diagnosed as such in the womb or if they suffered a birth injury or later illness/accident that resulted in their profound disability.

I *do* always feel sorry for the disabled child because PC be damned, they are not going to have the same chances and opportunities in life as a typically abled child and life is so damn hard as it is. And as a caregiver I know how very high risk they will be for abuse and exploitation all through their lives even if they have great parents. And I feel sorry for the parents because PC be damned, NO parents wants a SN child especially not one who is profoundly disabled. This is not anybody’s dream and when it happens it involves grief for the experience of family that was envisioned to begin with.

I admit I have little understanding for folks who bring profoundly disabled or dying children into the world intentionally. I could never do it. My perspective is shaped from having endured an abusive lonely and painful childhood and feeling very strongly that children, none of whom ask to be born, deserve the very best we can give them and bringing someone into this world with profound disability seems cruel to me. A better world with the right resources and attitudes toward disabled people, sure. That is not this world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If tomorrow ypu are struck by a car and you wake up without arms or legs, should the insurance company get to terminate your life?

This is not apples to apples.

You are a fool.

It's actually very similar. Same with cognitive disabilities that can occur in an instant.

It’s only similar if you are only capable of thinking in absolutes.

Heres a hint: most people who are pro choice find a meaningful moral difference between the state of “already having been born” and “not yet born”.

You don’t have to agree, but ignoring that fundamental truth does make you sound like a fool.

You sound foolish if you haven't read more about how the imperfect have been weeded out all over the world for centuries for reasons varying from being a twin, being left handed, having cognitive and physical challenges, etc. It is a slippery slope.

“It’s a slippery slope!!” is really not much of an answer to the claim that you are only capable of thinking in absolutes, my friend.

But here are some clear absolutes for you: there is absolutely a meaningful, clear, and bright moral difference between born people and unborn people.

And women have an absolute right to deny the use of their body to any unborn person, for any reason, whether you personally approve of it or not, and whether your find their reasons sufficient or not.

There is no slippery slope. There is only a refusal to grant women control over what happens with their own bodies.

The bolded clearly makes you feel better about these issues. I won't attempt to change your mind. Will add that I'm not someone who is 100% opposed to abortion.

Wow, that’s not at all patronizing for you to decide that I believe what I believe just to make myself feel better. Thanks for explaining my belief system to me. Clearly you’re someone who really respects other people’s agency. Glad you’re around to save women from themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

You are not the god's spokesperson. No need to steal glory and power!

[Anonymous]

Anyone who survived, thrived (i read post about John Kemp) with this kind of disability must have had a lot of luck, love, money, familial and societal support that are not typical, as well as a different health insurance system than exists here in USA today.

The people who say "all life must be maintained" are always evangelical Christians. I do not understand them. The ones I was raised with were entirely immoral, diabolical, and self interested (think Falwell types) yet they would raise up these stories, I believe to support the undermining of women, who might otherwise have rights to choose what they do with their bodies/lives. Much sympathy to living people with no arms/no legs. More than anyone else, you must understand that your survival depended on others, whose help is NOT guaranteed. Christian churches pose like they are there to help, but the help they provide is mostly self serving.

There are American children in foster care, unadopted because of severe mental/physical disabilities. The evangelicals could, but have not, adopted them all. Even if they adopted them all, I'd still worry they basically made a Russia-style orphan home, in Texas, I imagine, collecting money for their care while using the money for self promotion.

I would abort. I believe in abortion, and do NOT believe in evangelical Christians. They lie, and vote against the government a) supporting a women's right to choose and b) funding supports for severely disabled people and their families and c) pretend the church will take care of everything. Despicable liars, narcissists, charlatans. I also hate their self-deluded, simple, dumbass followers. This discussion shouldn't be necessary. The woman chooses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always known that if I had conceived a child with a trisomy I would terminate. A friend is having a baby with no known defect, but will be born without limbs.

I feel like that is so much more of a gray area. I honestly don't know what I would have done. What would your thought process have been?

I feel like it would have been obvious at an early scan (12 weeks) to make it easier to terminate, but this person didn't get it until 4/5 months.

No. Sorry. And it is purely because of the emotional and financial costs of raising a child with these needs. No one will assist us or help us, family, government, no one. So, no.

You want people to not abort SN babies no matter what, then support them. Right now, that does not exist. So no.