|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:09 pm
Okay, believe it or not, there are just some people that shouldn't have been born. I don't much care who agrees with that, but I present the case of the harlequin fetus: Harlequin Fetus: [color=white] Harlequin fetus refers to a rare autosomal recessive genetic disorder of skin formation. It is a severely disfiguring disorder involving thickened, ridged, and cracked skin forming horny plates over the entire body, distorting the facial features and constricting the digits. It is usually fatal in the first few days of life. It can be prenatally diagnosed in mothers who have a family history of the disease. http://www.drhull.com/EncyMaster/H/harlequin.html A quick Google search of 'harlequin fetus' will bring up a case of one child that lasted twenty-one days with the birth defect before dying, and references to numerous others besides. I would link it here, but the site would most likely get my account banned due to violation of the TOS for graphic images. There are probably other similar birth defects that kill within the first few days of life, but this is one of the most striking examples I know of. Opinions?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:55 pm
Ugh, that's horrible. I really have no problem with abortion if the baby is going to die anyway, carrying it for 9 months just to have it die would be horrible for the mother. Personally I would, simply because if I did I could donate the organ's after the baby died and save other lives.
My Aunt had a baby that was developing without a brain, but the didn't catch it until later on in the pregnancy. She decided to abort, only she did it by them inducing her into labour so she gave birth to her little girl and held her in her arms as she died. It was my aunt's first child and a horrible thing for her have to go through. She's pro-life so having the abortion was a very hard thing for her to do, but she couldn't bear to carry the child when she knew it had no chance of living. Of course our entire family supported her and her decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:39 am
Having carried two children myself, and been through that process. I would have had the child anyways. The OB/GYN office I went to still made me undergo testing for every known potential problem even though I told them that I didn't care what the results were. Shaun (my husband) and I both agreed very early on that we would have the child regardless of what came up. There is something indescribable about the process of carrying and having a child, and then holding it after it is born. Even if I knew the child I would have would only live for a few days, I would still want it. I wouldn't be happy knowing that it would die, but I would still consider it a joy.
Besides... carrying a child for nine months isn't nearly as bad as a lot of people think it is. You can typically continue on as you did before with only minor adjustments. I can give examples if you really want. I see it as a time to bond with your child before it's born. It is amazingly interactive for being unborn. It responds to music, voices, and it adjusts its patterns of activity to yours... namely when you're up and walking around a lot it "sleeps" because your movement lulls it to rest. When you lay down it will move around. My husband was convinced that my oldest was trying to learn kung-fu in-utero. sweatdrop It's all in how you see it. If you have a negative attitude, of course it's going to be an awful process.. kind of one of those self-fulfilling prophesy things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:48 am
My opinion on this: Why not carry it to term, thus avoiding having any part of it left in the body or any harm to your body by the abortion? The baby does die either way, it's true. But at least it has a chance, however small, if it comes out, and if you kill it inside the womb, who says it hurts any less? So I see no reason to kill it before birth, except the mother's trauma.
I do believe that this is an instance where it should be the mother's choice, however. Because the child is almost definetly going to die immediately, and it will most likely cause emotional damage to a loving mother, I think that she should decide for herself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:30 am
It should also be noted that in the majority of very severe cases, the child will be miscarried and die on its own before being born of natural causes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:25 pm
KasumiAngel Having carried two children myself, and been through that process. I would have had the child anyways. The OB/GYN office I went to still made me undergo testing for every known potential problem even though I told them that I didn't care what the results were. Shaun (my husband) and I both agreed very early on that we would have the child regardless of what came up. There is something indescribable about the process of carrying and having a child, and then holding it after it is born. Even if I knew the child I would have would only live for a few days, I would still want it. I wouldn't be happy knowing that it would die, but I would still consider it a joy. I never thought I'd ask a pro-lifer this question... Well, first I'm going to make the assumption that a chunk of the reason many pro-lifers don't like abortion is because they consider it a selfish act. That said, if you know the kid is going to have a quite-fatal birth defect, and that any existance it has is going to be pretty much suffering and agony on top of dying (not to mention if it's bad enough to kill the child almost right after it's born, it's probably one ugly baby... I mean, did you see the pictures of that harlequin fetus baby I pointed out? You'd barely know it was human), and you have it anyway just because you like being pregnant, giving birth, and holding the baby... How is that any LESS of a selfish act? At least with abortion, as long as you do it early enough, it can't feel pain. And women don't have 'em 'cause they like the feel of it either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:40 pm
This sort of reminds me, the whole issue of coming out and dieing, of someone stuck on a deserted island. Perhaps they are stuck there for years, and are of an age that they won't live long even if they make it back. But they still want-And deserve-that small bit of freedom, don't they? However long? Someone on death row enjoys that last stretch before the shot, and their last meal, don't they? Or would they prefer that they not get the meal or the sun again, you just come in, and stick them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:11 pm
Since this seems to be the same thing....I think so at least, I'm not a scientist or anything, but.... Quote: Background: Harlequin ichthyosis, the most severe form of congenital ichthyosis, is characterized by a profound thickening of the keratin layer in fetal skin. The neonate who is affected is born with a massive horny shell of dense platelike scale and contraction abnormalities of the eyes, the ears, the mouth, and the appendages. This armor limits movement and compromises the protective skin barrier, leaving the newborn susceptible to metabolic abnormalities and infection. Quote: Mortality/Morbidity: The mortality rate is high. With neonatal intensive care and the advent of retinoid therapy, some babies have survived the newborn period. They are still at risk of succumbing to systemic infection, which is the most common cause of death. High mortality, yeah, but not a definite death. Quote: Frequency: Internationally: More than 100 cases have been reported. usually that term means between 100-200 reported cases. This site lists care instructions for children born that way (I'd link it but it's got pics at the bottom that are kinda graphic). There are other diseases that used to be almost definitely fatal at birth that we've found ways to get the babies through by this point in time...could that have been done if everyone had given up on babies before they were born? My thoughts are, if you give a child a chance, it might surprise you. Quote: Amniotic fluid samples obtained as early as 17 weeks’ gestation have demonstrated hyperkeratosis and abnormal lipid droplets within the cornified cells. Fetal skin biopsy can detect harlequin ichthyosis as early as 20 weeks’ gestation; this information is valuable to parents who may be considering aborting the pregnancy because the fetus is affected. Biopsy samples from a number of sites in the fetus reveal the presence of characteristic changes on all skin surfaces, except the mucous membranes. A fetal skin biopsy sample may be taken from various sites, depending on the procedure's technical difficulty. Prenatal ultrasonography can be used to identify characteristic physical features of harlequin ichthyosis but not until late in the second trimester when enough keratin buildup is present to be sonographically detectable. Termination is contraindicated late in gestation; however, prenatal identification of a neonate who is affected may allow parents and physicians to better prepare for the infant's delivery So basically, earliest you can know is about 4 months into pregnancy. You're almost halfway there. there's a chance this child can live. The way medicine's advancing, there's a chance that child can live without pain. A medical breakthrough can come at any moment. Why not give the child that chance? If anyone wants to know the link I used, I'm on aim, yahoo, and msn, all the same name. It's got pics though, at the bottom, so I can't put it here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:56 pm
To further my response: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Harlequin fetus Lemme highlight a part you might find interesting. Quote: In the past, the disorder was invariably fatal, whether due to dehydration, infection, restricted respiration due to the armored plating, or other related causes. The most common cause of death is systemic infection. However, there have been improvements in care, and some children have survived into adolescance. Because of this, and the onset of political correctness, the terms harlequin baby or just harlequin are now preferred over harlequin fetus. Babies born with SCID used to die within the first year...but they've found treatment for it. Quote: This once-fatal disease should be now seen as a pediatric emergency, a condition that needs immediate diagnosis and treatment. says Dr. Rebecca Buckley, chief of Duke's division of pediatric allergy and immunology. "Early diagnosis of SCID is rare because doctors do not routinely perform a test in newborns to count white blood cells. Such a blood test could pick up children with SCID as well as those with other serious immune deficiencies that would not be apparent until the child developed an infection. A simple blood test could allow us to treat, and most likely cure, SCID in an infant at a reasonable cost. If found later, less effective treatment can run into the millions." Buckley states, "What we're saying is that essentially every baby with SCID could be cured if diagnosed early enough. SCID should be considered a pediatric emergency." also, CHD.... Quote: Each year, roughly 44,000 babies are born with CHD. Although there was a time when children born with congenital heart disease often had little hope for a full life, modern medicine now has a variety of medications, minimally invasive procedures and surgeries that offer the promise of a much brighter and healthier future. About a million Americans alive today have CHD. How would we ever find treatment for potentially/certainly fatal birth defects if every child diagnosed while in the womb was aborted? Where would medical advances to save children like this come from if these children weren't given a shot at life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:16 pm
KasumiAngel Having carried two children myself, and been through that process. I would have had the child anyways. The OB/GYN office I went to still made me undergo testing for every known potential problem even though I told them that I didn't care what the results were. Shaun (my husband) and I both agreed very early on that we would have the child regardless of what came up. There is something indescribable about the process of carrying and having a child, and then holding it after it is born. Even if I knew the child I would have would only live for a few days, I would still want it. I wouldn't be happy knowing that it would die, but I would still consider it a joy. Besides... carrying a child for nine months isn't nearly as bad as a lot of people think it is. You can typically continue on as you did before with only minor adjustments. I can give examples if you really want. I see it as a time to bond with your child before it's born. It is amazingly interactive for being unborn. It responds to music, voices, and it adjusts its patterns of activity to yours... namely when you're up and walking around a lot it "sleeps" because your movement lulls it to rest. When you lay down it will move around. My husband was convinced that my oldest was trying to learn kung-fu in-utero. sweatdrop It's all in how you see it. If you have a negative attitude, of course it's going to be an awful process.. kind of one of those self-fulfilling prophesy things. You know, it's interesting that talking about loving a child while it's in the womb (see above) can lead to observations like this.... Quote: I submit to you the example of a harlequin fetus. Such a child would die within a couple days of being born, in excruciating pain for all of its short life. One of my guild members posted this on the pro-life forum, I believe, and one girl there said even if she knew it was a harlequin she would still carry it to term, because she loved carrying and having children. that is so selfish it is grotesque and sickening in my mind. Because it's obviously extremely selfish to give a child a shot at life instead of condemning him or her to death immediately. A chance to give that baby even a few minutes of physical, complete, unconditional love. To carry a child to term, hold it in your arms, and watch him or her die. I seriously dunno where that came from, but Veled had the same sentiments, so maybe I'm just bizarre...or maybe it's just that I see a fetus as a living person anyway, and that I know that babies respond to people even when they're in the womb. My cousins used to play classical music to the belly. no lie. She has an incredible knack for music, no one knows where it comes from. She can pick out tunes and really hear and create her own music. not just noise. music. she's doing things at 7 that I can't do at 17. of course, I walked out on piano lessons....after I punched my teacher in the jaw...and only got three years of lessons. lol, I dunno, it's superstitious, but sometimes I think it worked. to further prove this, I was entering my terrible twos when my mom was pregnant with my brother. I screamed, cried, and yelled at the top of my lungs....and he had a hearing problem until he was four. lol jk, about the me causing it part, but seriously. Another reason I don't like these mercy killings is because sometimes doctors are wrong and babies are born perfectly healthy....or a cure is discovered in time, or w/e. My best friend's like that. God, dunno what I'd do without her. Yes I do, I just don't want to think about it. I still don't see how it's selfish to let your baby die in loving arms as opposed to being sliced up, sucked out, bagged or burned. I'm just ranting at this point because I could never imagine killing my offspring. There's a bond there between a fetus and a mother. I guess maybe not between everyone. just everyone I've known who's been pregnant. One woman was going to get an abortion...the baby hadn't kicked yet, and really it was too early for it to be able to kick but as she was turning into the clinic it kicked. She got this kinda jolt and felt, wow, that's my baby, and kept on going, past the clinic. I just thought that was kinda neat. But she's happy she didn't abort her daughter, so she decided it was a sign from God. Then again, I'd have to think the mere fact that she got a healthy pregnancy would be a sign from God....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:43 am
Veled I never thought I'd ask a pro-lifer this question... Well, first I'm going to make the assumption that a chunk of the reason many pro-lifers don't like abortion is because they consider it a selfish act. Um.....not so much "selfish" as...well....cold-blooded murder? Selfishness is probably the least of our objections. Quote: That said, if you know the kid is going to have a quite-fatal birth defect, and that any existance it has is going to be pretty much suffering and agony on top of dying (not to mention if it's bad enough to kill the child almost right after it's born, it's probably one ugly baby... I mean, did you see the pictures of that harlequin fetus baby I pointed out? You'd barely know it was human), and you have it anyway just because you like being pregnant, giving birth, and holding the baby... How is that any LESS of a selfish act? Do you not believe in euthanasia? People don't have to suffer when they die, you know. Hospices aren't full of people screaming in pain. I've seen harlequin fetuses, and people with their faces barely stitched back together, and leprosy and gaping worm-infested sores and eyes gouged out and no lower halves. They're still human. If you're going to deny people their right to live just because they're ugly....well, I won't ask if you'd use that as a reason to kill off the elderly or the disfigured, because I'm afraid of the answer. And as you probably know, women don't remain pregnant because they like it. They do it because they give a s**t about their child. If I ended up in a coma with no hope of recovery, I'd understand if my family wanted to keep me alive for a while so the grieving process would be less of a shock to them. Grieving someone's death is never selfish, it's normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:28 pm
Sadly, I doubt that Veled visits anymore, so I doubt you'll get a reply. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:16 pm
I.Am Sadly, I doubt that Veled visits anymore, so I doubt you'll get a reply. sweatdrop Yeah, I totally missed the date... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:06 pm
lymelady To further my response: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Harlequin fetus Lemme highlight a part you might find interesting. Quote: In the past, the disorder was invariably fatal, whether due to dehydration, infection, restricted respiration due to the armored plating, or other related causes. The most common cause of death is systemic infection. However, there have been improvements in care, and some children have survived into adolescance. Because of this, and the onset of political correctness, the terms harlequin baby or just harlequin are now preferred over harlequin fetus. Babies born with SCID used to die within the first year...but they've found treatment for it. Quote: This once-fatal disease should be now seen as a pediatric emergency, a condition that needs immediate diagnosis and treatment. says Dr. Rebecca Buckley, chief of Duke's division of pediatric allergy and immunology. "Early diagnosis of SCID is rare because doctors do not routinely perform a test in newborns to count white blood cells. Such a blood test could pick up children with SCID as well as those with other serious immune deficiencies that would not be apparent until the child developed an infection. A simple blood test could allow us to treat, and most likely cure, SCID in an infant at a reasonable cost. If found later, less effective treatment can run into the millions." Buckley states, "What we're saying is that essentially every baby with SCID could be cured if diagnosed early enough. SCID should be considered a pediatric emergency." also, CHD.... Quote: Each year, roughly 44,000 babies are born with CHD. Although there was a time when children born with congenital heart disease often had little hope for a full life, modern medicine now has a variety of medications, minimally invasive procedures and surgeries that offer the promise of a much brighter and healthier future. About a million Americans alive today have CHD. How would we ever find treatment for potentially/certainly fatal birth defects if every child diagnosed while in the womb was aborted? Where would medical advances to save children like this come from if these children weren't given a shot at life? oh my God...that one guy lived to adulthood- i can't imagine... i mean, some of the cases are so extreme- the eyes are jelly, the skin is not just hard but cracked... he was very lucky- and to think, a "normal" mother would have killed him before he was born...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:54 am
even though this topic is pretty much dead, I can't help but notice how, once again, the choicers disregard for human life reers its ugly head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
