Judge orders abortion for disabled woman (Florida)

World Net Daily ^ | 5-23-03 | WND

[MHGinTN]

I'm with you on this one, Lorianne. Catch the rapist, de-nut him, then put him in prison for the rest of his life and on female hormones so he can better fit as the rape victim of the 'lads' behind bars. Serve the bastard right!

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

Medical experts say carrying the pregnancy to full-term would be dangerous for her and may result in the baby being deformed. The mother of the woman asked for the pregnancy to be terminated.

I question the term "expert", as that usually means a liberal phoney...but...assuming these claims are valid, why would you want to move forward with a handicapped child? What good would it do to risk the life of this incapable person just to bring another incapable person into the world? I'm not following your "hell" logic.

[Conservababe]

If the disabled pregnant woman can say to the judge "my baby no more" then how can he ORDER her tubes tied without her consent?

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

Well said.

[MHGinTN]

Please note, from the article: Doctors at Jackson Memorial Hospital scheduled an abortion for last week, reports the Sun-Sentinel, but chose not to perform it because the baby appeared to be developing normally and there was no medical reason to terminate the pregnancy. What's that we always hear from the pro-killing crowd, 'It's a decision for doctors, not courts'?

[cgk]

You have no need to apologize for your "rant." I take no offense, and I welcome debate. Thank you for not calling me names; standard practice here lately at FR.

Her medications MAY cause deformities. Again, there are tests for these things. And the baby could be delivered by C-section in a matter of weeks. I've seen babies survive who were delivered that were younger and smaller than this. And - I am most certainly praying for this woman and her mother, and the pre-born baby. It's not a matter of smugness for me. It never has been. It's a matter of placing trust in God, and if medical assistance is needed to save BOTH lives - why can't it?

[cgk]

ping to post #26.

[cgk]

Thank you.

[HairOfTheDog]

Thank you, that is a much better answer than "you soul-less wench".

[cgk]

That was a major point of contention for me as well. If at that time, had the baby not been developing normally, and had there been an inherent risk to the mother, then I understand, as they had already scheduled the abortion, they would have performed it. That they did not, says a lot.

[cgk]

I understand. But I can't read about someone hearing a baby's heartbeat in one instance, and reading about doctors choosing NOT to perform the abortion they had scheduled, and it rips my own heart out to hear a JUDGE got involved and will now make the decision for all concerned. A woman saying "my baby no more" may very well be a question, not a statement of "choice." This is a tough case for all involved, and I cannot completely place myself in the position of any of the "players." (I can't think of a better term right now, no offense meant.)

I have MS and found out I was pregnant. It was suggested to me that I terminate so as not to jeopardize my own health, as MS medication was not conducive for "fetus development." I chose to skip the meds, keep the baby I felt I had been blessed with, and you can see the result in my profile. That is just one reason this issue is so sensitive for me. I apologize if I offended you.

[AlbionGirl]

Those who believe abortion should be used as birth control, and equate it's moral signifigance as to a hangnail procedure, and those who think mentally retarded raped, physically at risk women should be forced to give birth are equal evils.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't see them as equal evils. It is not certain that bringing this baby to term will kill the mother, while it is certain that aborting the baby will kill him or her, and the baby is not at fault for being conceived during an act of rape. They are not equal evils at all.

Although, I would defer to the grandmother's judgment in this because we never have nor will live in a perfectly just world, and this decision to abort doesn't seem to have been taken without serious consideration.

It is not unlike the rationale we used to assuage the guilt we felt at the killing of innocent Iraqi children in the service of a greater good.

[skr]

It would seem that a possible risk to a mentally retarded woman with serious health problems outweighs a definite and fatal solution for a currently normally developing baby. Nothing in the article indicates the woman is in particular danger right now, only that a late-term pregnancy might be dangerous. I'm not ignoring the problems, but why not wait and see if anything adverse actually starts before killing the child?

[HairOfTheDog]

You didn't offend me, but you did represent a conservative view on this to be pretty dang uncaring for the really heartbreaking circumstance that this is. Many lurkers, many people on the fence on this issue are not going to read responses like that one and think you have an ounce of compassion. They may decide that the other side appears to care more... It is important.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

*"Pray for this mother, this daughter, and pray to God that this rapist is caught."*

And also for the soul of this innocent baby.

[dogbyte12]

Again, we come up to issues unforseen though. I work with children with seizures and with brain fluid accumulation. Today this woman could be fine, but there could also be a point of no return later. Honestly, let's not kid ourselves, this is an extremely risky pregnancy.

The stresses put on this woman's body at 2 months is not the same as it will be at 6 months. People with seizure disorder, who are not pregnant, often become unaffected by their medication. Brain damage can occur from massive seizures. If this happens during a critical moment in the pregnancy, I do have a genuine concern that Russian roulette will be played with this woman's life.

Let's try to play with her meds just enough to help her seizures "We believe"... so as not to damage the baby.

This is heart wrenching and it stinks. Her mother's first concern is her child though.

What risk becomes too great? That is the key question I believe. If there is a nominal chance of med probs, then there isn't an issue. For me at least, if there is a 90/100% chance of severe medical complications, sadly the abortion must occur.

I am pro-life. I believe that there should not be selective abortion. This one bugs me though. I just don't know how to draw the line in health risk cases. This woman is mentally unable to give consent to risk her life to deliver a child.

Her mother's choice is terrible. She is saving the one she knows. I hope people will not think of her unfavorably. Not one among us would want to make this decision.

If she didn't do this and her daughter died, and took the baby with her... could you imagine living with that? Her choice as it is, is difficult enough. She needs our prayers.

[A-teamMom]

Those who advocate kiling the unborn will twist the facts in any case to suit their needs. I am personally against abortion for any reason. I was trying to soften his rant against those of us who draw a line in the sand and say we cannot kill children in utero.

[exDem from Miami]

From personal experience, I know Judge Rothenberg is a very thoughtful man. He is not a knee-jerk lib/rad. I doubt this decision was easy for him. The grandmother's wishes probably decided this case.

[A-teamMom]

Praise God for your healthy baby!!! May He continue to sustain you in your battle with MS.

One of my sweet sons had a terrible deformity and went to God hand in hand with his twin brother. I would carry them again in an instant, even knowing how it would end. They are gifts and their short time on earth was exactly as God had planned it.

I would gladly take this woman's child, deformed or not.

[dogbyte12]

Those who advocate kiling the unborn will twist the facts in any case to suit their needs. I am personally against abortion for any reason. I was trying to soften his rant against those of us who draw a line in the sand and say we cannot kill children in utero.

I think you are being a bit harsh here. I am for making elective abortion illegal. I am not an advocate of killing the unborn and I resent the implications. In my ideal world, there would be dozens of abortions per year. Only in cases similar to this, and all others would be outlawed.

I don't consider the convienance factor, or the fact that the woman decided not to wait, or use condoms, or decide that her figure would look bad if she had a kid.

The medical issue is something I feel strongly about however. My gentle criticism of some people on the no exceptions side is that the life of the matter does matter as much as the baby's life. It is not a simple moral issue here, where selective abortion is easy to denounce.

I am just trying to get some understanding here. What is your line? Is there one? If hypothetically a woman is told that she has a 90% chance of death delivering a child, should she be allowed to save her life? 80% chance? 100% chance?

What risk level should a mentally retarded woman with uncontrolled seizures, and fluid build up in the brain, who was raped be ordered to accept? I honestly don't know. I wrestle with it. My opinion would be different if there were no health concerns, but life can be messy, and for those of us who don't have all the answers, we struggle, and we pray.