[Esther Ruth]

I am very pro life - and I know discussion should end there But this is a complicated issue. Some women and families believe for one reason or another that these ultrasounds that reveal these problems are not something they want as part of the care of their unborn child. They believe they are intrusive and can actually lead to doctors demanding the termination of a child who may be handicapped or disabled. Even though this circumstance seems plain, it could lead to medical laws demanding women have ultrasounds, prenatal testing and cause the women to be left out of the choice as to what SHE thinks is best for the child. Prenatal counselors are heavy into telling prolifers how selfish they are to carry a baby to term who may have down syndrome or other problems, they do these test early and often so you can terminate the pregnancy asap. I had 3 C's and I am not against C's but mandating C's because of one vain woman is not a place to go.

[VeritatisSplendor]

I was talking with a friend who was under the impression that at her age, she would have to have an amnio. She is an intelligent educated woman but did not know that it was always her decision.

Mrs VS

[GrandEagle]

cause the women to be left out of the choice as to what SHE thinks is best for the child.
I agree with your assesment of the complecations of the issue. However it doesn't seem as though what was best for the child was a concern. (See post #17)

[GrandEagle]

I guess, once again, I'll have to back away a bit from my initial position. I would still charge her, but have to retract the no brainier
The test I suppose (to be made to a jury) would be the motivation for the behavior. Such as the "religious" group that doesn't believe in doctors. Also the group that doesn't take blood. Even whether or not the decision was made based on what she felt was right for the children. Another example was the lady who had 6 (I think it was) children. Her doctors proposed aborting 3 (I think it was) of her children so not to risk the lives of all. She didn't, trusting God, and all were born alive and are doing just fine.
The more I talk, the more I think maybe I'm wrong here.

[CSM]

Esther,

I too am pro-life and I too am having the same logical struggle that you point to.

I have a co-worker whose boyfriend's sister was pregnant......I know crazy connection.....anyway Tracey, the mom was advised to end her pregnancy. The baby, Ethan, was diagnosed early on with dandy walker syndrom. She carried Ethan to term, gave birth prematurely and now Ethan is at home with very few health problems. Most of what they have discovered is correctable and further tests will be done.

Your right, if we force medical procedures based on the Doctor's word, would Ethan be here today?

If we think doctors have a god-complex now, just wait until we start to force patients into accepting their recommendations......

[GraceCoolidge]

While this woman's choice (if accurately reported) is downright evil, from a legal perspective, I do not understand how they can charge her. If abortion is legal (even partial birth abortion), then how can she be prosecuted? If you believe it's "her body" and "her choice" whether to have the child at all, then how can she be prosecuted because she chose not to have a C section? I mean, she could have chosen to have an abortion and not have delivered at all. I think what this situation really shows is the hypocrisy in the pro-abortion stance. By the same token, I always want to ask pro-abortion activists if they object to sex selection abortions. After all, if it is the woman's "choice" to carry the child to term, what difference does her reasoning make? If abortion is really all the woman's decision, then her reason for the decision should be irrelevant. After all, what's the difference between "I'm not ready to raise a child," and "I'm not ready to raise a female child"? To me, this tension just shows the fallacy of the pro-abortion arguments.

[Katya]

I agree...and I'll wait to hear what her real reason for not going through with a c-section was before I accept the media reports. I don't think doctors or the government should be able to force me into an operating room. I already resent being told I have to immunize my kids, or sign a religious objection form.

[Tall_Texan]

I see a major difference between this case and abortion on demand. Ask yourself "what would have been the natural outcome without a medical procedure?" In your typical abortion, the natural outcome would have been a live birth - something the patient doesn't want. In THIS case, the natural outcome was exactly what happened - one live baby and one dead one.

I can see parallels here between this case and the Christian Scientist cases and, were I the judge, I would rule the same as I would in those cases - God's will. The result was what would have happened had nobody intervened and that is, IMO, far less offensive than intervening to kill a baby.