Abortion realities

[Gob]

Halfway through my pregnancy, I learned that my baby was ill.

Profoundly so. My doctor gave us the news kindly, but still, my husband and I weren’t prepared. Just a few minutes earlier, we’d been smiling giddily at fellow expectant parents as we waited for the doctor to see us. In a sonography room smelling faintly of lemongrass, I’d just had gel rubbed on my stomach, just seen blots on the screen become tiny hands. For a brief, exultant moment, we’d seen our son—a brother for our 2-year-old girl.

Yet now my doctor was looking grim and, with chair pulled close, was speaking of alarming things. “I’m worried about your baby’s head shape,” she said. “I want you to see a specialist—now.”

My husband looked angry, and maybe I did too, but it was astonishment more than anger. Ours was a profound disbelief that something so bad might happen to people who think themselves charmed. We already had one healthy child and had expected good fortune to give us two.

Instead, before I’d even known I was pregnant, a molecular flaw had determined that our son’s brain, spine and legs wouldn’t develop correctly. If he were to make it to term—something our doctor couldn’t guarantee—he’d need a lifetime of medical care. From the moment he was born, my doctor told us, our son would suffer greatly.

So, softly, haltingly, my husband asked about termination. The doctor shot me a glance that said: Are you okay to hear this now? I nodded, clenched my fists and focused on the cowboy boots beneath her scrubs.

She started with an apology, saying that despite being responsible for both my baby’s care and my own, she couldn’t take us to the final stop. The hospital with which she’s affiliated is Catholic and doesn’t allow abortion. It felt like a physical blow to hear that word, abortion, in the context of our much-wanted child. Abortion is a topic that never seemed relevant to me; it was something we read about in the news or talked about politically; it always remained at a safe distance. Yet now its ugly fist was hammering on my chest.

My doctor went on to tell us that, just two weeks prior, a new Texas law had come into effect requiring that women wait an extra 24 hours before having the procedure. Moreover, Austin has only one clinic providing second-trimester terminations, and that clinic might have a long wait. “Time is not on your side,” my doctor emphasized gently. For this reason, she urged us to seek a specialist’s second opinion the moment we left her office. “They’re ready for you,” she said, before ushering us out the back door to shield us from the smiling patients in the waiting room.

The specialist confirmed what our doctor had feared and sketched a few diagrams to explain. He hastily drew cells growing askew, quick pen-strokes to show when and where life becomes blighted. How simple, I thought, to just undraw those lines and restore my child to wholeness. But this businesslike man was no magician, and our bleak choices still lay ahead.

Sad story continues here.

[dgs49]

Sad story indeed.

Certainly, any rational person would snuff out that human life as quickly as possible, eh?

But what if a sonogram were not done (most pregnant women never have one), and the discovery were made at the time of birth?

Still snuff it out?

Is the existence or killing of that child going to be determined by whether the mother had a sonogram and an alert OB/GYN?

Seems rather perverse. Either it is OK to kill the child or it isn't.

Tough choice.

[BoSoxGal]

In The Netherlands babies with severe birth defects not detected prior to birth are, in fact, subject to euthanasia at birth, if the parents wish it and a medical panel concurs that quality of life is so minimal that death is preferable to continued life.

Savages!

[Sue U]

You would do it in a heartbeat to alleviate the suffering of an animal. Why wouldn't you be willing to do the same for a human? Wouldn't you "pull the plug" or at least DNR your mother or father if and when such a time comes? Why wouldn't you do it for your child?

[dgs49]

I suppose the discussion must turn to the "slippery slope" argument. If you would "terminate" a severely deformed baby, what about one who has brain damage, but is perfectly formed? What about Down's Syndrome? What about missing a limb? Deaf? Blind? Irish?

Where do you draw the line?

[Sue U]

I suppose the discussion must turn to the "slippery slope" argument. If you would "terminate" a severely deformed baby, what about one who has brain damage, but is perfectly formed? What about Down's Syndrome? What about missing a limb? Deaf? Blind? Irish?

Where do you draw the line?

The decision should turn on alleviation of suffering that is incompatible with enjoyment of life. There is nothing about mere physical deformity, brain damage, Down Syndrome, deafness or blindness alone that is inherently incompatible with the enjoyment of life. (I will reserve judgment on those of Irish heritage, as I'm married to one, and the temptation is sometimes strong.) There may be some painful or incapacitating conditions where the balance is more difficult to determine, but just because lines may be difficult to draw doesn't mean that we are incapable of drawing them.