Fetuses with Anencephaly - Should their abortion be allowed?

[narainu]

First, just to make things clear, I live in Brazil, where abortions are illegal unless the pregnancy is a result of rape or if the mother's life is at risk (maybe there are some other cases where it's allowed but you get the point).

These last few days there's been a huge debate about this because some politicians wanted to make it legal to abort anencephalic (?) fetuses (and the mothers of babies with this condition went mad - the "abortion is murder" way of thought is very, very common in here) so I wanted to hear you guys' opinions on this.
I personally think it should not only be allowed but stimulated as well. "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain" - why would someone want to raise a child that cannot see, hear, talk or feel at all? What would be the point? You can't even say the poor child is like an animal and that it follows it's own instincts because even animals have brains and can develop affection.
And in the end, they don't live very long.

Why should someone be forced to give birth, take care and spend money on a baby that is technically unconscious, can't feel pain or see or hear and that is going to die in a few years?

[Barbie Crash]

Frankly, I think someone should be allowed to have an abortion if they please. I think it's rude to make an exception for a certain condition. An abortion is an abortion, but either way, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[maxon]

Anencephaly is extremely harsh and, as I understand it, most babies with the condition die within a few minutes never mind years (though there are some exceptional survivors). Personally, I think that abortion should be an option but then I come from a country and culture where that is accepted.

As for mothers of these children not wanting to allow abortion as an option for a baby with the condition, I'd say two things: 1. I can really understand why some women would want to take the child to term and give birth naturally - I think that's a perfectly normal and understandable response (though perhaps hopeless in most cases) but 2. no-one should have the right to dictate other people's decisions - if a woman wants to abort a child with this condition on her doctor's advice, then she should be allowed to do so. But, as I say, I come from a country and culture where this is accepted.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

all of what maxon said.

additionally, i personally think that people who want to push for a severely disabled child to be born should be made to experience caring for a severely disabled child before they are allowed to finalize their vote. call it a lesson in empathy.

[SimsLover50]

I think sometimes a person may not have the resources to care for a disabled child who is terminally ill.

It is up to that person to decide whether to carry such a child to term, and not up to me to decide or judge them for it.

[Ixyavi]

I was under the impression that babies with Anencephaly would pass within a few hours and some are lucky to live to be a few days old?

I've never heard of a baby born with Anencephaly that lived for a few years.


Anyways... I think regardless of the reason that a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion at any time. But starting out small... in the case of Anencephaly and other fatal birth defects, it should definitely be a choice, no doubt about it. I would not go through the pain of labor for a baby that will most likely die within minutes. It seems like it would be far less traumatizing for the mother to terminate early. Although, Anencephaly is usually not diagnosed until the later half of the pregnancy so the pain of a PB abortion would most likely be similar to the pain of labor...

-shrugs her shoulders-

No matter what, it should be a choice that a woman can make for herself and not a choice that the government makes for her.

[acid_fairy]

I am pro choice and I believe every woman should have the right to choose.

As for foetuses with severe disabilities: of course that should be allowed. It is not fair on the child nor the parents. I know for a fact that I am not mentally strong enough to ever bring up a child with severe disabilities and I am glad I live in a country where I have that freedom to not have to.

As an aside: I recently read that the country with the largest difference between male and female pay is Chile, where abortion is illegal. On the other hand, the most equal country is Iceland, which has allowed abortion since 1935. Allowing a woman to make her own decisions over when to start a family is the hallmark of a modern society.

[Anonymous101]

First, just to make things clear, I live in Brazil, where abortions are illegal unless the pregnancy is a result of rape or if the mother's life is at risk (maybe there are some other cases where it's allowed but you get the point).

These last few days there's been a huge debate about this because some politicians wanted to make it legal to abort anencephalic (?) fetuses (and the mothers of babies with this condition went mad - the "abortion is murder" way of thought is very, very common in here) so I wanted to hear you guys' opinions on this.
I personally think it should not only be allowed but stimulated as well. "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain" - why would someone want to raise a child that cannot see, hear, talk or feel at all? What would be the point? You can't even say the poor child is like an animal and that it follows it's own instincts because even animals have brains and can develop affection.
And in the end, they don't live very long.

Why should someone be forced to give birth, take care and spend money on a baby that is technically unconscious, can't feel pain or see or hear and that is going to die in a few years?

Well, babies born with anencephaly can't really survive a few years. That would be a miracle, and yes, I have seen such a miraculous case on Youtube where an anencephalic baby turns two. Normally, they would survive a few days outside the womb, since they basically have no brain. In addition, I have heard that mothers of anencephalic babies are free from any responsibility of the child, let alone support the child with their own resources. I have read a story about an anencephalic baby on Wikipedia, and the reason why the little girl was born was that her mother was "pro-life". The daughter died, but the special case does raise special questions and concerns about babies born with serious defects.

[KKiryu007Joker]

This is a very sad thing to happen..... It's hard.. but yes abortion should be allowed, because these children can't live. It's terrible though, but it is necessary.

[joandsarah77]

I personally think it should not only be allowed but stimulated as well. "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain" - why would someone want to raise a child that cannot see, hear, talk or feel at all? What would be the point?


I don't normally debate about things on line, but as the mother of a baby diagnosed with anencephaly you have no idea what you are talking about. Are you even a mother? Do you think when we make plans to have a child that we have any idea the precious baby we are carrying has such a birth defect? You don't normally discover until 20 weeks that the baby you have nurtured and loved and felt kicking is 'not compatible with life' Do you know how horrible it is to hear that repeatedly from a DR with as much bedside manner as a fly lava. Do you know how attached you can be to your unborn child by 20 weeks? It isn't just a nothing that you casually get rid of. I'm sure all mother who terminate at this point are heartbroken and those of us who decide to carry our babies until it's their time to die should be supported not ridiculed or pushed to end the lives of their unborn child sooner. Who gains from this? Most do not make it to term and many of the babies are born already dead. My own daughter lived for 40 minutes and we got to hold and cherish her for that time. No parent except I believe in one rare circumstance has had a child to raise. I believe this child is now three. Put bluntly they die as newborns. My question to you is not why would someone want to give birth to a baby with such deformity -no one wants a child with any kind of disability, but why wouldn't a mother want some precious time with her child before she/he dies? I have a grave site, a birth certificate as well as some tiny feet impressions in clay. Just because my child had a sever deformity didn’t make her any less of a person. To what prepose and gain do you think the mother will get from being encouraged to kill her baby a few month before she/he would be born and die anyway?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

My question to you is not why would someone want to give birth to a baby with such deformity -no one wants a child with any kind of disability, but why wouldn't a mother want some precious time with her child before she/he dies? I have a grave site, a birth certificate as well as some tiny feet impressions in clay. Just because my child had a sever deformity didn’t make her any less of a person. To what prepose and gain do you think the mother will get from being encouraged to kill her baby a few month before she/he would be born and die anyway?

Why should someone be forced to give birth, take care and spend money on a baby that is technically unconscious, can't feel pain or see or hear and that is going to die in a few years?

"forced" kind of implies that the mother doesn't want to carry the baby to term. in those cases, i don't think her reasoning is up for questioning, but that her will should be respected. i dont think anyone here was replying as if the mother actually still wanted to carry the child to term.

[joandsarah77]

stimulated as well Is what I take issue with. Stimulated in this context means encouraged to terminate not just allowed to.

I was also replying to this question.
why would someone want to raise a child that cannot see, hear, talk or feel at all?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Is what I take issue with. Stimulated in this context means encouraged to terminate not just allowed to.

I was also replying to this question.

true, though stimulation is a bit different than being held at gunpoint. the difference between persuasion and threatening. if a person believes it to be in their best interest, wouldnt it be the natural response to "stimulate" them to choose differently?
(for example, people who want to kill themselves. most people would agree that its correct behavior to "stimulate" them to choose differently--doesnt really mean that they have to, though. more or less i think they meant that it should be affirmed that the choice exists, in case the person has any doubts about it, but im not them so i dont know about that.)

and, that could have been a rhetorical question. personally, i will never understand why someone would want to tattoo their genitals. they still do it, but i still wonder why anyone would ever want to. but thats where it becomes a matter of opinion--i doubt they were intending to attest that there was no actual reason behind it, or say that because they didnt agree with it, it shouldnt be done at all.

[~Dee~]

I think it should be the woman's decision if she want's to abort or not, it's her body and no government agency ( or religious groups or anti abortion groups) should have the right to tell her what to do with it.

[Saturnfly]

If it were me in that situation and the laws regarding abortion were irrelevant, I would definitely abort. So I think parents should be given the right, it is their life and free will and shouldn't be a governmental decision.

Just putting it out there, but imagine if it were illegal to have an abortion in every country and every state? Can you imagine the population increase? It's just another form of birth control, it just happens after the fact and when the foetus is in such an early stage of development that it isn't even able to comprehend what is happening, and neither feel it. It's about as murderous as picking a tomato.

[acid_paradox]

Even though I personally believe abortion is wrong (I'm still pro-choice, don't get me wrong) in that situation, I would probably get an abortion. I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself, but I would get one. Therefore, I think that abortion should be legal in those circumstances. To the people that think that it shouldn't, how would it affect you in anyway? The only real person that is being affected is the mother, and therefore, it should be her choice.

[Elyasis]

In this case, absolutely. Up until such a cure is found for this disorder. After that, that would be up to the laws of your jurisdiction. And your own choice of course.

Based on the Wikipedia article on the subject it seems one would have to take precautionary measures instead of waiting for the signs to prevent themselves.

"There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for patients is death. Most anencephalic fetuses do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest. There are longer-surviving examples, namely Stephanie Keene, who lived for 2 years 174 days and Nicholas Coke, who as of 2010, survived to 2 years old."

Makes it a pretty open and shut case.

[lisfyre]

First of all... if you're not a woman, you don't have the right to make a decision for any woman. Secondly, IMHO, the woman can solicit opinions from friends and family and doctors but they can only be opinions on the subject, they shouldn't be to encourage/discourage that woman to proceed/not proceed with the procedure. Ultimately, the person herself has to make the decision on whether or not this is the best thing to do for her, not for anyone else, but HER and the child. Friends and family should always be supportive of any decision she makes.

Having said that, if this person has abortions everytime she gets pregnant because she doesn't want to have the child is another story. If you don't want to have children, use protection and make sure you don't get pregnant - or get a ligation. I know that in the US and Canada most doctors won't do a ligation or a hysterectomy for women under the age of 35 unless its a danger to her health - i,e. cervical cancer so until that time ladies, practice safe sex :)

[Elyasis]

I know that in the US and Canada most doctors won't do a ligation or a hysterectomy for women under the age of 35 unless its a danger to her health - i,e. cervical cancer so until that time ladies, practice safe sex :)

And isn't that just the biggest pile of double standards ever.

Just so we are all clear the legal limit is 18 years of age. The doctors however are protesting that for some unknown reason and want to make sure you've had a fuckton of children first to appease their God. (What does their God need with so many children anyway? Sounds dubious to me). :faceslap:

Guys usually just get a "Are you sure, son? How abouts you freeze some of those wigglers up just in case?"

[lisfyre]

And isn't that just the biggest pile of double standards ever.

Just so we are all clear the legal limit is 18 years of age. The doctors however are protesting that for some unknown reason and want to make sure you've had a fuckton of children first to appease their God. (What does their God need with so many children anyway? Sounds dubious to me). :faceslap:

Guys usually just get a "Are you sure, son? How abouts you freeze some of those wigglers up just in case?"

Yes it's very unfair. I have a friend who at age 35 was very very sure she didn't want kids but no doctor she went to would give her a ligation. She tried at 40 and at 45 but they still wouldn't give her a ligation. Today she's 61, married to a guy who had children from his first marriage and is a grandmom.. well.. step grandma but still, I always thought it was funny.

To those of you who disagreed with my original post, lets talk. I'd like to hear some of your opinions.

[EliDawn]

Just to put in my two cents. I am pretty much pro-choice, though I get annoyed with women who have abortions every time they get pregnant because their boyfriend refuses to wear a condom or the girls themselves don't want to take any precautions. But on this it should be the mother's decision.

For one there's the fact that the child doesn't feel anything, is unconscious. It would be like taking care of a doll. To me that's the same as making a person live by machines when there's nothing there, mentally. I don't believe anyone should be forced to live under such conditions.

Second is the fact that it's cruel to force a woman to go full term only to lose her child shortly after it's born. What that alone could do to a woman's psyche is one of the worst things. Women who have miscarriages often feel like they've failed in something that should be natural. This would be worse.

If a woman wants to go through with the pregnancy, then she should be allowed. It's all in how she sees the situation.

[DigitalSympathies]

Pro-circumstance here. I think that yes, it should totally be legal for anybody to get an abortion, but for my sense of necessary and unnecessary, this is more leaning towards the necessary side. It's cruelty to do that to a woman (have her child die soon after birth), and though there are people who have lived like this, I don't think it's really fair to anybody at all. If a woman were completely able and financially sound enough to care for a healthy child, then I think that that's just stupid to abort it - like EliDawn said, if they didn't wear a condom, you don't have to get one every time, dammit! That just irritates me when people abort for no reason at all. Adoption would be a better choice (and this is coming from an adopted kid!) than terminating it. But if it were the same situation and the child was severely disabled, I would totally understand. Of course, there are unique emotional and situational implications surrounding every pregnancy, so that's why I'm pro-circumstance. My opinion is none until I hear the circumstance, and even then, I feel no need to say one way or another. I support legal abortions totally, but at the same time it's not the best solution in every situation, and it's not for everybody. In this one, where the child would die soon after birth anyways, I'm, again, leaning towards the abortion side of things because it seems like the moral and humane thing to do.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

First of all... if you're not a woman, you don't have the right to make a decision for any woman.

yes.

Secondly, IMHO, the woman can solicit opinions from friends and family and doctors but they can only be opinions on the subject, they shouldn't be to encourage/discourage that woman to proceed/not proceed with the procedure.

no.
people are allowed to ask others for help on tough decisions. if she herself doesnt have an opinion either way, it may help her to form one by hearing the opinions and reasoning of others. i think its just a little unrealistic, and unfair, to expect her to make the decision entirely alone if shes not prepared to.
and it depends on who this decision is impacting. if the woman lives with her parents, damn straight she should talk to them about it. if their own lives are going to be impacted by her decision, she should at least give them a chance to put in their own two cents, for better or for worse--she doesnt have to OBEY them mind you, but hearing them out would be the decent thing to do.

Ultimately, the person herself has to make the decision on whether or not this is the best thing to do for her, not for anyone else, but HER and the child. Friends and family should always be supportive of any decision she makes.

again, not a terribly realistic thing to say. people will have their own opinions, and expecting them to toss them aside in the face of a major life choice is like telling people that they cant be unsupportive of anyone that does something that they disapprove of--namely, rapists, murderers, etc, simply on the grounds of being family.
not advocating that they hate/bash her at every minute of every second, but i think everyone should have the right to at least be able to openly express a difference of opinion.

Having said that, if this person has abortions everytime she gets pregnant because she doesn't want to have the child is another story. If you don't want to have children, use protection and make sure you don't get pregnant - or get a ligation. I know that in the US and Canada most doctors won't do a ligation or a hysterectomy for women under the age of 35 unless its a danger to her health - i,e. cervical cancer so until that time ladies, practice safe sex :)

agree, though its easier said than done in some (birth control) or most (hysterectomy) situations.

[joandsarah77]

The trouble with all of these things people are adding in other things to the original question. This wasn't a question over raising disabled children or rape or social circumstances, but about anencephaly. As I am most likely the only person here who has actually had a baby with anencephaly no one but me knows what it is like. If you have also lost a baby to a birth defect you would know somewhat but not totally. So while advice from others around you might be helpful, those people probably don't know what they are talking about. You can't unless you have been through it.

it depends on who this decision is impacting. if the woman lives with her parents, damn straight she should talk to them about it.
Of course the woman needs to talk to her parents or husband or SO. But the diagnosis impacts them no matter what.

If the child is birthed at 20 weeks or 40 the end is the same-you will have a baby who dies just before, at or just after birth and then you have to deal with the grief. Having the baby at 20 weeks does not make everything better or change the outcome. The only difference is yes you would be carrying the child for longer, but people forget these are usually planned for babies. If the baby was unwanted the woman wouldn't be going for the 20 week scan. Anyone who uses abortion as some kind of birth control (absolutely abhorrent in my view given that birth control is easy to get) would have had one long before 20 weeks. Let me say again-you don't normally discover you are carrying a child with anencephaly until the 20 week scan. This is the normal time that a scan is offered to a healthy mother. Certainly it is in our country anyway. You are only offered one sooner if you have had some previous problems.


Second is the fact that it's cruel to force a woman to go full term only to lose her child shortly after it's born
So having your child at 20 weeks and having them die isn't cruel and horrible too? You are talking about a fully formed baby at 20 weeks (apart from their birth defect which doesn't change) You think having a baby at 20 weeks magically makes things better? Do people realize at 20 weeks you still have to give birth? You get induced, you go through labour and you give birth.

There should be no encouragement or coercion to have the baby at 20 weeks. It's a well known fact that parents handle the death of a baby far better if they can hold, see and touch their baby. Used to be 50 years ago still born babies would be whisked away and parents would not even see them, that policy changed because they realized it wasn't helping. People need closure to death and holding your baby and even giving them a burial does help. Encouraging birth at 20 weeks denies the parents/ mother the right to a funeral. Funerals also help give people closure. In our country at least a baby must be 21 weeks to get both a birth certificate and a proper burial. In fact it's illegal to not formally bury a baby at 21 weeks or over.

[maxon]

You're right, of course, JoandSarah - as I said in my original post, I can understand why a woman would want to carry a child to term with this condition. I think you agree anyway that it's up to the woman concerned (and her family to a certain extent) to make the decision about whether to abort immediately or go ahead and carry the child to term.

You're right also in that many of the subsequent posts are referring to abortion in general which is not what this discussion is about (and it's not like we've not had that long and combative debate elsewhere).

[lisfyre]

no.
people are allowed to ask others for help on tough decisions. if she herself doesnt have an opinion either way, it may help her to form one by hearing the opinions and reasoning of others. i think its just a little unrealistic, and unfair, to expect her to make the decision entirely alone if shes not prepared to.
and it depends on who this decision is impacting. if the woman lives with her parents, damn straight she should talk to them about it. if their own lives are going to be impacted by her decision, she should at least give them a chance to put in their own two cents, for better or for worse--she doesnt have to OBEY them mind you, but hearing them out would be the decent thing to do.



Agreed. This is a major decision for any woman and people in her life should have an opinion and should be there to offer support. I think depending on her age, opinions and reasoning can help but as a general rule, if I were asked by a friend if she should get an abortion or not, my answer would be, "its your call. you're the one that has to live with the decision" and proceed to discuss the pros and cons and what her options are. Hopefully friends and family will give her enough info to help her decide which way to go. If the decision is going to impact more than just her and her unborn child then yes most definitely, the other parties that will be impacted must be brought into the conversation. This scenario should be for the single woman who is pregnant. Different "rules" apply to a married woman. It will still be her ultimate decision but her husband must be consulted and brought into the conversation.


again, not a terribly realistic thing to say. people will have their own opinions, and expecting them to toss them aside in the face of a major life choice is like telling people that they cant be unsupportive of anyone that does something that they disapprove of--namely, rapists, murderers, etc, simply on the grounds of being family.
not advocating that they hate/bash her at every minute of every second, but i think everyone should have the right to at least be able to openly express a difference of opinion.


People will always have their own opinions and they should stick to their convictions - nothing wrong with that. However, telling your friend that having an abortion is the wrong thing to do outright doesn't give your friend much compassion if the decision is to have an abortion. If she's pregnant because of a rape and doesn't want to carry that child to term only to give it up in the end and you tell her she has to is wrong. People can disagree or disapprove of abortion but for heaven's sake be supportive of the person that has to go thru with it because that decision did not come lightly. Trying to decide whether or not to have an abortion for any reason is really tough. There's a lot of sleepless nights and crying and soul searching and asking whether or not you've done the right thing. Just be there for your friend. Yes I speak from experience - I've had a friend who got pregnant from rape and another friend who was pregnant but was single and she felt that she was too young and immature to become a mother yet at the same time didn't want to carry the child to term and give them up. I was there for all the crying and decision making and the procedure and all the sleepless nights afterwards. It's not easy. Did I agree with them yes for the rape victim, no for my other friend but I had to respect their decisions.

[joandsarah77]

I'm not someone that gets into debates about controversial issues, and I won't debate the pros and cons of abortion itself. I just felt this needed the view of someone who has been through this experience. It's all well and good for people to talk, but unless you have been in the place of going for the 20 week scan hoping to learn the gender of your baby only to be told the baby you can already feel kicking is going to die then you can only speculate as to how you might feel and what you might do. (you being a general you)
I just couldn't not respond when people use words such as 'stimulate' and 'encourage' as if they know it's the best thing when they really have no idea what they are talking about.

[mustluvcatz]

Since this thread is about aborting fetuses with anencephaly, my answer is about that and only that- although it does include fetuses with other severe abnormalities. Yes abortion should be allowed and legal in this (those) case(s). Allowed- not forced or strongly recommended.

...It's all well and good for people to talk, but unless you have been in the place of going for the 20 week scan hoping to learn the gender of your baby only to be told the baby you can already feel kicking is going to die then you can only speculate as to how you might feel and what you might do.

This. This is why. Can anyone imagine that? Can you really? That has got to be one of the most devastating things in the world to hear. In some cases it might not be completely true- we've all heard about the miracle babies who shouldn't have lived at all. In the case of anencephaly it's pretty much a done deal. Those babies will die.
Some women might want to abort such a fetus right then and there for whatever their reason might be. They should be allowed to do so and not be judged for doing it or have to put up with "Omg, how could you?!?" reactions. Others might want to give birth to the life they created even though they know that life will be cut very short. A woman might want to at least hold her baby and say goodbye. She'd be allowed to do that, right? And I'm willing to bet that nobody would judge her for doing so. So- if a woman doesn't want to go through all of that, if she doesn't feel she could do that and wants to abort her baby..she should be allowed to do so in peace.

Either decision would be hard. Giving birth to a baby, holding it and bonding with it for even a moment..only to have it die is something I couldn't do. Holding one and bonding with him for a moment only to give him up about killed me, but at least I know he's still alive. (Enough said about that.) *major hugs* to joandsarah

[joandsarah77]

Thank you mustluvcatz, you are one of the few that seem to understand where I am coming from. Major Hugs back for your own loss.

we've all heard about the miracle babies who shouldn't have lived at all.

Both ways have happened. I have a friend who lost a baby shortly after birth because he had an inoperable heart abnormality. They had no idea and it was never picked up at the scan. My husband’s nephew was given the all clear at his twenty week scan and has severe Down syndrome and autism. So severe that he can't talk, can't toilet and can only eat baby food and can barely walk. He will probably always be at the level of a 12 month old baby. Likewise I have heard of cases were normal babies were aborted after the twenty week scan. I've never heard of a case of anencephaly being wrongly diagnosed though. But people do need to realize that scan is not infallible.

A woman might want to at least hold her baby and say goodbye. She'd be allowed to do that, right?
Yes, any decent hospital will ask you if you want time with your baby. They may do this even if the baby was induced at 20 weeks. The hospital I stayed at was wonderful. I was only a public patient at the time (We have a very different health system over here) and I was given a private room at no cost.

[iCad]

Y'know, I'm really not the most maternal woman in the world, for all that I birthed three children. The first was actually the hardest, when I was 18, a child conceived in rape. And, everyone is different, of course, and their reactions to a similar situation would be different (And, I might add, should be respected), but for me, personally, almost the worst part of that (aside from the rape itself) was dealing with EVERYONE around me thinking that I'd gone nuts, wondering why the hell I was going through with the pregnancy instead of aborting it. Everyone. Even people with more pro-life leanings. I...just couldn't do it. And I was a pretty loud pro-choicer, at the time. Instead, I made arrangements for a private adoption by this lovely infertile couple who could give my child everything...and now he's all grown up, a doctor who runs an AIDS clinic in Botswana, and he has a wife and two kids of his own. We've been in close contact since he was 16. I'm really glad I didn't abort him.

I seriously don't know what I would do if I ever found out that a child of mine was going to be born with anencephaly. I'm fairly certain I wouldn't abort, personally, as I'm pretty strongly pro-life (but not at all political about it, I should add. I don't think that any government has any right to be regulating/encouraging/discouraging/outlawing such a thing). I would think that, if nothing else, if I could carry the child enough to term, that at the very least he/she could serve as an organ donor, so that perhaps other children might live who wouldn't otherwise. But I don't really know what I would do. I wouldn't know unless I was put in such a position, and since I'm in menopause now, that's not gonna happen. :) In general, I don't think such a decision should be encouraged, much less forced, either way, just as I feel about abortion laws in general. It is a deeply personal, individual thing, and each person's choice ought to be respected.

[joandsarah77]

icad so sorry for what you went though.

Babies with anencephaly are not allowed to be organ donors as I looked into that while I was carrying. I'm not even sure 12 years later as to why as there is no other abnormality. I would have really liked if my little girl could have given another baby life, but it wasn't to be.

[DigitalSympathies]

I do agree on iCad's exact point here - it's really circumstantial, which is the point I was trying to make in the first place. Nobody can say for anybody else, because everyone's different. If it were me, I would do it for my own personal reasons, but I know people who wouldn't out of any number of reasons. It's just like how my dad, who when my mother died after giving birth, knew that he had nothing. He was so poor that he couldn't even eat, so he gave me away for a better life. Some people would argue that that's uncaring, but then again, everyone has their reasons for anything and everything. You can't debate another person's decision unless they're being held accountable by law, which in that case is kind of . . . well, the court's job, no?

Would you personally force anybody to do something by taking away an option that is legally in most places a human right and in some places, even more than that - a compassionate act? They don't have to take the option if it's there, but if it IS there, it can be used by those people who choose it instead of being railroaded into something they no longer feel they have a choice in BECAUSE the option is no longer there. Also, on that point, there would of course have to be social infrastructure in place to help these women and girls, or it would lose its effectiveness in rural areas with little access to things like hospitals or doctors. Case in point below.

There's the story of this girl in a school I went to that I knew quite well through being table partnered with her. I was living in a small town at the time, and there wasn't much of a government agency in the area. Not much of anything, really. Trailer park, farms, a gas station, two bars, and a grocery store.

She got pregnant one night under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and her mother wouldn't give her money to get an abortion, let alone take her to get a checkup. There was literally nowhere in the area that did it for free. She wasn't the richest person in the world, and adoption was out of the picture as well as the place to arrange it was quite the ways away and she had no way of getting there. Nobody would take her that she knew.

The guy didn't remember her, denied it ever happened, and left her stranded. The school wouldn't help, and that's as far as they looked. She was eventually pretty much railroaded into having this kid, and I don't know how it turned out because I moved away before it ended, but a guy I knew from there told me a bit later on in one of our Skype sessions that she was still raising this baby. Totally forced into it. I know for a fact that she didn't want the baby in the first place. If there had been stuff in place for this girl to get help, then she would've had more options. Which leads to my point - cases can differ. There are so many variables as to what could've happened with the girl, but because there was a lack of help available, she was forced into something she didn't want to do.

[iCad]

icad so sorry for what you went though.

Babies with anencephaly are not allowed to be organ donors as I looked into that while I was carrying. I'm not even sure 12 years later as to why as there is no other abnormality. I would have really liked if my little girl could have given another baby life, but it wasn't to be.

Gosh, what you went through is actually, as far as I'm concerned, much worse. *hugs*

That's terrible that anencephalic babies can't be organ donors. :( If there's no abnormality otherwise, why the hell not??? Frankly, one of the reasons why I didn't abort when I was rape-pregnant was that, if only in my mind, the child gave the rape a curious sort of purpose. No one else understood my mindset at all, but...it was what it was and it was very strong. Knowing that there was purpose was comforting to me. I knew that I couldn't raise him myself, but I knew that there were people who wanted children but couldn't have them...and as it turned out, it was fairly easy to find them, perhaps because I was living in New York City at the time. And then, he grew up to make this remarkable contribution so...Yeah, in the end, there WAS a purpose for it all, and I can see it now and know it and...Yeah, the circumstances of his creation (greatly) sucked for me, but they were what they needed to be at that time and place, for whatever reason, and now I am completely at peace with all of it. (And, as a bonus, I have two grandchildren whom I adore, although I don't get to see them nearly as often as I'd like since they spend most of their time in Africa and they're not yet old enough to email and stuff.) I think if I had aborted my son, it would all still be meaningless in my mind and I think it would still be preying on me. I think. I don't know. But I think.

In a similar vein, if I was carrying an anencephalic baby and he/she could be an organ donor, then to me that would give the whole thing purpose as well, and that would allow me to take some comfort in an otherwise completely tragic situation. I would know that my child needed to be exactly what he/she was, with a particular genetic makeup and such, in order to allow another, somewhere, to live or to have a better quality of life. But to have that legally barred for some God-knows-why reason...Well, that sucks, to say the least. :(

More hugs to you. :)

[joandsarah77]

Gosh, what you went through is actually, as far as I'm concerned, much worse. *hugs*

I don't qualify pain if that's the correct word. What you went through was totally different but also horrible and unfair. So I don't believe in saying well my pain was worse or better. It's all unjust and painful and not things I would want anybody to have to live through. I'm sure yours was also a kind of grief and there is no wrong or right way to deal with it, your mind deals with things how it needs to. I'm glad your mind is at rest over the situation and that you have two adorable Grandchildren now. :) I'm just old enough to have Grandchildren but I had my two children somewhat later in life so none yet.

I hope things have changed with the donating of organs. I can understand if the baby has other deformities or is still born, but my daughter lived for 40 minutes. No doubt I was given a reason at the time, but it may have just all gone over my head. It's not something I want to look into now, I think it would upset me.

*hugs*

[iCad]

True, one's perception of a bad event is always colored by one's own personality and how the event gets "filtered" in one's brain. I suppose most women can't assimilate the idea of being violently raped, so that would seem a horror to them. (And don't get me wrong. It IS. But, as they say, time heals all wounds -- and this was 31 years ago, actually almost to the day, now that I think about it! :lol: for me -- and the brain is probably the best analgesic of them all.) So to me, not having any "filters" in place, the notion of finding out that a much-loved/wanted but not-yet-born child is 99.99% guaranteed to die before, during, or very shortly after birth...Well, that's just inconceivable, even though, as I said, I'm really not the most maternal woman in the world. So... *Yet more hugs*

[gulhare]

There should be no encouragement or coercion to have the baby at 20 weeks. It's a well known fact that parents handle the death of a baby far better if they can hold, see and touch their baby..... People need closure to death and holding your baby and even giving them a burial does help. Encouraging birth at 20 weeks denies the parents/ mother the right to a funeral. Funerals also help give people closure. .

We held our son, we wrapped him in a cute but way too big babyblanket (the nurses helped with that), we took pictures, we got a cute footprint, we were asked if we wanted to bury him ourselves or if it was ok to cremate him with other aborted children. They warned us that they only cremated 3 times a year. We still chose the latter, because to me at least it felt like he would have little friends with him at the graveyard. The only thing we didnt get was a registration of his birth, and frankly thats not what I care for.

To me, and to my partner it seemed like a horrible thing to wait all those months just to have him die at birth (he didnt have anencephaly). To see him struggle for oxygen and not getting any.
I believe every family should have a choice to follow their heart. And I believe its just not the mothers choice, fathers suffer just as the mother and I hated how my partner was ignored. Apart from the sorrow for our son, the anger at the way my partners feeling were brushed away still lives inside me.

[BlakeS5678]

...To see him struggle for oxygen and not getting any...

I think that really brings in a debate of ethics and being humane.

It brings up a question: Is there a point where the <pain, torture, etc.> is worse than the preciousness of life.

And, that's what suicide is exactly, when someone finds the pain in their life not worth living for. And, that's a type of question only someone can answer themself. And, sometimes they don't even know the answer. And, in cases where a woman knows her baby will suffer from a terminal illness/disability/ etc. she can't ask her baby. So, of course, it's her decision.

[ella_in_wonderland]

I know this thread is old but I just want to add my opinion.
I am pro-choice. :) If I personally had a baby with Anencephaly I would probably get an abortion. Somehow, for me, that would be less traumatic and painful.

I'm sorry about what you guys have been through! I can't imagine

[Sim-brother]

I personally think that it is the mother's choiche to have an abortion in any case, I think that decisions concerning one's own body should be dictated by the morality of others. I dont think I would have an abortion if the child was healthy and my life wasn't in danger, but I am not a woman and I can't judge women who choose to have the abortion even if the child is healthy.

[SeeMyu]

I think I am pro-choice as well. From some investigation, apparently fetuses have no sign of life and are truly just a blob throughout the stages that an abortion can take place, so you aren't really taking its life. But I also think that if you don't want to have a baby of your own, and you're pregnant.. just give it up for adoption. Yeah. I am really on the fence with this one. :/

[Onaakakit]

Fetuses with Anencephaly - Should their abortion be allowed?

This is the original question to this entire thread.

In Narainu’s top post, she specifies that in her area the laws state when and why a woman can abort a child. She tells us that politicians are talking about adding to the “ok to abort” list pregnant women who carry a fetus that tested positive for Anencephaly.

Narainu gives her opinion on abortion, but asks everyone who came to read what she had to say about their opinions. She does state that she feels woman should be “stimulated”, but here I think she means that women should be told their chances with the child. Her opinion on this is bias, as she herself would probably feel the child would not have a true chance at life, and therefore feel she herself would not bare the pain of trying to raise then losing her child. I cannot guarantee this is what she meant, but it is what I took away from it.

Now, when giving an opinion, which is exactly what it is. You can give your opinion, and if you have personal experience you can use it as an explanation. However, an opinion is a person’s personal moral reasoning and choice on a subject. Personal opinion does not be need to be debated, but simply stated. Fighting over beliefs and opinions on matters is not necessary as not everyone need feel the same.

I am a mother, I have two children. I have not had to bury a child, and I pray to any god that will hear me to never have to bury one of my decedents. I love them dearly. I also believe that no matter what, abortion is a woman’s choice. If the mother, who must carry the child inside her, decides she cannot bare to birth a child simply to lose him/her in a few minutes then that is her choice and no one else’s.

I personally could never handle this. I cannot abort though either, as my self-morals will not allow me to destroy a life without ever being near it, holding it, and naming it. I am trapped in this situation. My fiancé has a different view on this, and we may not see eye to eye, but he is also woman’s choice and promises to always respect any choice I make.

[GnatGoSplat]

I support a woman's right to choose, so my answer to the topic title is obviously "Yes".
It's not even a moral dilemma for me, as in my view, life starts at cognition, not conception.

I will even go so far as to say that I don't think males should have any say on the matter. Having an opinion, as I do, is fine, but I don't think elderly white male politicians should be the ones making this decision on behalf of women. Some men may argue that, "but that baby is half mine!" True as that may be, but the woman is the one who will have to endure the entire 9-months of carrying it, the pain of giving birth to it, any complications that may occur, and ALL potential health risks, death being one of them. So for that reason, I think it should be the entirely up to the woman.

[ella_in_wonderland]

I support a woman's right to choose, so my answer to the topic title is obviously "Yes".
It's not even a moral dilemma for me, as in my view, life starts at cognition, not conception.

I will even go so far as to say that I don't think males should have any say on the matter. Having an opinion, as I do, is fine, but I don't think elderly white male politicians should be the ones making this decision on behalf of women. Some men may argue that, "but that baby is half mine!" True as that may be, but the woman is the one who will have to endure the entire 9-months of carrying it, the pain of giving birth to it, any complications that may occur, and ALL potential health risks, death being one of them. So for that reason, I think it should be the entirely up to the woman.

I remember shouting "AMEN" to another one of your posts, and here I go again

AMEN.