Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has anyone in this thread brought up the subject of the Julianna Wetmore baby? I won't post any links. I'll let you Google the subject and form your own opinions.
Googled it -- very shocking to say the least. For those that don't know, she is a little girl that was born missing 30-40 bones from her face, including her cheek bones, upper jaw and eye sockets.
However, she has normal intellect, and while she cannot speak she does sign. Her parents love her. She loves them back. She is a human being with potential. She will never be pretty, she may never date but who is to say that she will not add to our world? Who is to say that based on her looks she will never achieve individual greatness?
Because what her 'case' boils down to is she is ugly. To see her is disturbing to the 'normal' people. In another age she may have been sold to a travelling freak show. That age is past and in this age that little girl has the right to show her damaged face in public. She will be able to handle the stares because her parents are showing her how to handle it. To suggest she should have been 'put down' at birth because she is ugly is beyond superficial. What next? The baby is the wrong sex? Suffacate it. The baby has cleft palate? Club foot?
This child has a shot at life, and the potential to make her life matter. I for one am glad that a dr didnot have the 'right' to decide she was too ugly to live.
If birth will no longer be the measuring point for when a child is given the right to live then what should the age be? If the issue is parents being able to choose life or death for a child that cannot make the decision for itself then at what age will the line be drawn? A newborn can't choose to live or die , and a toddler probably couldn't so do we under 18 citizens have to wait til 5-6 to be protected under the law, to be able to say "no we want to live"?
By some of the posts i've read on here it seems to me that the older generations 'right to choose' is far extending into us younger peoples 'right to life'. Some people want to choose so badly that it doesn't matter at what age the child is, they will be damned if they are told that that life is off limits.
Or is it just the handicapped that can be mercifully killed?
Many years ago my mother worked for a family doctor. He did everything from dispensing an antibiotic, piercing ears, right up to removing an appendix or delivering a baby. Even though I was just a kid, Mom and I had many frank discussions about medicine, life and the human condition. The subject of the babies did come up. I will certainly never know exactly what happened to them because I wasn't there. I was led to believe that it was a no resuscitation, no medication, no intervention situation. Considering the condition that most of them were in, that it was just a matter of time, and that time was short. The 'typical' mentally, physically disabled children were not the problem. However, there came a time in the career of some of these Dr.'s, these baby catchers, that they are faced with the extraordinary, the unthinkable. Nowadays, you can find pictures of that sort of thing on the internet if you choose to look. Back then, it was common practice to tell women that their babies had died in childbirth and they were discouraged from seeing them. I would think that any physician worth his salt would have taken matters into his own hands.
Yes, it's the suffering as they linger that I object to. It's unpalatable for many but far more so to me is this new life at all costs mentality. Where informed consent is possible then it should be supported fully and in the absence of sufficient cognitive function to make informed consent then this would fall to the parent or guardian. One would hope that the parent or guardian is able to make the best decision in the circumstances (AND are given as much support and information as is possible to help them with that choice whatever it may be).To me that would be what they believe fervently (After being informed) would mean the least amount of suffering for their charge.
INCREDIBLY tough question. On the one hand, as of the year 2000, 75% of the population was carrying an inherited genetic defect of some kind. That creates a lot of potential for making new people who are going to have lives that are diminished -- maybe a great deal.
Medical science puts incredible energy into saving every single baby, and in a lot of cases that pays off, but in others it just prolongs the agony for everyone. In the post-Reagan years, with all the state institutions closed and medical-insurance premiums higher than the orbit of Pluto, that creates a horrible burden for families.
On the other hand, I would love and protect my own baby even if he were a wereturtle. I cannot grasp how strong the Chinese and ancient Greeks must have been to expose defective babies to the elements and leave them to die. How the funk did they make themselves do it!?
Googled it -- very shocking to say the least. For those that don't know, she is a little girl that was born missing 30-40 bones from her face, including her cheek bones, upper jaw and eye sockets.
That's not possible! There are only 14 bones in the human face!
With plastic surgery she may yet be pretty. They're transplanting whole faces now.
That's not possible! There are only 14 bones in the human face!
With plastic surgery she may yet be pretty. They're transplanting whole faces now.
I may have mistyped -- it should have read 30-40% of the bones in her face.
You bring up a very good point -- in the case of this girl, who aside from her grossly deformed face (and not being mean here, but the little girl was born with a very severe facial defect) has normal intelligence and is able to communicate via sign language. Some people would have OKed her 'euthanasia' at birth based on her looks alone. But who is to say what advances medical science will make within her lifetime? It is entirely possible that - while perhaps never conventionally pretty - she will be able to pass in crowds without comment.
How many other children may benefit from future medical treatment for diseases that as of now, have no cure? Thirty years ago, childhood leukemia was a certain death sentence, yet now most (I believe it now has a 90%+ cure rate) survive.
If birth will no longer be the measuring point for when a child is given the right to live then what should the age be? If the issue is parents being able to choose life or death for a child that cannot make the decision for itself then at what age will the line be drawn? A newborn can't choose to live or die , and a toddler probably couldn't so do we under 18 citizens have to wait til 5-6 to be protected under the law, to be able to say "no we want to live"?
By some of the posts i've read on here it seems to me that the older generations 'right to choose' is far extending into us younger peoples 'right to life'. Some people want to choose so badly that it doesn't matter at what age the child is, they will be damned if they are told that that life is off limits.
Or is it just the handicapped that can be mercifully killed?
I thought I could get rid of my post and then come back to it. Apparantly, I can't do that.
If birth will no longer be the measuring point for when a child is given the right to live then what should the age be? If the issue is parents being able to choose life or death for a child that cannot make the decision for itself then at what age will the line be drawn? A newborn can't choose to live or die , and a toddler probably couldn't so do we under 18 citizens have to wait til 5-6 to be protected under the law, to be able to say "no we want to live"?
By some of the posts i've read on here it seems to me that the older generations 'right to choose' is far extending into us younger peoples 'right to life'. Some people want to choose so badly that it doesn't matter at what age the child is, they will be damned if they are told that that life is off limits.
Or is it just the handicapped that can be mercifully killed?
I know a couple of 42 year olds that could make a case for late term abortion. Ok, not feasible but definitely poster children for abortions.
My generation is just now coming into power. I’m not sure what you mean by “older generations”. What I thought you said was that you have available beds and free medical care.
If you are a parent that has made the choice to have a severely disabled child or if you are meeting the anguish of a child with a terminal disease head on, Kudos to you. That is a beautiful thing. Not the situation but the act.
This society cannot find a way to take care of the unwanted children that are not severely disabled. It fer sure can’t take care of the ones that are severely disabled and unwanted. Pretending that right around the corner is the possibility for a cure does nothing.
You can call this balancing societies checkbook, you can call it putting a dollar amount on human life. The thing is that the money that is being spent is not enough to do anything for anybody because it is trying to cover all bases. There aren’t enough resources to cover it all. So nobody gets anything. There are those that are already in foster care (and it is never ending) that don’t get what they need. That money could easily go to actually care for them, to pay for things like psych evals to do something. They have needs and if they don’t they are 17 and you don’t care anymore.
So, please, explain to me how the “younger generation” is going to correct this problem. It is beyond choice at all costs.
And don’t go pulling any Florida punches where the powers that be say………..all children should have early learning……….and the people say, “Yay. That is the answer.” and then cut spending on education so they have skeleton credits in high schools.
I know a couple of 42 year olds that could make a case for late term abortion. Ok, not feasible but definitely poster children for abortions.
My generation is just now coming into power. I’m not sure what you mean by “older generations”. What I thought you said was that you have available beds and free medical care.
If you are a parent that has made the choice to have a severely disabled child or if you are meeting the anguish of a child with a terminal disease head on, Kudos to you. That is a beautiful thing. Not the situation but the act.
This society cannot find a way to take care of the unwanted children that are not severely disabled. It fer sure can’t take care of the ones that are severely disabled and unwanted. Pretending that right around the corner is the possibility for a cure does nothing.
You can call this balancing societies checkbook, you can call it putting a dollar amount on human life. The thing is that the money that is being spent is not enough to do anything for anybody because it is trying to cover all bases. There aren’t enough resources to cover it all. So nobody gets anything. There are those that are already in foster care (and it is never ending) that don’t get what they need. That money could easily go to actually care for them, to pay for things like psych evals to do something. They have needs and if they don’t they are 17 and you don’t care anymore.
So, please, explain to me how the “younger generation” is going to correct this problem. It is beyond choice at all costs.
And don’t go pulling any Florida punches where the powers that be say………..all children should have early learning……….and the people say, “Yay. That is the answer.” and then cut spending on education so they have skeleton credits in high schools.
Severely disabled -- what does that mean, anyway? I think the key word is 'unwanted'. What you describe is society putting down unwanted children to save money and time. I'm sorry, but that is barbaric.
Because if what you mean by severely disabled is a newborn who is dying - then yes, why prolong the dying process needlessly?
If you are saying that a newborn who isn't physically perfect and so is unwanted by its parents it deserves death - 0r what will be considered an extremely late term abortion...no, that is wrong and it is selfish.
The day that the government/MDs are able to sterilize adults against their will is the day your argument may have some validity. A spay and nueter program for the unfit parents, if you will. And as much as that may appeal to me, that is not a society that I would want to live in, would you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
