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.
Yes...I always find the conservative viewpoint on pro life very interesting...since those are the same folks who scream the loudest when it comes to providing social programs, Medicaid, Social Security, Special Education, services to people with disabilities....the very children they wanted born....they don't want to pay the social cost of these children, who will need extensive programs and government funding for the rest of their lives. They seem to think that the family unit can bear the burden...what they also don't realize...is that birth of a child with a disabilty, puts a huge strain on a marriage...I won't quote statistics...as everyone with a different agenda can find a different number...
I know this much...when a baby is born with a condition, there is a continuum of severity..and we cannot always predict the outcome. And...quality of life varies based on value judgements...most parents, don't understand the issues of taking care of a severely multiply impaired child. And doctors can't quantify "quality of life". So...again...we save them all. Should we reserve medical care for only the ones who can afford it? I would be okay with that...
Amen Sister and certainly not a 'strawman' argument. Do pro-lifers value the sanctity of life enough to pay for the cost of birthing this baby?
Yes or No? The family could go out and work the day long and still NEVER be able to pay for the medical costs.
Seems to me that we owe the child some kind of medical care ~ especially pro-lifers, who would argue all day long that this child should not be aborted.
I think people can get care but not extra-ordinary expensive care unless they are paying for their private insurance.
In a case like this one I am sure charities would have come forward to help.
"The Browns never considered abortion. They believe that Pearl is "fearfully and wonderfully made," as Psalm 139 puts it, and God alone should decide when she lives and when she dies."
So why is the state paying for anything? To me it looks like the state is standing in the way of God.
I'm that cold too. I agree with this. They are emotionally unable to deal with this and using religion to weave a web of comfort for themselves. None of it makes sense and society is paying a big cost for them to be able to feel better. If they really belived what they proclaim to believe they would have brought her home, held her and comforted her and let her pass on naturally. God didn't make her that way, flawed biology did.
Amen Sister and certainly not a 'strawman' argument. Do pro-lifers value the sanctity of life enough to pay for the cost of birthing this baby?
Yes or No? The family could go out and work the day long and still NEVER be able to pay for the medical costs.
Seems to me that we owe the child some kind of medical care ~ especially pro-lifers, who would argue all day long that this child should not be aborted.
Cases like this usually have charities that take this stuff over.
There isn't enough assets to sustain super expensive care for anyone IMO unless they paid through the nose for some great insurance.
God's will to have a baby be born? Sure...
Does it mean that it is God's will to break the family's bank to try and keep life going after birth when it does not want to? I think not. That is called nature.
I think you give some basic help and if it doesn't make it then such is life.
At least the child could get to die with dignity (if at all) instead of having it's body parts ripped off of it one at a time while alive in the womb...
I started this thread because my first reaction to reading this article was that these were selfish parents who were using their religious beliefs to justify keeping alive an essentially non-viable human on the tax payer's dime. I would have had the same reaction had the non-viable human been an unconscious, end-of-life 90 year old whose selfish family was insisting that every effort be made to keep their elderly relative alive.
In both cases, the expensive, life prolonging treatment is not for the benefit of the patient - who is essentially insentient - but rather for the family. I don't believe that the finite public dollars available for the medically needy should be spent on hopeless cases. I do think that it is possible for intelligent, rational people to create a rubric that will assist in determining what is or isn't a hopeless case.
Thanks for the so far civil discussion - a relatively rare occurrence on this forum.
I have known families who knowingly had children with severe genetic conditions...that cost tax payers millions of dollars....in medical, education, social security benefits, group home and activity center payments...one family had three children with Fragile X syndrome. Easily detected by amniotic fluid testing. And because that is genetic, the Mother knew she was a carrier.
If you have issues with this child...where do you draw the line? Are you the one who should be the "king" and decide which babies should be aborted? Or if born, which ones should have medical treatment and which ones should be placed in a corner? Or should we just do genetic testing on all fertile teens...and decide who should be allowed to breed and who should have surgery to prevent pregnancies which may end up with genetic problems? And where do we draw the line? Down Syndrome children? Live or die?
See...it is nor so simple...which is why we save them all.
Then you need to pay for it via charities.
And that mother should be spayed.
She's bilking the tax payer and laughing about it.
YOU take care of those babies. I can't afford them.
Downs babies can and do live productive lives. They are wonderful, extremely dedicated workers. Don't put Downs kids in the same category.
She's bilking the tax payer and laughing about it.
YOU take care of those babies. I can't afford them.
Downs babies can and do live productive lives. They are wonderful, extremely dedicated workers. Don't put Downs kids in the same category.
Where did you see the mother laughing about having to rely on tax payer dollars? The father is remorseful about have to rely on 'welfare' - he states that he is thankful for the assistance.
Why do you suggest that the mother be "spayed"? Her other two children are fine and until this baby came along, they were a self-sustaining family.
There are not enough charities in this country to take care of all the sick, but curable/treatable children.
In all honestly, I would have aborted upon diagnosis had I been in their position, although I respect their right to continue the pregnancy. I think the child deserves palliative care only, no more, no less.
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.
