consistency?

[cellio]

For the last few days there has been a story in the news about a baby that was born with two heads (twins gone wrong). Or, more precisely, about the surgery that was being done to remove one of them. Some of the reported facts got me to wondering about something.

The second head had brain activity. (I understood it to be activity independent of the other brain.) The additional head had eyes, a mouth, and other features that moved and apparently reacted to environment. If the head remained it was certainly going to become a serious hardship for the child, both physically and mentally. It was not clear to me that its presence was directly life-threatening.

So, the doctors removed an entity that was developed enough to have a working brain and body parts, which was infringing on a host entity through no fault of its own, to preserve the health but not necessarily the life of said host.

Now, I have absolutely no problem with that decision. But I wonder how those who are anti-abortion see it. I did not hear of any protests outside the hospital, and I would be somewhat surprised if a significant number of anti-abortion folks actually objected to this surgery. You'd have to be pretty hard-hearted to object to this, I think.

But I wonder about the reasoning. What are the salient differences between this case and abortion that make the former acceptable and the latter not? Is it just that a suffering child tugs on the heart-strings more than a suffering adult? Or is there a real difference? The analogous abortion case would seem to be an unintended, risky pregnancy resulting in a fetus with a serious not-immediately-fatal defect, like Down's. While many anti-abortion people make exceptions for cases like that, many others do not. They're the ones I'm curious about.

Comments

Re:

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

Well, we shouldn't draw the line at merely ways to help people by a slightly better version of taking a 'burden' off their hands. We also need to continue to build networks of support to decrease the instances of someone deciding a child, a person is simply too 'resource-intensive'.

burdens

[cellio]

Of course we as a society need to make sure that children -- and other dependent people! -- have suitable care. Support networks are important in that goal. But some people are just not suitable to raise a highly-dependent child, and I think in those cases it's better to take the "burden" off their hands, for the sake of the child. Better to find adoptive parents who are up to the challenge than to have the kid end up neglected or abused, or the family in chaos (divorced, jobless, other kids neglected to care for this one, etc). I think if parents self-identify as unsuitable we should take their word for it. No one willingly has a child without at least some desire to make things work; if the parents have gone through all that and concluded that the answer is "no", I think it's wrong for outsiders, who aren't in the hot seat, to pressure them.

Re: burdens

[cellio]

Err, I didn't mean to imply that you were doing such pressuring yourself.

Re: burdens

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

I would agree with that. (That if someone really can't care for a child we need options. I would not want someone.... legally penalized.... but I could see asking people who have financial resources if not the emotional ones to help contribute financially to the system that is taking care of the child they could not. 'child support')

I guess I was worrying about the people who might have.... some of the emotional resources if they didn't have to be all alone.... or the emotional resources but not the financial ones... stuff like that.

Everything to do with promoting better human life are complex matters :)

Re: burdens

[cellio]

I guess I was worrying about the people who might have.... some of the emotional resources if they didn't have to be all alone.... or the emotional resources but not the financial ones... stuff like that.

Ah. Yes, volunteer support networks that can help people who want to raise a child but need some help to do so are good things.

I would personally see "child support" payments as appropriate if and only if the parents chose to bring the fetus to term knowing that it was going to need extraordinary care. I would be bothered by the double-whammy of "not only do we require that you complete this pregnancy, but you will also give over a portion of your earnings for the rest of your life to support the result". If you choose to bring a severely-disabled fetus to term, you should share in the support. If you choose not to and someone (e.g. the state) compels you to do so anyway, then I think the result becomes the problem of the entity that compelled you. But I suppose that's my wacky libertarian bent showing. :-)

Re: burdens

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

Well.... can I agree with you in the 'if they chose to..... create the child and then it turned out to have these issues' and feel as squickish about the deliberately-ending-the-pregnancy idea as I would about any human being being killed and we'll say to that extent I have resonance? :)

Re: burdens

[cellio]

Oh sure. If you and I agreed on everything, one of us would be redundant. :-)

Re: burdens

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

LOL!!!