Abortion performed on Miami disabled rape victim

[renata]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/florida.abortion/index.html

Six days after a Circuit Court judge granted permission, a deaf mentally disabled rape victim had her 6-month-old fetus aborted.
....
The procedure capped a week of legal maneuvering in the emotionally jarring case. An Orlando Pro-Life group, the Liberty Counsel, filed a motion in the Miami court to serve as guardians for the unborn child. The motion was filed three days after the judge's ruling, which followed two days of testimony.

The judge denied the motion, and appeals to the Florida Supreme Court also were rejected.

.....
Through a court spokesman, the judge later released a written statement in which he said "the mother of the ward did not want her daughter to be subjected to any more of an invasive procedure than was absolutely necessary. ... This taken together with the greater weight of medical opinion that the fetus was subject to an extremely high risk of morbidity, foreclosed brief reconsideration of alternatives."

Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Liberty Council, said he was very disappointed that the abortion took place.

"It's very unfortunate and sad that baby Doe was aborted. It's a sad commentary on our judicial system," he said.

Lance Block, the attorney representing the disabled woman's mother, said the group "was grandstanding and had no standing whatsoever in this case."

.....

The woman's mother, however, said she had been told by doctors early on that pregnancy could be life-threatening to her daughter, who became disabled from bacterial meningitis when she was 3 weeks old, has the cognitive skills of a 4-year-old and now lives in a group home, the AP reported.

.....
While Thursday's abortion procedure seemed to end the Miami case, a similar case in Orlando is headed for a Monday hearing. That case involves a 22-year-old rape victim -- known in court papers as J.D.S -- who was abandoned as a child and has the mental capacity of an infant.

Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida Department of Children and Families have called for the appointment of two guardians -- one for the pregnant woman and one for the fetus. In 1989 the Florida Supreme Court ruled that fetuses couldn't have guardians because they aren't legally people.

.....





Abortion is always such a difficult topic. My views are largely mixed and personal- I think it should be legal up to a certain age of the fetus, but I do not know if I could ever counsel someone to do it.


These cases kept my attention because it was unclear who should make the decision. Clearly, in both cases women were incapable of making the choice or caring for the baby- I assume babies, if kept to term would have been adopted. However, is it right to put a woman through risks and trauma of pregnancy in this case? I wish abortions would have been performed immediately, but it is likely it was not known women were pregnant until they started showing, by which time the decision is so much harder. I have to say that I tend to agree with the decision made by the court in the first case- the mother of the rape victim should have more standing than a pro Life group. The second one- I have no idea.

[jimlintott]

This gets me upset. Life is precious. We should only do what's right for the living. I don't consider a baby alive until it has been born, the cord cut and it is functioning on its own. Until then it is a body part of the female carrying it and the decision to keep or abort should be hers and in a case like this her mother.

This case is one where I think abortion should probably be mandatory.

If you want to make pro-lifers dance around like a carnival carousel tell them that abortion should be mandatory for women under 18.

Our species may have some things threatening its future, inability to reproduce is not one of them.

[Dancing David]

Mixed views but why the heck aren't they out there helping all the poor kids everywhere who are already alive.

Feed the hungry, house the homeless.

This kind of proves my theory that they belief the Jesu of the second coming is going to be born to an unwed teen, but honest mom it was a dove.

I disapprove of the taking of life, but it's not my place to tell the mom what to do. Judge not...

[Fade]

Mixed views but why the heck aren't they out there helping all the poor kids everywhere who are already alive.

Which is exactly what I often say. I feel that in order to be a pro-lifer, you MUST be taking care of as many children as you are physically, emotionally, and financially able to take care of, and you must keep taking in more and more children until the time you are physically or emotionally unable to do it anymore.

If unwilling to do this, pro-life words mean nothing, because it would mean the person is a living fount of hypocricy.

[celter]

Originally posted by Fade


Which is exactly what I often say. I feel that in order to be a pro-lifer, you MUST be taking care of as many children as you are physically, emotionally, and financially able to take care of, and you must keep taking in more and more children until the time you are physically or emotionally unable to do it anymore.

If unwilling to do this, pro-life words mean nothing, because it would mean the person is a living fount of hypocricy.

I don't want this to come across as confrontational, but I wonder if your expectations of what the pro-lifers need to do to avoid being labelled hypocrites are driven by the position you take on a women's right to choose.

I know this is stretching a bit, but is it hypocrisy to be critical of policies and programs that lead to the death of nearly 40,000 3rd world children every day while not devoting every penny and every ounce of energy you have trying to prevent those deaths?

Is it hypocrisy to rail against civilian deaths in Iraq, before or after the war, while not doing everything in your power to help prevent them?

We all talk the talk; very few of us walk the walk.

I am pro choice, but I'm not so quick to speak against pro-lifers. I know many of them (and am related to some) and I find that without exception they are motivated not by a desire to control women, as some on the pro-choice side suggest, but by a genuine desire to protect what they see as human life.

Many of my friends are pro-life Catholics. We disagree about a lot of things, but I wish I had half their energy and commitment when it comes to advocating for and working toward social justice, including feeding the hungry and housing the homeless.

[voidx]

I believe rape is the no holds barred abortion situation. It was not intended or planned upon. Its also not a cae of not taking contraceptive but still leading an active sex life, taking your chances. If raped the pregnancy should be terminated if so wished by the mother, no questions asked. Think of it this way. I am a crazy mad scientist, I have forcefully implanted the embryo of a living creature within you against your consent. However, you must carry it to term because the law says. You're rights over your own body do not matter. Rape is equivalent to this, and is the one case where I would consider no arguement against allowing abortion. Any other case is grey. On one hand I say to bad, take responsibility for your actions, its not as though in this day and age we don't know what will and will not lead to pregnancy. You only fooled yourself if you plead ignorance. On the other hand, if forced to bring this child to term, its unclear what kind of life it may lead with parents not able and ready to support it emotionally and financially. And is the system of adoption efficient enough to handle all the possible non-aborted, unwanted children? It had better be if this is your arguement.

[Denise]

I am uncomfortable with the age of the fetus being six months. Isn't there some sort of legal fast track for these situations?

I am prochoice, but I think that abortion should be outlawed at say after 20 weeks unless there is a compelling situation. I think abortion at six months gestation is horrendous and probably about as painful as giving birth anyhow.

As to the prolifers that think abortion is acceptable in the case of rape- what difference would that make? Either you consider it a life with a right to exist or not.

[reprise]

I - too - am wondering whether it was legal challenges which prevented this pregnancy being terminated during the first trimester.

Pregnancy testing following rape is fairly standard and it seems unlikely that if this young woman's mother was aware of the rape she was unaware of the possibility of her daughter becoming pregnant. If it was legal challenges which delayed the termination of this pregnancy (and the mother's statement suggests it must have been), then what a horrible situation the law has forced this mother and her daughter to endure. Were it not for the legal challenges, the foetus would not have been 6 months old at the time of termination.

How very, very sad. :(

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by reprise
I - too - am wondering whether it was legal challenges which prevented this pregnancy being terminated during the first trimester.

Pregnancy testing following rape is fairly standard and it seems unlikely that if this young woman's mother was aware of the rape she was unaware of the possibility of her daughter becoming pregnant. If it was legal challenges which delayed the termination of this pregnancy (and the mother's statement suggests it must have been), then what a horrible situation the law has forced this mother and her daughter to endure. Were it not for the legal challenges, the foetus would not have been 6 months old at the time of termination.

How very, very sad. :(

Exactly. Abortion was the right thing to do here, the bad thing was the legal problems in the first place.

Leave it to conservatives to make a bad situation worse for their own attempt to get their way and enforce their views on others.

[renata]

I assumed that it may have taken a long time for a pregnancy to show, and that was the reason fetus is 6 months old. Legal delays may have played a part as well. We do not know whether the rape was apparent at the time. Unfortunately, there are many instances of abuse in these cases that go unnoticed. I remember reading a case in NY where a woman in a coma was pregnant- they noticed quite late in the pregnancy. She was raped by one of the orderlies. I do not recall what happened to that preganancy.

[corplinx]

Hrm.... if you have a disabled person hold a dolphin, its supposed to be great for them. I guess holding a baby must make them more disabled.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Denise
As to the prolifers that think abortion is acceptable in the case of rape- what difference would that make? Either you consider it a life with a right to exist or not.

You make an excellent point. The status of the fetus as a live human should not depend on factors beyond its control, like its mode of conception. To kill it because of what someone else did makes no sense.

[TomStockholm]

Originally posted by Denise
I am uncomfortable with the age of the fetus being six months. Isn't there some sort of legal fast track for these situations?

I am prochoice, but I think that abortion should be outlawed at say after 20 weeks unless there is a compelling situation. I think abortion at six months gestation is horrendous and probably about as painful as giving birth anyhow.

As to the prolifers that think abortion is acceptable in the case of rape- what difference would that make? Either you consider it a life with a right to exist or not.


Your last point is a very good question.

Abortion, in Sweden at least, is outlawed totally after the 23rd week unless there is a real danger for the mother's life. Usually you cannot have an abortion after week 21.
The distinction made in Sweden is one between fetus and child, and this is the justification given for these cut off points. When the baby is considered a fetus it is abortable, after a cut off point (23 weeks) it is considered a child.

My son, who today thankfully is fully healthy, was born in the beginning of the 25th week of pregnancy. Other kids in the neonatal unit where he was born were even more premature, some were born as early as week 21. It makes you think.

My feelings on this subject have changed a bit since my son was born. If abortion is considered as a pragmatic solution to a particular situation then at least have the honesty and decency to call it that. For me this distinction between child and fetus is a very dodgy one.

I wonder what will happen the day we develop a heart and lung machine that can keep a child born in the 15th week alive. Do we redraw the line again as we have done previously? What about the day in the future when we can develop artificial wombs? Will this in the end be the reason why pro lifers may be victorious?

It costs a lot of money to nurture a premature baby to health. I wonder about the status for such children, but that is a side issue. Maybe the cue for another thread...

I am not anti abortion. I think individuals should be far more restrictive than they are in a country like Sweden, but ultimately I think I agree with the pro choicers that the woman has the right to make the decision herself.
But let's not justify it on these sketchy distinctions. If we argue that any baby inside a woman, who is dependent on that woman to survive is a part of that woman, then logically you should be able to abort all the way up to the actual birth. Thankfully this is not likely to happen very often.

Otherwise I do not see how the argument can work.

But this is a very difficult question...

[Fade]

Originally posted by celter


I don't want this to come across as confrontational, but I wonder if your expectations of what the pro-lifers need to do to avoid being labelled hypocrites are driven by the position you take on a women's right to choose.

Absolutely not. I despise abortion, but I understand it's purpose and place in the world.

I know this is stretching a bit, but is it hypocrisy to be critical of policies and programs that lead to the death of nearly 40,000 3rd world children every day while not devoting every penny and every ounce of energy you have trying to prevent those deaths?

We're dealing with human life here.

Is it hypocrisy to rail against civilian deaths in Iraq, before or after the war, while not doing everything in your power to help prevent them?

Again, we're dealing with human life, not esoteric dilemna. I dislike war, but there isn't something I can do, and that's the point. Taking a political stance on idealism isn't like taking a stance against the ability of a person to choose what happens to their own bodies. If you are railing against a freedom, then you must take responsibility for what happens.

Everything else is irrelevant.

[celter]

Fade wrote: “I dislike war, but there isn't something I can do, and that's the point”

There are many things one could do to support anti war beliefs, just as you say there are many things one could to support anti-abortion beliefs. Some people went to Iraq to take direct action. Others devoted all the time they could protesting and advocating in their homeland. My point is that one is not obligated to do these things simply by virtue of their taking a position against the war.

You said that pro-lifers, “...MUST be taking care of as many children as ... physically, emotionally, and financially able to take care of”, or be labeled hypocrites. I don’t understand why you think that pro-lifers alone must commit every resource they have to support this particular position. Many of us advocate for various causes and invest only the resources we feel we are able to, or want to. It does not make us hypocrites simply because we are capable of investing more of ourselves. Why is it only pro-lifers that would be labeled so?

Fade wrote: “If you are railing against a freedom, then you must take responsibility for what happens.”

Is it only if you “rail” that you have these obligations? And must it be a “freedom”?
A majority of Americans are opposed to abortion on demand. I would not call them all hypocrites simply because they also have other values and priorities in their lives and don’t or can’t act passionately in support of that opposition.

[reprise]

Originally posted by renata
I assumed that it may have taken a long time for a pregnancy to show, and that was the reason fetus is 6 months old. Legal delays may have played a part as well. We do not know whether the rape was apparent at the time. Unfortunately, there are many instances of abuse in these cases that go unnoticed. I remember reading a case in NY where a woman in a coma was pregnant- they noticed quite late in the pregnancy. She was raped by one of the orderlies. I do not recall what happened to that preganancy.

Renata, the article says that doctors told the mother early in the pregnancy that the pregnancy could be life-threatening to her daughter, which is why I'm assuming that it is legal challenges which prevent the pregnancy being terminated earlier.

[renata]

Originally posted by reprise


Renata, the article says that doctors told the mother early in the pregnancy that the pregnancy could be life-threatening to her daughter, which is why I'm assuming that it is legal challenges which prevent the pregnancy being terminated earlier.

I missed that- my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by renata
I assumed that it may have taken a long time for a pregnancy to show, and that was the reason fetus is 6 months old. Legal delays may have played a part as well. We do not know whether the rape was apparent at the time. Unfortunately, there are many instances of abuse in these cases that go unnoticed. I remember reading a case in NY where a woman in a coma was pregnant- they noticed quite late in the pregnancy. She was raped by one of the orderlies. I do not recall what happened to that preganancy.

Live birth, they didn't discover the pregnancy or the rape until the woman was in labor. Both mother and infant survived.

This case is pretty tough since each comatose patient comes with their own set of problems. In the case you mentioned the woman had been an adult when she became comatose, in the case that started this thread, the woman had been comatose since infancy. She could have had many other problems that a person who reached adulthood or even passed infancy before going into a coma would not have to face.

[Fade]

There are many things one could do to support anti war beliefs, just

Hippies would have you believe this.

How many tens of thousands of people protested the war?
What did it accomplish?

Our system only allows us our opinions when it comes to elections. After that, we have 0 say. Perhaps people can lobby that a given bit of legislature be added or removed, but our ability to affect anything in the immediate sense does not exist. We can do nothing.

just as you say there are many things one could to support anti-abortion beliefs.

If you don't want people to abort, take care of their children. That is the only correct answer.

Some people went to Iraq to take direct action.
:rolleyes:

Which people? What did they accomplish? Oh mr soldier please go back home?

. Others devoted all the time they could protesting and advocating in their homeland.

And the war continued..

My point is that one is not obligated to do these things simply by virtue of their taking a position against the war.

Even though I have responded to this line of thinking, it's not relevant at all to the discussion at hand.

You have no control at all over your government directly. None. You can not effect it in any way, shape, or form outside of killing a bunch of people. If the issues weren't disparate enough already, this makes it even more so. If I convince even one person not to have an abortion, that is another mouth this world needs to feed. That is another child that will most likely grow up unloved, unwanted, and impoverished. I am now responsible for that child, because my actions directly effected it's future.

You said that pro-lifers, “...MUST be taking care of as many children as ... physically, emotionally, and financially able to take care of”, or be labeled hypocrites. I don’t understand why you think that pro-lifers alone must commit every resource they have to support this particular position

The term pro-life describes any person who believes abortion ought to be outlawed. Not the other way around. They are the only people asking for abortion to be outlawed. I say they need to take responsibility for their actions.

Many of us advocate for various causes and invest only the resources we feel we are able to, or want to. It does not make us hypocrites simply because we are capable of investing more of ourselves. Why is it only pro-lifers that would be labeled so?

Mind being specific?

Is it only if you “rail” that you have these obligations? And must it be a “freedom”?

Semantics. Beautiful.

A majority of Americans are opposed to abortion on demand.

AND on-demand statistics. Even MORE beautiful!

I would not call them all hypocrites simply because they also have other values and priorities in their lives and don’t or can’t act passionately in support of that opposition.


The position of a pro-lifer is, distilled to it's essence, the idea that I can tell you to do whatever I want with your body. The position of a pro-lifer is that their opinions, their ethics, their moralizing is more important than the choice of the only people involved. The position of a pro-lifer is, by nature, ignorant and anti-American.

[reprise]

I have enormous respect for the mother for her willingness to go the distance on this one. It must have been tempting at times to drop the case at this late stage and have the child delivered by caesarian section in a couple of months time in order to minimise the possibility of complications during delivery, and then to quietly adopt the baby out.

[celter]

Quote:
“The term pro-life describes any person who believes abortion ought to be outlawed. Not the other way around. They are the only people asking for abortion to be outlawed. I say they need to take responsibility for their actions.”

That’s a key point I think. Perhaps I’m defining pro-life more broadly than you, but I expect that only a very small minority of pro-lifers take any action at all. They don’t protest at hospitals or get in the faces of patient or shoot doctors, it isn’t that high on their list of priorities. Whatever the majority seems to support, or whatever they call themselves in polls, they aren’t acting on those beliefs or influencing anyone’s decision on abortion.

Anyway, your post did help me to understand your position more clearly, though there did seem to be an unnecessarily snide tone. We’re probably not going to agree on whether it’s reasonable to label them all as hypocrites for not giving everything financially and emotionally to support a position not that firmly held or important to them. I suppose I would have different expectations for those who are taking direct action though.