Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why would an anti-choice family have testing done?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 03:25 AM
Original message
Why would an anti-choice family have testing done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
moriah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Were they originally having Bristol checked for the baby's ethnicity", you ask?
Quote from Wikipedia:

"There are three purposes of prenatal diagnosis: (1) to enable timely medical or surgical treatment of a condition before or after birth, (2) to give the parents the chance to abort a fetus with the diagnosed condition, and (3) to give parents the chance to "prepare" for a baby with a health problem or disability, or for the likelihood of a stillbirth."

Even if the #2 reason didn't apply, number one and number three still might.

Wow, talk about conjecture on your part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Why bother if you feel it's "God's will" that you hve the baby? n/t


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moriah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Preparation.
One of the senior technicians on our team's wife had just gotten pregnant when I first started here. They are adamantly pro-life.

They had done a quad-screen on her, and there were some concerns, so they did an ultrasound to scan. And discovered that the quad-screen had unusual results because their child had complete bilateral kidney agenesis -- the results were bad because her amniotic fluid was very low.

In other words, their baby would never be able to survive after the cord was cut as it was her body that was cleansing it of toxins, not its own. Amniotic fluid is partially produced from a fetus's urine, and low amniotic fluid can cause many other issues. They also learned it was a boy, would have been their first son.

They chose to continue the pregnancy despite no hope of a good outcome whatsoever. Their son was born during her 7th month of pregnancy, and lived for all of 12 hours.

By knowing in advance that their son was going to die, they got to make plans for how they wanted to spend his life. They were able to do their grieving earlier, get support from their friends and relatives and "church family", prepare their two daughters for the fact that their little brother wasn't going to be coming home from the hospital, and so they got to spend the entire time they had their son focused on him and not dealing with the shock right then.

--------

I personally don't think I could EVER do what they chose to do. Yes, their baby was loved and held for its entire, very short time outside of the womb, but if you've seen someone die of kidney failure, as I have with two of my grandparents, it is a painful miserable condition. I strongly believe that the right to make the choice is of crucial importance.

The fact that Sarah Palin believes that a woman and a family should be forced to continue a pregnancy that has no possible chance of a good outcome for the child, and endure the weeks and months of waiting for the child to be born just to die anyway, is horrific. My coworker and his wife made the choice they did because they believed it was right, and that faith was the ONLY thing that got them through it. If you DON'T believe that it is right to do what they did but yet are forced to, it would be 100 times worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I can see the point.
But I just don't think she looked pregnant. Especially given the size she was with her first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Reason 1) gets tossed given her subsequent behavior
(she clearly was not the cautious type) and reason 3) gets tossed because these are rough-and-tumble "frontiers" people who would never need to "prepare" themselves for such a thing.

Nope, reason 2) is the main reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. But, if you're forcing your daughter to carry to term, abortion isn't
an option for her, either. I say ethnicity. If the baby's too dark, mom can't claim him as hers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. Ok, this one I think could be attributed to wanting to be prepared.
Even if you are not planning on abortion if you were to find signs of trouble, you'd want to have your ducks in a row for any special medical treatment necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Ducks In A Row? Like Purchasing Health Insurance?
Not much to be done as late as the procedure is, as far as I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. That just doesn't fit with their rugged Alaskan image, does it?
The getting on a plane after water breaks, that fits with rugged Alaskan mindset. The carrying the baby strapped to her when she goes to work, that fits. The returning to work 3 days after deliver, that fits.

Having an amnio so you can "be prepared" just does not seem to fit in with everything else they have projected about themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 04:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. Huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC