Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Seven months pregnant

My son is now less than two months from being born. He is fully formed and would probably be okay if he were born today (though that's not what I want and would not be best for him).

He already is developing a personality--he seems more active and more stubborn than his big sister. He has definite opinions about the positions he prefers. He is kicking me very regularly as I type this--the only thing Firstborn ever did regularly was hiccup, and this is a lot more random than that. Come to think of it, I don't know if my son has even had the hiccups.

He probably weighs 3 or 4 pounds now. He probably looks like you would expect a newborn to look, only smaller and skinnier.

And it would be completely legal for me to have him killed.

There's no reason for that. It would be no more harmful to me--probably less--to simply give birth to him at this point. An injection could give his lungs a better chance, and he would likely live a full and productive life, though he might face temporary setbacks or possibly permanent difficulties due to his prematurity. If I decided I no longer wanted my son (and I do want him so much!), there would be plenty of families willing to love him and raise him as their own, even if he did face challenges due to being born early.

There is no reason for abortion to be legal after viability. It's not about bodily sovereignty. It's not about choosing whether to be pregnant. It's about choosing whether a child may live or die.

Late abortions are about killing babies.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post should be taken to imply that I support women making the decision to give birth early because they do not want their children or do not want to be pregnant anymore. Nothing in this post should be taken to indicate that I think a woman's right to do what she likes with her body should trump a child's right to life at any stage of pregnancy.

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

Blogger Emily Heizer said...

I just wanted to say.. I REALLY liked this post.

I actually really enjoy the way you write. I liked the post about the land for sale across the street and wish you would update your blog more! With pictures! I'd love to see what rural Massachusetts looks like!

I live in california, and I did go to Hartford, CT for a wedding in October, and did some driving through MA, VT and NH and loved ALL of it so, so much. If I could handle snow, I might have had to move! But alas... lol

2:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree that there is no reason abortion should be legal after viability. however, you should consider that some women dont discover that the child they are carrying has a terrible, terminal defect (ie encephaly-no brain) until after 7 months, making the pregnancy unviable regardless. these woman should be allowed to have an abortion (labor induced or otherwise) so they can begin grieving the loss of their very wanted child and move on. im pretty sure the vast majority of abortions after 7 months are of very wanted pregnancies unfortunate to have fetal anomalies (something like 90 percent)

11:58 PM  
Blogger Young Christian Woman said...

Ah, finally we get someone who wants to say that disabled children are undeserving of life.

Tell me, do you feel that way about born disabled children as well?

Do you realize that children with anencephaly (encephaly would mean having a brain) are not completely unresponsive, and that children with anencephaly have occasionally lived for years?

Did you realize that most of those who abort because their child is "defective" do not do so because of a fatal condition, but a treatable one? Did you realize that 90% (or so) of children with Down's Syndrome are aborted, yet there are waiting lists of people who want to adopt, specifically, a child with Down's Syndrome?

You might say "sure, but there are fatal defects." The problem is that those who set policy--and sometimes even doctors--are as uninformed as you about which defects are necessarily fatal--very few always are--and what quality of life the affected child will have.

I have also never understood the principle of "this child is going to die; therefore, we must kill him first." It is neither humane, logical, nor helpful to the parents. Why not let the child live a couple more months so that his or her parents can have that extra time? Why burden them with the guilt of making that choice in addition to their grief? Why leave them wondering whether maybe their child would have been one of the few to survive?

There is no such thing as an unwanted child. If no one else wants that child--I do. And I question whether "wanted" is the right term for the pregnancy when the child becomes unwanted if it terms out he or she is imperfect. Those parents want a mythical perfect baby, not their baby.

What makes you "sure" of your numbers? Any actual research? And does the termination for medical reasons, if you looked up statistics at some point, include just those with fatal defects, or also disabled babies with nonfatal or even treatable conditions?

6:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home