Thanks for this extremely thoughtful reply, Carolyn. Your point A is similar to what my Law Professor brother says when I discuss this with him. And your points in A make a lot of sense.
Your point C resonates with me too.
My issue is that I just can't get over my belief in the personhood of that unborn baby, even though it is true tha…
Thanks for this extremely thoughtful reply, Carolyn. Your point A is similar to what my Law Professor brother says when I discuss this with him. And your points in A make a lot of sense.
Your point C resonates with me too.
My issue is that I just can't get over my belief in the personhood of that unborn baby, even though it is true that baby is dependent on his/her mother's body until the point of viability. I guess one of my problems is that the point of viability is a moving target as medical interventions improve. Another problem is that I just can't help feeling all kinds of protectiveness for that little baby sucking his thumb in the sonogram.
But again, I will say that I totally understand that some people truly don't see it the way I do, and have very good arguments for their viewpoint.
Thank you as well for taking the time to converse.
I wonder, if we updated viabilty frequently from the medical field, and we picked a number, say 80% of babies will survive if born at x weeks. Could a woman have an option of giving up the baby for adoption at birth induced at viability? Most women would be able to hide the pregnancy from the public.
That would be a possibility, Carolyn. What comes to mind for me:
I think it's too bad that a woman giving up her baby for adoption is sometimes seen by society as a shameful thing(not saying you think that). I am the mother of two wonderful adult children, in their forties, whom we adopted as infants. My son, his family, and I have been in contact with his birth mother for several years (the beauty of DNA testing). She, my son, and I are all thrilled. There was no way she could have kept him, and she is so grateful that he had a loving upbringing.
To my knowledge, adoption most often turns out as fine as families consisting of bio members.
So to continue on with that theme, if the woman decides she would like her baby to live and be adopted, maybe she could carry the baby to term rather than feel she needed to hide her pregnancy?
What you suggest, though, would be a compromise for a woman who wants to give her baby a chance at life but cannot or chooses not , for whatever reason, to carry to term.
I confess that I have a bias in favor of babies being born instead of aborted because I have seen that families can be made in different ways and, of course, I look at my kids and grandkids and realize their birth moms could have chosen not to have them be in the world.
With all that, I continue to be sympathetic and understanding of women whose beliefs about their pregnancies are different from mine and whose situations are their own.
Thanks for this extremely thoughtful reply, Carolyn. Your point A is similar to what my Law Professor brother says when I discuss this with him. And your points in A make a lot of sense.
Your point C resonates with me too.
My issue is that I just can't get over my belief in the personhood of that unborn baby, even though it is true that baby is dependent on his/her mother's body until the point of viability. I guess one of my problems is that the point of viability is a moving target as medical interventions improve. Another problem is that I just can't help feeling all kinds of protectiveness for that little baby sucking his thumb in the sonogram.
But again, I will say that I totally understand that some people truly don't see it the way I do, and have very good arguments for their viewpoint.
Thank you as well for taking the time to converse.
I wonder, if we updated viabilty frequently from the medical field, and we picked a number, say 80% of babies will survive if born at x weeks. Could a woman have an option of giving up the baby for adoption at birth induced at viability? Most women would be able to hide the pregnancy from the public.
That would be a possibility, Carolyn. What comes to mind for me:
I think it's too bad that a woman giving up her baby for adoption is sometimes seen by society as a shameful thing(not saying you think that). I am the mother of two wonderful adult children, in their forties, whom we adopted as infants. My son, his family, and I have been in contact with his birth mother for several years (the beauty of DNA testing). She, my son, and I are all thrilled. There was no way she could have kept him, and she is so grateful that he had a loving upbringing.
To my knowledge, adoption most often turns out as fine as families consisting of bio members.
So to continue on with that theme, if the woman decides she would like her baby to live and be adopted, maybe she could carry the baby to term rather than feel she needed to hide her pregnancy?
What you suggest, though, would be a compromise for a woman who wants to give her baby a chance at life but cannot or chooses not , for whatever reason, to carry to term.
I confess that I have a bias in favor of babies being born instead of aborted because I have seen that families can be made in different ways and, of course, I look at my kids and grandkids and realize their birth moms could have chosen not to have them be in the world.
With all that, I continue to be sympathetic and understanding of women whose beliefs about their pregnancies are different from mine and whose situations are their own.