I am deeply disturbed by this story. Parenthood is one of the most noble callings if not the most noble. Like any of those things that completely change your life, there is risk when you bring a baby into the world. Something could go wrong during the pregnancy, during delivery, during the infancy, during childhood. Senseless tragedies happen all the time, and they are awful. They are heart-wrenching and often completely unfair. But responsible adults accept these risks and choose to seek parenthood despite them. Even more, the willingness to accept these risks shows the kind of self-sacrificial love that makes the parent-child relationship so mysteriously strong.
Claiming that a woman is a slave to an unborn fetus (child), whether that fetus is dying or completely healthy, is irresponsible and extremely disrespectful to the self-sacrificial love-in-action that is parenthood. If you are engaging in activities that could lead to parenthood, it behooves you to understand and accept the risks involved. Parenthood is an awesome responsibility, and it seems that the woman in this post was well aware of the risks involved in bringing a baby into the world and accepted them.
Having to watch your child suffer and die is the hyperbole of agony. Yet, every parent risks having to see that by choosing to have a child. The real question here is, “if we know the baby will suffer and die, should we prevent the suffering of both the child and the parents who would witness it by killing the child?” It should not matter whether it is a fetus in the womb, a newborn infant, or a toddler. If suffering and death are sure, is it ethical to kill the child? Why should the parent of a newborn have to watch their little child suffer and die, but not the expecting mother? Shouldn’t both mothers have a choice? Or perhaps neither?
I would not yet pass judgment on someone ascribing to either side of the above argument, but I do take issue with pretending this scenario is about abortion (trying to take away the natural consequences of human actions), when the real ethical question is about euthanasia (trying to prevent suffering that will surely lead to death).The next commenter was full of passion, but no reason:
I will pass judgment on you though, [Guidry]. It makes my skin crawl to read what you wrote and to know that you could actually write it after watching that entire video. I don't know you anywhere but in this online forum, and I thank God for that.Thankfully I was defended, and this comment is one of which I am quite proud:
I, too, was disturbed by [Guidry's] post, but after re-reading it several times, I'm quite intrigued by it. There's a comment that this is about euthanasia and not about abortion, and I think there's a lot of validity to that argument. There's also a comment that people who elect to have child-producing sex have to acknowledge and accept all the risks of having a child, and I agree with that as well. There's also a challenge that our current view of unborn children as "problems to be solved" is ethically inappropriate, and I agree with that as well.
I don't think [Guidry] is condemning either side in the argument, just stating, apparently from the heart, the dilemmas involved. Frankly, I think it's one of the more thought-provoking pieces on abortion I've read in a while.Rational discourse can make people think and even reconsider! That is what this blog is all about.