Daily Hampshire Gazette - Established 1786
Snow/fog
33°
Snow/fog
Hi 38° | Lo 25°

Alexis Pomella: Terminating pregnancy is a woman’s choice

File - In this July 9, 2013 file photo, 
The abortion debate rages on. Opponents and supporters of an abortion bill hold signs near a news conference outside the Texas Capitol, in Austin, Texas. Planned Parenthood teamed up with the Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in federal court Friday to block key provisions of a new abortion law that sparked massive protests and threw the Texas Legislature into chaos before it was approved this summer. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

File - In this July 9, 2013 file photo, The abortion debate rages on. Opponents and supporters of an abortion bill hold signs near a news conference outside the Texas Capitol, in Austin, Texas. Planned Parenthood teamed up with the Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in federal court Friday to block key provisions of a new abortion law that sparked massive protests and threw the Texas Legislature into chaos before it was approved this summer. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File) Purchase photo reprints »

To the editor:

As a student nurse, much of my learning this year has been dedicated to exploring and debating ethics in health care. One specific ethical dilemma which caught my attention is the decision to terminate pregnancy based on negative prenatal screening results. I strongly believe that this should be based solely on the decision of the mother due to principles of autonomy and non-maleficence.

A woman’s decision about her own body is best left to that woman, not to society or to care providers. A woman’s decision regarding termination is especially prudent in cases in which continuing with the pregnancy could cause harm to her own body, whether it be physical or mental. Many women receiving these prenatal screening tests are women 40 and above, because they are most likely to have a child with a disability such as Down syndrome.

A woman at this age might not have the youth, the time or the patience and mentality for caring for a child with Down syndrome. A woman is entitled to her own choice, especially in circumstances such as these. Furthermore, caring for an impaired child, let alone a fully healthy child, requires extra financial and familial resources.

The term non-maleficence calls to first do no harm. If a parent knowingly brings an impaired child into a world where they don’t have enough money to feed them, provide them with necessities and provide them with the extra health care that they need to flourish, then that parent is going against the moral principle of non-maleficence, because harm is being done.

The birth of a child should be in a manner in which they are brought into a world where they may thrive in the situation they are placed. To bring a child into the world under any other circumstance is ignoring the moral duty of non-maleficence. Clearly in cases such as the ones presented, it is a woman’s moral responsibility and right to terminate the pregnancy. It is ultimately her choice.

Alexis Pomella

Hadley

Legacy Comments7

Abort all girls? Is that OK? Alot of people only want boy babies. Is sex selection a morally valid criteria for having an abortion of an otherwise healthy fetus? What about aborting until you get a blue eyed blond haired fetus. The technology exits to determine that now. Is that morally OK? What about gene therapy and designer babies? That technology is around the corner. What if they determine there is a gay gene - then is it OK to abort a fetus soley because it will grow up to be a gay person? What about aborting if the fetus won't have an above average IQ or if the adult will be prone to obesity? Obese people have low self esteem. Is it fair to allow them to even be born? I think not. These are real decisions coming up for our species to deal with but according to this writer it will be hers and only her choice. Can you imagine a world where there are no women and only gay blond hair blue eyed guys? I say go for it! I say god bless planned parenthood and Margeret Sanger for making that world a possibility with their early eugenics research. And I agree with the author it is a moral imperative to kill all the downs syndrome fetuses. That one we all agree on. To quote the author "If a parent knowingly brings an impaired child into a world where they don’t have enough money to feed them, provide them with necessities and provide them with the extra health care that they need to flourish, then that parent is going against the moral principle of non-maleficence, because harm is being done." I say abort the little bugger (but please don't tell any downs syndrome people you see today that they are better off dead). From todays headlines in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10360386/Law-does-not-prohibit-sex-selection-abortions-DPP-warns.html

Party on, crazy. I hope your offline life isn't as sad as I imagine it to be.

And, by the way, on strictly moral grounds, I'm not crazy about Pomella's argument here. I actually don't agree with the bit on non-malefisence at all. But I also recognize that this is the kind of discussion that requires a kind subtlety that you're incapable of. And associating this argument with Planned Parenthood and Sanger is, again, part of a common argument by your fellow dimwits that has been addressed repeatedly by them and other organizations. Why don't you stick to fluff posts about burger chef or your entertaining little oil shales tycoon fantasy? Or maybe you can find another upcoming scientific study and rant about how it's going to say the opposite of what it will ultimately say? Your recent war against "straights" is also a promising one. Maybe you can get a few months of pathetic clown mileage out of that one.

You may think I'm crazy but here's a link right off gazettenets live news feed about this very subject. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/ethical-issues-scientists-peek-baby-genes-20490722

I think you're more pathetic than crazy. And if this actually got on ACB news, I'm sure it's very different in both substance and style from the silly rabbit hole you would take it down.

So lets pass a law to kill ALL handicapped and disabled people since they are such a burden. Lets start a eugenics program like in Nazi Germany to euthanize anyone we don't think is able to have a valuable life according to your standards. Wasn't that how Margerat Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood saw the fight for abortion rights? "As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."[73] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit".

Is it desparation, or ignorance, that informs Gary's post? Is it that you are so desiring for negative attention that you figure this is a good cause for your trolling? Or are you really too dumb to recognize the difference between this person refering to a woman's individual choice and Eugenics policies that were based on the state's choice of who was fit to reproduce? I thought you liked individual liberty! Whether or not you agree what Alexis Pomella is saying, the leap from her arguing for a woman's choice to state eugenics is one that only an intellectually vacuous contrarian or a semi-literate dimwit would make. Which one are you? By the way, if you had bothered to read the wikipedia article from which you cut and pasted these sentences about Sanger, you'd realize all of the work that Planned Parenthood has done over the course of decades to denounce Sanger's eugenics. Planned Parenthood has also pointed out at length how using Sanger as a proxy is a favorite tactic of feeble minds like your own.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.