Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Netroots Nation Previous entry: Meghan Kelly Is One Of God’s Special Children

Sorry, anti-choicers, but everyone dies

Via Ezra, a great post by Joe Klein (!) about how vicious and cruel the wingnuts who are exploiting end-of-life counseling provisions written into some versions of the bill are.  For those who remember the Terri Schiavo nonsense—-and who doesn’t?—-this really should come as no surprise.  And frankly, I’m always glad when the anti-choicers’ opposition to you having the right to die as you wish comes up, because when they’re out there attacking just women’s rights, the mainstream media treats these terminally silly and mean-spirited assholes like they’re serious, nay moral people.  But everyone, including men, faces the possibility of a terminal illness that can be approached in different ways with different amounts of suffering.  When anti-choicers attack the basic rights and dignity of men, especially older men, it’s a different ballgame altogether.*

When anti-choicers fight the right of mostly-elderly people to be able to say no to extensive suffering, Their fundamental fucked-up-ness becomes obvious.  A lot of men have a Madonna/whore complex, but anti-choicers have a Pollyannaish/morbid complex.  On one hand, they’re incredibly morbid people who relish the possibility of forcing others to suffer for their beliefs.  During the Schiavo nastiness, they didn’t even try to hide that they thought that a young widower like Michael Schiavo should be forced not to move on and form other attachments.  The Dr. Tiller murder exposed, I hope, how anti-choicers relish the idea of forcing women to die for their beliefs, or at least forcing them to give birth to babies that suffer for two days and then die miserably.  But if that’s not clear enough, just look at the inroads they’re making in South America, where the Catholic church actively seeks out raped and pregnant 9-year-olds to make a big media stink to fight the abortion and show that the more horrible the situation, the more adamant they are that the suffering should be maximized.  This should surprise no one who has read Christopher Hitchens’ expose of Mother Teresa, who was such a fan of maximizing suffering that she denied people in her hospital painkillers, because she thought pain was good for them.

It’s easy for people to look away from this morbid bent of the anti-choice movement when they just attack women who want early term abortions.  Compared to forcing preteen rape victims to have babies or denying dying people painkillers, punishing the fornicating women with mandatory childbirth seems like small potatoes.  But it’s part of the bigger package.  They’ll maximize suffering wherever they can find a political toehold to do it, and in America, the way to do that is to push Pollyannaish fantasies that obscure the morbid agenda.

And that’s the flip side.  Anti-choicers basically live to deny that their ideas will cause that much suffering.  A ban on late-term abortion?  They deny that there’s any need for it, and focus strictly on babies with Down’s syndrome, as if to imply that women are aborting to avoid the mere inconvenience of a child that needs just a little more help.  That’s why the image of Sarah Palin cuddling Trig is anti-choice porn, because it’s a way for them to tell themselves that women who get medically indicated abortions are deluded about how easy it’ll be just to continue with pregnancy.  They conceal cases where fetuses have their organs on the outside, for instance, and outright deny that there’s such thing as a dangerous pregnancy.  Same story with elective abortions.  There’s huge amounts of anti-choice propaganda that’s basically young women who claim they considered abortion going through with their pregnancies and finding out that a baby makes everything so perfect and amazing.  Sure, there’s a hat tip to the idea that it’s hard—-which is minimized—-but the boyfriend marries you, your parents are thrilled, and life becomes pretty much perfect.  Follow the coverage of Bristol Palin—-who has clearly been instructed to dwell only on drawbacks like “I can’t go to the movies as much”, before she moves on to saying it’s the best thing that ever happened to her—-and you get the picture.  There’s no acknowledgment of the fact that most women who get abortions already have babies, and what little acknowledgment there is of the financial hardships center around pushing some diapers at women and suggesting that sort of charity will fix the problem. 

And that’s what you’re getting with this bizarre “death panels” lie.  They’re out there implying there’s no such thing as situations where prolonging life might be against a person’s own wishes.  That’s why I joke that anti-choicers think they’ll never die.  The only kind of death they’ll admit even happens in this discussion is murder, which they then stand against.  Convenient, that.  But the truth is that everyone is going to die, and because of technology, there’s a wide range of ways that could happen, and you do deserve the right to say how much suffering you should have to endure.

Bill Hicks did a routine in the 90s mocking “pro-lifers”. The joke was, if I may paraphrase: If you’re so pro-life, why don’t you protest graveyards.  Lock arms and don’t let people in.  “No, she can’t come in here!  We’re pro-life!”  “But she was 90 years old and died in a car accident!”  “No exceptions!”

When he made that joke, he was being hyperbolic.  Too bad his prediction basically came true. 

*This is why the “right to lifers” flocked around Terri Schiavo, I suspect.  They’ve had a lot of success stripping away the right to choose as long as their targets are young women, whose judgment and rights are held in very low regard in our society.  So they had a reason to believe that the hostility to letting young women control their own sex lives would translate into hostility to letting young women say, “If I’m ever a vegetable, pull the plug.”  But obviously, they miscalculated because long-suffering Michael Schiavo, who is a married man and allowed to make decisions, was understood by the public to be the one whose basic rights were under assault.  By his in-laws, no less.  Which changed the game immensely. 

 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 09:40 AM • (59) Comments

the mainstream media treats these terminally silly and mean-spirited assholes like they’re serious, nay moral people.

This.

Comment #1: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/13  at  10:51 AM

That’s why I joke that anti-choicers think they’ll never die.

Nah, they’ll all float up to Heaven during the Rapture (coming any time now, we’re always told), where they’ll eat popcorn, drink beer, and enjoy watching everybody who made fun of them suffer all sorts of trials and tribulations.

So I say “Your presence makes me suffer a lot of trials and tribulation right now.  Can you speed this whole Rapture thing up?  Because a world without anti-feminists, power hungry moralizers and mean-spirited fools would sure be Heaven for me.”

So I guess I’m crossed off their Rapture list.  Dibs on Kirk Cameron’s house!

Comment #2: Blue Jean  on  08/13  at  11:08 AM

They only relish the suffering when it’s someone else’s, mind you.  If they’re suffering, it’s considered anti-American - look at those Repub senators demanding instant forgiveness for their sexual trangressions.  Minorities, the disadvantaged=suffering is good for their soul.  White male heterosexual politicians=“Haven’t we suffered enough?”.

I’m just boggled at anyone believing the outright lies.  Not that they’re being told - people backed into a corner will lie their asses off if they think it will work, but that anyone actually believes this blatant nonsense.  It really gives me the shivers.

Comment #3: attack_laurel  on  08/13  at  11:25 AM

...focus strictly on babies with Down’s syndrome, as if to imply that women are aborting to avoid the mere inconvenience of a child that needs just a little more help.

Even this is is a Flintstone’s Chewable Lie.

Down’s children don’t “need just a little more help.” They are a serious investment of time and care, which will not likely go away. They can cause a serious strain on families, between stay-at-home caregiver (usually mom) feels overwhelmed, non-caregiver feeling pushed aside, and non-DS siblings feel neglected because their brother or sister requires so much attention. It’s difficult to gauge the severity of cognitive impairment until you’re facing it. It may be mild, it may be severe, and there could be behavioral problems to boot (imagine not being able to watch another child approach yours without worrying that your child is going to hurt that child).

A lot of people, upon discovering that they’ve got a DS fetus, choose to keep the baby. We’re in no danger of “eugenicizing*” trisomy 21. But I fully support the ability for someone to examine their life and their resources and decide “you know what, I don’t think that I have the physical, emotional, and/or financial ability to care for a child with these needs” and have the abortion before the fetus becomes a child.

* It’s like jazzercize, but with more abortion!

Comment #4: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/13  at  11:30 AM

Oh, and the above was meant to compliment Amanda’s argument, not to nitpick. smile

Comment #5: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/13  at  11:36 AM

Don’t forget, Down’s Syndrome is a Pre-Existing Condition.  Parents who want to keep that baby had better have a secure, stable, high-paying job with a gold-plated health plan, preferably as part of a very large group.

Comment #6: Yawgmoth  on  08/13  at  11:58 AM

Mighty Ponygirl’s comment reminds me of one of Mom’s friends who had a Down’s Syndrome baby.  Ms. Friend’s husband was all anti-choice, but when Ms. Friend discovered she was pregnant again, she told my mom “My first baby has Down’s, and I love her dearly, but I simply cannot cope with another child like her.  If I find out that this one will have Down’s too, then I will get an abortion.  If my husband forbids me, then I will leave him.”

Fortunately for all concerned, the second pregnancy was normal.  I still shudder what would have happened if the activists had been able to decide her fate.

Comment #7: Blue Jean  on  08/13  at  12:04 PM

It’s difficult to gauge the severity of cognitive impairment until you’re facing it.

It’s impossible to gauge the severity of cognitive impairment before birth.  Impossible.

My young brother has DS.  No heart problems.  A bit of reflux as a child, but no structural esophageal issues.  He’s healthy as a horse.

He’s also about as severely retarded as a person with DS gets (proper classification is “moderate”, which is far more retarded than the label suggests to lay people).  On top of that he has Oral Motor Apraxia, which is not a Klingon moon, but a condition where he loses speech.  He understands just about everything; he just can’t get it out.

I love him, and I don’t resent him.  He’s my brother, and for those of you with healthy loving sibling relatioships—would you cut off your sib if they were in an accident and suddenly couldn’t read very much, talk very much, manage money, or live independently?

Of course not.

The difference is with DS, we can tell most of the time if a baby will be born with the syndrome.  We can also gauge health issues such as heart and esophageal problems, especially if severe, in utero.  But we can’t gauge intelligence.

80% of babies with DS are aborted, which makes me sad, but it’s much better than forcing people who are unable or unwilling to care for a child to have that child and then either abuse it or neglect it.

I like the idea of offering counseling, but I don’t think it should ever be coersive.  Finding out your fetus has DS is a shock; having a supportive group to talk to would be helpful.  Problem is, you need people who can be supportive without insisting that you have to keep the baby no matter what.  You need a support group that can support the choice of “no”.

My mom had to fight tooth and nail to make sure my brother got everything he deserved.  It’s not an easy road, though we think it’s worth it.  That said, I was infinitely relieved every time my prenatal tests showed normal babies.  I never had to make that choice, and even though I’m 90% sure what I would have done, I was never in that position.  And until you are, you can’t know your decision.

I remember back in the days of Karen Ann Quinlan.  The doctors kept her on life support long after her family wanted her taken off.  It was her court case that gave families the right to turn off the machines.  Back in the 70s, the fear was you would be put on machines and kept alive artificially against your will by doctors who didn’t want to “lose” to death.

Now, we have Terri Schiavo—and crazy people who want to keep a body alive against the advice of doctors and against the will of a person who didn’t want to be propped up by tubes and wires.

Did the GOP forget how pissed off people were by their interference in the Schiavo case?  Of course the 28%ers were all for it, and that’s who the GOP cater to today.

Comment #8: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  08/13  at  12:08 PM

Parents who want to keep that baby had better have a secure, stable, high-paying job with a gold-plated health plan, preferably as part of a very large group.

You can get medicare/aid for children with DS b/c they are disabled.  Yep, government socialized medicine for handicapped people!  No death panels yet.

My parents kept my brother on their insurance until he was in his 20s by sending in letters annually from his doctor informing the insurance company that hestill had Down Syndrome, and that he was totally dependent.  Annually, they had to remind the insurance agencies that my brother had an incurable, congenital, chromosomal abnormality.

They’re all on Medicare now, so those days of fighting are over.  But

Comment #9: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  08/13  at  12:14 PM

Down’s children don’t “need just a little more help.” They are a serious investment of time and care, which will not likely go away.

Not to mention that Downs children have a whole host of common physical problems, including heart defects, deafness, epilepsy, and early onset Alzheimer’s—the intellectual disabilities are more a side effect than the primary problem.  Your Downs child will have a life full of medical procedures and therapies and, if you’re very lucky, they may live past 50, though they’ll probably have Alzheimer’s by 40.  (Even that is far better than in the 1980s, when the life expectancy was about 25.)

Having and raising a Downs child is a very serious decision that should not be made on someone else’s behalf.

Comment #10: Mnemosyne  on  08/13  at  12:14 PM

If marriage and children are so wonderful, why do these people treat them as if they should be leg-hold traps?

Disabled children keep women home for the rest of their lives. Can’t allow any social programs to mitigate that!  Permanently disabled spouses trap people in the kind of romantic forever marriages that people just have to be trapped into!

Sure, I think that Schaivo is a greedy git and his lawyer doubly so ... but to create that scenario a million times over for lack of directives is an expensive farce!  In any case, divorce should be possible, or a release of a person to remarry regardless of that directive.

Comment #11: Ms Kate  on  08/13  at  12:33 PM

I love him, and I don’t resent him.  He’s my brother, and for those of you with healthy loving sibling relatioships—would you cut off your sib if they were in an accident and suddenly couldn’t read very much, talk very much, manage money, or live independently?

Of course not.

I don’t think people know until it happens to them. It’s great that you were able to have a functioning relationship. But I don’t think that it comes down to “being a good person.” Whenever you find yourself in a situation where your own needs will always and forever come secondary to someone else’s needs, sometimes people just can’t sacrifice that much, especially when you didn’t sign onto it yourself. And without really knowing your particular circumstances, I would hazard a guess that your parents did make sure to give you love and attention so that it wasn’t always about your brother, all the time, but that’s not always the case.

Comment #12: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/13  at  12:33 PM

..focus strictly on babies with Down’s syndrome, as if to imply that women are aborting to avoid the mere inconvenience of a child that needs just a little more help.

“Needing a little more help” would be a child with, say, dyslexia, or ADHD, or a stutter. That’s not what DS is. I really think most people have no idea.

Comment #13: Ben D.  on  08/13  at  12:35 PM

Mnemosyne, the improved prognosis for children with down syndrome comes from 1) better perinatal care sparing precious brain capacity and 2)intensive special education and training geared toward their specific issues.

All of which are socialized, for the most part.  Not every child with Down Syndrome is born to a Wingnut Welfare queen who can afford to privately provide these services.

How much of Trig’s care is paid by state and federal funding, again?

Comment #14: Ms Kate  on  08/13  at  12:36 PM

Ben D., why do I get the impression that Trig is not going to get some of the services so he can retain “family pet and pro-life icon” status?

Comment #15: Ms Kate  on  08/13  at  12:37 PM

Interesting how 20% of the population are wingnuts and sympathizers, while 90% of down syndrome conceptions are aborted, and many of that remaining 10% resulted from unscreened pregnancies and people (like myself) who may identify as liberal but would not choose to abort a prenancy for down syndrome.

Somebody’s not using the play book.

Comment #16: Ms Kate  on  08/13  at  12:42 PM

Now that we’re talking about Trig, there’s something that really bothers me about Palin’s “pro-life, I would never kill off this widdle bundle of joy” posturing.

Palin knew she was carrying a child with Down’s. She had to be aware of the risks not only in carrying, but in delivery.

She went into labor while she was Texas. And she brags that she got onto an eight-hour flight to Alaska “leaking amniotic fluid all the way” so that she could birth Trig with her family doctor.

Now, “leaking amniotic fluid” for eight hours before seeing your doctor seems a little risky to me. Doing so when you know you have a high-risk pregnancy with a child who has been flagged for a difficult delivery is just bone-headed stupid. Beyond simple Palin stupid.

I’m not someone who generally goes after women for their choices when it comes to pregnancy and birth, but my assessment of the facts lead me to believe that decision by Palin indicated that she wanted Trig to die in labor. That she couldn’t have the abortion when she found out because that would “look bad” on her pro-life credentials, but if he didn’t survive the flight, then that was just God calling him home early, y’know?

I don’t believe that Palin engineered the Texas trip so that she could have a stillborn, but her actions (combined with what we know about her opportunistic and hypocritical character) make me deeply suspicious of how much she “really” wanted Trig.

Comment #17: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/13  at  12:51 PM

I wouldn’t get into people’s intentions, MP, especially involving an issue as thorny as this.

Comment #18: Ben D.  on  08/13  at  12:56 PM

I think that Schaivo is a greedy git and his lawyer doubly so ...

Why, Ms. Kate?

Comment #19: seeker6079  on  08/13  at  12:59 PM

Why not? I can certainly understand a preference for having your family doctor deliver the baby, but that’s a pretty damn big gamble if she’s telling the truth and she really was “leaking amniotic fluid” for eight hours in a plane when you can’t pull off and get to a nearby hospital if shit goes south. You know what, if she’s lying, and all she had were some early contractions and she got on the plane then for eight hours and maybe even the water broke while she was in the air, I’d cut her a break except for the fact that she made up a lie to make herself look more heroic. But if she’s telling the truth, and her water broke before she got on an eight-hour flight when she could have had her family doctor call in to consult the attending physician in a Texas hospital (I’m pretty sure that there are a few good hospitals in the state, and that doctors down there know what DS is and how to deliver a high-risk pregnancy), then something tells me that she didn’t want that baby as desperately as she says she did because she took a very serious risk for very little benefit.

Comment #20: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/13  at  01:05 PM

You know what, if she’s lying, and all she had were some early contractions and she got on the plane then for eight hours and maybe even the water broke while she was in the air, I’d cut her a break except for the fact that she made up a lie to make herself look more heroic.

I’d say this is probably more likely, she is a known exaggerator (“Seeing Russia from Alaska means you’re a foreign policy expert” and “OMG! The media is SOOOOOOO MEAN to me!”)

Comment #21: Ben D.  on  08/13  at  01:09 PM

It is disgusting how she tells the media to lay off her children while simultaneously using an infant as a prop, though.

Comment #22: Ben D.  on  08/13  at  01:10 PM

Your Downs child will have a life full of medical procedures and therapies and, if you’re very lucky, they may live past 50, though they’ll probably have Alzheimer’s by 40.

I imagine that a big part of the concern about DS births, and the reason the DS abortion rate has gone so high, is the “advanced maternal age” factor*.  I’m now in higher-risk territory, and would almost certainly abort a DS fetus even though my decision a decade ago may have been different (although even then I assumed that a disabled child would likely lead to divorce at the very least).  Why?- because a 40-year-old mom will more likely not outlive her DS child, and nowadays these are often first pregnancies, so we can’t rely on nonexistent older kids to act as advocates for their disabled siblings after our death.  And while I know from working with them that community agencies do near-heroic jobs with minimal resources, I still wouldn’t leave any disabled adult child of mine completely adrift in the system.  Trig Palin has four older siblings who can look out for him once their parents are gone, which traditionally has been the backup plan if DS kids outlived the parents.

She went into labor while she was Texas. And she brags that she got onto an eight-hour flight to Alaska “leaking amniotic fluid all the way” so that she could birth Trig with her family doctor.

I think that one of Andrew Sullivan’s (yeah, I know) emailers was probably right in speculating that this was the real lie in the Palin birth saga.  I seriously doubt her water actually broke in Texas, although she may have been having some contractions, but of course saying that it had would have made the story that much more dramatic.  The thing that made the Trig-is-Bristol’s-baby conspiracy theory plausible to me is that it actually seemed more sensible than a mother of four with a DS fetus getting onto a plane after her water broke, but really I think she just liked the way saying that made her sound rugged & adventurous.


*this is not in any way to say that women should be having babies much younger, btw

Comment #23: latts  on  08/13  at  01:12 PM

“[...] then something tells me that she didn’t want that baby as desperately as she says she did because she took a very serious risk for very little benefit.”

It seemed like that was what really gave the “It was Bristol’s baby” thing legs.  She had a high-risk pregnancy and by her own account took an intensely pointless and serious risk with it.  It seems less awful to think that she was busting her ass to conceal her teenage daughter’s pregnancy than that she’d chosen to continue the pregnancy while being indifferent or inimical to delivering a live infant due to a survivable disability.

Comment #24: preying mantis  on  08/13  at  01:18 PM

and people (like myself) who may identify as liberal but would not choose to abort a prenancy for down syndrome.

But that’s your choice to make.  Regardless of the straw men that conservatives erect, most liberals do not want every woman to have an abortion if she finds out her child would have Down’s syndrome.  Choosing to continue your pregnancy would not make you any less liberal.

My coworker has a daughter with Down’s Syndrome.  His wife chose to continue the pregnancy.  She chose what she thought was best for her family, and I trust her decision.  That’s the whole frickin’ point!  Liberals don’t generally go around telling women that they have to have an abortion because of Down’s Syndrome.  If there are people who do that, I wouldn’t even consider them liberal.

Comment #25: bananacat  on  08/13  at  01:21 PM

I honestly don’t care if she was lying, or about what (whether her water had broken, whether or not Bristol is the mom, etc). If we take her at her word (which I’m sure she’d prefer) and we juxtapose it with her own rhetoric, shit just don’t add up.

Comment #26: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/13  at  01:23 PM

seriously doubt her water actually broke in Texas, although she may have been having some contractions, but of course saying that it had would have made the story that much more dramatic.  The thing that made the Trig-is-Bristol’s-baby conspiracy theory plausible to me is that it actually seemed more sensible than a mother of four with a DS fetus getting onto a plane after her water broke, but really I think she just liked the way saying that made her sound rugged & adventurous.

I agree with this 100%. Any credence I gave that story (which was not much, but probably more than I should have) can be traced to this bullshit.

Comment #27: Auguste  on  08/13  at  01:27 PM

Disabled children keep women home for the rest of their lives. Can’t allow any social programs to mitigate that!

California has an in-home care program that pays people to take care of relatives who need in-home care, and the wage isn’t very much, even around here in the San Joaquin Valley.

Guess which program got put on the chopping block when the budget had to be fixed?

Comment #28: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/13  at  01:37 PM

The ironic thing here, is that the Schiavo case taught most rational thinking people the lesson of having a living will and the importance of end-of-life decisions to be made in advance whenever possible rather than having your relatives fight it out for 10+ years while you have no control or ability to consent.

And this provision in ObamaCare that allows patients to have access to a doctor’s advice every five years *should they choose to* addresses exactly that need. I work in health care, so I have no problem understanding the ramifications of the fill-in-the-blank advanced directive forms provided by the hospital or what it means to have a medical power of attorney. But for a lot of people…being put on “machines” is something they don’t quite understand the true meaning of. There is a difference between being vent dependent and having a feeding tube. The difference has more to do with other factors (your overall health and cognition level) than the very fact that you are “connected to tubes.” There is also a difference between how you die as a glioblastoma (brain tumor) patient and how you die as a Parkinson’s patient. These factors are not something that your average person already under stress would know without prior medical knowledge. And being able to get their questions answered in advance before it is too late to make decisions is vital to the amount of control you have over your own life.

My mother actually died of a very terminal, low-survival rate cancer. We knew she was terminal about 10 months from her actual death. And it was always interesting to me how very religious people would always say they would pray for her recovery. As if. She was not going to recover no matter how hard they prayed for a miracle. The most we could do was try to make it a “good death” without much suffering. This required making tough decisions and to the extent possible, taking control over how she would die. These religious people never did seem to understand this. It was like you were not supposed to talk about palliative care, you were just supposed to sit back and watch her suffer while you prayed for a miracle.  I never understood this, but maybe Amanda sheds some light on it for me. It is somehow honorable to these people to sit back and let “god” handle it and watch the suffering of someone you love? Why couldn’t you pray for a death without suffering and use the technology that “god” allowed us to invent to make that happen? Why is that being any less faithful?

Comment #29: Lexie  on  08/13  at  01:54 PM

Another difference in the Schiavo case: most if not many families have had to make that decision about end of life issues already.

My father asked us kids to be there when my stepmother was taken off the breathing apparatus (she’d been non-functioning for a month.)

However, not everyone in the family knows when a member made the decision to abort: the social secrey around abortion, while understandable (women who don’t want to be demonized, for one), also means that there are many who don’t realize they know someone who has had to make that decision.

Comment #30: judybrowni  on  08/13  at  01:54 PM

The ironic thing here, is that the Schiavo case taught most rational thinking people the lesson of having a living will and the importance of end-of-life decisions to be made in advance whenever possible rather than having your relatives fight it out for 10+ years while you have no control or ability to consent.

This is what I took away from it, and it made me, at the welp age of 20 (at the time) make a living will just in case.

Comment #31: Ben D.  on  08/13  at  02:02 PM

I seriously doubt her water actually broke in Texas, although she may have been having some contractions, but of course saying that it had would have made the story that much more dramatic.

I don’t know.  I have a…friend who went on an 8-hr road trip and then to 2 days of work after the water broke.  No prenatal care, perfectly healthy first baby.  It’s a bad risk to take, and I can’t imagine a mother of 4 not understanding that, but if you know people who’ve had experiences like that, rather than worst-case ones, then your perception could be skewed.

(I think she’s probably lying or exaggerating, at least about the part where he doctor said it was ok.  That seems really unlikely.)

Comment #32: lonespark  on  08/13  at  02:28 PM

Amanda - I’m surprised you didn’t touch on a huge supporting point, which is that people can simultaneously describe themselves as “pro-life” while opposing health care reform.

Even if the only lives they were concerned about were fetuses, poor access to health care is the reason America has such a craptacular infant mortality rate.  I apologize for being too lazy to hunt down the CDC’s stats on this (they come out every couple of years). But gist was that white and Asian urban babies do about as well as babies in other developed countries; what’s pulling down the numbers is black, rural and native American babies, who do about as well as babies in, say, Somalia. Insurance issues aside, it’s a two-tiered system, and babies born on the wrong tier are SOL.

You’d think, from their rhetoric, that soi-disant pro-lifers would be knocking themselves out trying to fix this. But there are two things keeping them from doing that:
1. They’re not so much about life as about punishing sex as much as possible. So some slut having to watch her baby die is just cherries and whipped cream to these people; and
2. The victims are insufficiently white.

Comment #33: Molly, NYC  on  08/13  at  03:08 PM

God and heaven are so wonderful that you should be kept in a machine that makes you heart beat and lungs breathe for as long as possible before finally coming home to Him. It all makes sense.

Comment #34: Seebach  on  08/13  at  03:08 PM

I’ll be a LOT more coherent later but… “a little more help”. FUCK THEM. My daughter is not only healthy but thus far high-functioning, she can read at a first or second grade level and does two-digit addition and subtraction on her own, more with the aid of a calculator. Still, though, she is one of the primary reasons I had continued to be a stay-at-home parent, in case I have been needed at the school, (and for her younger brother who is pretty severely ADHD) and the difficulty it would be getting child care in the summertime. She won’t “graduate” until she is 21, and then I have to hope there is a group care or room-mate situation for her to go into, the waiting lists are years long. Now I am being forced to try to find work- which means either her 16 year old sister has to be thrust into a child care role (an hour here and there is one thing, but I will not make her a caretaker) or I have to find someone affordable on a minimum wage salary that will take a thirteen year old. Not a lot of people want to take on someone with the hormones of a boy-crazy young teen and the mental capacity of a 7 year old, needing assistance with things like female hygiene.

I have pissed off people in the disabled or disability-advocate community by saying had I known about my daughter’s Down syndrome (no apostrophe and S anymore) I might not have continued the pregnancy. I love her with every fiber of my being now that she is here, but I was and still am unprepared for the challenges.  At age 23 with one healthy child already there wasn’t a pressing need for prenatal tests beyond ultrasound, especially with AFP tests not being terribly accurate 14 years ago. Those people who are strong enough to continue a pregnancy knowing and welcome their child with trisomy 21 into the world, I have nothing but a wish for joy to them. For those who don’t feel they can handle it, or feel wrong somehow knowingly bringing a mentally challenged child into the world who might have varied health issues, it is their decision and nobody else’s. Period.

Comment #35: TheRealistMom  on  08/13  at  03:22 PM

Ben D., why do I get the impression that Trig is not going to get some of the services so he can retain “family pet and pro-life icon” status?

This is one thing I really can’t stand about Sarah Palin, the whole super crip, Trig is an angel nonsense.  That above all else makes me think he’s not going to get the help he needs.  Even if he’s mildly cognitively impaired, he’s still going to be completely dependent on his family for his entire life.

Why?- because a 40-year-old mom will more likely not outlive her DS child, and nowadays these are often first pregnancies, so we can’t rely on nonexistent older kids to act as advocates for their disabled siblings after our death.

Not only that, but what if the child is seriously cognitively impaired?  An 80-year-old woman is supposed to care for a potentially difficult to control 40 year old?  I don’t think so.

Comment #36: keshmeshi  on  08/13  at  03:33 PM

I have pissed off people in the disabled or disability-advocate community by saying had I known about my daughter’s Down syndrome (no apostrophe and S anymore) I might not have continued the pregnancy. I love her with every fiber of my being now that she is here, but I was and still am unprepared for the challenges. ... Those people who are strong enough to continue a pregnancy knowing and welcome their child with trisomy 21 into the world, I have nothing but a wish for joy to them. For those who don’t feel they can handle it, or feel wrong somehow knowingly bringing a mentally challenged child into the world who might have varied health issues, it is their decision and nobody else’s. Period.

Seriously, this.  Thanks to whatever stroke of luck gave me two perfectly normal children, but I was very open about the fact that I almost certainly would have aborted if any tests showed even a possibility of moderate to serious issues with either of them (of course, now I’d abort any pregnancy no matter what, because I’m done with having kids).  Because I really don’t think that I could handle that—I like being able to have my own life and I won’t give that up to be a full time advocate and caregiver for my children.  I’d end up divorced, bitter, and highly resentful of them and quite frankly, no child deserves that.  Especially kids with special needs.

But people get pissed off whenever the subject comes up because apparently my feelings are unnatural and I should just accept whatever comes my way with good grace and not worry about how it will affect my life that I’m perfectly happy with.

Comment #37: ks  on  08/13  at  03:51 PM

They’re not so much about life as about punishing sex as much as possible. So some slut having to watch her baby die is just cherries and whipped cream to these people

Yes, as soon as the baby has caused horrible pain and suffering (and maybe even death) to the slutty mother, it has served its only purpose and doesn’t need to live any longer, especially if it’s not white enough.

Comment #38: bananacat  on  08/13  at  04:23 PM

Seeker, the lawyer was doing his best to empty her trust fund with legal fees, and to dictate care options that profited to his financial interests.  The husband also burned through his part of the settlement received from the drug company and wanted her more substantial care fund as well.

Comment #39: Ms Kate  on  08/13  at  04:35 PM

This thread reminds me of a book I read a while ago “The whole death catalog: a lively guide to the bitter end”.  It is a pretty silly book for the most part, but it brings up the weird (recent) american phenomenon of pretending that death is not an inevitable part of life.  It is strange to me that pro-lifers have this delusion that nature is always perfect, when it should be perfectly obvious that nature goes horribly wrong quite frequently.  According to this book, this glossing over the obvious is a rather new idea.  If I wasn’t lazy, I would maybe tie it to the 20th century emergence of the pro-life movement with evidence.

Comment #40: kitten parade  on  08/13  at  04:42 PM

My coworker has a daughter with Down’s Syndrome.  His wife chose to continue the pregnancy.  She chose what she thought was best for her family, and I trust her decision.  That’s the whole frickin’ point!

I know from how my friends have reacted to that same situation, she is not alone, either!  Liberals do choose to bear high need children!

Which means, of course, that some of those 10% of known down syndrome children who become citizens are born to liberal parents.  If the populations are proportional, that means that there are a lot of wingnuts rah-rahing Palin who made their choice differently.

Comment #41: Ms Kate  on  08/13  at  04:46 PM

Nah, they’ll all float up to Heaven during the Rapture (coming any time now, we’re always told), where they’ll eat popcorn, drink beer, and enjoy watching everybody who made fun of them suffer all sorts of trials and tribulations.

I recall pissing one of these people off by obsessing over taking their stuff after they were gone in the Rapture.  They couldn’t handle the cognitive dissonance of being beyond it all up in Heaven, and having a dirty liberal like me going through their house and carting off their gear.  It’s difficult to keep speaking about your moral superiority when someone keeps interrupting you to ask how big your TV is…

Comment #42: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/13  at  04:46 PM

Mother Avenger used to say of her uncle, Father M, “He’s telling everyone to get on the train to go meet Jesus, and he’ll be on the platform, waving goodbye as you go”.

Comment #43: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/13  at  05:01 PM

PiaToR, that’s brilliant. smile

Comment #44: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/13  at  05:11 PM

So I say “Your presence makes me suffer a lot of trials and tribulation right now.  Can you speed this whole Rapture thing up?

Blue Jean, I am totally going to steal those lines!  :D

Comment #45: Kristen from MA  on  08/13  at  05:57 PM

Proof that they really do believe agony is a good thing:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/dignity_denied.php#comment-1150889

Comment #46: asdf  on  08/13  at  06:10 PM

“The husband also burned through his part of the settlement received from the drug company and wanted her more substantial care fund as well.”

Hadn’t he “burned through it” mostly on care for her?  As I recall, all the nurses who weren’t affiliated with her parents or her parents’ church testified that the man practically lived at the facility with her for the first few years before they figured out that there was well and truly fuck-all anybody could do for her.

Comment #47: preying mantis  on  08/13  at  06:11 PM

Supposing it were true, I can’t quite see being pissed at a husband for wanting to let his brain-dead wife die rather than turning over her body’s care to someone else, just because he might also have a financial incentive.  The lawyer could be scum, but whatever.

Comment #48: lonespark  on  08/13  at  06:50 PM

Ugh, I cannot stand this!  Read www.abstractappeal.com—PLEASE.  Read all the documents.  They are linked there. The Schiavo case was, in every way, completely UNextraordinary.  The relevant legal question was not “did MS want her to die” but what did SHE want, what had SHE expressed.  It was properly litigated in full accordance with Florida law and the court found evidence that Terri Schiavo indicated that she did not wish to be kept alive if in such a state.  (And there was no disagreement whatsoever among the treating neurologists that her state was PVS, and that it was hopeless.)  The courts attempted to carry out HER wishes for HER medical care, not the husband’s wishes.  Anyone who says otherwise just doesn’t have the facts. 

I would hope my husband would be as much of a man as MS was, and stand by me and ensure that my wishes were carried out if I were in such a state.

Comment #49: Susanne  on  08/13  at  07:24 PM

I have pissed off people in the disabled or disability-advocate community by saying had I known about my daughter’s Down syndrome…I might not have continued the pregnancy.

Judging by your own description of things, it seems you’re less upset about the DS than about the lack of available, affordable services for kids thus affected.

Are there respite care programs or/and summer camps nearby for which she might qualify? You’re between a rock and a hard place, and that shouldn’t be.

Comment #50: Nil  on  08/13  at  08:08 PM

@ ASDF Proof that they really do believe agony is a good thing:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/dignity_denied.php#comment-1150889

Oh…yuck. That poor grandmother. There’s no beauty in suffering. Pain is good when it warns you away from something dangerous or alerts you to a problem, but beyond that it serves no positive function. Work with a like-minded medical professional on a palliative plan that alleviates as much pain as possible while still allowing you to function and continue with the activities you enjoy.

Comment #51: Nil  on  08/13  at  08:25 PM

They are thinking about how they can stop the pain, and that seems like it would consume them to the point of irrationality…. here is beauty in suffering.

Has anyone actually heard a person in that kind of pain talk about the beauty and dignity of it?!? And when the pain will only go away with death, it’s supposed to be irrational to want it?

When a person who actually holds that view puts it in his directives that he is to be left to suffer, and then writes inspiringly about how beautiful it is, then I’ll give it legitimacy.

Comment #52: NobleExperiments  on  08/13  at  09:00 PM

Hadn’t he “burned through it” mostly on care for her?

No.  He had a separate piece of the settlement - a chunk of money went to him for the loss of contact with his wife (I forget the legal term).  The remainder of the settlement was placed in trust to pay for her care.

Comment #53: Ms Kate  on  08/14  at  01:01 PM

The whole notion that there is beauty in suffering derives from a time when there was nothing that could be done about that suffering.  It was all anybody had to go on.

Comment #54: Ms Kate  on  08/14  at  01:22 PM

Right, it’s like, well, we’re surrounding by suffering and death, it’s possible for it to more poetic, so let’s shoot for that at least.

Comment #55: lonespark  on  08/14  at  02:28 PM

I would hope my husband would be as much of a man as MS was, and stand by me and ensure that my wishes were carried out if I were in such a state.

mkay.

Make no mistake: this was never about her rights, it was about his rights - which were finally exercised.  This was never about love, either - it was about money.  Schiavo was already financially dependent on his wife at the time of her death.  He got a lawyer who made good money getting him a judgment against the drug company and, when it came to ending her non-life, got that done and got good money for “freeing” the inherited trust.

I don’t think either Schiavo or his lawyer were acting out of the goodness of their hearts here.  They were securing rights against wackjobs, true, but I wouldn’t paint them with selfless valor.  Please.

Romantic Projection: it’s not just for wingnuts anymore.

Comment #56: Ms Kate  on  08/14  at  03:43 PM

I was at a Catholic funeral for a 101-year-old woman yesterday (who BTW suffered enormously in her last year of life—throat cancer that caused her to die a painful death of starvation), and as we left the church on the wall, in French, was a huge poster of smiling elderly folks and a caption that translates to “Euthanasia and assisted suicide: a fatal illusion”.

I wanted to rage at the machine.

Comment #57: Ranylt  on  08/14  at  07:39 PM

I don’t know about opening a giant can of judgement on him, Ms Kate.  if I were in Terri’s shoes, and I have a giant wad of settlement money that is only useful to me to keep me alive and hooked to machines against my will, then probably I’d be ok with it if one of my guardian’s motivations were to take the money and run.  Think of the flip side - would her parents have made such a giant fuss if they didn’t know the money for her care was already there?  Would they have had the courage of their own convictions if it meant eating dog food and living in a van down by the river so Terri’s machine could force her to breathe for one more day?  The autopsy vindicated Michael Schiavo in a major way; I for one would find it more morally acceptable if I discovered Schiavo was taking daily money baths and lighting cigars with twenty dollar bills than to have that same money spent propping up a near-corpse with a dissolved brain so that she could be used as a poster child for crazy people who can’t accept death.  She could only use the money for a purpose she explicitly didn’t want, and even if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, he had the next dibs on it anyway.

Comment #58: Kyso K  on  08/14  at  09:29 PM

Ms Kate:

Have you read Charles Pierce’s Idiot America? He gives a pretty thorough history of the Schiavo case and even interviews people who worked at the hospice. None of them had a bad thing to say about Michael, said he was very devoted and even a little obsessive about making sure Terri was cared for. The outlandish behavior was entirely on the Schindlers’ side, especially the fanatic rabble that gathered at the hospice to protest.

Comment #59: BrianX  on  08/14  at  10:57 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.