2006-08-12 09:01:03 · 34 answers · asked by a.liya 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes, of course. Why choose to be saddled with the responsibility to care for a "special" child? For religious sake? For political correctness sake? Puhleeze. I have enough stress to deal with, as it is already.
2006-08-12 09:18:21 · answer #1 · answered by Tala 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I have a child who is retarded. I had a lot of complications at dr's told me to abort at 20 weeks because my water broke. I said no. They said that IF I could carry her for long enough for her to be able to survive, all the time without fluid around her would make her so that she would never walk, talk, could be blind, could be deaf, etc. etc. Well................I carried her almost 8 more weeks. She was born weighing 2 lbs. She's 6 1/2 now. She did walk late (a little over 2 years old), but now walks, sees almost perfectly, hears TOO well sometimes lol, and is talking some. She talks like a 2 1/2 year old, but it's better than nothing. Her mental handicap is fairly mild....her IQ is around 60.
But if I'd listened to the stupid doctors, I would have aborted her and wouldn't have received all the blessings she's brought to our family. Retarded or not, EVERY single person can touch another person's life, even if it's only teaching them compassion.
Abortion is murder. If you're not prepared to take care of a handicapped child, you shouldn't be having a baby at ALL, because that possibility is always there.
2006-08-12 09:15:58 · answer #2 · answered by married_so_leave_me_alone1999 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, definitely not. I have recently found out that I am expecting and the moment I knew I loved the little being that is inside me as much as I love my other children. I don't agree with these girls/women who are going out and getting pregnant and then having an abortion because they aren't ready or don't want a child. It would be much better to carry the child and then give it up for adoption. There are many people out there who would love to adopt a newborn. But in the case of rape, incest or molestation, I can understand the woman's fragility and not being about to emotionally handle carrying the baby.
But as far as having an abortion because the child might be "retarded" then that is just murder plain and simple.
2006-08-12 09:23:07 · answer #3 · answered by lilbitadevil 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
what do you mean by "retarded"? Do you mean a baby with Down's Syndrome? or something much worse? I think it would depend on what the child's quality of life would be. If the child is going to be born just to suffer, then it's not fair to bring it into this world. If it's a issue like Down's Syndrome, then I don't see where there would be any issue, at least for me. You have to consider what the child is going to face once it's born.
2006-08-12 09:08:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, however if I had been able to have children my chances of giving birth to a child with Downes Syndrome would have been higher than normal due to the genetic leaning in my family. If I could have children before I decided knowing the predisposition I would have had genetic counseling and then made the decision if I was or was not going to get pregnant based on that.
Even if I myself would not do it, I believe that the choice should be there and that it is only their business no one elses.
2006-08-12 09:07:17 · answer #5 · answered by genaddt 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO! Totally not! My cousin was pregnant with her first child, and she was told that she should abort the child because it would have a terrible spinal disease that would be very painful and the child would die before age 8. Well, She said absolutly not, She would rather have 4 years filled with joy then grief and remorse for the rest of her life. Well, She had the baby, and now Michael is 6 years old and is the most healthiest kid that I have ever met. Abortion is wrong. People get 20 years to life foe murdering an Adult, but its legal to brutaly kill your baby either by poisoning or shredding him to death? Im sorry, but in my eyes, thats just plain evil. No one should be able to have that cruel choice.
2006-08-12 09:20:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
properly is via the fact the guy doing the sin is killing the toddler like a physician and maximum in simple terms want the toddler to stay. specific unquestionably everyone could rather desire to pass to heaven truthfully yet some think of it rather is not honest for a harmless toddler to not stay and notice the wonders of existence. additionally in case you probably did not desire to have a toddler then you definately ought to of used protection interior the 1st place is your mistake now pass with the aid of it. that's what a lot of folk do and dont understand of duty. that's kinda good yet undesirable on an identical time by using fact your killing some thing harmless.
2016-10-02 00:07:04 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if I was at a time in my life where I couldn't support he or she sufficiently and give them him/her things he/she needed for a decent standard of life. If I was 18 years old, the father split and I had no money and wanted to go to university, I would abort it if it was retarded or not. Of course, I would use birth control in the first place...
2006-08-12 09:09:02 · answer #8 · answered by maurora27 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
NO! Because over person has the right to live, even if they are "retarded". But, most doctors cannot prove that a Child is going to be born retarded unless the mother is on some kind of drugs.
2006-08-12 09:04:33 · answer #9 · answered by razorblade_love 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
My wife and I always said we would decide if we found that to be the case. It did not happen but it was up for discussion if it had occurred. It would depend on what was wrong as well.
"most doctors cannot prove that a Child is going to be born retarded unless the mother is on some kind of drugs."
I feel stupid just for reading that.
2006-08-12 09:03:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋