"Joanna Jepson, 28, now at St Michael's Church, Chester, but then a trainee vicar, found out about the procedure in 2002 when studying abortion statistics and suggested that it amounted to unlawful killing.
Yesterday Ms Jepson said: "While I'm disappointed about the CPS's decision to drop the case, I am pleased the case has raised the issue of late-term abortion and the plight of disabled babies in late-term pregnancy. It has exposed grave discrimination and I will be seeking legal advice."
Is this really any different from the Schaivo case? Look at the similarities: both the baby and Mrs. Schaivo are helpless to defend themselves; the baby was exterminated because of a handicap (that can be mended through surgery!) and Mrs. Schaivo's life is threatened because of a handicap (and there is some hope for rehab!).
Posts
2 comments:
Sure, there are similar issues and I think there needs to be some protection in both instances, but there are also major differences. Terri is a “born” person who is brain damaged from an accident. That is different from a late term fetus. One is a question of how are the rights of an existing person affected by such an accident and one is a question of when does a fetus gain rights or protections.
I think, on the Terri issue, some chronic people in pain should have the right to knowingly make a decision to die. Terri, however, has not made that knowing decision. She may be responsive and not in a vegetative state, and she has a loving family willing to care for her. I don’t know about the burden of the ongoing medical cost for caring for Terri or how that issue plays, but it should not be ignored. At any rate, there does not seem to be enough evidence to make any argument for letting her die.
The fetus is a late term fetus…and, oh…come on…it just has a cleft lip. Any pro-choice interest in letting the woman decide about her body? I think any such interest by any stretch has certainly dwindled to be insignificant to the interest of that fetus. Does the woman want an abortion because she does not want any child or because she does not a cleft lip child? What a horrible person who wants to abort a baby because it has a cleft lip. Even if you feel that some handicaps are too much to saddle a human with, this case would be ridiculous. The fetus should be protected not only for live birth, but protected from its mother afterwards.
I'm not familiar with "Terri". But as far as the media are concerned, this represents the pretty bald facts. The mother apparently decided that a cleft palate represented a disability that would have a major impact on the quality of life of the baby, and two doctors were prepared to agree with her, so they killed the baby - "late" in the sense that, at (I believe) 28 weeks, it was four weeks after the normal cut-off date for termination of pregnancy.
Joanna Jepson had a cleft palate herself, prior to surgery.
Even though she lost the case, she has achieved what she wanted to achieve, which was to draw the attention of the population to the way in which the abortion laws were being misused. It is a pretty appalling example - but the accceptance of abortion by society is only the presenting problem, no matter how much attention is paid to it in whatever country - the real problems that people have are more fundamental.
Post a Comment