Adoption of mentally impaired babies

[Catholic_Lady]

Wow, that's a little harsh. As I said above, I would actually think it would be big of them to go through the sacrifice of pregnancy and childbirth (without a baby to look forward to) for the sake of giving their son/daughter the best life possible. 

To each their own though.

If you think pregnancy is a sacrifice, try the next eighteen years.

---

I guess I don't see how it is selfish to go through a pregnancy (which is not easy) when you won't get anything out of it, so that you can give your mentally impaired child life and loving parents who are well equipped to take good care of him/her. I think having the child killed would be much more selfish.

---

Anyway, I think I'm going to leave this thread. This was supposed to be about whether you think the scenario presented is or is not moral, and why. I wasn't really wanting to hear people say (or deliberately hint) that the handicapped baby should be aborted. Hits a bit too close to home, to be honest.

It's selfish in the sense that you're carrying the fetus (not child) to term, knowing fully well that that child will be doomed to a life of hardship, shopping the parenting out to someone else, because you have your morals which forbid you considering any other alternative.

I guess I'll never understand the mentality of it being okay, even morally good, to have your 2nd/3rd trimester baby killed in útero (in probably an extremely painful death), while at the same time saying it's disgustingly immoral to have him/her adopted by loving parents right after birth. I can understand someone thinking they are *both* immoral and selfish. But to say the former is morally good while simultaneoisly saying the latter is disgusting and selfish makes 0 sense to me.

[Godscreated]

I think abortion in this case is the better choice than giving life to such a child which is nothing else but a mockery with its future life.

A mockery really, this is the best you see for the mentally disabled, what do you know of the future life of a mentally disabled child. I've been around them as adults and I can tell you with certainty they enjoy life to the fullest. What you might think a full life is could be much different than those who have a considerable bit more than you have. They may think of you as someone so unfortunate that you should have been aborted to save you from a life of laborious work.

What kind of a mother would give life to a child in the full consciousness that this child won't have a normal life? That this child will most probably be bullied and ridiculed by the other kids because it's different?

A loving mother who cherishes the gift she has been given, one who in love will help her child in all it's needs. Just because you think a child like this would be a pain in the ass doesn't mean that's the way most people see it. As most here know by know my wife and I have brought a mentally disabled lady who developed schizophrenia at age 30 into our home and she is the light of our lives and she feels the same about us. There are trying times and frustrations but they're no comparison to the joy of having her in our lives and I promise you she is happy and loves life yet, by your thinking you would have denied her the right to live a good and happy life. Who are you to make such a decision as to take the privilege of life from her or those like her. She has more love for others than any person I've ever met and all those who know her will tell you the same thing. So, are we to deny the world of such love, I think not but, then you would have had her aborted and thrown in a trash can, is this what humanity is coming to, get rid of them they will be a burden on society, personally I count that kind of thinking as discrimination, this is the way the Nazis thought. We haven't the right to regard them as trash.

Because of her selfishness and fear of the loss, that kid will have to spend the rest of its life in being the regular subject of ridicules and a punch bag for bullies.
I don't know about you but if I were a mother, I wouldn't do that to my kid.

Today children with mental disabilities are keep separate from other kids, my niece works in the public school system here and she works in the class for the mentally disabled, our school systems have become more compassionate towards children with disabilities.
A good mother would also protect her child from such bullying, love is a powerful thing and shouldn't be taken lightly.
You say you wouldn't do that to your kid, I ask what kid, you would have relegated it to a trash can. You wouldn't have a child to love and protect, you would never know the joy of a child that happens to see the world through different eyes, loving eyes,trusting eyes.

GC

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you think pregnancy is a sacrifice, try the next eighteen years.

---

It's selfish in the sense that you're carrying the fetus (not child) to term, knowing fully well that that child will be doomed to a life of hardship, shopping the parenting out to someone else, because you have your morals which forbid you considering any other alternative.

I guess I'll never understand the mentality of it being okay, even morally good, to have your 2nd/3rd trimester baby killed in útero  (in probably an extremely painful death), while at the same time saying it's disgustingly immoral to have him/her adopted by loving parents right after birth. I can understand someone thinking they are *both* immoral and selfish. But to say the former is morally good while simultaneoisly saying the latter is disgusting and selfish makes 0 sense to me.

I guess I'll never understand how you got "disgustingly immoral" out of my saying it's selfish. Perhaps you should read what's actually written?

Since you profess bafflement, I'll put it simply: I think it's selfish of this hypothetical mother to hold her morals to be more important than her child's quality of life, or lack thereof.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think abortion in this case is the better choice than giving life to such a child which is nothing else but a mockery with its future life.

A mockery really, this is the best you see for the mentally disabled, what do you know of the future life of a mentally disabled child. I've been around them as adults and I can tell you with certainty they enjoy life to the fullest. What you might think a full life is could be much different than those who have a considerable bit more than you have. They may think of you as someone so unfortunate that you should have been aborted to save you from a life of laborious work.

What kind of a mother would give life to a child in the full consciousness that this child won't have a normal life? That this child will most probably be bullied and ridiculed by the other kids because it's different?

A loving mother who cherishes the gift she has been given, one who in love will help her child in all it's needs. Just because you think a child like this would be a pain in the ass doesn't mean that's the way most people see it. As most here know by know my wife and I have brought a mentally disabled lady who developed schizophrenia at age 30 into our home and she is the light of our lives and she feels the same about us. There are trying times and frustrations but they're no comparison to the joy of having her in our lives and I promise you she is happy and loves life yet, by your thinking you would have denied her the right to live a good and happy life. Who are you to make such a decision as to take the privilege of life from her or those like her. She has more love for others than any person I've ever met and all those who know her will tell you the same thing. So, are we to deny the world of such love, I think not but, then you would have had her aborted and thrown in a trash can, is this what humanity is coming to, get rid of them they will be a burden on society, personally I count that kind of thinking as discrimination, this is the way the Nazis thought. We haven't the right to regard them as trash.

Because of her selfishness and fear of the loss, that kid will have to spend the rest of its life in being the regular subject of ridicules and a punch bag for bullies.
I don't know about you but if I were a mother, I wouldn't do that to my kid.

Today children with mental disabilities are keep separate from other kids, my niece works in the public school system here and she works in the class for the mentally disabled, our school systems have become more compassionate towards children with disabilities.
A good mother would also protect her child from such bullying, love is a powerful thing and shouldn't be taken lightly.
You say you wouldn't do that to your kid, I ask what kid, you would have relegated it to a trash can. You wouldn't have a child to love and protect, you would never know the joy of a child that happens to see the world through different eyes, loving eyes,trusting eyes.

GC

Beautifully said

[Aoi Magi]

In my view, a baby, disabled or otherwise, should never be forced to stay with a parent that doesn't want them. The bond with biological parents is way overrated, once a child has been born, it deserves love and the law should help to facilitate it, not get in the way.

As for the specific case in the OP, I would prefer abortion to be considered first because it'd be extremely hard to find a loving home for a mentally disabled child, and even then our society is not very accepting of people who are different and weak. Besides, if the parents don't want the child, then whats the point of bringing one in this world?

[Catholic_Lady]

I guess I'll never understand the mentality of it being okay, even morally good, to have your 2nd/3rd trimester baby killed in útero  (in probably an extremely painful death), while at the same time saying it's disgustingly immoral to have him/her adopted by loving parents right after birth. I can understand someone thinking they are *both* immoral and selfish. But to say the former is morally good while simultaneoisly saying the latter is disgusting and selfish makes 0 sense to me.

I guess I'll never understand how you got "disgustingly immoral" out of my saying it's selfish. Perhaps you should read what's actually written?

Since you profess bafflement, I'll put it simply: I think it's selfish of this hypothetical mother to hold her morals to be more important than her child's quality of life, or lack thereof.

You think a mentally handicapped dying a probably painful, non consensual, deliberate death in the womb is better for their well being than being raised by loving adopted parents? That doesn't make any sense to me either. If thats the case, why dont we just euthenize them right after they come out of utero? It would at least be less painful and more dignified that way for many of them. Also, the whole reason why anyone would think adoption in this case is more moral than abortion in the first place, is *precisely because* they would think it was better for the child. Yet you accuse them of putting their morals above the well being of their child. That doesn't make any sense.

---

Ugh. Can we please stop talking about aborting this baby? That was not the question asked, and believe it or not, aborting their 2nd/3rd trimester baby isn't a realistic moral option to be considered for many parents. This was meant to be a question about the morality of adoption. I dont need to hear ppl say the baby should be aborted instead. I don't need to hear ppl say (in so many words) that a baby in his 20+ weeks gestation is not a real baby. Truly sorry I started this thread.

[LadyForCamus]

If you think pregnancy is a sacrifice, try the next eighteen years.

---

It's selfish in the sense that you're carrying the fetus (not child) to term, knowing fully well that that child will be doomed to a life of hardship, shopping the parenting out to someone else, because you have your morals which forbid you considering any other alternative.

I guess I'll never understand the mentality of it being okay, even morally good, to have your 2nd/3rd trimester baby killed in útero  (in probably an extremely painful death), while at the same time saying it's disgustingly immoral to have him/her adopted by loving parents right after birth. I can understand someone thinking they are *both* immoral and selfish. But to say the former is morally good while simultaneoisly saying the latter is disgusting and selfish makes 0 sense to me.

It's immoral IMO, because the able-bodied parent with the financial means to care for the child is choosing to bring the infant into the world, yet at the same time refusing to care for it.  If it's so morally wrong to abort your fetus due to its birth defects, then as the biological parent who made the decision to keep the child, it is your moral obligation to be responsible for that special needs child once you have delivered it into this world.  By your OWN choice.  You don't pawn the subsequent life-long work of raising that child off on someone else.  It's about taking personal responsibility for your choices. Imagine if that child has the cognitive ability to understand their parents didn't want him/her because of the disability. That must be an awful feeling to know your parents' love for you was conditional upon how much of an inconvenience in their lives they thought you'd be.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You think a mentally handicapped dying a probably painful, non consensual, deliberate death in the womb is better for their well being than being raised by loving adopted parents? That doesn't make any sense to me either.

Don't be silly -- "non-consensual"! Of course it's non-consensual; a fetus is not a person and not empowered to give consent, and wouldn't be until 18 years after its birth.

If thats the case, why dont we just euthenize them right after they come out of utero? It would at least be less painful and more dignified that way for many of them.

I'd like to see a source for this measurement of relative pain that you claim is different given the different states. Please support this.

Also, the whole reason why anyone would think adoption in this case is more moral than abortion in the first place, is *precisely because* they would think it was better for the child. Yet you accuse them of putting their morals above the well being of their child. That doesn't make any sense.

They may think it's better for the child, but they may certainly be wrong. And the fact remains that by choosing their own morality, and their own ability to sleep peacefully at night, over the very real possibility that they are making for another human's lifetime of unhappiness, is indeed selfish. The fact that you cannot get your head around that doesn't surprise me in the least.

And I haven't even gotten started, myself, on the incompatibility of your position that all life is precious, but if it's born with a birth defect, it's not precious enough to keep. It's hard to not see that as being selfish as well.

Ugh. Can we please stop talking about aborting this baby? That was not the question asked, and believe it or not, aborting their 2nd/3rd trimester baby isn't a realistic moral option to be considered for many parents. This was meant to be a question about the morality of adoption. I dont need to hear ppl say the baby should be aborted instead. I don't need to hear ppl say (in so many words) that a baby in his 20+ weeks gestation is not a real baby. Truly sorry I started this thread.

Who cares what you need to hear, or how you want this thread to turn out? If you have a problem with any posts here, report them to a moderator, but quit trying to channelize the conversation in such a self-serving manner. Not everyone thinks like you do. Don't worry -- you'll live.

[LadyForCamus]

The other issue here is that you may think you've found a perfect, loving home for your child, but the truth is you'll never really know. Some people play the part very well in order to get custody of a child, but when push comes to shove they really can't handle it.

Case in point: My next door neighbor (who is so sweet whenever I see her) divulged to me just two days ago that her and her husband's son is adopted and special needs (behavioral, I think), and that they are currently in the process of adopting a second special needs boy. How wonderful, right? Two lucky little boys. What she doesn't know is that the walls in this apartment complex are very thin, and I can hear her literally screaming, swearing, and berating this boy on a daily basis.

Many people have good intentions, but the truth us, you just never know. The ONLY way to be 100% certain that the child you chose to bring into this world ( versus terminating) is being properly loved and cared for, is to do it the loving and caring yourself. Anything less is completely selfish, and not putting the child's best interests first, imo.

[Catholic_Lady]

For the record, since it seems people are getting the wrong impression of me, when I found out my baby had severe mental and physical disabilities along with health problems, I was devastated and having panic attacks for the first time in my life. Not because I didn't want the "burden" of taking care of him, and not because I didn't want him. But because of how much it would destroy my heart to see someone I love so much be so permanently ill and never be able to have the joys and opportunities that us parents want so much for our children.

I'm the type of person who can't even walk into an animal shelter because I seriously break down at the sight of those little animals having to live such restricted lives in cages. And that's animals, not even people... and not even my own child! It's one of my greatest personal weaknesses to not be able to deal with these things without falling apart. I was in such a dark place, mentally and emotionally, that I began doubting myself and my ability to be a good mom if I went into some kind of chronic depression and if the grief of seeing my child in that state every day really messed me up to where I wasn't able to care for him as well as he deserved. In a state of desperation and self doubt, I only talked about this with my priest, telling him that perhaps I could find a loving family who has a passion and a calling for the special needs and are looking to adopt children like this - a mother who was stronger, and who doesn't fall apart with pity at the suffering of others - perhaps that would be better for the baby. He reassured me, and explained to me that parental love makes people find a strength within them that they never imagine they had.

By the end of that very same day I had come to the conclusion that no matter what happened, I would keep and care for this baby. And that the thought of giving him away only devastated me even more. Two days later, we found out he would not be making it to term, anyway. But no, it was never a serious consideration of mine. Just a thought that crossed my mind in a state of utter devastation and self doubt. But having gone through it myself, I would have nothing but respect and love for those who have made the choice to adopt out their baby for this reason. Because I understand how someone can feel the self doubt that they wouldn't be able to be good enough parents in the midst of dealing with such immense grief on a daily basis, but still believe their baby has a right to live. So please, ditch the notion that this is about not wanting to be "bothered" with the care, because it never was.

And for those who keep saying people like that would be putting their morality above their child by not killing them, or that the only reason not to is fear of hell, I don't think you understand what abortion would entail at this point. An unborn baby at 20+ weeks gestation is not a "ball of cells" even by the standards of pro choice folks. By that time, you already know the sex of your baby. You've already heard his heart beat many times, and felt him kick around and move inside of you. You've already seen the ultrasound videos that show him moving around in there, curling and uncurling into a ball. You have his ultrasound picture up on your fridge... one that clearly shows the form of a very human baby with the silhouette of a little nose and little arms up by his face. By that time he's either old enough, or almost old enough, to survive outside of utero. By that time he can already feel physical pain that an abortion would cause (or at least be on the verge of it... too close for comfort... and too close for wanting to take that risk). And you're saying the only reason any mom would opt out of ending his life in this scenario is out of selfishness or fear of Hell?

Some of the things I read here were very hurtful. Not the comments that said they'd be against adoption (bc it's what I asked for anyway), but the ones that suggested abortion, and the ones that questioned my morality, personally. But it's my fault for starting this thread. As I told Cato, I see how abortion could have easily been brought up here and shouldn't have assumed it wouldn't eventually become the major direction this thread took. Mea culpa, honestly. And I apologize. But I think it's best I move on from this thread.