Sunday, June 08, 2008

“The danger is that the failed [abortion] can damage the baby”

Given that this couple already tried to kill their baby once, I’m surprised that the British equivalent of Child Protective Services would let them keep the baby. 

A mother who decided to abort her son because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.

Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant.

Percival’s first son Thane died of multicystic dysplastic kidneys — which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby — and her second child Lewis was born with serious kidney damage and currently has just one kidney, the Daily Mail reported.

[...]

“Women that have early terminations in weeks six, seven and eight, many times the pregnancy is so small that doctors miss removing the baby,” Alvarez said. “The danger is that the failed attempt can damage the baby. That is why these patients who get early terminations need follow-ups.”

Another scan a week later confirmed the baby also had kidney problems, but doctors told the couple the baby was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved another chance at life.

In November, Finley was born three weeks premature. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life.

(6) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2158 hrs
Culture + Foreign Affairs

  1. How do you think Finley will feel when he’s old enough to read and learn that his parents tried to kill him before he was born?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2008 at 0731 hrs


  2. I don’t understand…..  They speak casually of the abortion attempt so I assume it is not illegal there either.  Why would any Child Protective Service try to take thier child away for doing absolutly nothing wrong?  Am I missing something or are you one of those who just likes to condemn others for not living up to your personal views of religion and morality?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2008 at 1124 hrs


  3. Sure - “Don’t kill babies” is a personal view of morality I do want to impose on others.

    Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 09, 2008 at 1204 hrs


  4. I understand and will skip the “But by definition it is not a baby” and the few other obvious arguements.  The fact is they did nothing criminal.  They did nothing most people don’t seem to think is simply, clearly and easily morally justifyable.  Why should the State get involved in any way?  And how outraged would you guys be if it were a different topic, one you disagree with and the State takes a child over a matter having NOTHING to do with law?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1304 hrs


  5. Owen can correct me if I’m wrong, but I took the comment you’re objecting to not as a legal point, but as an observation about the hypocrisy - “we’re so glad to have a son, nevermind that we just tried to kill him.”

    Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 10, 2008 at 1623 hrs


  6. Correct, Calvin.

    Posted by Owen on June 10, 2008 at 1637 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.