ChatterBank16 mins ago
Conjoined twins
This could have gone in several other sections; not sure which is the most appropriate.
Do you think it's right that an 18 year old woman, who has many years of fertility ahead of her, should be able to turn down an abortion at 12 weeks pregnant of her conjoined twins?
Do you think it's right that an 18 year old woman, who has many years of fertility ahead of her, should be able to turn down an abortion at 12 weeks pregnant of her conjoined twins?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Tups. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I don't know. The whole thing is very disturbing. I just would have thought that at 12 weeks, when they are still a long way from being viable, she could have been made to realise that life for the poor little things was going to be extremely difficult, not to mention life for her and her family and, dare I mention it, the enormous cost to the Health Service. Many embryos abort naturally at that stage, and beyond. For some reason, these didn't. Now she has two little girls, joined along the breast bone and no one knows what to do about it yet. Surely, there are now worse decisions to make:
Does she let them stay the way they are and let them suffer for the rest of their lives?
Does she allow them to be operated on and risk at least one of them dying or, at best, be badly deformed?
One of the poor little mites probably will have to die because they share one liver. Perhaps they would even have to decide which of the two should survive?
So many difficult questions and decisions now and so much suffering, both on the part of the little babies and their family. Couldn't all this have been avoided by persuading her to have a very early abortion??
Does she let them stay the way they are and let them suffer for the rest of their lives?
Does she allow them to be operated on and risk at least one of them dying or, at best, be badly deformed?
One of the poor little mites probably will have to die because they share one liver. Perhaps they would even have to decide which of the two should survive?
So many difficult questions and decisions now and so much suffering, both on the part of the little babies and their family. Couldn't all this have been avoided by persuading her to have a very early abortion??
I hadn't at the time because as you can see from the time they where not there. They change, nothing all your comments go without saying. Yes most would agree that an abortion is preferable to the untold misery ahead but there is no way, thankfully, in any civilised administration that abortion can be forced.
Tups..they only share a liver, which can easily be divided.
All the contributors are quite correct in that you cannot force someone to ents have an abortion....something to do with civil RIGHTS.
No problem, unmarried mothers, grossly deformed babies, products of rape. parents with IQ's less than 70.......the state will look after them all
All the contributors are quite correct in that you cannot force someone to ents have an abortion....something to do with civil RIGHTS.
No problem, unmarried mothers, grossly deformed babies, products of rape. parents with IQ's less than 70.......the state will look after them all
I don't think that abortions should ever be forced upon a women - though if I really thought about it, there might be times when I may change my mind, but that's another story. I am just very sad that babies such as these twins have to endure 'Life' when they could have (I believe) painlessly been put out of any future misery at 12 weeks gestation. I was just trying to emphasise the sad fact that the mother hadn't seen for herself at that early stage how it may have been the best thing to do.
Of course, there is the 'pro-life' view that all embryos have the right to live, whatever, but I think that's another issue.
Of course, there is the 'pro-life' view that all embryos have the right to live, whatever, but I think that's another issue.