if you have a child before about the 26th week or so, even though we can make sure that the child will be alive, the child will never be right. we're talking mentaly retarted, possibly profoundly. the child will be dependant, and possibly misserable their entire lives.

but we can save their physical lives.

do we have a right to halachicaly? do we have a right, halachicaly, to say that there is not point in saving the baby and we shoud dakva abort it if the baby is threatening the mother's health?

what do we do in these situations?

We do all that is in our power both to save the child's life and to give the child (and family) the tools to have as normal a life as possible.

I'm not sure what the bolded part has to do with the rest of your question.

arizona, have you ever even seem FMD kids?

have you?

the point is this child HAS NO FUTURE!

Yes, dear, I have.

or maybe I should tell you about anthony. He was my mothers paitent.

he did nothing but have seizures every single day for the rest of his life. on good days he'd have just a couple, on bad ones he's seize just about every single second of the day. I don't think he spent more than 1 year (total) of his eleven years of life out of the hospital. by the time he died he was nothing but a vegetable, no brain matter there, almost only scar tissue. I used to cry my eyes out every slingle time my mother told us he had gone back to the hospital because his seizures were out of control again.

would you like to live a life like that?!

Things have changed. 26 weeks or a little earlier doesn't necessarily constitute a sentence of long term disability. Babies are born at 22 or 23 weeks and survived to full health.



One example or more doesn't mean a pattern.

full health but, as I've been told, even still we're not sure that their brains will ever be right. . .

Full health means their brains are OK too. Things have progressed so much in the field of preemie babies, you cannot begin to compare with even a few years ago.

1. The conservative, reactionary right has always known of this and have defended their anti-abortion, anti-assisted suicide, anti-pain killers, pro-artificial life with pain galore agenda since it reminds them of Yoshke on the tzelem.
2. They obviously have no respect for other people's suffering-hence they're against universal healthcare, welfare, immigration, etc. Heck, if they could make all pain meds illegal they'd love to.
3. If you want to be a religious Jew, you're better off not delving too deeply into the unholy alliance many frum groups have with the above scum.
4. Given your emotional and psychological vulnerability perhaps you've seen too much of this stuff. It's nice that you feel for others, but at some point it starts eroding at your own wellbeing, and I think you're at that point.

I will admit that I never met Anthony. However, I've met many like him. I know the immense joy and love they can give. I know they can bring out the best in their families, neighbors, and all those who love them. I know that in many cases, they leave the world a better, brighter for their having been born. I only pray that I'll have that to my credit when it's my time to go.

What do you propose, outspoken?

Should preemies born before a certain stage be killed?

I'm sorry but a child's suffering is way too high a price to pay for "bringing out the 'best' in other people or making the world a 'better' place. If people honestly feel that a child's life is worth living for the child for non-esoteric reasons then of course they are right. Feeling that "it was worth for a child to be born and live a short bitter life filled with pain and nothing else" because it made others "better" is a very cruel, selfish thing to say and even feel.

There are many many 24 weekers who are ok and perfectly healthy after some struggle.


And to those of us who believe, what if the child is here for a Tikun and by cutting their lives short, you are condemning them to a life more miserable than it is now? It's not for us to decide and I hope and pray to never ever be faced with this horrific test, but it's just a thought.

tdp, if not for medical technology they would never be born at all. destined to die on the birthstool.

and brianna, no. I am wondering about the halachic legitimacy of saving premies who have no future anyway.

but in the end, I don't know. sometimes you're wrong. its a huge question. on one hand you don't have the right to make the choice whether they live or go according to nature and die. and on the other hand you have to make the decision anyway.

but no, living by its self is not a gift worth having. sometimes its a curse to exceed all others.

like the rabbanim said about schiavo "they shouldn't have saved her in the first place".

once you've saved them you can't just stop treatment, but sometimes saving them is problematic.

and again, I have no finite answers.

Those are very wise words. Unfortunately many do not want to hear them.

Isn't it ironic that it's the same demographic who fought for keeping schiavo alive that also is in favor of staying in Iraq and sentencing hundreds of young, healthy soldiers, not to mention thousands of civilians, to death?

Oh, I have finite answers. If you're so much in favor of life then stop all wars. If there are circumstances in which loss of life is justified then stopping someone's unbearable pain and suffering should be at the top of the (hopefully very short) list. And if you want to speculate on whether someone's pain and suffering has "meaning" as a "tikkun" please limit it to your own selves.