http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/15/ne ... latestnews

A disabled woman became pregnant, and her medications (presumably epilepsy meds) could cause risk to the baby. Neither she nor her parents & guardians wanted an abortion, but the State of Nevada was STILL planning to force her to abort against her will.

I'm glad to hear the judge has decided not to take that course of action- but how did the thought even cross their minds?

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/

Because she has a guardian ad litem, she has others who are trying to help protect her and her child outside of her immediate family. This mindset has been around for generations. Grateful that this judge has better sense for short and long term consequences of such things.

I understand a guardian ad litem intervening in cases of abuse. But I don't understand the guardian ad litem *instigating* the abuse & killing of a baby.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/

I agree, it seems ludicrous to me as well. Since they did not say or might not know if this lady was assaulted or if it was consentual, I know that would have been taken into consideration on the situation as a whole (although I do not agree with abortion for either reason). I could see the family discussing the potential tying of tubes after the fact to help protect this woman from future pregnancies for her health sake and sake of another baby facing possible medication issues. I know that the drugs that are taken for epilepsy can cause severe harm to the development of the baby. My older ds had to take all this into consideration if she had gotten married and wanted to have children.

It seems to me that those who jump on the abortion band wagon to solve any pregnancy issues, do not look at things the same way that others of us do. We see life, they see danger/inconvenience/potential problems that may or not come to light. It seems a no brainer to me.

All good points, Pam.

The article states that the family in question is Catholic, so I suspect they would not consider tying of tubes as an option.

I have a couple of epileptic friends who have chosen to carry children (one went off her meds, the other did not), and have had healthy offspring, so it is at least a possiblity in this case (tho I am uneducated on the matter - meds might have to be adjusted or whatever)

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/

My sister found out that her seizure activity was too high to risk her safely getting pregnant. Since she has never married (yet) and is close to menopausal age, she never did have to decide if it was worth the risk or not. She did nanny for a few years so feels like she has had the best of both worlds. Got to help raise and shape young lives, but does not have the long term responsibilities of teenagers and beyond. I do believe that she would still have rather had a child or two of her own.

I know quite a few Catholics who do choose birth control or sterilization methods even though the Church does not support it. My Mom struggled with this way back in the day, and did decide to use birth control a couple of times. She got pregnant any way. and my younger ds is grateful. It would be a tough call on something like this.

So sorry about your sister's illness - it's a very tough thing to deal with. We've had some older marriages in our family (one at 51, one at 80!) so, perhaps she will still find a happy marriage even without children -whatever God wills.

I know there are Catholics who make all sorts of decisions on this matter, but given the situation these folks are in I'm guessing they're more traditionalists on the topic.

Glad your younger ds got here safely! It's so nice to have little "surprises"! : )

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/