|
|
News | |
|
|
||
01/10/08 |
|
|
|
CONCERN
FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE CHILDREN
A KEY REASON WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS
Responsibility for Existing Children and “Ideal” Conditions for
Motherhood
Found to be Important Factors Women’s sense of responsibility for their existing and future children influences their decision to seek an abortion, according to “‘I Would Want to Give My Child, Like, Everything in the World:’ How Issues of Motherhood Influence Women Who Have Abortions,” by Rachel Jones et al., published in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of Family Issues. The majority (61%) of U.S. women who have abortions are already mothers, more than half of whom have two or more children. In many cases, women choose abortion because they are motivated to be good parents. Women who have no children want the conditions to be right when they do; women who already have children want to be responsible and take care of their existing children.
“We found that consideration of
motherhood issues in abortion decision-making falls into two
broad areas: responsibilities for existing children and the
‘ideal’ conditions of motherhood,” says
Rachel K. Jones, senior
researcher with the Guttmacher Institute. “Among those women
with children, the most commonly cited reason for choosing to
have an abortion was the concern that having another child would
compromise the care given to existing children. Women felt that
they were already stretched thin financially, emotionally and
physically—and they wanted to put the children they already had
front and center. Two-thirds of women who gave this answer were
at or below the poverty line and received little help from their
partners.”
In addition, many of the women
surveyed made direct and indirect references to the “ideal”
conditions of motherhood, expressing the view that children are
entitled to stable and loving families, financial security, and
a high level of care and attention. Because the women were
unable to provide those conditions at the time, they did not
feel they were in a position to have a child or, if they were
already mothers, an additional child.
“Many of these women were already
raising children in situations that were less than ideal, and
when faced with the possibility of bringing another child into
this environment, they preferred to wait until they were in a
better situation to be good parents,” says Jones. “These women
believed that it was more responsible to terminate a pregnancy
than to have a child whose health and welfare could be in
question.”
Without being asked directly,
several of the women indicated that adoption is not a realistic
option for them. They reported that the thought of one’s child
being out in the world without knowing if it was being taken
care of or by whom would induce more guilt than having an
abortion.
This study was based on in-depth
interviews with 38 women who obtained abortions in the United
States in 2004. These women were a subsample of larger study
focused around the reasons for and context in which women are
making decisions about abortion.
Embryonic Stem Cell Debate is Over This is a judgment that is being made by many experts and organizations around the world. The research of Dr. J. Thompson and Dr. S. Yamanaka, done independently, just published in the journals Science and Cell, respectively, has shown that with a fairly simple process, embryonic type stem cells can be produced directly from ordinary human skin cells. This now can be done without creating or killing human embryos. We hold our breath and pinch ourselves to be sure that this in fact is what everyone says it is, for it is a historic achievement. This has dramatically expanded the scientific possibilities for stem cells and it has done it within a completely ethical pattern. This however does not completely clear the way for the use of embryonic type stem cells, for very possibly the tendency for these cells to form tumors may well also be present in these new cells. If so, they still could not be usable in human trials. Even if that is true, however, the remarkable continuing discoveries around the legitimate use of adult stem cells continue. For all of this, we can be thankful. Canadian judge to rule on Jew facing euthanasia A Canadian judge is due to decide this week whether to renew a temporary injunction against Winnipeg's Grace General Hospital, whose doctors want to detach an 84-year-old Orthodox Jew from a respirator and hasten his death, against his family's wishes. However, it was learned Sunday that the patient, Samuel Golubchuk, regained consciousness several days ago and appears to be improving. Although a hospital doctor treating Golubchuk wrote "Awoke" on his chart, the hospital did not disclose this to the court. The family said the hospital had been trying to make the patient appear to be dying and with minimal brain function. Grace General Hospital has received the backing of the Canadian Medical Association in its efforts to bring about active euthanasia. According to the chart, which the judge was apparently not shown, the supposedly "imminently dying" Golubchuk is not only awake but has interacted with people and made purposeful movements. The case has aroused anger and anxiety within the North American Jewish community that it will set a precedent for doctors to have exclusive power over life and death decisions. Rabbinical and community leaders worry that budget-conscious hospital systems may decide to shorten patients' lives to save money or to free up beds. The US Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists discussed the case at its annual meeting in New York two weeks ago, and passed a resolution expressing grave concern about this case. Agudath Israel of America has also expressed concern. Prof. Shimon Glick, a leading Israeli medical ethics expert and former dean of Ben-Gurion University's Health Sciences Faculty, said: "From a halachic point of view, removing a feeding tube from a patient who has any brain function is active euthanasia, equivalent to murder... But here, in addition, unless the patient has specifically indicated by advance directive that such is his desire, one has a violation of the patient's autonomy, as well." A Grace General Hospital lawyer told the court that doctors "have the sole right to make decisions about treatment - even if it goes against a patient's religious beliefs."
|
This site was last updated 01/10/08
