This is strictly Jim's opinion. It's probably not worth reading.
I think that Claire and Ron were magnificent facing the awful news about Violet. They approached it as a medical issue, not a moral one. This is the only way to look at this that makes sense. The only criterion appropriate is "What is best for the child who is going to survive?" Nothing else matters.
Notice that until the ultrasound at week 20, there was no hint of a problem. Suppose that Violet had been the only fetus. Then, during the second trimester, the mother would be faced with the question of what to do. I think this is clear cut. There is no point in prolonging the pregnancy. Better to start over.
We tend to think of pregnancy as something natural, hence a normal part of life. Actually, it is something that can threaten the life and health of the mother is several ways. The two fairly common problems are gestational diabetes, difficult but manageable, and eclampsia and pre-eclampsia, a dangerous, life threatening situation. Indeed, the treatment for eclampsia and advancing pre-eclampsia, is termination of the pregnancy, either through delivery or abortion.
The abortion debate seems to ignore this issue. We used to feel that endangering the life or health of the mother was justification for terminating pregnancy in any situation, but thanks to anti-abortion fanatics, that no longer seems to be the case.
This is wrong.
An uninformed nitwit in the waiting area at the hospital kept telling us to simply trust in Jesus and everything would turn out all right. I was on the verge of saying something like, "Stuff a sock in it, you ignorant twit." Charles noticed and signaled me to cool it. I know that the speaker would have been offended. Apparently, no one thinks about offending non-religious people with comments such as these.
