Support NeoGAF

[biggersmaller]

As someone who has an uncle with mental retardation and had an aunt with down syndrome, both living and having lived great and engaging lives, in the nicest way I can say this, your twisted rationale is disgusting and reeks of lack of life experience.

Yup. This topic is has become downright hateful at times. Many of the people I've met with Downs are some of the most joyful people I know and live just as fulfilling lives as anyone else. It's more difficult, but it is not an existence of nonstop suffering for those with it or their families. Nor do you have to be loaded to raise a child with it.

Where does it stop? What if breasts cancer and Alzheimer's could be cured by aborting every fetus with an 80% chance of getting it? I mean come the fuck on.

 

[BruceCLea]

It's a private issue between the potential parents. It should always be up to them no matter the societal results.

Abortion should be a woman's right.

 

[zeemumu]

Ultimately it's up to the couple (well, the mom) to decide whether or not to keep the baby for whatever reason but I kinda want to know the opinions of people with Down Syndrome on this.

 

[Monocle]

Ladies of the world: Ted Cruz has a bone to pick with your vagina. Ted Cruz has very strong opinions about your bits and bobs and thingamadoos, and he is not afraid to say so.

So before you visit your lady doctor, ask yourself: Is Ted Cruz OK with my warrens and cubbies and twat pockets?

 

[God Dayumm]

Yup. This topic is has become downright hateful at times. Many of the people I've met with Downs are some of the most joyful people I know and live just as fulfilling lives as anyone else. It's more difficult, but it is not an existence of nonstop suffering for those with it or their families. Nor do you have to be loaded to raise a child with it.

Where does it stop? What if breasts cancer and Alzheimer's could be cured by aborting every fetus with an 80% chance of getting it? I mean come the fuck on.

How is that relevant? Any fetus has the potential to become a joyful person one day, so unless you are strictly pro-life this argument makes no sense.

And it doesn't have to stop anywhere. Pregnant women should be able to abort even for the pettiest of reasons.

 

[Westbahnhof]

How is that relevant? Any fetus has the potential to become a joyful person one day, so unless you are strictly pro-life this argument makes no sense.

And it doesn't have to stop anywhere. Pregnant women should be able to abort even for the pettiest of reasons.

It's relevant as a counterpoint to "it is immoral/wrong not to abort", which is a sentiment multiple people voiced. That's the context here.

 

[Aske]

If we're really supposed to believe in the freedom and individuality of the human person is it not selfish to snuff out a life before it has the chance to contemplate those ideas itself? Do we believe in the inherent dignity of a life at all? Life can be undone, death cannot. Does it not make sense to err on the side of preserving life over terminating it?

To answer your questions:

1) It's selfish to create life when there are children waiting to be adopted, period. I'd snuff out any number of fetuses if doing so would provide financial and emotional security to a child in need who already exists. That's not to say people shouldn't have kids (we all have different priorities), but it's important to recognise that choosing to make a human in one's own image is something parents do for themselves.

2) Humans who already exist, yes. Embryos and fetuses, no. And this isn't an abortion debate, because the only people who will consider doing this are those who don't ascribe personhood to their fetus.

3) To a pair of prospective parents who want to maximise the health of their child-to-be and don't have a moral problem with abortion, it makes sense to terminate a pregnancy that could lead to a child being born with special needs that would prevent them living independently; and trying again with a fresh egg and sperm.

 

[Aske]

Yup. This topic is has become downright hateful at times. Many of the people I've met with Downs are some of the most joyful people I know and live just as fulfilling lives as anyone else. It's more difficult, but it is not an existence of nonstop suffering for those with it or their families. Nor do you have to be loaded to raise a child with it.

Agreed; the idea that people with Down syndrome don't lead joyful lives is absurd. This is about the rights of parents to choose not to make a child with Down syndrome, if that's their preference.

Where does it stop? What if breasts cancer and Alzheimer's could be cured by aborting every fetus with an 80% chance of getting it? I mean come the fuck on.

That would be awesome! I'm not sure why you have a problem with the idea. Most parents have a lot of baby-making ingredients. Why not use sperm-and-egg 2 (or 3, or 30) to make a child who will definitely not get breast cancer or Alzheimer's, instead of sperm-and-egg 1, which might make a child who goes on to develop breast cancer or Alzheimer's?

 

[biggersmaller]

How is that relevant? Any fetus has the potential to become a joyful person one day, so unless you are strictly pro-life this argument makes no sense.

And it doesn't have to stop anywhere. Pregnant women should be able to abort even for the pettiest of reasons.

Did you read what I was responding to? From that:

Originally Posted by St3v3
It would be selfish to keep a baby that you know has downs, the kid will never have a normal life. Abortion really is best for everyone involved in this situation.
Originally Posted by AnAnole
It's immoral knowingly bringing a person with Down syndrome into this world.
Originally Posted by Beartruck
Downs is a cruel and tragic joke. Good riddance.

 

[God Dayumm]

Did you read what I was responding to? From that:

Ok, then that is a good point

 

[Eye for an Eye]

Yup. This topic is has become downright hateful at times. Many of the people I've met with Downs are some of the most joyful people I know and live just as fulfilling lives as anyone else. It's more difficult, but it is not an existence of nonstop suffering for those with it or their families. Nor do you have to be loaded to raise a child with it.

Where does it stop? What if breasts cancer and Alzheimer's could be cured by aborting every fetus with an 80% chance of getting it? I mean come the fuck on.

Did you ever meet the other 70% that died before thier fifth birthday due to medical complications. You're not seeing the whole picture and you've only met a small population of those with DS. I've read many stories of women who have aborted a DS pregnancy because chance of survival was slim or else they would have continued on. Heart and gastro problem are extremely common problems that develope in utero, and make survival beyond birth slim. Nearly all DS babies undergo heart surgery during the first year of life.

It's extremely difficult to receive services when you're disabled. Congenital defects are automatic disqualifiers for private insurance once again if the pre-existing condition mandate is overturned. That means receiving care on medicaid and a lifetime coverage of SSI benefits that is far below poverty level. And a maximum asset balance of $2000 to continue receiving benefits. When there's many people all fighting for the same services, services become extremely hard to get. Those 2-3 children born in Iceland each year probably have the best care possible because all the resources are devoted to those few.

 

[digdug2k]

The great thing is, tests to detect stuff like Downs have gotten better in recent years, so you can detect it with much high probability much earlier.

You kinda realize you have no idea what you'd do in the situation as you're sitting outside that doctors door waiting for results. Like, raising a kid, any kid, is rewarding. But nephew has downs, and his parents have gone through hell and back for him. From doing CPR in the back of a car on the way to the hospital, to spending all their free time every night arguing with hospitals and insurance companies over the phone, and will continue to do so for basically the rest of his life. Its not something that's for everyone.

 

[Shamrock7r]

I feel like I misread what you were responding to so I deleting comment

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

This is very frightening and a very slippery rope. It's basically eugenics.

I have relatives with down syndrome, of course it's hard for the family in certains aspects, but it bring a lot of joy as well. I'm shocked by the majority of comment we read on this thread. Maybe because it's tied to the issue of abortion and women's choice. For me the main issue is not abortion right but the open road to eugenics.

Like somebody point it out, why don't do the same about autism ? It could also be a "heavy burden" for the family. Damn, we are speaking about humans being here...

 

[Eye for an Eye]

This is very frightening and a very slippery rope. It's basically eugenics.

I have relatives with down syndrome, of course it's hard for the family in certains aspects, but it bring a lot of joy as well. I'm shocked by the majority of comment we read on this thread. Maybe because it's tied to the issue of abortion and women's choice. For me the main issue is not abortion right but the open road to eugenics.

Like somebody point it out, why don't do the same about autism ? It could also be a "heavy burden" for the family. Damn, we are speaking about humans being here...

Women, like myself, have terminated for Fragile X. It is one of the only diagnosable causes of autism. If there is a genetic break through to discover the cause of autism, it may begin to play a part in family planning. At this point, there is no way to diagnose autism in utero or the severity. DS is diagnosable, and physical severities can also be detected in utero, which may or may not change a woman's mind is deciding to continue or end a DS pregnancy.

Btw, I find statistics for DS in America extremely unaccurate. Abortion providers do not provide or collect information regarding abortions for medical or non medical reasons. DS rates are based on live births, which does not include rates of diagnosis during pregnancies or include rates of miscarriages or abortions caused by DS.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

This is very frightening and a very slippery rope. It's basically eugenics.

I have relatives with down syndrome, of course it's hard for the family in certains aspects, but it bring a lot of joy as well. I'm shocked by the majority of comment we read on this thread. Maybe because it's tied to the issue of abortion and women's choice. For me the main issue is not abortion right but the open road to eugenics.

Like somebody point it out, why don't do the same about autism ? It could also be a "heavy burden" for the family. Damn, we are speaking about humans being here...

It's not a slippery slope, it's giving a woman full autonomy over her body and her pregnancy. She will always make decisions she feels is best for her. That's the only person, who should be making the final say. It's not about society, government regulations, or people yapping away on a message board.

 

[nullset2]

This is a great idea. Why bring lives to this world that are basically hindered from the get-go

 

[digdug2k]

Like somebody point it out, why don't do the same about autism ? It could also be a "heavy burden" for the family. Damn, we are speaking about humans being here...

You can detect Down Syndrome at 10 or so weeks now. AFAIK, there's no reason we can't push that even earlier. "We" don't "do" anything. People/Parents/Women are welcome (in the states at least) to give up a pregnancy at that stage for any reason they want.

 

[Soran]

Might as well develop a test for classical autism and remove those fetuses as well.

Where to stop though.

I don't know what do you mean by "classical autism" but after working with children I would abort in a heartbeat if I know the kid I'm expecting have autism and I wouldn't do it if it have down syndrome. Children with autism in my experience are infinite times more hard to handle than kids with DS, at least the low functional ones.

 

[Theodran]

The comments from Republicans, like Sarah Palin comparing Icelanders with Nazis, disgust me. Their own party propped up a Nazi cheeto as a president and still have the guts to say that?

If a woman or parents decide that a fetus, that will almost certainly live with complications throughout its life, is not something that they want to bring to this world, along with the financial and emotional stress that bringing it up comes with, then it is an unwanted pregnancy no matter if it was planned or not, and it should be their right to terminate it if they choose so.

 

[Neith]

People should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I will forever respect Iceland for standing up against their bankers.

 

[God Dayumm]

Like somebody point it out, why don't do the same about autism ?

Because women don't want to, maybe? I don't care, it's their body and their choice.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The people who are saying those with down syndrome can't live fulfilling lives are obviously incorrect, but you are also wrong by saying parents should be forced to keep a child that will be a burden to them. It should be nobody's business why a parent decides to abort, but besides that I see nothing wrong with ending a fetus purely because of the excessive stress it will put on the parents for the rest of their lives.

Stop saying burden imo

It's parents who can't handle the extra responsibility.

Burden has negative implications for those who live with disabilities

Iceland has some of the highest distributions of wealth in the EU as well as one of the lowest employment percentages?
http://statice.is/publications/news...on-in-iceland-among-the-most-equal-in-europe/

So?

I said for many. Maybe I should have said some though.

 

[Josh7289]

Some life is sacred because of its capacity to suffer. However, fetuses can't feel pain until the third trimester. So abortions for any reason before the third trimester cause no suffering and no pain. Therefore, this is fine.

 

[chadtwo]

There are a few shades to the conversation:

1) The right of a mother to terminate a pregnancy based on early detection of Down's
2) Whether it's good that abortions lead to a decline in the incidence of Down's
3) Whether it's good to believe (generally) that people with Down's should (always) be aborted/shouldn't be born

You can have a gamut of opinions across all these different topics. I don't think there's an obviously right answer (I say "yes" to 1, but it's not about Down's but instead about not controlling women's bodies/family planning decisions), just answers that we can decide are best depending on what our priorities are. Different individuals - people with Down's, mothers of people with Down's, the rest of their families and friends and acquaintances loved ones - have different experiences that make it almost impossible for there to be a universally correct reason one way or the other.

But if one doesn't understand the embryo/fetus to constitute a human life in the first place, then what basis is there for rejecting 1, 2, or 3?

For example, with point 2), the only countervailing consideration I can think of against a reduction in the incidence of Down's Syndrome is that it would result in the loss of human life. That is, if I told you that we could reduce the incidence of Down Syndrome by killing every mother who a pre-natal screen showed was about to have a baby with Down Syndrome, then such a solution would obviously be rejected because the benefit of reducing the incidence of abortion is clearly outweighed by the loss of human life. But what if I told you that, no strings attached, we could reduce the incidence of Down Syndrome long-term without the loss of human life? I suppose there's an argument to made that every life is valuable and that those with Down Syndrome contribute to the diversity of human character, genetics, or whatever word you'd prefer, but that point usually comes up only when talking about people who already have Down Syndrome. If I told you we could flip a switch and those with Down Syndrome would no longer be born, I believe the vast majority would accept such a proposal if there was no loss of human life. Well, for the pro-choicer, there is no loss of human life.

Similar logic applies to the other two points. If the question of life or death is not even part of an equation, then what rationale is there for continuing to propagate a chromosomal disorder? I'm not being entirely rhetorical here; there may well be something I've overlooked that strongly incentivizes the continued birth of babies with Down Syndrome. But until I'm made aware of such an oversight, I maintain that for those who are already pro-choice because they don't believe embryos/fetuses to be human, the mere fact that embryos and fetuses with Down Syndrome are now being aborted due to pre-natal screens presents no moral dilemma at all.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Some life is sacred because of its capacity to suffer. However, fetuses can't feel pain until the third trimester. So abortions for any reason before the third trimester cause no suffering and no pain. Therefore, this is fine.

I once read some nice scientific research on pain and how fetuses don't even finish having their neurological pathways of pain after they're born (sure they have stress-related responses, but not pain in all its complexity). I've been trying to find such research again, but to no success. Anyone know where I can find it please?

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'd recommend reading Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" to understand the argument that even if a fetus is granted a right to life, which is a purely hypothetical conjecture for the sake of argument, abortion does not necessarily violate it. Essentially, the short version of her argument is that a right to life isn't the right not to be killed, but the right not to be killed unjustly, and that actions that result in the termination of life can be permissible. Thomson uses the example of a famous violinist who is connected to your kidneys and must remain that way for 9 months (or some other span of time) and argues that the violinist has no positive right to use your body to save their life without your permission, and that you are morally justified in choosing to disconnect him from you. It would be a kindness on your part to remain connected for the whole term, not a moral obligation you would be expected to fulfill. I'd recommend reading the whole thing to get a more complete sense of her argument instead of the cliff notes version I provided, as she goes in depth with multiple examples highlighting her case.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Wonderful.

This is has been my avenue of argument. Nice to have something to link to in the future

Yup. This topic is has become downright hateful at times. Many of the people I've met with Downs are some of the most joyful people I know and live just as fulfilling lives as anyone else. It's more difficult, but it is not an existence of nonstop suffering for those with it or their families. Nor do you have to be loaded to raise a child with it.

Where does it stop? What if breasts cancer and Alzheimer's could be cured by aborting every fetus with an 80% chance of getting it? I mean come the fuck on.

Irrelevant?


The right to abort cannot be limited for XYZ reasons

Folks have been cruel and factually detrimental to pro choice advocacy in this thread but none of that changes that the right to choose is just that a right to choose

It's relevant as a counterpoint to "it is immoral/wrong not to abort", which is a sentiment multiple people voiced. That's the context here.

Those people are wrong. Doesn't change the fundamental reality that you can't start saying right to choose unless the baby has xyz.

This is very frightening and a very slippery rope. It's basically eugenics.

I have relatives with down syndrome, of course it's hard for the family in certains aspects, but it bring a lot of joy as well. I'm shocked by the majority of comment we read on this thread. Maybe because it's tied to the issue of abortion and women's choice. For me the main issue is not abortion right but the open road to eugenics.

Like somebody point it out, why don't do the same about autism ? It could also be a "heavy burden" for the family. Damn, we are speaking about humans being here...

Eugenics implies much more than a right to choose is a right to choose.

Eugenics is a system that makes it much more forceful than leaving it up to each individual.

You can't literally say abortions for any reason unless they're xyz. It's absurd.

Many have argued horrifically. Burden should never be used here. Fact is though at the end of the day we shouldn't ban the tests (because parents who won't abort will now have tome to get things in order) or ban abortion (because that's ridiculous you can't say women have the right to choose unless...)

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Some people can't handle the responsibilities of taking care of a kid with disabilities. They're still amazing people that can lead happy lives, but it's difficult to care for them. I won't judge people for this.

As for the 'abortion is murder' joke, all I can do is laugh. Religion turns a lot of people stupid.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is a great idea. Why bring lives to this world that are basically hindered from the get-go

No stop this nonsense

This is not a mercy thing it is a logical extension of a woman's right to choose.

We can argue this without dehumanizing those who live with disabilities

 

[shiyrley]

Human beings with down syndrome have the right to live, but that implies they already exist.
A woman has the right to abort if she doesn't want to spend her life taking care of a yet to exist human who might have down syndrome.
If the possibility of abortion makes down syndrome disappear, well, that's just something that happens, and I don't see the problem in a condition disappearing. What's clear is that no, there is no genocide here. This is just dumb arguments from stupid people who are against abortion.

Abortion is ok. I am not going to argue this because at this point it should be an universally accepted truth and anyone who doesn't agree is basically being a misogynist and I don't argue with misogynists just like I don't argue with flat earthers.

And if abortion is ok, the abortion of a fetus which is gonna have down syndrome is ok, too.

 

[PdotMichael]

6

Some life is sacred because of its capacity to suffer. However, fetuses can't feel pain until the third trimester. So abortions for any reason before the third trimester cause no suffering and no pain. Therefore, this is fine.

That's some arbitrary appearing argument. Also never seen the ability of feeling pain as deciding factor for anything, unlike the beginning of brain activities.

 

[Josh7289]

6

That's some arbitrary appearing argument. Also never seen the ability of feeling pain as deciding factor for anything, unlike the beginning of brain activities.

I don't know why it wouldn't be. The ability to feel pain is a good line to draw in terms of ethics.

 

[PdotMichael]

I don't know why it wouldn't be.

I would love to see a nice argument why feeling pain is the important step to consider something with rights to live.

 

[chadtwo]

6

That's some arbitrary appearing argument. Also never seen the ability of feeling pain as deciding factor for anything, unlike the start of brain activities.

I can guarantee you the ability to feel pain is a deciding factor in many of your own actions.

Both puppies and ants have something akin to "brain activity" (I'll grant with ants it's probably a little more complicated). You would feel moral guilt upon killing a dog for no reason, but not an ant. Why is that?

 

[Josh7289]

I would love to see a nice argument why feeling pain is the important step to consider something with rights to live.

Because pain hurts. But I don't know. I'll think about it more and reserach it more. Also tell me a reason why something else is more important in determining sacred rights to live.

 

[PdotMichael]

I can guarantee you the ability to feel pain is a deciding factor in many of your own actions.

Both puppies and ants have something akin to "brain activity" (I'll grant with ants it's probably a little more complicated). You would feel moral guilt upon killing a dog for no reason, but not an ant. Why is that?

Well, a dog triggers more emotions because we see more human like traits in dogs than in insects.

 

[AoM]

Human beings with down syndrome have the right to live, but that implies they already exist.
A woman has the right to abort if she doesn't want to spend her life taking care of a yet to exist human who might have down syndrome.
If the possibility of abortion makes down syndrome disappear, well, that's just something that happens, and I don't see the problem in a condition disappearing. What's clear is that no, there is no genocide here. This is just dumb arguments from stupid people who are against abortion.

Abortion is ok. I am not going to argue this because at this point it should be an universally accepted truth and anyone who doesn't agree is basically being a misogynist and I don't argue with misogynists just like I don't argue with flat earthers.

And if abortion is ok, the abortion of a fetus which is gonna have down syndrome is ok, too.

Just curious: for you, at what point does a human begin to exist?

Also, as others have pointed out, it's not something like polio that you can eradicate.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I can guarantee you the ability to feel pain is a deciding factor in many of your own actions.

Both puppies and ants have something akin to "brain activity" (I'll grant with ants it's probably a little more complicated). You would feel moral guilt upon killing a dog for no reason, but not an ant. Why is that?

Socialization that says puppies are cuter than ants.

We slaughter pigs without a thought.

 

[chadtwo]

Well, a dog triggers more emotions because we see more human like traits in dogs than in insects.

So if I introduced you to a highly intelligent species of ant capable of experiencing profound levels of suffering (let's say, beyond what we can fathom as humans) that nonetheless shared zero immediate traits with humans, you wouldn't feel guilt upon killing it in an excruciating way?

Socialization that says puppies are cuter than ants.

We slaughter pigs without a thought.

That isn't even nearly as close to a settled moral issue as killing ants is, precisely for the reason that pigs feel pain. Do you think most people wouldn't have a problem with pigs being tortured en masse on a daily basis for no reason other than "it's fun"? What about ants, assuming "torture" is even a relevant term when talking about them?

Also, that's a psychological explanation for an action, not a moral justification for it.

Puppies was the first mammal that came to mind; pick any you like. Socialization is a factor, but not the deciding one.

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

This is very frightening and a very slippery rope. It's basically eugenics.

I have relatives with down syndrome, of course it's hard for the family in certains aspects, but it bring a lot of joy as well. I'm shocked by the majority of comment we read on this thread. Maybe because it's tied to the issue of abortion and women's choice. For me the main issue is not abortion right but the open road to eugenics.

Like somebody point it out, why don't do the same about autism ? It could also be a "heavy burden" for the family. Damn, we are speaking about humans being here...

We are not speaking about human beings, we are speaking about fetuses. Abortion isn't murder, it is just not having a baby. Abortion and not having sex has the same effect, it is simply not bringing something into this world. Aborting a fetus with down syndrome isn't murder, it doesn't hurt anybody and there is nothing wrong with it. Obviously murdering living people or sterilizing people and actual eugenics is wrong but it is definitely not the same as abortion. It doesn't make sense to be against something because it might lead to something else entirely. If people start arguing for eugenics then be against that, no need to preempt the argument by being against something completely different.

 

[DarkKyo]

Stop saying burden imo

It's parents who can't handle the extra responsibility.

Burden has negative implications for those who live with disabilities

I understand what you're saying but I'd argue that any child born into this world that the parents are unwilling, unable, or uninterested in raising are technically a burden on them, whether they are disabled or not. While it is true that more parents are likely to feel that way about a disabled child, I wasn't trying to imply that disabled children are more of a burden than normal children. Either way I'll stop using that word in this conversation.

 

[digdug2k]

Some people can't handle the responsibilities of taking care of a kid with disabilities. They're still amazing people that can lead happy lives, but it's difficult to care for them. I won't judge people for this.

As for the 'abortion is murder' joke, all I can do is laugh. Religion turns a lot of people stupid.

Yep. Some people don't even want healthy kids even. They have abortions. Its legal. If you want to argue that all abortion should be illegal, that's basically got nothing to do with the Down Syndrome stuff. Yelling "OMG Eugenics" does not help your argument. It just makes you look dumb.

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

I would love to see a nice argument why feeling pain is the important step to consider something with rights to live.

Would you consider vegetables as having the right to live? Is eating a carrot murder? what about an amoeba? Just because something is technically alive doesn't really mean it is alive in any significant sense. If something feels no pain and has no sentience or consciousness, then it is not really alive, despite whatever biological functions it goes through.

 

[Dice//]

Raising a child with downs is a long and difficult commitment you're slotted into. If parents want to ease the troubles on top of already-exhausting/stressful everyday life, I'm sure it's great you can tell if you'll have a normal and healthy child and avoid one as impactful as a raising a child with a genetic disorder.

I certainly wouldn't have the "heart" or "capacity" for it; my life's been long and difficult, last thing I'd want is to be ready for a family and know I'll have this incredible strain on the relationship with my child.

 

[StoneFox]

If we're really supposed to believe in the freedom and individuality of the human person is it not selfish to snuff out a life before it has the chance to contemplate those ideas itself? Does it not make sense to err on the side of preserving life over terminating it?

Of course it's selfish.

If I could donate a kidney to save the life of another and choose not to, it is also selfish. But I do not get charged with murder if they die. I have body autonomy and I am free to refuse using it for someone else's sake, fetus included.

But what is more selfish than that, is forcing women to carry babies to term. Never mind the physical and mental toll a pregnancy can take on a mother, or the chance of her dying in childbirth (or even from complications before then), or having to dump their unwanted child into an already bloated foster care system, the fetus needs to be "saved"! Because morals or whatever.

 

[Dice//]

Of course it's selfish.

If I could donate a kidney to save the life of another and choose not to, it is also selfish. But I do not get charged with murder if they die. I have body autonomy and I am free to refuse using it for someone else's sake, fetus included.

But what is more selfish than that, is forcing women to carry babies to term. Never mind the physical and mental toll a pregnancy can take on a mother, or the chance of her dying in childbirth (or even from complications before then), or having to dump their unwanted child into an already bloated foster care system, the fetus needs to be "saved"! Because morals or whatever.

+1

Waaay too many responses in these abortion topics flat out ignore talking about the women involved which I think by and large marks what's wrong with these discussions.

 

[Greddleok]

This makes me uncomfortable.

I see the reasoning that many use is "I couldn't do it" in reference to raising a child with Down's Syndrome.
I don't believe anyone wakes up and thinks "I am capable of raising a child with a disability." They just do it. Most successfully.

I'm concerned that eliminating children who do not have a life threatening disease, or a potential poor quality of life is a step in the wrong direction, and giving women this choice could lead to even more undesirable locations.

I'm aware that I'm making a slippery slope argument, but what if this was autism? Autistic people are still functional, many are incredibly intelligent, but are also undesirable to have as children.

I get that I probably have an unpopular opinion on this, but I don't think what essentially amounts to eugenics is ever a good thing.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I understand what you're saying but I'd argue that any child born into this world that the parents are unwilling, unable, or uninterested in raising are technically a burden on them, whether they are disabled or not. While it is true that more parents are likely to feel that way about a disabled child, I wasn't trying to imply that disabled children are more of a burden than normal children. Either way I'll stop using that word in this conversation.

Thanks.

I just think language that keeps it focused away from children with disabilities who are living is important.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This makes me uncomfortable.

I see the reasoning that many use is "I couldn't do it" in reference to raising a child with Down's Syndrome.
I don't believe anyone wakes up and thinks "I am capable of raising a child with a disability." They just do it. Most successfully.

I'm concerned that eliminating children who do not have a life threatening disease, or a potential poor quality of life is a step in the wrong direction, and giving women this choice could lead to even more undesirable locations.

I'm aware that I'm making a slippery slope argument, but what if this was autism? Autistic people are still functional, many are incredibly intelligent, but are also undesirable to have as children.

I get that I probably have an unpopular opinion on this, but I don't think what essentially amounts to eugenics is ever a good thing.

It's not eugenics. There's no enforcement from the state there's no encouragement even to abort it's just another element of choice. You can't just say sorry now thatbwe know your child has xyz you no longer are allowed a choice.

Slippery slope is irrelevant because it could be what if anything and the answer is still it's the woman's choice.

It is choice not choice*

Btw the real slippery slope is that choice except xyz issue becomes choice except a-z 1-infinity.

 

[Greddleok]

I don't believe eugenics requires any enforcement from the state for it to be eugenics. It's merely the idea of having, essentially a "minimum requirement" to be born.

In this case, the minimum requirement is 2 sex chromosomes.

I guess I'm not comfortable with giving people 100% say in the matter. I think it's wrong.