Support NeoGAF

[RenditMan]

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.

Tough answer, personally I can't remember anything of my existence definitely before the age of 2 and I've got faded very sketchy memories of somethings after that, possibly quite a bit later than that actually.

So for me, my existence began after the age of 2 possibly quite a bit after.

Non of us have any recollection of being born or being a new born that is for certain.

 

[excelsiorlef]

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.

There's no minimum requirement... there's no requirement here... parents ready for the responsibility will continue, others will not. That's choice.

You're basically saying that women should be forced to give birth under some relatively in the scheme of things arbitrary circumstances. The right to choose means the right to change your mind. A woman who wanted to be pregnant but finds out the child will be disabled has the right to chose an abortion because she believes she's no capable of caring for the child responsibly just as a woman who wanted to be pregnant but just flat out changes her mind. You're trying to force women to stay pregnant and give birth against their will, that's what you're saying here.

 

[FiggyCal]

That is exactly my issue with this, it's one step removed from eugenics. We are determining whether someone else gets to live or not based on our narrow guess of what we think that person's life might be like and whether or not they would enjoy it or, worse, whether we'd enjoy it and without even giving that person a chance to weigh in. If you honestly believe that this is okay then you are unequivocally telling every person with a Down's diagnosis that their lives aren't worth living. Somehow I doubt you'd get an enthusiastic response. There are plenty of people out there with Down's who live happy fulfilling lives. Not perfect, not without hardship or work for themselves or those who care for them, but still fulfilling. Who are we to deny people that opportunity, to pass judgment before that person is allowed to take even a single step? I honestly believe that not only is it worth it to try, but that we as a society have an obligation to make that happen, that that living breathing human being has a dignity and worth that can't be taken away by a genetic malformation or whether or not their parent thinks they're worth it. The Declaration of Independence says that all people are endowed with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't remember any asterisks there.



So are we to determine the dignity and worthiness of a life based on whether or not it was easy?

Interesting post. I don't know much about Down Syndrome. I want to think that this is wrong for the reasons you said and that it is offensive to people who are alive and happy with Down Syndrome or with relatives with the disease. But life is already so full of suffering, I don't know if it is fair to the child to bring it into a world where they will never have the same quality of life as a healthy person.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

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.

Well, having three or just one can be quite fatal, so it is rather ideal to have two sets of chromosomes, and only two. Most trisomy conditions or the deletion of one part or whole chromosome can be considered fatal in about 99% of cases. Down syndrome is a bit different in that regard, as the survival rate is slightly higher than that.

In the end, you are not the one living with the decision to continue or end a pregnancy. It does not affect you personally in any shape or form. My decision to terminate two pregnancies has no affect on your life what so ever. My choice in housing, income, education, and many other aspects of my life do not personally impact you. Why do you feel such a need to cast a blanket opinion over some one else's life??

 

[Dice//]

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.

So you'd force a woman to stay pregnant and have a child that's her and her partner's responsibility for XX years?

In the end, you are not the one living with the decision to continue or end a pregnancy. It does not affect you personally in any shape or form. My decision to terminate two pregnancies has no affect on your life what so ever. My choice in housing, income, education, and many other aspects of my life do not personally impact you. Why do you feel such a need to cast a blanket opinion over some one else's life??

Boom.

Seriously, I don't understand why 'the unborn' is so sacred in this respect and barely such grace to the parents who are going to be facing the brunt of child-rearing responsibilities. Let alone how difficult/expensive it is to find care for children, hoping even wanted children have the necessary care and nourishment, or we can also ignore why parents would maybe opt for why an abortion is necessary.... Hell, it's difficult enough with a healthy child; but raising one with special needs throws an even bigger curve ball.

But no, no, stop the presses, don't worry about those "parent people".... it's all about the poor fetus.

 

[excelsiorlef]

That is exactly my issue with this, it's one step removed from eugenics. We are determining whether someone else gets to live or not based on our narrow guess of what we think that person's life might be like and whether or not they would enjoy it or, worse, whether we'd enjoy it and without even giving that person a chance to weigh in. If you honestly believe that this is okay then you are unequivocally telling every person with a Down's diagnosis that their lives aren't worth living. Somehow I doubt you'd get an enthusiastic response. There are plenty of people out there with Down's who live happy fulfilling lives. Not perfect, not without hardship or work for themselves or those who care for them, but still fulfilling. Who are we to deny people that opportunity, to pass judgment before that person is allowed to take even a single step? I honestly believe that not only is it worth it to try, but that we as a society have an obligation to make that happen, that that living breathing human being has a dignity and worth that can't be taken away by a genetic malformation or whether or not their parent thinks they're worth it. The Declaration of Independence says that all people are endowed with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't remember any asterisks there.

Other than the people who have been revolting towards people with disabilities (whom I have consistently called out), allowing abortion in these cases says no more or less about children with disabilities than allowing abortion of non disabled fetuses says of non disabled children.

The Declaration of Independence, which is irrelevant to Iceland, doesn't say you have the right to attach yourself to another human being and live off it as part of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So maybe invoking the DoI isn't exactly applicable to abortion.

Hell if you want to invoke it, by limiting abortion like this you are alienating the woman's right to life (pregnancy can kill), liberty (you are forcing her to remain pregnant), and the pursuit of happiness (forcing her to remain pregnant makes pursuing happiness rather difficult).

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

I'm going to take this to mean that Ted Cruz thinks having Down Syndrome is the same as being Jewish.

 

[13ruce]

Unless you have proper health insurance, a child with autism will probably cost the same as someone with down syndrome. Coaching, special education, therapy, etc. It's just a question of whether you want to put up with it.

Depends heavily on what form of autism it is, not everyone with autism has the worse case possible there is so it heavily varies from person to person on where they are on the sprectrum.

Anyway i support this not all people are strong enough to take care of a child with severe mental illneses or down syndrome for life.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Interesting post. I don't know much about Down Syndrome. I want to think that this is wrong for the reasons you said and that it is offensive to people who are alive and happy with Down Syndrome or with relatives with the disease. But life is already so full of suffering, I don't know if it is fair to the child to bring it into a world where they will never have the same quality of life as a healthy person.

No jesus christ. You are playing into their argument. Stop arguing about fairness to the would be child. That's what dehumanizes those born with disabilities. They are not better off dead. It's a losing argument.

The argument for abortion rights is not that it's better for the child. The argument for abortion rights is that the woman's right to choose overrides anything else because it is her body that is being fed off of and it is their responsibilities that will be tasked when any child is born. The argument should never be that the child is better off but that the woman is better off because prior to birth and prior to detatchment from her body that's who is most important.

Freedom to choose means freedom to choose there should be no asterix.

 

[SapientWolf]

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.

Eugenics is when the government steps in and says that you're not allowed to carry your child to term.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Eugenics is when the government steps in and says that you're not allowed to carry your child to term.

Thank you

 

[mcarlie]

It depends on the reasoning and circumstances I try not to paint in broad strokes.

Because I thought it was something logical and not morality nonsense.

No, you knew it was about morality, you're just trying to escape into moral relativism like everyone else does when they can't justify it.

 

[Monocle]

Personally I don't think the eugenics argument holds much water unless 1) abortions are performed systematically for the express goal of creating a fitter population, or 2) women are coerced by doctors or the government to terminate fetuses with birth defects.

If a woman doesn't think she can provide a good life for a kid with mental disabilities, or if she honestly doesn't think she's mentally or emotionally up to caring for a special needs child, then abortion is a viable option. You are not obligated to potentially ruin your finances and your chance for a fulfilling life just because you've conceived.

(Naturally this is a morally gray subject and there are a lot of what-ifs to consider.)

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The eugenics argument holds zero water, for all the reasons already cited, but also because eugenics is about improving the gene pool, and preventing a Down Syndrome birth doesn't do that because it's purely random.

Fuck this...
Most of these Down syndrome kids aren't suffering they are the most joyful loving people this world has(trust me I volunteered at a place in NKY called Redwood where a lot of people with Down syndrome go as well as have a cousin with Down syndrome and were they suffering...hell no).
This is selective murder and basically saying that if you aren't perfect then go fuck your self.
Disgusting
And before the people ask I am pro choice in a sense of economical and other reasons but this is just way too far.
Also this isn't going to get rid of Down syndrome.....

This is absurd. You aren't pro-choice then. If a woman says she aborts a healthy fetus because she's not ready to be a parent, you're OK with this, but if she aborts a less healthy fetus, you're not? How does this make sense?

"Selective murder", please. You're either pro-choice or you aren't. Abortion isn't murder. If you think this is murder, then you think all abortions are murder.

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?

Seriously. Fuck off, Palin.

 

[Steiner84]

americas irrational fixation on ancient outdated believes.

 

[Stop It]

Well, having three or just one can be quite fatal, so it is rather ideal to have two sets of chromosomes, and only two. Most trisomy conditions or the deletion of one part or whole chromosome can be considered fatal in about 99% of cases. Down syndrome is a bit different in that regard, as the survival rate is slightly higher than that.

In the end, you are not the one living with the decision to continue or end a pregnancy. It does not affect you personally in any shape or form. My decision to terminate two pregnancies has no affect on your life what so ever. My choice in housing, income, education, and many other aspects of my life do not personally impact you. Why do you feel such a need to cast a blanket opinion over some one else's life??

Bingo.

Personally, I would never think of abortion because of Downs but I would never condemn others for doing it.

It should be a personal choice whether to accept the testing (Full disclosure: Myself and my partner opted not to test for our first child, we won't test in any subsequent pregnancy either if and when they happen) and it should not be a decision made under any sort of pressure.

Any suggestions that people are getting tested, and then aborting because it's seen as the norm needs to be challenged however. It needs to be an informed choice based on what Downs is and the impact, both to the children and parents and counter argument that support is available and children with Downs can lead full, healthy lives.

This isn't a genetic disorder that can be wiped out as the defects can occur to pretty much anyone after all. I really don't want society to default to getting rid of Downs babies just because everyone else does it. However anyone who does get tested and feels that they feel that they should abort, then they should.

 

[eot]

When we are talking about life or death we need to be absolutely certain.

It may sound a little silly but there is an episode of Star Trek TNG where data the android has to go before a judge to determine whether or not he has the right to refuse being disassembled, with one side arguing that he has no right to refuse and the other side saying that he does. The argument that wins his right to choose in the end is that there is no way to know with absolute certainty whether or not he is conscious or whether or not he has moral rights and therefore it would be too audacious to make any claim either way. It is too audacious to claim to know with any certainty whether or not the fetus has any moral rights or not. And when stuck in this position of skepticism the only moral choice to make is to not allow terminating the life.

You're right that we can't prove if someone is conscious or not, but an organism claiming to be conscious is a lot different from a blob of cells in someone's womb. But fine, if you want to err on the side of caution do that. Do you extend that to other organisms as well? I don't see how you can take that position and eat meat for example. I don't know if a pig is conscious, but it's more believable to me than that a few weeks old fetus is, and if the value of the fetus is that it has consciousness then the pig has the same value.

 

[SPCTRE]

The wife and I talked about this scenario (positive prenatal screening for Down's Syndrome) during her pregnancy.

We concluded that we can't really be sure how we're going to decide until we're actual in that situation, but ignoring that we were both leaning towards no abortion. I have witnessed personally the quality of life/fulfillment people with Down's Syndrome can achieve so I believe it's the right thing to do - because I believe in our ability to pull that off/deal with the challenging aspects of raising a child with that condition.

That being said, this decision needs to stay with the parents/mother.

 

[Aureon]

Let the parents decide for themselves if they decide they want and can take care of a child with Down Syndrome, and whatever their choice, it's theirs.

In this case, I think it's a good thing that these tests are available.
I have an adoptive brother who is 24 years old. But he has the mental capacity of a 2 or 3 year old. My parents did not 'sign up' for a special needs child, but they got one 'on accident'.
My brother does not have Down Syndrome, but he lives in a home with others who all have it.

If you ever feel unloved, go to a home where people with Down Syndrome live.
Every time I visit my brother, I'm getting at least a dozen hugs by each of them. Mental disability is called 'limited' here.
I see them dancing along the music with all their love and enthusiasm and not a shred of worry about how they might look.
And I'm awkwardly standing to the side line having serious doubts about who is the real 'limited' one in the room.
Every year on my brother's birthday, they each write a speech to tell him what they like about him, and how much they love him.
Some write it down, some try to memorize it, some just wing it. But it's all heartfelt in a way that I wish I could express myself.

That are some of the upsides of Down.

It's possible for someone with the Down Syndrome to have a normal to high IQ, but this is rare. Most of them are not able to live independently.
For their entire lives, they will need help. My brother and some of the people he lives with have simple jobs. Spikes in boxes. Wrapping things up. Simple farm work. Simple householding and cleaning.
My brother loves his packing job because the trucks come pick up all the boxes when the work is done and he loves trucks. He'll never be able to drive one.

There's always a caretaker in the house. They need help with medicine, bathing, dressing and getting ready for going to work if they can do any.
They are in their mid-twenties and none of them can go out unsupervised, because they do not have the mental capability to stay out of harms way in traffic, and to make it back home.
Some of them can read and write a bit and some can count a bit, but sorting out taxes? Never.

Their immune system isn't as strong as 'normal' people's.
Back in spring, one of the girls was so ill they thought she wouldn't live to see Summer. She miraculously recovered and seems to be doing well. For now.
Nearly half of people with Down Syndrome have heart defects and need multiple surgeries in their life. Thyroid gland related issues are common.
They are all motivated to exercise as much as possible, and treats are kept to a minimum because they put on weight easily.

People with down syndrome do not live as long as people without it. And when they get old, they have a high risk to develop dementia.

Homes aren't perfect. You can search the world for the best one and place your child there. It still won't be up to your standards.
I've seen my parents try. First just for the weekends. Since a few years, permanently.
There's been incidents. People gotten hurt. Things went missing. Innocents accused.
A friend of the family went through a lot to get their daughter in a home. But it didn't work out, and she couldn't stay there. She's in her mid 30s and is living with her parents again. Her parents are getting old and their daughter needs a lot of care.
Sometimes, both need to work on the same day, and there is no other choice but locking up their daughter in a padded playroom and hoping she'll be fine for the hours they're gone.

In contrast with my brother, I was the smartest kid in my class. Teachers told my parents "She's gonna make it far in life!"
When I was around 16, I applied for a school abroad. It was a school held in high regard and I was accepted.
Overjoyed, I showed my mother. "But that's too far away. If you study there, you'll want to live there. Then who will take care of your brother when we are too old?"

My brother brags about me a lot to his housemates. Because I can read and write and because I can drive a car. Even though I barely reach 5 feet and he's much taller than me, he looks up to me.
He comes back from his work and he gives me a music box wrapped in toilet paper, something he has stolen but he doesn't understand that it's wrong.
At times when I visit, he says to me, in his very limited vocabulary, that he missed me, those are the times I think "It's okay, it's fine. It's worth it that I gave up my dreams to take care of you because you can't help how you are."

But a selfish part of myself can't help to think how my life could have been. If.

Whoah. That's really powerful.
Thanks.

 

[Grug]

How dare people deny Ted Cruz less people for him to to withhold financial, educational and medical support from.

Republicans - pro-life from conception to birth. Then it's all up to you and your bootstraps.

 

[Westbahnhof]

How dare people deny Ted Cruz less people for him to to deny all financial, educational and medical support to.

I get where you're coming from, but this isn't (just) about the US, so it sounds a bit odd.

 

[Grug]

I get where you're coming from, but this isn't (just) about the US, so it sounds a bit odd.

But he's clearly using it as a "there but for the grace of (my) God go us" case study right?

 

[Westbahnhof]

But he's clearly using it as a "there but for the grace of (my) God go us" case study right?

Yeah. Just sounded weird on my head, like he had any influence over Iceland. Doesn't matter.

 

[black_13]

It's rather selfish for someone who isn't going to be raising a kid with down syndrome to criticize others who are in that situation. It's hard enough raising kids and it must be even harder to raise ones with down syndrome so I don't blame them at all and I would do the same if I found out.

 

[HarryHengst]

I cant wait for the moment every baby born is free of cancer and alzheimers and allergies and all kinds of other genetic misery. And yes, Down and autism fall under that as well. In my view, the morally wrong thing to do is carrying a child to birth knowing it will suffer the rest of it's life from conditions that could have been prevented by abortion or genetic modification.

 

[OfficerRaichu15]

The eugenics argument holds zero water, for all the reasons already cited, but also because eugenics is about improving the gene pool, and preventing a Down Syndrome birth doesn't do that because it's purely random.


This is absurd. You aren't pro-choice then. If a woman says she aborts a healthy fetus because she's not ready to be a parent, you're OK with this, but if she aborts a less healthy fetus, you're not? How does this make sense?

"Selective murder", please. You're either pro-choice or you aren't. Abortion isn't murder. If you think this is murder, then you think all abortions are murder.


Seriously. Fuck off, Palin.

Ok fine I'm absurd. Sorry.
I'll be honest I looked into it somemore abd it isn't as bad as I thought it was.

 

[Bashtee]

Deciding to whether or not carry out a disabled child is one of the biggest decisions a woman has to make for the whole family, as it will have an impact on everyone. Going through with an abortion is not easy, but neither is caring for a disabled child, potentially for the rest of its life.

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.

"It's more difficult" is easy to say if you don't have to care for one. Of course it also depends on the grade of the disability, but there usually always has to be someone there for your child, regardless of age. It's exhaustive, it's time-consuming, it's so much more than just "more difficult".

When I was around 16, I applied for a school abroad. It was a school held in high regard and I was accepted.
Overjoyed, I showed my mother. "But that's too far away. If you study there, you'll want to live there. Then who will take care of your brother when we are too old?" [...] At times when I visit, he says to me, in his very limited vocabulary, that he missed me, those are the times I think "It's okay, it's fine. It's worth it that I gave up my dreams to take care of you because you can't help how you are."

With that one sentence, your mother put a tremendous burden upon you. This shouldn't have happend. You shouldn't have to feel guilty for pursuing your own dreams and wishes.

But a selfish part of myself can't help to think how my life could have been. If.

It's not selfish to think and care about your own life, however, it is selfless to be there for your brother regardless.

 

[TatteredHat]

Good, if we have reached the point where we can make the conscious decision not to carry to term children with severe disabilities then I think it would be foolish not to take that opportunity.

But I do have to laugh at republicans of all people calling other people Nazis given recent events.

 

[LegendofLex]

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?

1,2,3 are all perspectives based on value judgments about people with Down's syndrome (a particular class of people) after they're born.

Sure, if we conclude that the mother's right to an abortion should always prevail (esp pre-viability), there's no good reason to restrict abortion access.

But does that mean there's no discrimination involved when a mother chooses to abort a fetus for having Down's? Does that mean aborting a fetus for having Down's is equivalent to (let's say) implementing a cure for Down's? Does that mean we're fixing the problem of Down's syndrome, or that we're fixing the problem of allowing people with Down's syndrome to exist?

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing or that's wrong to promote it. I'm just saying that this is a little more complicated than "we've found a way to fix Down's syndrome" and "because these fetuses don't have rights, there's no potential for moral grays here."

A lot of people seem to be suggesting that it'd be insane to not choose this, which is why I think that distinction needs to be understood. It's absolutely okay for people to not be comfortable choosing this, and those choices can have a moral and not purely emotional basis.

 

[Goodstyle]

I thought the same, then this video kinda toyed with my opinion on the matter:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pMsMPON4Sxo

This video is a crock. "Down Syndrome is a beautiful thing". Like hell it is. Down Syndrome is pain. Down Syndrome is stress. Down Syndrome is a cruel joke from God.

 

[Stone Ocean]

That is exactly my issue with this, it's one step removed from eugenics. We are determining whether someone else gets to live or not based on our narrow guess of what we think that person's life might be like and whether or not they would enjoy it or, worse, whether we'd enjoy it and without even giving that person a chance to weigh in. If you honestly believe that this is okay then you are unequivocally telling every person with a Down's diagnosis that their lives aren't worth living. Somehow I doubt you'd get an enthusiastic response. There are plenty of people out there with Down's who live happy fulfilling lives. Not perfect, not without hardship or work for themselves or those who care for them, but still fulfilling. Who are we to deny people that opportunity, to pass judgment before that person is allowed to take even a single step? I honestly believe that not only is it worth it to try, but that we as a society have an obligation to make that happen, that that living breathing human being has a dignity and worth that can't be taken away by a genetic malformation or whether or not their parent thinks they're worth it. The Declaration of Independence says that all people are endowed with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't remember any asterisks there.

You're right, there are no asterisks, which means an unborn fetus' rights are not above the same rights of its parents.

Rights are not absolute they are weighted against others. Your right to liberty doesn't mean you can't go to jail. You have the right to live yet death penalty is a thing. A fetus' having rights does not mean its parents' have to deal with their own rights going to the shitter.

 

[Zelenogorsk]

The less disabled children the better. And abortion is a perfectly fine way to go about this since women should have control over their body.

 

[LegendofLex]

You're right, there are no asterisks, which means an unborn fetus' rights are not above the same rights of its parents.

Rights are not absolute they are weighted against others. Your right to liberty doesn't mean you can't go to jail. You have the right to live yet death penalty is a thing. A fetus' having rights does not mean its parents' have to deal with their own rights going to the shitter.

This is a badly constructed logical argument.

You start off by saying "there are no asterisks," then say in the end "a fetus has rights." But you never explain why a fetus, which you admit has rights, doesn't have a right to not be killed/not be abandoned by its parents that prevails over the parents' right to not want to have a kid (even though a born child would have these rights). Since "there are no asterisks" this is essential if you're going to explain why a fetus wouldn't have the same rights as a child.

Don't be lazy with your arguments. If you're going to admit a fetus can or should have rights, don't leave out the compelling reasons why the mother's rights should prevail.

For me, it's that women need agency over their bodies to counteract female oppression and subjugation. Forcing them not to have abortions then becomes yet another form of oppression. I might rather see a world where abortion isn't needed, but subjugating women's bodies isn't a just or fair way to get there. It's just another form of injustice against women.

See, that wasn't so hard.

 

[chadtwo]

1,2,3 are all perspectives based on value judgments about people with Down's syndrome (a particular class of people) after they're born.

Sure, if we conclude that the mother's right to an abortion should always prevail (esp pre-viability), there's no good reason to restrict abortion access.

But does that mean there's no discrimination involved when a mother chooses to abort a fetus for having Down's? Does that mean aborting a fetus for having Down's is equivalent to (let's say) implementing a cure for Down's? Does that mean we're fixing the problem of Down's syndrome, or that we're fixing the problem of allowing people with Down's syndrome to exist?

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing or that's wrong to promote it. I'm just saying that this is a little more complicated than "we've found a way to fix Down's syndrome" and "because these fetuses don't have rights, there's no potential for moral grays here."

A lot of people seem to be suggesting that it'd be insane to not choose this, which is why I think that distinction needs to be understood. It's absolutely okay for people to not be comfortable choosing this, and those choices can have a moral and not purely emotional basis.

Exactly, those judgments only apply to those with Down Syndrome after they're born. What reason is there to consider them pre-natally?

 

[mcarlie]

You're right that we can't prove if someone is conscious or not, but an organism claiming to be conscious is a lot different from a blob of cells in someone's womb. But fine, if you want to err on the side of caution do that. Do you extend that to other organisms as well? I don't see how you can take that position and eat meat for example. I don't know if a pig is conscious, but it's more believable to me than that a few weeks old fetus is, and if the value of the fetus is that it has consciousness then the pig has the same value.

Animals may very well be conscious. The fact that I eat animals has nothing to do with them being conscious or not, the important thing there is whether or not their brains are complex enough to be considered moral agents.

My point with the Star Trek analogy was not to say that the fetus is conscious, I think the child becomes conscious at some point in development but is not at first, the point is that it's morally ambiguous and therefore the burden of proof is on the person who wants to kill it. The fetus will become human if not aborted, killing it prematurely would deprive it of its future. A post-natal infant has a level of consciousness similar to an animal, yet we value its life just as any other human partly because of its future.

 

[LegendofLex]

Exactly, those judgments only apply to those with Down Syndrome after they're born. What reason is there to consider them pre-natally?

You don't see how some people might not be comfortable making a decision about whether to terminate their pregnancy based on a judgment of what the child will be like after they're born, on the basis of characteristics that we'd consider protected classes if applied to born persons? And you don't think that's rational?

For some people, there's a difference between the question "do I want to carry a kid to term and raise it?" and "do I want to carry this kid to term and raise it?" They might be comfortable choosing when they want to have a kid, but they might not be comfortable choosing not to have a kid because of the characteristics of the kid. (For some people, that's part of their calculus, and I don't fault them for it! It doesn't invalidate their choice.)

 

[chadtwo]

You don't see how some people might not be comfortable making a decision about whether to terminate their pregnancy based on a judgment of what the child will be like after they're born, on the basis of characteristics that we'd consider protected classes if applied to born persons? And you don't think that's rational?

For some people, there's a difference between the question "do I want to carry a kid to term and raise it?" and "do I want to carry this kid to term and raise it?" They might be comfortable choosing when they want to have a kid, but they might not be comfortable choosing not to have a kid because of the characteristics of the kid. (For some people, that's part of their calculus, and I don't fault them for it! It doesn't invalidate their choice.)

I don't think it's rational if you don't view the embryo or fetus as a life, no. Why would you impute the characteristics and human right guarantees of a protected class on something that isn't human? Appealing to what the embryo will be or could be seems to me logically faulty in just the same way that conservative arguments against abortion are.

 

[LegendofLex]

I don't think it's rational if you don't view the embryo or fetus as a life, no. Why would you impute the characteristics and human right guarantees of a protected class on something that isn't human? Appealing to what the embryo will be or could be seems to me logically faulty in just the same way that conservative arguments against abortion are.

Someone choosing to abort a fetus because it has Down's syndrome is also making decisions based on future, unrealized characteristics they associate with persons with Down's syndrome, are they not?

You have to appeal to what the embryo will or could be for this to even be part of your calculus at all. You're always making your judgment based on the perceived quality of the future human life.

 

[chadtwo]

Someone choosing to abort a fetus because it has Down's syndrome is also making decisions based on future, unrealized characteristics they associate with persons with Down's syndrome, are they not?

You have to appeal to what the embryo will or could be for this to even be part of your calculus at all. You're always making your judgment based on the perceived quality of the future human life.

Fair point -- It's a stretch to say that future characteristics aren't relevant in that sense. But I don't think that necessitates applying the protections that would exist in the future for a human being to the embryo or fetus in the slightest.

It seems like it's just us two left here so if you'd like to PM me I'd be more than happy to continue the discussion!

 

[Stone Ocean]

This is a badly constructed logical argument.

You start off by saying "there are no asterisks," then say in the end "a fetus has rights." But you never explain why a fetus, which you admit has rights, doesn't have a right to not be killed/not be abandoned by its parents that prevails over the parents' right to not want to have a kid (even though a born child would have these rights). Since "there are no asterisks" this is essential if you're going to explain why a fetus wouldn't have the same rights as a child.

Don't be lazy with your arguments. If you're going to admit a fetus can or should have rights, don't leave out the compelling reasons why the mother's rights should prevail.

For me, it's that women need agency over their bodies to counteract female oppression and subjugation. Forcing them not to have abortions then becomes yet another form of oppression. I might rather see a world where abortion isn't needed, but subjugating women's bodies isn't a just or fair way to get there. It's just another form of injustice against women.

See, that wasn't so hard.

Maybe I worded it badly, but my post was based on the assumption that the poster I was replying to believed a fetus has the same rights. Going from there, the fact that it has rights does not mean they should always trump over the mother's, I wasn't trying to make an argument regarding whether they have rights or not.

 

[LegendofLex]

Maybe I worded it badly, but my post was based on the assumption that the poster I was replying to believed a fetus has the same rights. Going from there, the fact that it has rights does not mean they should always trump over the mother's.

I think I see what you were going for. I've been on both sides of this issue (now firmly pro-choice), so I'll sometimes try to point out when it feels like something's missing from someone's argument. There was a lot of context that I needed before I realized why it's so important to defend abortions.

Fair point -- It's a stretch to say that future characteristics aren't relevant in that sense. But I don't think that necessitates applying the protections that would exist in the future for a human being to the embryo or fetus in the slightest.

It seems like it's just us two left here so if you'd like to PM me I'd be more than happy to continue the discussion!

Done! Thanks for the chat. I always love discussions about whether values are consistent.

 

[chadtwo]

I think I see what you were going for. I've been on both sides of this issue (now firmly pro-choice), so I'll sometimes try to point out when it feels like something's missing from someone's argument. There was a lot of context that I needed before I realized why it's so important to defend abortions.



Done! Thanks for the chat. I always love discussions about whether values are consistent.

Of course, thank you.