quote:Would it be right to abort a baby that is carrying a death sentence in its genes?
I know I'm going a little far with it - you're not forced to read what follows, that's a difficult subject for me. All babies are born with a death-sentence in their genes : they're all going to die one day. You can give birth to a perfectly healthy baby and see him die one year after because of an accident, for exemple. What would you do if you had the choice between living one more year, surrounded by the love of your loved ones, or die immediatly? Some people may choose the first option, but I think I would go for the second. The last year of my mother's life has been really hard, for her, for us, still I wouldn't choose to erase it if I could. I understand that with abortion some people think they are preventing entirely someone's life to begin because it would probably be miserable, but I think if you abort a five months pregnancy then you are terminating a life, not preventing it.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who's going to adopt a baby that is already on life support and isn't expected to live? It's a tremendous drain on one's emotions and finances, no matter how loving you are. I doubt that there's many families willing to take those children on...
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a case like a trisomy disorder, I would not be against refusing medical treatment for the baby. MOst will die within hours of birth without medical intervention. I see no problem with not interfering in a natural process.
It would be painful, and horrible, and traumatic, but I would rather give birth to my baby and hold him/her for that hour of life than abort him/her in the womb. Abortion is (to me) the intentional taking of my baby's life, while allowing him to die without medical intervention is simply allowing a natural process to take place and I see a big difference between the two.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree - we all die. But the devil's advocate argument is that a baby who dies before it's first year never had the chance to learn the goodness of life. It knows pain, confusion, and perhaps the occasional touch of a loving hand. But babies don't think the way we do - their brains work in the NOW only. The concept of time is one that develops as the brain matures. And most of a severely (I'm talking life-threatening lots of systems going wrong scenario) handicapped baby's life is full of hurt. It's very different than an older child or adult who has many more concepts.
Another aspect - babies used to die often. Before the advent of modern medicine, babies with problems usually died early. One wonders how attached mothers were to their children. Did they have their hearts ripped out with every lost baby or young child? Or was there a certain hesitation to get close until the child survived its first vulnerable years and illnesses? Are we closer to our unborn children now than generations before us? How does that affect our perspectives on abortion?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who knows a family who had a baby with Trisomy 18 (he lived about 10 months, much of that in and out of hospitals), I still think that any abortion done because the baby is disabled is horrible.
True, he never had a real shot at a long life. But he DID have a life. A life where he was loved. A life with some joy (he had a beautiful smile).
ALL life is doomed to death. ALL life has pain. Where is the line between "this baby won't have a 'meaningful' life" and "this person has no 'meaningful' life anymore -- kill 'em"?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Furthermore, oftentimes those tests before birth aren't 100% accurate. The health of the baby may be far better than the testing indicates. If people abort based on percentages then there will be deaths that, if more information was available, would not have been desired.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, myself, would find it a difficult position to be in. Belle and Rivka, you are both mature and wise women who are well able to work with the tragedies that life might bring you. But another woman might not be in that place. I guess I'm just trying to point out that regardless of one's own position on abortion, it is unkind and unwise to judge another woman's/family's very painful decisions in these extreme cases.
Abortion, no matter how it is done or why, is a tragedy. It's severe and extreme. Murder? In some cases, I'm sure it is. Mercy killing, perhaps, in others. I'm definitely not advocating it.
But all I know is that I would not have put my dear friend through the delivery of her dead baby if I could have spared her from it. If she'd known her child was going to die before birth, she might have been able to abort it before she began to feel it in her womb and bond with it. She might have been able to lose her pregnancy before her breasts filled with milk for a child that had to be induced and delivered dead. She would not have bonded with that baby and hoped. She wouldn't be writing awkward thank-you cards for baby shower gifts that cannot be used. I don't know, maybe she would have chosen that path anyway. But at least she would have the comfort of knowing she made a choice.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My friend's experience really affected me. I used to be in the "I'd never" camp on abortion. But now I know that I don't know. I wouldn't know unless the situation came upon me. I feel I cannot judge. I've not been there.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Would it be right to abort a baby that is carrying a death sentence in its genes?
I'll give the Mormon response to that. Mormons believe that one of the primary functions of human life is to give a living body to an already-developed spirit, which existed as a spirit child of Diety millennia before the conception of the baby. This uniting of body and spirit gives the child of Heavenly Parents chance to advance and progress in ways that would have been impossible without the body, even if this body is physically or mentally deformed.
It is for this reason that, theologically, Mormons are against abortion--it deprives the spirit child of the chance to receive and earthly body. There are, however, exceptions to the Church's anti-abortion stance that can be made in the case of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. There isn't an exception granted for cases of disability or short life of the infant, becaus by simply receiving a physical body the spirit has fulfilled an important part of it's earthly existance, and the rest of that existence will occur after the body is resurrected in a perfect state.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are, however, exceptions to the Church's anti-abortion stance that can be made in the case of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Furthermore, oftentimes those tests before birth aren't 100% accurate.
That is a significant point. I know more than one person who was incorrectly told their child had Downs syndrome.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was kinda wondering that too. In all of those cases, isn't the spirit child still entitled to his/her Earthly body, regardless of the unfortunate circumstances of its conception?
*Edit* That's in response to TomDavidson's comment, by the way. I hate it when people wedge in a post between my post and the one I'm responding to. Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no official church doctrine as to why the exception is made in those specific cases, except that that every decision should be made between the woman, her support group, and most importantly with the confirmation of her Heavenly Father.
Since there isn't an official doctrine, I am about to delve into the realm of Deep Theology Based on Pure Speculation that is imperfect and will surely raise questions, so take it with a grain of salt. In my opinion, the spirit children who are deprived the rights of an earthly body either through willfull or spontaneous abortion (i.e. miscarriage) will receive another chance to inherit their earthly body. An earthly body is so fundamental to the Plan of Heavenly Father that it would be uncharicteristic of Him to eternally deprive one of his spirit children the right to a body because of choices made on earth.
However, it does frustrate his plan. When a couple conceives, either by choice or by accident, Heavenly Father prepares a way for one of His children to inherit the body that is forming within the mother. If the fetus is aborted, that plan is frustrated, and the Heavenly Father must find another place for that child to go. Thus, abortion-on-demand is looked upon as sin, as it is contrary to the plan of God.
Rape, however, is by definition contrary to the will of God. If a pregnancy results from the rape, He will prepare a way for one of his children to inherit the body, but since it the body is being formed against the will of the mother, then the mother has the right to decide whether to abort. In cases where the mother is a member of the church, this decision should be made through prayer with confirmation of Heavenly Father. If the pregnancy ends, then the spirit child will get another chance at life.
In cases where the life of the mother is likely to be ended by the pregnancy, then the spirit child won't be given a chance to live on earth anyway (assuming the fetus dies with the mother.) So, it would be better for the the pregnancy to end and the child be "re-assigned" than for the mother to die along with the child.
Again, this is all Deep Theological Speculation, probably better suited to Nauvoo, but you asked, so I tried to answer with my opinion.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: There isn't an exception granted for cases of disability or short life of the infant
According to Dallin H. Oaks
quote:Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth
So, while there is no exception for a short life, there is an exception relating to the survivability of the fetus (which is somewhat similar).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are, however, exceptions to the Church's anti-abortion stance that can be made in the case of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.
Why?
I can't say for the church, but I'll give a perspective somewhat different than Brian's.
I believe that almost anything that is generally wrong can be situationally right. Thus killing is generally wrong, but in certain situations it can be right, due to extenuating circumstances (self-defense, war, capital punishment, etc.). The more serious the effect of the action (seriousness judged, I think, by God-like values relating to life, freedom and hapiness) the more restrictive the set of extenuating circumstances.
So I think each commandment has an explicit or implied set of (rare) exceptions. Why the commandment against abortion has the specific set of exceptions it does I'm not sure. I imagine there are other theoretical exceptions that aren't delineated in the list. I'm not sure what they would be. I imagine the list was an attempt by the leadership of the church to come up with circumstances where consequences were serious enough (again, judged by effect on life, freedom and hapiness) to warrant a mention. I don't think it's comprehensive, but I do think that no other currently widely-suggested reasons (such as genetic choice) will make the list, because they have already been judged lacking sufficient standing.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This remindes me of a StarTrek - TNG episode where they were working with a race that by law required babies with "defects" to be aborted. When Giordi was told by one of the planet's people that he would have been aborted because he was blind he replied, "What gives you the right to decide if my life would have been worthwhile.", or something to that effect.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But all I know is that I would not have put my dear friend through the delivery of her dead baby if I could have spared her from it. If she'd known her child was going to die before birth, she might have been able to abort it before she began to feel it in her womb and bond with it. She might have been able to lose her pregnancy before her breasts filled with milk for a child that had to be induced and delivered dead. She would not have bonded with that baby and hoped
Obviously, I can't answer for your freind, but I'll give you my perspective.
If I'd known my baby was going to be stillborn, known that for sure, I still would have let nature take it's course. At least that way I was able to hold him, to touch him, to have photos and momentos. There's a lot less of wondering what he would have looked like. I think the bonding has helped me move on. In my loss groups I have met many women who are pro-choice, but made the decision to carry on with the pregnancy to have that bonding experience.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Due to some medical issues going on at the time I was conceived and in the very early stages of development, my parents were told I would very likely have serious and possibly fatal birth defects and problems. I know that at one appointment, the doctor informed them that in their position some people might choose abortion over carrying me to full-term. My doctor knew this was not an option my parents would be interested in (nor was it something he would recommend), but at the same time he wanted to be sure that they were completely informed. They planned as best they could for my entrance into the world - while my mom was in labor they had surgical suites and teams of doctors waiting. There were multiple doctors in the delivery room. As I was born, they literally had beds and elevators waiting to transport us. And you know what? I was fine - perfectly healthy. The other doctors teased Mom's doctor that if I was a very sick baby, they wanted to see a healthy one. Granted, predictions of diseases and defects are more certain now that they were when I was born, but the idea that I could have been aborted is disconcerting.
The idea of terminating pregnancy due to defects is troubling to me. I don't know what I would do, were I in that situation, but I would like to think I would choose to have my baby, regardless of their possible disabilities.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a parent should be able to abort a baby because there is a likelihood of the child having a mental or physical defect, and the parent isn't willing to deal with it ... what should such parents do if AFTER birth, their child develops some kind of mental or physical defect due to trauma or disease?
There is no such thing as a child or loved one who cannot become a burden. People who try to customize their future family life and make it easier for themselves by violently eliminating the burdensome children in advance are in for a rude awakening.
I think that such people are in need of serious help. Do we really want to promote the idea in our culture that people with disabilities should not have lives because they are a burden to others?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a parent should be able to abort a baby because there is a likelihood of the child having a mental or physical defect, and the parent isn't willing to deal with it ... what should such parents do if AFTER birth, their child develops some kind of mental or physical defect due to trauma or disease?
It's worth noting that to people who do not think of a fetus as a child, these are not equivalent situations. Presumably anyone who does not believe abortion is murder would not consider this a fair analogy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a fair analogy if we speak about children that would be viable outside of their mother's uterus. Two babies of the same "age" (six months from conception for exemple), one inside and the second outside the mother's uterus can't have different status if we speak morally. Still, the doctors have to do everything they can to keep the second one alive and have the right to kill the first one. I'm pro-choice, really I am, but not that far in the pregnancy, and it's very rare that heavy diseases can be detected before that stage.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anna: Two babies of the same "age" (six months from conception for example), one inside and the second outside the mother's uterus can't have different status if we speak morally.
That is your opinion. Others disagree.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's worth noting that to people who do not think of a fetus as a child, these are not equivalent situations. Presumably anyone who does not believe abortion is murder would not consider this a fair analogy.
Similarly, someone who does not consider an infant to be fully human until they are, say, four years old would object to an analogy that compares toddlers to nine-year-olds. However, their objection would no bearing on whether it actually IS a valid analogy.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a parent should be able to abort a baby because there is a likelihood of the child having a mental or physical defect, and the parent isn't willing to deal with it ... what should such parents do if AFTER birth, their child develops some kind of mental or physical defect due to trauma or disease?
It's worth noting that to people who do not think of a fetus as a child, these are not equivalent situations. Presumably anyone who does not believe abortion is murder would not consider this a fair analogy.
I read Puppy's quote quite differently. His point doesn't presuppose the equating of abortion with murder in order to be valid. He's saying that the parental attitude that they're unwilling to take on any more "burden" than that associated with a "normal," healthy child is bound to be met with disappointment.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anna, traditional Jewish thought considers a child which has been born to be a "complete" life, with as much right to life as the mother. An unborn child, however, is -- while definitely a human life -- not yet a complete life. Certainly not to be killed for convenience's sake, or even in a "mercy killing"; but the mother's life takes precedence.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:His point doesn't presuppose the equating of abortion with murder in order to be valid.
Yes, it does. Because it's not unreasonable to observe that choosing to bear a child which you are fairly certain will be an abnormal burden is NOT the same thing as discovering, later in life, that your child has become an abnormal burden. To people who do not believe that fetuses are already children, the first choice can be made before the fetus achieves "child" status, whereas the second cannot.
Note that I'm not making the moral argument that fetuses are not children. But I AM saying that if you don't think fetuses are children, aborting a fetus which is almost certain to produce a particularly difficult child is NOT equivalent to abandoning a particularly different child.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was that every fetus has a good chance of becoming a difficult burden for some reason, at some point in its life. If someone is so unwilling to deal with that kind of burden that they would abort a potential child because of the risk, then they should abort all their potential children. Or, in a version of the universe I can more easily live with, they should grow up and learn to love other human beings enough to help them even through difficult times.
Honestly, the distinction between a fetus and a baby is a rough one to make, because humans don't live entirely in the present. I'm a twentysomething new dad and competent game designer right now, but I also consider myself to be the same person as the fast-driving teenage gamer, the insecure outcast elementary-school kid, the precocious toddler, and every stage of my future self through middle and old age. I think of my wife in all those terms, and I think of my daughter, not just as the baby she is now, but also as the child, teenager, and woman she will grow into.
The same thing happens when most people (I believe) think about an unborn child. People insist on using the word "fetus" because it draws a line that makes it easier not to think of the unborn child as being the same as its future self.
But when a parent aborts a child because of a mental defect, perhaps the thing that makes it abhorrent to me is the fact that they are clearly not thinking of it solely as a fetus. Being pregnant with a potentially-disabled fetus isn't much different from being pregnant with a healthy fetus. It's not the "fetus" or the pregnancy that is causing the problem. It's the fact that these parents see this "fetus" as a future child. And it is the child that they reject and decide to kill. Not the fetus. Because taking care of it will be hard, or because they'll be embarrassed.
I can't imagine thinking about an entity, whatever you want to call it, in terms of its future potential as a living, feeling human being, and then choose to kill it because I would rather destroy that potential human being than be forced to love it and care for it.
[shudders] That's just awful. I hate to imagine what those same people would have thought when they met my brother.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: To people who do not believe that fetuses are already children, the first choice can be made before the fetus achieves "child" status, whereas the second cannot.
You make a strong point. However, Puppy didn't argue (and neither do I) that the same hypothetical parents who would choose an abortion would also abandon a child who developed a disability. The point that resonated with me is that parental responsibility includes being willing to accept the possibility that their child may become seriously disabled, whether it is due to birth defects or later events. That being said, I'm loath to flat-out condemn all parents who choose to abort due to medical reasons involving the fetus. However, being that I know several families whose lives have been truly blessed by their "disabled" children (especially with something as relatively common as Down's Syndrome,) then I'll say abortion in these cases should be rare.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when a parent aborts a child because of a mental defect, perhaps the thing that makes it abhorrent to me is the fact that they are clearly not thinking of it solely as a fetus. Being pregnant with a potentially-disabled fetus isn't much different from being pregnant with a healthy fetus. It's not the "fetus" or the pregnancy that is causing the problem. It's the fact that these parents see this "fetus" as a future child. And it is the child that they reject and decide to kill. Not the fetus. Because taking care of it will be hard, or because they'll be embarrassed.
I love this.
People who abort when the fetus they are carrying may have disabilities are aborting the future, not the present. They are looking at the probable future and probably child, and rejecting that.
I think deciding to be a parent is a "Come What May" proposition.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think deciding to be a parent is a "Come What May" proposition.
What, then, do you think about genetic engineering for things like eye color, weight, etc.? Is there something INHERENTLY sacred about the roll of the dice that is genetics?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm less concerned with futzing with genetic selection than with what looks like rejection of a child that isn't perfect.
It's okay to hope one's kid will be tall and brilliant, just like his dad, but not okay to not want him if he isn't.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's okay to hope one's kid will be tall and brilliant, just like his dad, but not okay to not want him if he isn't.
Is it not bad, then, to give parents the option to customize their children prior to birth?
If we could, for example, eliminate DS entirely through genetic engineering, would you blame parents for choosing that option? If not, why is that ethically better than when parents who do not believe that abortion is the murder of a child choose to abort a DS child?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't decided about the ethics of pre-conception customization.
I have decided about post-conception customization. I don't like it. Conception as it is now means producing a life - from baby to adult - that may be anything from spectacular to very challenging. Once that second life is begun, getting out of the game is wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once that second life is begun, getting out of the game is wrong.
Why? What if, for example, a viral cure for DS were found? Would it be wrong to cure a child born with MS, because that would constitute "getting out the game?" How much randomness must we accept to be "authentic" parents?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have decided about post-conception customization. I don't like it. Conception as it is now means producing a life - from baby to adult - that may be anything from spectacular to very challenging. Once that second life is begun, getting out of the game is wrong.
What about selective implantation of embryos? Do you feel its alright, if the potential exists, for embryos created in vitro to be tested for genetic "defects" and not implanted if defects are found? I'm not sure how I feel about it; I react with much less revulsion to that scenario than to an in utero conception being aborted for genetic reasons.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once you've decided to expand your life to include someone else's, it's wrong to end that life because it isn't going as planned. Of course it won't go as planned - very little goes as planned.
It's conditional love. I don't like that - I think if that if someone doesn't want to accept all the risks that come with loving someone else, then they aren't ready yet to love someone else.
There is a huge difference between curing a disease in utero and eliminating the patient.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course it won't go as planned - very little goes as planned.
I like this sentence - it's so true. I really dislike the actual tendance to think that if something goes wrong then someone has to be responsible for it.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a huge difference between curing a disease in utero and eliminating the patient.
And by acknowledging that the fetus is a "patient," you're granting it personhood. To people to whom a fetus is not a person, this may not be a premise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Either the fetus has personhood or it does not. The personhood does not depend on whether or not it is completely healthy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The personhood does not depend on whether or not it is completely healthy.
And yet my point is that choosing to abort a fetus with an extremely high likelihood of long-term suffering is a question with different moral overtones if you believe the fetus is already a person. If you do not, aborting the fetus is NOT equivalent to eliminating a patient.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps it does have different moral overtones, but then again every individual case is loaded with moral overtones specific to that case. You still haven't answered Geoff's point that once parents decide to end a pregnancy because of potential health problems, they have moved beyond "destroying a fetus" to "preventing a potential life that may be very difficult to live with. That is one of the issues that lies at the heart of this potential debate.
Btw, I don't usually like simply repeating another Jatraquero's comments, but since Geoff's posts on this topic are much better worded than mine, and he has more personal experience with this issue than I have, I'm more than willing to defer to him.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You still haven't answered Geoff's point that once parents decide to end a pregnancy because of potential health problems, they have moved beyond "destroying a fetus" to "preventing a potential life that may be very difficult to live with."
But "preventing a potential life that may be difficult to live with" isn't inherently immoral. After all, we don't consider people immoral if, knowing that their genetics will produce a disabled or diseased child, they choose to abstain from conception altogether. In fact, we still require blood tests prior to marriage in most states with the express intent of preventing conception among some genetically incompatible individuals.
The issue here is whether, having conceived an embryo, it is moral to abort an embryo that seems likely to produce a flawed child. Clearly no one is claiming that it is immoral to refrain from sex if you have reason to believe that you will conceive a flawed child; it is the act of conception itself on which the question hinges.
After all, we're just setting the bar a bit earlier. Most people agree that it's wrong to abandon a child after birth if that child is likely -- or proves -- to be inconvenient. Fewer people agree that it's wrong to abort a child before birth if that child will be inconvenient. And even fewer agree that it's wrong to avoid conception (through birth control, abstinence, etc.) if one believes a child will be inconvenient.
The difference, of course, is the recognized rights of the child at each stage. Those people who do not believe these acts to be wrong at any of the above stages do so because they do not believe the child at that stage to be a "person" who requires parental attention. (Obviously, too, those people who do not believe children, however damaged, to be people at birth are rare -- but they do exist.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rat Named Dog, I loved your last post. Eloquent and made a good point.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are some who might abort because they really worry about the pain and suffering of the child, and not just because they worry about their own ability to care for it or the inconvenience of having a disabled child. Similar to those who have to choose whether or not to resuscitate a family member who has been in a lot of pain and is going to die soon anyway. It's not necessarily a selfish "I don't want to care for them" decision - it's a very painful one, but often made with the comfort of someone else in mind. This may not apply in cases similar to Down's Syndrome, but in cases where they know the life is going to be short and painful, abortion is just as likely to be for the purpose of sparing the child that pain as it is to spare themselves the trouble.
I'm not saying I agree with the decision to abort, or that it's okay; but I think it's wrong to paint them all with the "selfish" brush.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either the fetus has personhood or it does not. The personhood does not depend on whether or not it is completely healthy.
I'm sure that's true. It may be a problem with language, though. And there are properly controversial metaphysical assumptions that go into a statement like the excerpted quote.
I'll chime in on the blood test issue. I have the trait for sickle cell, and whether my partner is similarly disposed is going to be a determining factor in any paternal decisions I make.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Absolutely. It's unfair to paint large groups of people with infinitely varying motives with any brush. One thing that is interesting to note is that in many, many cases, medical technology has done nothing but prolong inevitable death. Sadly, this has happened when it comes to care of newborns as well. There was a time not so long ago when a child with severe genetic malfunctions would simply die, rather than live out a short life knowing nothing but needles and wires and tubes.
From my perspective (I'm talking about the theological one I outlined several posts above,) it is a better choice to allow the child to be born, so as to receive his or her earthly body, but I understand how other good-minded people can reach other conclusions.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
