Question for pro-life advocates.

[Jas]

Just out of curiosity,what's your position on problems with the fetus/baby? People often talk about exceptions being made for the health of the mother, or for the circumstances under which conception occurred, but what about the baby itself?

What would be your position on abortion for a baby with Trisomy18? Down's Syndrome? FAS? Accutane? Cerebral palsy? Should the pregnancy be carried to term? Do you have specific criteria as to what would justify abortion?

 

[Rob Lister]

Just out of curiosity,what's your position on problems with the fetus/baby? People often talk about exceptions being made for the health of the mother, or for the circumstances under which conception occurred, but what about the baby itself?

What would be your position on abortion for a baby with Trisomy18? Down's Syndrome? FAS? Accutane? Cerebral palsy? Should the pregnancy be carried to term? Do you have specific criteria as to what would justify abortion?

The original criteria as set forth by RvW suits me. We've walked a long way from that.

 

[bob_kark]

Just out of curiosity,what's your position on problems with the fetus/baby? People often talk about exceptions being made for the health of the mother, or for the circumstances under which conception occurred, but what about the baby itself?

What would be your position on abortion for a baby with Trisomy18? Down's Syndrome? FAS? Accutane? Cerebral palsy? Should the pregnancy be carried to term? Do you have specific criteria as to what would justify abortion?

I still don't see a reason for aborting fetuses with mental and physical defects. Just because a child is born mentally and physically deficient, doesn't mean they can't enjoy a happy life. In fact, I would state that it is more difficult for the parents than the children. Just because they can't enjoy the same standard of life that we can, doesn't mean that their life is worth less than ours. Don't get me wrong, I know that's not what you mean when you say that. I know your concern is the suffering they have to endure. However, you are essentially saying that they would be better off dead than alive.

Now, I know that Trisomy 18 is a little borderline here with the majority of fetuses dying prior to birth and the majority of the survivors dying before their first birthday. I just believe that its not about the quality of the life or the length of time they are alive. They at least deserve the right to experience life. As painful or as difficult as it may be, at least they can experience something.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Wouldn't a severly handicapped child be little more than a pet? They could never be expected to grow into an independant adult like a ordinary child would.

 

[bob_kark]

Wouldn't a severly handicapped child be little more than a pet? They could never be expected to grow into an independant adult like a ordinary child would.

So, because they're a burden, they do not deserve to live? Should we also be allowed to kill old people once they become infirm?

 

[Ed]

So, because they're a burden, they do not deserve to live? Should we also be allowed to kill old people once they become infirm?

If they are infirm enough, we do. We just don't talk about it much.

 

[Luke T.]

Wouldn't a severly handicapped child be little more than a pet? They could never be expected to grow into an independant adult like a ordinary child would.

Our janitor has Down's Syndrome and is mostly deaf. He is a very happy individual.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I still don't see a reason for aborting fetuses with mental and physical defects. Just because a child is born mentally and physically deficient, doesn't mean they can't enjoy a happy life. In fact, I would state that it is more difficult for the parents than the children.

That's why I'm generally in favour of it. The parents are the ones who have to spend the rest of their lives caring for their damaged child. It's a far greater commitment for far less reward than normal parenthood, as the honest parents of impaired children will tell you.

If it's really how they want to live their lives, and they are rich enough to see that their child is taken care of after they are dead, then they should feel free to keep an impaired child if they want to of course. It's a free world.

Just because they can't enjoy the same standard of life that we can, doesn't mean that their life is worth less than ours. Don't get me wrong, I know that's not what you mean when you say that. I know your concern is the suffering they have to endure. However, you are essentially saying that they would be better off dead than alive.

Not necessarily. For example, in cases where the parents can have another child which is unimpaired, you would be essentially saying that it would be better for there to be an unimpaired child than an impaired child.

Now, I know that Trisomy 18 is a little borderline here with the majority of fetuses dying prior to birth and the majority of the survivors dying before their first birthday. I just believe that its not about the quality of the life or the length of time they are alive. They at least deserve the right to experience life. As painful or as difficult as it may be, at least they can experience something.

Okay, I'll bite. What's the basis for these ideas about "deserving the right to experience life" and so forth? Is this a religious position?

 

[TimmyBerry]

So, because they're a burden, they do not deserve to live? Should we also be allowed to kill old people once they become infirm?

That's correct. Especially since a person with severe mental disabilities can not become a valuable part of a community, and cannot otherwise contribute to the further development of human kind.
Granted, not everyone mentally sound contributes, either...

 

[bob_kark]

That's why I'm generally in favour of it. The parents are the ones who have to spend the rest of their lives caring for their damaged child. It's a far greater commitment for far less reward than normal parenthood, as the honest parents of impaired children will tell you.

If it's really how they want to live their lives, and they are rich enough to see that their child is taken care of after they are dead, then they should feel free to keep an impaired child if they want to of course. It's a free world.

I completely understand that being a parent of an impaired child is a difficult task. It requires a large investment of their time as well as a strong financial, emotional, and mental commitment from the parents. The same could be said for the healthy child of a single mother working 3 jobs to make ends meet. When is the child's right to live overridden by this commitment?

Not necessarily. For example, in cases where the parents can have another child which is unimpaired, you would be essentially saying that it would be better for there to be an unimpaired child than an impaired child.

I don't see how I'm saying that its an "either or" situation. How does raising an impaired child keep the parents from having a healthy child?

Okay, I'll bite. What's the basis for these ideas about "deserving the right to experience life" and so forth? Is this a religious position?

Where do you get religion from this? If life was not important to the founders of the US, why would we have the 5th and 14th amendments? Why would the Declaration of Independence state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If life were not important to the citizens of the US, why would there be a debate about capital punishment, abortion, or assisted suicide? Why would we have punishments for murder or manslaughter. I'm certainly not the only person to believe that life is a basic human right.

I did have a fairly long talk last night about the right to experience life. I will say that experience is the important factor in my statement. A child born brain dead, can't experience life. In fact, it serves no purpose for the child or the parents for a brain dead child to be born. In that situation, I favor abortion.

 

[bob_kark]

That's correct. Especially since a person with severe mental disabilities can not become a valuable part of a community, and cannot otherwise contribute to the further development of human kind.
Granted, not everyone mentally sound contributes, either...

So we should also kill people on welfare, homeless people, criminals and the like? Seems like an awful lot of killing.

 

[Jocko]

Wouldn't a severly handicapped child be little more than a pet? They could never be expected to grow into an independant adult like a ordinary child would.

So you would have no problem with euthanizing them after birth? I mean, if the condition is worth killing them in utero, what's different once they make it outside, right?

Serious question, BTW. Would you kill these "pets"?

 

[LuxFerum]

It's a far greater commitment for far less reward than normal parenthood, as the honest parents of impaired children will tell you.

Really?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I completely understand that being a parent of an impaired child is a difficult task. It requires a large investment of their time as well as a strong financial, emotional, and mental commitment from the parents. The same could be said for the healthy child of a single mother working 3 jobs to make ends meet. When is the child's right to live overridden by this commitment?

Since when does the fetus have a right to life?

I don't see how I'm saying that its an "either or" situation. How does raising an impaired child keep the parents from having a healthy child?

Most people only want so many children.

Where do you get religion from this? If life was not important to the founders of the US, why would we have the 5th and 14th amendments? Why would the Declaration of Independence state:

Can you stick to the question I asked? Where does this supposed right come from? Why do you think it exists?

If life were not important to the citizens of the US, why would there be a debate about capital punishment, abortion, or assisted suicide? Why would we have punishments for murder or manslaughter. I'm certainly not the only person to believe that life is a basic human right.

You are assuming fetuses are entitled to this right though, and I have not yet seen a rational reason to do so.

I did have a fairly long talk last night about the right to experience life. I will say that experience is the important factor in my statement. A child born brain dead, can't experience life. In fact, it serves no purpose for the child or the parents for a brain dead child to be born. In that situation, I favor abortion.

I think anyone who doesn't in that situation is completely irrational, myself.

 

[monoman]

I just believe that its not about the quality of the life or the length of time they are alive. They at least deserve the right to experience life. As painful or as difficult as it may be, at least they can experience something.

This decision is entirely up to the parents. An unborn child will not miss life if you abort it. The only problem I can envisiage is, when a parent dies, the unborn child is waiting at the pearly gates arms crossed and tapping their foot.

 

[LuxFerum]

Since when does the fetus have a right to life?

Since when do you have the right to life?

Rights are given or taken whenever society wants.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Since when do you have the right to life?

Personally I think talk of rights is usually counterproductive. To me rights are only meaningful if everyone assumes that "you have a right to X" is a shorthand for "everybody agrees that we all prefer to live in societies where we have a right to X".

However in cases like this, where I'm talking to someone who appears to find talk of rights useful, I'm content to point out that they are making an unwarranted assumption by generalising from the "rights" of adult humans to the rights of microscopic blobs.

Rights are given or taken whenever society wants.

I agree, but some people do have the kooky idea that it is self-evident that all people have rights which transcend what society wants. Usually these people are from the USA, of course, but we should respect their quaint beliefs nonetheless.

 

[bob_kark]

Since when does the fetus have a right to life?

March 6th, 2006. In South Dakota at least. Secondly, the OP asked:

People often talk about exceptions being made for the health of the mother, or for the circumstances under which conception occurred, but what about the baby itself?

The phrasing in the question assumes that there is a law banning or limiting abortion. I answered the original post in that sense. If we're going to assume that there is a limitation on abortion, that gives the fetus a right to life.

Most people only want so many children.

Okay, that's their choice. No one is forcing them to not have another child.

Can you stick to the question I asked? Where does this supposed right come from? Why do you think it exists?

Hey, why don't we try to keep this friendly? I noticed your other comments, there's no need to be condescending.

My personal belief is that all humans have the right to live. As to my reasons why I believe a fetus is a human, I'll give you the short version. A child does not have the same cognitive, emotional, and physical abilities as an adult. However, we consider both to be human and the child's DNA structure will remain the same as an adult. A human fetus' DNA structure remains the same as it becomes a child or an adult. It may not have the same cognitive, emotional, and physical abilities, but I don't see how that strips it of its humanity.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

March 6th, 2006. In South Dakota at least.

To clarify, what do you personally see as the basis for this right? Why do fetuses have this right and not other micrscopic blobs?

Secondly, the OP asked:

The phrasing in the question assumes that there is a law banning or limiting abortion. I answered the original post in that sense. If we're going to assume that there is a limitation on abortion, that gives the fetus a right to life.

No it doesn't. It is asking pro-life people for their opinions, not making any claims about laws or granting any pro-life assumptions to be true.

Okay, that's their choice. No one is forcing them to not have another child.

So it's agreed then that, for people who want a specific number of children, it is a choice between an impaired child existing and an unimpaired child existing? Not a choice between an impaired child existing and no child at all existing?

My personal belief is that all humans have the right to live. As to my reasons why I believe a fetus is a human, I'll give you the short version. A child does not have the same cognitive, emotional, and physical abilities as an adult. However, we consider both to be human and the child's DNA structure will remain the same as an adult. A human fetus' DNA structure remains the same as it becomes a child or an adult. It may not have the same cognitive, emotional, and physical abilities, but I don't see how that strips it of its humanity.

If it's unique human DNA that matters, then it should be okay to abort one of a pair of identical twins because they have the same DNA. If you shift ground to viable zygotes, you have a problem because in theory you can make as many of those as you like just by splitting off blastomeres. Basically, making unique human DNA or individual cells the basis for moral value doesn't work.

These arguments are, if you notice, cut and paste jobs of old Catholic arguments against abortion. You cut out all instances of "soul", paste in "DNA" instead, and you have the same old arguments with a pseudoscientific gloss. The only problem is showing why having a unique set of human DNA makes something morally important.

 

[joe1347]

Assuming (from a 1st trimester diagnosis) the child will be born severely handicaped and the parents decide not to abort the fetus but unfortunately can't financially provide the necessary healthcare. Should the public then be responsible for the astronomical medical bills?