genetic superbabies and abortion

Great Debates
41

I dunno. I know of a couple that, after already giving birth to one baby with cystic fibrosis, went ahead and had another one without taking advantage of genetic testing. Oh, and guess what? The second baby’s got CF much more severely than the first. This is truly criminal to me - the couple knew they were both carriers, knewwhat quality of life their child might have, and had another anyway without testing. Guess they wanted to play the odds. Wouldn’t you save your child that agony if you were able? I’m not saying that children with CF aren’t wonderful people and probably have as much enjoyment of being alive as the next guy, but as a parent, wouldn’t you stop that suffering if you were able?

I’m up with the crowd that believes most women won’t use abortion as birth control or to achieve their perfect child. Not to say there aren’t a few who will (the exception that proves the rule!) - witness the lady who’s spent thousands to turn herself into Barbie or those who’ll abort due to the baby’s sex or because they don’t want to use condoms (geez, imagine the expense. I mean sure, maybe you don’t like the feel, but a pack’ll run you, what, five bucks? “No, I’d rather pay the at least $200 for one abortion.” Wow. I can’t get over that girl.). However, being pro-choice, I don’t know that I wouldn’t support the decision of one of our above hypotheticals and her right to get an abortion. Ethically, I don’t think I’d agree with that choice, but I would support it and her right to choose. Just because I support the right doesn’t mean I have to agree with the reasons leading to that decision. And I’d much prefer an aborted baby girl than one abandoned by her mother, even if she was abandoned at a doorstop, hospital, or orphanage.

For example, although the women who get multiple abortions sadden me and although I might find their actions incomprehensible, I do support their right to have an abortion.

Yes, in the best case scenarios, birth or adoption is best. But that’s not always reality, and I support a woman’s right to choose and her right to get a safe, legal abortion. Even if she wants to get 10. Even if it harms her fertility (which might not be a bad side-effect for the multiple abortion lady, seeing as she didn’t want the first few anyway.

Course, I would question, say, Dennis Rodman’s right to abort himself, or something equally ludicrous. I dunno, jarbaby - give us a “for instance” and we’ll see whose eyebrows are raised.
Snicks

42

I believe that people with enough money will always be able to get whatever they want - legally or illegally. In countries where abortion is illegal, those with enough money travel overseas to get it. There will always be some nation allowing rogue doctors to practice franken-medicine if they so wish, and there are always going to be people willing to fly there to get it. Just look at the human cloning thing - it’s claimed several pregnancies are already underway.

Would the US/UK/Europe impose sanctions on some country allowing a few illegal abortions/genetic tests a year? I doubt it. In the grand scheme of things it just won’t ever be an issue of such world concern or world harm that other nations would intervene if Libya, say, was allowing rich westerners to fly over and abort left-handed children. They’ve done precious-f-all to combat atrocities like female circumcision/gential mutilation that goes on abroad. They’ve done even less precious-f-all to prevent female infanticide in China.

So if you want a designer baby now - I imagine you can probably make a few phone calls or do a few internet searches and find a clinic that will break the law for cash.

43

Well, Gaudere, I think we agree that people should be able to abort for pretty much whatever reason. I was just discussing an aspect where severe unintended consequences to society came about as a result of that.

Well, maybe. It seems like a pretty far-fetched scenario IMO (that abortion would be the cause of it), though the education and active restrcturing (or incentive creation) angle should work equally well whether the cause is abortions or drowning babies in buckets. It does sound a little more reasonable, too. :o

44

Hmm… I thought you DID have some protected classes that could not be aborted (gender parity, and anything else that could be proven to “impact society negatively” ). You weren’t just relaying the bad consequences of those abortions, but saying that you would do things to actually restrict or prevent those abortions from occuring.

My irony meter is spiking at this notion. You have a sense that some (and who knows what other protected classes you could come up with…you were kinda vague on your criteria) abortions will “impact society negatively”, and don’t have a problem using governmental authority to prevent them from happening.

'course if pro life folks take a similar approach, they get accused of imposing morality on others… :wink:

45

Restrict or prevent those abortions when the existence of the society was threatened as a direct consequence of the abortive behavior, yes. Not in general.

46

Erislover, I can’t understand your reasoning. You claim that if one is pro-choice, then pretty much any abortion should be a-OK. But that does not follow.

Look, I am morally convinced that abortion is wrong. I think anyone who has an abortion for a trivial reason is a defective person. I just don’t see how stopping abortions for trivial reasons is going to work, and therefore feel that criminalizing abortions is going to have severe social side effects.

It’s not that I feel abortion is right, or that I waive all right to try to convince people not to have abortions, or that I must cheerfully acknowledge that having 3 abortions in a year is none of my business.

I don’t want to hijack this thread. Yes, criminalizing abortion would not be helpful. But that doesn’t mean that we thereby give up our right to discuss whether a particular person should or should not have a particular abortion.

Examples: It is not and should not be a crime to not call your mother on mother’s day. But that doesn’t mean that I give up the right to criticize you as a selfish child if you don’t call your mother on mother’s day. It is not a crime to smoke 4 packs of cigarettes a day and give yourself cancer and leave your children orphans. That doesn’t mean that I can’t make a moral critique of your decision to smoke 4 packs a day.

Follow me? I’m not saying that you have to agree.

47

Who wants to stop the discussion?

I didn’t claim it that I can see. I asked why one would think differently:
“[T]he issue isn’t whether you would personally have one, but why—if you’ll allow others to have one without condemnation—you would care how many others have in a given time frame.”

I agree.

48

Well, there’s the difference. I will not neccesarily allow others to have abortions without condemnation. I reserve the right to condemn them, I reserve the right to tell them they’ve made a bad choice, I reserve the right to tell them they’ve done something morally wrong. Just because I think jail isn’t the right solution doesn’t mean that I don’t condemn it.

49

Okey dokey.