Is a cleft palate or hare lip even detectable during pregnancy? (by normal methods such as ultrasound, I mean)
Apparently it’s an issue in the UK.
http://www.google.co.jp/search?q=abortion+harelip&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
It happens. Everything happens.
Damn, DtC, I wanted to be the first one to say that (my bolding).
At any rate, you hit it exactly. The OP seems to have assumed the premise that it is wrong to abort a healthy fetus. If you accept that premise (which I don’t), then you do have to conclude that an abortion as described is wrong.
Crude, O crude argument.
The locution “not a person” begs the questions, “Of value?”–“To be destroyed arbitrarily?”
People will sit up in old tress so that loggers cannot cut them down. They consider these plants to be of value, despite the fact they are not “persons.”
The additional trouble is that it is rather dicey to decide whether human life is of value or not. In fact, I think it is fair to say that one has taken the first step toward evil when one considers him/herself capable of making the judgment.
But nature does, sometimes, force us to do so.
I am not rabidly anti-abortion, although I think it is, except in tough cases, an abomination. Most countries have struck a compromise in which abortion after a certain period is illegal. I think this is the way to go, but the SCOTUS has decided otherwise, thereby forcing us into the current destructive culture war. I believe there is currently a Pit thread dealing with how this issue has chewed up our politics. Since nothing can be done about it either way right now, it is all academic, and I don’t even consdier pro-life/choice politics when supporting a candidate.
It would definitely depend on how severe we are talking about.
A child with a disability, even a severe one like in the hypothetical, is one thing. A child with a disability who is in constant pain is another. I think a strong family can cope with the challenges of a disabled child. But to me, it would seem unfair to subject a child to a lifetime of torture when it didn’t have to be that way.
Also, I think a physical disability is different from a mental one. A person paralyzed from the neck down will have a different quality of life than a person who is profoundly mentally retarded. A person caring for a quadraplegic is going to have a different quality of life than a person who is caring for someone who is profoundly mental retarded.
My decision would also be based on how stable the environment was. If I became pregnant right now (single, just starting a career, living far from family, etc.), I’d consider abortion even if the child was going to be 100% healthy. Let alone if he/she was going to be severely disabled. I’d also have to seriously consider abortion if the disabled child was going to be sharing space with multiple siblings.
So I guess my answer is that I would be averse to aborting a disabled child, but it wouldn’t be an easy decision to make.
I mean, I wouldn’t be averse to aborting a disabled child, but the decision wouldn’t be easy to make.
Once again I am pleased at how civilized we are here at SDMB.
(I have to go pick up my librarian at the airport. I will be back in a few hours.)
Ok, so apparently it happened once with a second tri fetus in the UK. One time is not exactly a trend or a fad. 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester anyway. Any late-term abortions which are done purely for “cosmetic” reasons are exceedingly rare and would probably be discouraged by any attendant physicians.
In any case, a second tri fetus is still not a person. It’s better if abortions are done early and a harelip may seem like a capricious reason to make a later choice, but a pregnant woman is not required to justify any decision to terminate the pregnancy. She can do it for any reason or no reason AFAIAC. I may think a harelip is a shallow reason but it’s not my uterus.
Only if you view wrong and right as absolute propositions, something which generally isn’t the case. We’re talking about a “least bad” outcome, and baldly asserting that aborting a healthy foetus is not wrong doesn’t help make the decision, really. It’s much more complex.
So, the personhood argument. This always strikes me as a pretty odd one, to be honest; it’s a proper false dilemma, asking “is a fetus a person or isn’t it?” Sure, at the start of pregnancy, those few cells can hardly be said to be a person. But at the end, they clearly are, and while we can be certain that simple anthropomorphism doesn’t make it so, there must clearly be some point at which personhood develops. Where is it? We don’t know. So by taking the decision to abort mid-term, some risk is clearly run that what is being killed may have consciousness. This is a clear downside, and not one that can be easily assessed; hardly a matter of black and white. I’m not saying this is an absolute criterion on which the decision must be made, but it’s something which ought to be considered.
Note that I’m also not saying that this is a reason why people should not have the choice of abortion; that choice is theirs, in my opinion. I’m just saying I would prefer that people take these factors into account when making the decision.
Anyway, the OP isn’t asking you to accept that abortion of healthy foetuses is “wrong”. He is asking where your valuation of the risk of abortion crosses over with your valuation of the cost of bringing to term a profoundly disabled baby, whose life will presumably involve a lot of suffering. If your answer is that you don’t consider abortion a risk at all, then that’s fine. The OP made no assumptions for you.
DtC: When does a foetus become a person, in your opinion? I’m just asking, incidentally, in case this sounds snarky. Not intended to be a loaded question.
Hmmmm…I agree with you completely about it being OK to abort a viable fetus. However, I took the OP to mean that if the fetus was previously WANTED, and then you found out about the problems, if it would still be OK. Does that make a difference?
Not to go off on a tangent or anything, but
You state this as if it’s a fact. It’s not.
And this explanation is logically fallacious…
The moral question can only be answered by the individual, therefore DtC has answered it correctly for himself. The next step is to look at it from a legal standpoint. At this time, it is not considered a person by the Supremes. I think his statement is accurate, even if it isn’t a fact.
Firstly, Mr. Moto, best of luck.
Now, as to the OP: Yes, if I had two “X” chromosomes and was presented with the situation as it is outlined, I would abort.
As much as I love my daughter (which is a tremendous amount, BTW) I think that if I were carrying her, I would probably abort. Because while she makes me an intensely happy guy, I’m scared shitless of what is going to happen when my wife and I die. Which, despite my protestations to the contrary, is going to happen someday. And when that happens, the apple of my eye is very probably going to be exposed to a world that I strive to keep from harming her.
And as has been said, it is perfectly legal and therefore acceptable for a woman to abort any fetus, healthy or no.
So, Carnick: wanna share your opinion yet?
I discused this with my GF. We’d abort. I would feel guilty, both in terms of allowing such a life to exist in such a state, and then having fellow tax payers to pay for all the medical expense of keeping a child alive.
I’m also all for assisted suicide in terminally ill people so I guess it works on both levels.
Gotta call you on poor reasoning: legal therefore acceptable?
We all know that this is not correct: Jim Crow was legal but not acceptable, etc. etc.
Also, people, please beware of making political assertions and assuming that they are true simply because they are boldy, confidently stated. “It’s perfectly OK to abort a healthy fetus” is treading on blithe, ignorant territory, IMO. Even if you fee very confident about the statement, as this IS a life and death matter you should be aware of the social processes that support really bad things. In Nazi Germany, that Jews were [insert dehumanizing rhetoric] was simply obvious, in the air. Not worthy of argument. Avoid this technique out of respect for what happens when it goes awry.
Yes, we have friends who are expecting. They already know the baby has a cleft palate. They are of course distraught, however they are not going to abort.
I don’t see anything at all in the OP about the fetus being wanted. Can you point that out to me?
I don’t mean to imply that the decision to abort cannot be full of emotional stress, even if you hold views similar to mine. I’m sure it is. But that doesn’t affect the logic of the argument.
I actually think what the OP is trying to tease out is if it’s OK to abort the fetus for your own convenience, rather than for concern over the future baby and what life it might lead. Similar to the decision to instiutionalize a handicapped child-- do you do it for the benefit of the child or just to “get it out of the way”?
This is similar to the argument made by some people that abortion is wrong (killilng a baby) except in the case of rape or incest. In those cases, your concern is not with the future baby, but with your own situation or that of society.
When it’s born, or to be more specific, when it is no longer part of another person’s body.
JJ, The Supreme Court says a fetus isn’t a person and so do I and so does God (She told me). So that’s that. You may fantasize that a blood clot is a person if you wish. I won’t stop you, nor will I force you to abort any pregnancies, just don’t get the idea that the rest of the world must conform to your own idiosyncratic definition of personhood. If you decide that a cow is a person that doesn’t mean the government has to recignize it as such or that eating beef is cannibalism.
I don’t want to write a lot on this, but I’ll just pop in to say that we once found ourselves in pretty much this situation, so I’ve had some time to think about it in a real context. We would not abort the pregnancy. (Not that we now have a child with birth defects; our baby died in utero.)
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The Supreme Court says a fetus isn’t a person and so do I and so does God (She told me). So that’s that.**
Gratuitous assertions. Cool. I’m glad you’re man enough to admit it.
Goblins, werewolves, foeti as persons, and Super-Size the abortion, eh Diogenes?
Bwah-hah! “Idiosyncratic.” That’s a laugh. Most of the reactionary theists of the world would want to do a thing to you for your definition. Not that that’s a good thing, but your constant portrayal of yourself in every frickin’ thread as the Voice of Reason, with everyone else as fantasizing, deluded fools, is just plain ludicrous.
Beautiful examples. Maybe someday someone will figure that you ain’t a person–let’s see how your rhetoric serves you then. (Hint: This kind of thing happened in the 1940s.)