I don’t think it’s fair to judge the life of a person based on future potential value. After all, did Steven Hawking’s parents have any clue that he would become one of the greatest minds in astrophysics?
And if someone wants to bring up Hitler, then it’s fair for me to bring up Brazil. Not only is abortion illegal, but so are all forms of birth control. Many mothers find themselves in the unenviable position of deciding to essentially abandon any children that don’t look like they’ll make it into adulthood. Do we really want to go down the slipper slope that way? And if you want a modern example of widespread abortion, why not look at China?
Personally, I’d like to think I wouldn’t abort, but I’ve also more or less decided that I am so totally not ready to raise children at this point in my life, so I’m not entirely certain what I would do should something like this should happen (which, barring another immaculate conception, ain’t happening right now).
What is personhood? Why should I care about it? And if personhood requires the ability to live outside of a host, then are we allowed to switch off all the ventilators?
Your reasoning is bizarre and incomprehensible. First, you introduce the concept of personhood without defining it, except to exclude the ability to suffer as a criterion, then you argue that because some people kill animals even though they suffer, it’s OK for us to inflict suffering if that is what an abortion involves. Then you implicitly acknowledge that we should avoid causing suffering, by advocating quick and painless methods of abortion.
Biology doesn’t care what you reject, nor do I. It is not me who decided the cells on one side of the placenta belong to a different organism than the ones on the other side. It is biological fact. Google the term “placental barrier” or “placental membrane” if you wish.
Reject facts and it is your own “intellectual honesty” at stake, not mine.
Mr. Moto, congratulations on your upcoming event! I keep trying to stay away from this place because my wife and I are expecting as well(in about two weeks) and I’ve got so much to do before the baby comes. Just sometimes I can’t seem to stay away.
Who said you should care? I don’t care if you care about it or not.
A ventilator isn’t a host. Dependency on a machine is a whole different kettle of fish than being an an organic part of living human being. A machine has no rights.
Oh, and yes, I’m quite in favor of turning off ventilators for people in non-recoverable, vegetative states as long as the family is willing. I see no value in artifically keeping bodies alive which have no hope of regaining consciousness.
Well, do you think the ability to suffer is a criterion?
That is not what I said. I was pointing at the ability of animals to suffer simply as a counter to the absurd suggestion that suffering = personhood. If a fetus which is not sufficiently developed to live outside its host is able to suffer (a totally unproven proposition, btw) that still doesn’t make it a person. That is a distinctly different point from whether a fetus (or an animal) should be made suffer. I can (and do) oppose the unnecessary affliction of suffering without necessarily believing that the recipent of the suffering is a person.
Then you implicitly acknowledge that we should avoid causing suffering, by advocating quick and painless methods of abortion.
[/QUOTE]
Again, just because I have no wish to inflict pain on something doesn’t mean I think it’s a person. There is no contradiction.
Yes- if that is what the Mother wants after a full & informed discussion with the father and Doctor, and whoever esle she wants to confer with. But if she wants to keep it- again after the “full & informed”- then that’s fine also.
You define personhood as “the condition of being a person”, but that in itself does not help us draw any conclusions about abortion, because you have not defined what the rights of a person are. The whole question of abortion is one of conflicting rights, and until you define what a person’s rights are and whether some of those rights take priority over other rights, this notion of “personhood” is of no relevance to our question.
I nowhere suggested that “suffering=personhood”. In fact, I think your notion of personhood is a meaningless, unfalsifiable abstraction that only gets in the way of progress on the issue, much the same as unprovable religious concepts of life magically beginning at the instant of conception.
I do think the ability to suffer is the most important criterion in deciding when abortion should be permitted. Feel free to propose and defend an alternative.
I remember a former anti-abortion colleague who’d always throw out this argument:
Incredibly reductive and largely irrelevant, since the What Ifs work on both sides of the equation (“Would the world have been better off if Mama Hitler had an abortion?”), but I always assumed this was a fairly common “pro-life” tactic and was surprised it had not been specifically mentioned yet.
I defined “person” a long way back in this thread. I agree that it’s subjective but the law agrees with ME
There is no proof that 2nd trimester can suffer but even so. A quick stab in the back of head = no suffering. That’s why we have scissors.
Having said that, why would the ability to suffer be any sort of barrier to killing something? We have no such barrier for animals, why should it exist for a fetus, especially when the procedure can be done with no pain to the fetus?
Wow, I’ve never made an OP that increased to this size. Usually my esoteric ramblings get buried under political threads within a matter of hours.
I thought it was pretty clear in my OP, but I guess it wasn’t. The hypothetical situation is assuming that you want the baby. I do not wish to discuss if it’s OK to abort a healthy baby - that discussion is for another thread. If you cannot post a reply without bringing in political issues, then don’t bother. I purposely framed my topic to appeal to emotions. Hardly scientific, I know, but some of our best debates aren’t based on scientific facts. If you were to look at this debate from a purely scientific viewpoint, the answer would appear easily: abort. Just look at how animals behave.
I was born with a rare condition that falls under the MD umbrella. Unlike MD, however, my condition does not progressively get worse as I age. I’ve been through several hospitalizations, pneumonias, and invasive surgeries. Yes, I’ve suffered in my short life. I’m not complaining, though. Healthy people suffer too, and I’ve had a lot of blessings in my life that put my quality of life above “normal” people.
Now, this may make me a bit biased, but I believe if someone can afford to care for a child with a severe disability, they should not abort. Assumption should not be made on someone else’s quality of life. If doctors (perhaps from the future - very hypothetical, I know) told you that your child would “suffer greatly” in the future, regardless of physical health, would you choose to abort? Is there anyone alive who does not eventually undergo some suffering?
Yeah, just a bit biased. Are you actually saying that only the wealthy should carry to term disabled children?
I think that I would. As with most situations like this, it is all but impossible to determine what anyone would do unless and until it happens to them. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, I lack a uterus, so this is pretty decisively hypothetical.
There are so many variables that go into a situation like this. I’m glad I didn’t have to make it. Some people are born to care for disabled kids (like that woman who was the subject of a documentary on the Sundance channel…she adopted eleven kids with severe disabilities). They have the patience, knowledge, and desire to do this hard work. They are equipped to give more of themselves than a parent of healthy kids will ever be asked to.
I think knowing one’s own limitations is important in making the decision to care for a disabled child. It’s one thing if you’re thrown into it by surprise, but an entirely different thing if you go in with open eyes.
Why is it a matter of affordability? You can’t look at it from the standpoint of “I had a life worth living, therefore people should not abort a fetus with a similar condition”. You are comparing your own realized life with a potential. A fetus is nothing but a potential human being, not materially different from an unfertilized egg cell and a free swimming sperm cell.
I can understand why religious people oppose abortion. In fact, I’ve stated on this board a number of times that I don’t see how someone can be a practicing Christian and support abortion. But, if you don’t think abortion is murder, then it has to be an individual choice-- there’s no right or wrong except knowing you have to live with your decision for the rest of your life.
Coming in late to this thread, and after reading nearly 100 posts, I gotta state my views…
Our background:
My wife has had several miscarriages, one tubal pregnancy (that would have eventually killed both mother and fetus) that she aborted at 8-9 weeks, and 3 relatively healthy sons.
My wife has a sister who is profoundly mentally retarded and is in a skilled nursing facility, nearly bed-ridden and g-tube fed. She is in her late 40s.
We also run a business - Day program for developmentally disabled adults with various disabilities, both mentally and physically.
That being said, we would never abort. Regardless of the quality of life, it is still better than not one at all. Just because you think that’s not a life worth living doesn’t mean that it’s not a life they feel is not worth living. The care for people with developmental disabilities has come a long way from the views even a generation ago; some of these views are still being expressed here on this thread…and what a shame that is. Some of these people are the very same doctors with an archaic view of people with disabilities, who recommend abortion for the sake of saving time, money and effort of the parent(s) and at times, erroneously think that that is in the best interest of the patient. My wife when doing intakes for the clients we serve, discuss with the parents their son/daughter’s background, most of them were pressured by their doctors to abort and save themselves the long term agony of a child that will not love, will not talk, will not think, will not work, will not be aware of their surroundings, will not laugh, will not cry, will not understand…will not (insert typical life scenario here). The parents we see are the ones who obviously went against their doctor’s recommendations and decided to endure the “agony”. The parents tell us it’s not easy, but it certainly would have been a mistake if they would have listened to the doctors, because their son/daughter are not devoid of all the aforementioned emotions/actions and they love them just like the rest of their kids.
The OP is an obvious choice to me…keep the pregnancy to term. Hyperelasic…Looking back, do you feel it would have been better (or worse) not to know your brother instead of what happened? Do you think that your brother appreciated having the life he lived or wished at some point in his life that he wished he was never born?
I hope that folks who same that “the Supremes have said a fetus ain’t a person…so that’s that” aren’t the same people who claim that Dubya ain’t President (because of what the Supremes did)…because that would be hypocritical. :dubious:
It’s the year after Dred Scott; if somebody tells you “Well black folk ain’t really “persons” because the Supremes says so”…I assume you would say OK and not continue to argue the point, then? If not…that would be hypocitical. :dubious:
