But it is preventable, via abortion. Assuming you have the proper tests done.
And yes, ethically speaking I think that no one should knowingly have children with serious birth defects.
You cannot be pro choice and tell women what choices they have to make based on your personal morals. That’s the exact opposite of pro choice.
Well, sure, ideally we would all be perfect. But Downs isn’t preventable in any way except by terminating. So by saying this, you are saying that if the situation is not ideal, then the person is better off dead. Do you think that’s true of those who are deaf, blind, or albino, or only those with Downs? How do we determine when the ethical line has been crossed?
I had to run out fast & didn’t have time to review or edit.
:smack:
I meant JG (John Galt).
Again :smack:
I’m pro choice as far as the law is concerned.
But I still think aborting a handicapped child is a moral imperative (in these cases I am “pro-abortion”). If anyone asks my opinion on the matter, I’m going to voice it.
The only definitive test is amnio, and it’s too risky for me, so I didn’t have one with either of my high-risk pregnancies (a close friend of mine had a mishap with hers and almost miscarried).
Which leads me to wonder how Palin knew Trig was a Downs child…I think that most people who plan not to terminate opt not to have an amnio due to the risk.
If the abortion happens before the fetus is legally a person, then I prefer to think of it as this person is better of not coming into existence.
I’m actually an anti-natalist, so I think in all cases it’s wrong to bring a person into existence, but I don’t want this thread to get sidetracked. But I think it’s even more wrong than usual to bring a disabled child into existence.
I don’t consider a fetus to be a person so I have no ethical issue with terminating the pregnancy. If there were tests that could determine that status of other debilitating conditions I would be in favor of terminating those as well.
The ethical line is easy: physically healthy. We need not consider “designer babies” and the like here.
But there’s a difference between allowing for the choices in question but with criticism and not allowing the choice at all. There’s nothing wrong with both being pro-choice and yet personally disagreeing with what someone’s choice is; it’s only if you attempt to curtail that choice that you become a hypocrite.
I think i’d have to agree with the people that say it’s up to the parents. I very much don’t think giving birth to kids you know have DS among other problems is ethically alright, but I think that passing a law to enforce abortion in such cases is even worse. It’s an unfortunate situation that needs to be made the best of, and the person concerned helped to the extent they need (as hopefully they will be). In practical terms, it’s up to the parents, but if I knew a way to convince them otherwise, I wouldn’t hesitate to try it.
I think that the second you accept a fetus as “this person,” any thing you do at that point to harm that person will haunt you forever.
Essentially, you’ve recognized a human.
I think Shayna is talking about “pro-choice” as a philosophy, not a legality. I don’t think you can consider yourself pro-choice if you think that there are situations where morally there is only one right answer. (That is, being “pro-abortion” in some cases is not any more compatable with being “pro-choice” than being “pro-life” is …remember, I’m speaking philosophically, not legally).
Sorry, I mistyped. This potential person is better of not coming into existence.
Nonsense. I can say, “That’s an accident waiting to happen” and “This pile of ingredients? I’m making a cake” without either an accident or a cake existing, or even guaranteed to ever exist.
I sort’ve agree and sort’ve don’t. I think we can all acknowledge that other people get to and should get to make choices without saying that all choices are equal. Otherwise, we’re saying that we can’t ever consider someone else unethical.
But that’s not the same as it being impossible like Mr. Moto said.
Not necessarily. Considering just how nasty the eugenics movement was, I think that it’s perfectly logical to have the belief that while it’s wrong to deliberately have a child with serious defects, the effects of trying to stop them via the law would be even worse. Sometimes the only available methods of stopping immoral behavior are even MORE immoral, or at least guaranteed to end up that way regardless of intentions.
That’s what you “say.” I’m talking about what you’ve accepted as fact.
But he/she hasn’t accepted that fetus as a person. Word games on your part don’t imply acceptance of your views on theirs.
He didn’t accept anything as fact. You’re just jumping on poor choice of phrasing.
Are seriously trying to convince people that they believe things and don’t know it?.
Hey. You think abortion is awesome. You do, really! You just haven’t realized that that’s what you believe, yet.
You know, I think of all the health issues I have, and most of them have some genetic component - depression, polycystic ovarian syndrome, ADD, pre-diabetes, et cetera - and I’d like to think that a woman carrying a fetus with the same issues would carry to term and give birth. So, even though I have a lot of personal hang-ups regarding the mentally disabled, I would never insist that a fetus with Down’s Syndrome be aborted. I don’t know that I could bring myself to recommend it.
Trig’s parents are the only ones who should have a say in whether he is born, and as they chose to bring him into the world, they have my support.
(She’s still a terrible choice for a VP candidate, though.)