Absolutely. Even a surrogate mother carrying a “defective” fetus should never be required to abort.
Isn’t someone like Stephen Hawking an argument that even an extremely severe disability is not always a net negative to society? Perhaps we would have been better off if someone like Homer had been left to the wolves because, you know, the Iliad and the Odyssey are nearly unknown and have had zero effect on the world.
Granted, most disabled people aren’t a genius on that level, but really, the notion that a defect renders a person worthless and unworthy of life is a pernicious notion.
The other aspect to leaving this up to individuals is that certain decisions don’t become institutionalized or routine. This will tend to moderate extreme positions. Yes, you will get some babies aborted for what many see as insufficient reasons - but then, under pro choice it is also the woman’s prerogative to abort perfectly healthy fetuses as well.
The truth is that our civilization can afford to support less than perfect people, and some of those folks will make outsize contributions in the long term. Most of the rest will do alright given half a chance and a bit of support.
Forced abortions? Really?
Or is the question whether genetic defects are a morally acceptable reason for aborting.
In the first trimester, I think it is morally acceptable to have an abortion if the pregnancy is inconvenient.
In the second trimester I think genetic problems are a morally acceptable reason for abortion.
In the third trimester, I think it would have to be a profound deformity to justify an abortion.
I I don’t think we can force an abortion on anyone regardless of how bad the deformity is or how much it will cost society.
Agreed, and further, we should not force anyone to continue a pregnancy if they wish to end it, at any time, and for any reason.
It shouldn’t need to be said, but please note that ending a pregnancy is not necessarily synonymous with killing the fetus/baby.
Though I have my issues with it, Far from the Tree addresses aspects of this topic in a variety of ways over hundreds of pages.
If someone proposed this idea to me, I would seriously question whether or not they themselves were defective. It is presumptuous to say that such and such baby will or will not amount to anything.
To make an analogy, Stephen Hawking was once told that he had about two years to live. Should he have sought assisted suicide? It’s been forty years since and he’s accomplished quite a bit.
I was not aware ALS could be identified before childbirth. This thread is not about killing severely disabled people already living.
For every Stephen Hawking who lived and became great, I choose to believe a dozen Hitlers were avoided precisely because of abortion and/or suicide.
No one can predict the future. Its silly to say all humans must be preserved by the mere possibility of being great. There are more scoundrels in the world than visionaries, you play the odds
As my grandmother said to the revenooers, fuck no. I’m not much for the slippery slope argument, but what you propose is guaranteed to be one.
Even more profoundly, should she be required to adopt a healthy one? :dubious: 
Edit: I’m having trouble wrapping my head around the idea of taking reproductive actions “for the greater good of society.”
Really?
Interesting. I’ve always thought what works for the greater good of society should be the very first consideration of anyone considering reproducing. While I am not fond of the idea of forcing someone to have an abortion, I also cannot forgot the fact that reproductive choices effect far more people than the mother and fetus. I think there should be heavy social pressure against irresponsible pregnancies and actual financial, if not legal repercussions, for individuals who make such bad decisions.
Because there’s no danger of that going bad. No state has ever tried to exterminate Roma, Jews, Armenians, Roma, Native Americans, Roma, Tasmanians, Roma, or Roma.
There is a danger in every single social more, law, custom, etc., going bad. I’ve certainly seen far too much damage done by unwise reproduction to consider the situation only the problem of the pregnant woman. Nor, does our current larger, legal culture act in that manner. Many people haves no problem assigning the financial and social cost of carrying irresponsible pregnancies to term to others. Society is interelated. What we do effects others and it behooves people to consider those effects when making decisions. Ideally, social pressure to do the right thing is better than having to legally enforce certain concepts. However, I also cannot forget that no matter how hard the Abolitionist movement worked to persuade slave owners to free those they had kept in chattel bondage, emancipation came on the end of Union bayonets.
That is a filthy lie. The slaves were free by cannonballs and bullets; the bayonets were all but irrelevant.
Why not at least take that into consideration? When a person with a nasty genetic defect decides not to have children because they don’t want to pass on their own problems and make their children suffer as they have, that’s what they are doing. It’s just that “my potential children” is less emotionally abstract than “society”.
It’s a good idea to keep a balance between the needs of society and the needs of the individual. If everyone sacrifices too much for society you end up with everyone giving up far too much for no return; but if people don’t take the needs of society into account at all they all lose since society is made out of people. “No man is an island”, but we shouldn’t be cogs in a machine either.
Because that’s a wee too close to eugenics?
I don’t think it’s unacceptable for a person to terminate a defective fetus. But requiring it? That’s disturbing, and totally undermines the whole point of being pro-choice.
Not if it’s a person’s individual choice. People “practice eugenics” in that sense any time they sleep with someone because they are good looking or tall or have big breasts or any other genetically determined characteristic. What made eugenics the movement so destructive was that the coercive aspects of government became involved; people make decisions about whether to have children and with whom based on genetic factors all the time without the same nasty effects because they aren’t being forced.
Well of course, if it’s the person’s choice, that goes without saying. It’s the “great good for society” idea that makes me uneasy. I don’t think that is something we should be pushing as a good idea.
Even as a rhetorical device, accusations of lying are prohibited in this forum.
Do not do this again.
/Moderating
Is there a tension here that’s worth unpacking?
If we see the choice to abort as one for the woman, she is going to make that choice by reference to her own needs, desires, interests and values and those of the people close to her - her own partner, her other children, etc. These considerations will dwarf any others that come into play, such as the tax burden she will impose on other citizens by bearing a child that needs to be educated and (in the case of disability) that may be dependent long after its parents have died, etc, or the benefit she will confer on future generations by bearing a child that may grow up to be a great doctor, artist, humanitarian, etc.
In short, if we think this decision ought to be made on the basis of utilitarian concerns about welfare of society as a whole, it is not rational to leave the decision to the pregnant woman. Conversely, if we hold that the decision is properly one for the woman, isn’t the implication of our position that the proper criteria are the personal and intimate criteria that will undoubtedly dominate her decision-making process?