Well…no… Lots of things we do as individuals have larger implications. Some of these things have so much influence on others that we regulate it by law.
But some of these things are not regulated, as we have a philosophical notion that they ought to be free. Just as an example, you might start a new religion tomorrow, that will be as successful as the Mormon faith, and which will have an enormous impact on our society. We don’t have laws regulating that; you’re totally free.
We, as a society, have made the same decision regarding having babies. We don’t have quotas or limits, and we don’t make rules. We license the driving of automobiles. We license dogs and cats. But we don’t license babies.
You need to get a community building permit to put a new bathroom in your house…but you can have fifteen babies without any interference whatever.
Funny, but it’s a tradition now, and you’ll never find the votes to change it.
It is, because history shows what happens when it isn’t. Judging from history, as subjective and emotionally involved as her decision making is going to be it’ll still be a lot better than that of some eugenics committee.
It’s not just tradition. There’s more than inertia at work here, as you’ll discover if you sponsor a law to remove abortion choice from women, or to impose a Chinese-style one-child policy. There’s a large constituency out there who are absolutely committed to the notion that personal autonomy in these matters is absolutely right and necessary, and that a just society should defend and vindicate this personal freedom.
And I don’t disagree with any of that. My point is that there is a tension between endorsing that position, on the one hand, and holding that the wider social impact of having a disabled child (or indeed of having a child at all) is a factor which should weigh heavily in a decision about childbearing.
We’re not talking about “scoundrels”, we’re talking about birth defects. The disabled are not morally corrupt due to physical defects. You say it’s silly to say all humans must be preserved - never mind no one has said that here - but I say it’s pernicious to say everyone less than perfect should be eliminated.
Because there aren’t that many, among other reasons. A lot of the children who are up for adoption are “defective” in some way (medical or psychological problems, real or imaginary - many people will not adopt an older child for fear of a damage which may not even be there), what are we supposed to do with them?
For some defects, such as DS, the probability increases with the mother’s age, so she may already have kids. Very often, a woman who is told the kid she’s expecting will have DS was not in the situation of “seeking a child” but of “oops”. But whether the fetus was the product of an oops, of gangrape or of months or years of medical procedures, whether to keep it or not should still be something which she decides, with the assistance and support of her partner(s) if she has any.
OK, this is something you usually hear, and needs to be pointed out. The probability increases, but most people with DS (and I assume, most fetuses with DS) are found in women under 35. Fertility rates play a large part in that. So in most cases those kids are the first-born, or the ones who are sought after, not a late “Oops!”.
In my limited experience, the DS kids were the first-born. In my cousin’s case, her two younger kids, including one born when she was 35 or after, are the ones without birth defects. The two oldest, born when she was under 30 and at prime fertility, were the ones with birth defects. And as I mentioned before, unless you knew the background, you couldn’t tell, just by looking, that one of them has any defect at all. Completely normal annoyingly teen.
My mom told me her obstetrician thought I had Down Syndrome before I was born. I don’t know if I had a false positive on the test, or if they assumed based on ultrasound images, or what. It was 1984, so I’m not sure how refined the testing was in those days.
While I’m obviously glad I wasn’t aborted, I don’t have any problem with women who choose to do so. I might even choose to do that myself, if I’m ever put in that situation.
What if insurance companies or states decided they were not willing to foot the bill to care for deformities that were detected before birth. Would that be constitutional?
I think you should respond instead to robert_columbia’s analogy if that’s the issue you have with it. He conflates his lack of empathy for aborting a fetus with an illness to the possible benefits we might see as a society. Its a specious reasoning because there is no link whatsoever since no one can tell who a fetus would become. You’re just as likely aborting Hitler than Hawking. No one should ever make the stupid argument that you might accidentally abort the next Beethoven. Judge the fetus for what it is at that time. If you don’t want one with a birth defect, then by all means, abort it. I’m fine if people abort for any reason, women shouldn’t have to justify it to anyone
I’m fine with that as well. It’s when we start saying that people SHOULD or should NOT do so that I draw the line.
Yeah, because trying to regulate how people breed worked out soooo well in the past.
I suppose it has a lot to do with the fact that I have epilepsy – which was one of the conditions that was targeted by eugenics. Now, I’m not saying people shouldn’t choose to abort a child if they know it would be an epileptic. But the idea of encouraging it – or worse, that epileptics should be discouraged from having children, that disturbs me.
Socially acceptable: Legal, yes. Compassionate understanding, yes. Encouraged or coerced, even socially, no.
Required: Absolutely not. Society needs to suck it up & we’ll get along just fine even with people with genetic illnesses and other problems (accidents, etc.).
Without ignoring the very real problems or challenges that come with disabilities (mine & others I know), I agree with what you said & love how you stated it.
I disagree with the bolded portion of your statement.
I think we can and should force women who have healthy pregnancies to carry their baby to term if they are in their third trimester (and perhaps beven before that).
Have you ever known any one with Down’s syndrome? I would assume you haven’t. My sister has Down’s and is the sweetest person on earth. I am sure you are much more defective than she is. Abort yourself retroactively.