Well, OK, but I think the point is that, if someone decides otherwise, nobody is being discriminated against if there is no person actually being harmed, so it shouldn’t matter if we decide to terminate pregnancies which will result in gay people.
It’s truly a fascinating clash of ideas.
If you believe it is ok and should be legal if it isn’t already (depending on location) to abort a fetus for any reason then why should a fetus with Down’s Syndrome be exempt? I personally have no problem with it and wouldn’t want to be burdened with such a child.
I think the question is, should a fetus with the hypothetical gay gene be exempt? If, as Sullivan says, it would be “genocide” to abort all the gay embryos, is it “genocide” to abort all the embryos with Down’s syndrome?
In other words, given that the decision to abort must be 100% up to the woman, and society has no right to interfere in any way, does that include cases when the abortion is sought for reasons that others may see as trivial or wrong-headed?
Full disclosure: my nephew has Down’s, and some related physical problems (surgically corrected). I would not say that his life is not worth living, but given the choice between having a child with Down’s and not having one, I would opt for not having one. Aborting a fetus that would be gay? I don’t really know.
Regards,
Shodan
I have a catholic friend who aborted after the doctor told her the baby had Down Syndrome. She did it because she didn’t think she and her husband were up to the challenge; not because she didn’t want an ill child.
If said gay gene was discovered and it was possible I would not have a problem with someone aborting a fetus because it would become gay because I believe abortion is acceptable for any reason.
All in all, we have no real option. We must raise children who can be strong parents to children, even children with Down’s (or who are gay, or fat). Is there any other possibility? A government team to ask why you want an abortion?
It reflects poorly on a society that is so concerned with perfection, of uniformity, that (at least some members) think some people ought not to even be born.
It sounds as if someone has gone to a lot of effort to find a basket load of ‘syndromes’.
In the UK there is a malign professor (‘sir’ Roy Mead) who invented something called Munschhausens’s Syndrome by Proxy and used it to accuse the parents of cot deaths of murder.
In your case, it looks as if you have suffered from ‘hypochondria by proxy’.
My guess is - it started at age one and was probably abandoned age 15 when you were able to conduct sensible conversations with the specialists, rather spoiling the entertainment.
Some of the arguments here trip up over the same sort of absolutism that has plagued the abortion debate in general - i.e. the suggestion that having an abortion in the case of a particular defect (the constellation of problems caused by Down’s syndrome) means that it’ll become acceptable to have an abortion for any perceived defect (i.e. homosexuality, assuming it ever is detectable antenatally).
At the other extreme, most people are likely to agree that abortion is justifiable in the case of an anencephalic, due to be born (if it makes it that far) without most of its brain tissue and expected to die within days anyway.
Our society, thankfully, has deemed it acceptable to allow parents to make these sorts of decisions. The weight of public opinion will be an important factor in ensuring that people do not routinely get abortions because of fetal sex or other factors that do not affect full realization of human potential in society.
Incidentally, Sullivan is not arguing that 90% of fetuses with Down’s are getting aborted - but that there is an estimated 90% abortion rate when Down’s is detected. Even assuming that is true, there are plenty of women who do not get the basic blood screening test for several major classes of defects including Down’s, and a substantial number who do not follow up with amniocentesis when the blood screening suggests a potential problem (60% in one older group of women according to a study I’ve seen). So Down’s is in no danger of becoming “extinct”.
All in all, I guess I agree with that. It has to be the decision of the parents. Still, sometimes this medical stuff presents some twisty puzzles.
So once we erradicate Down’s Syndrome, who is next? Spina bifida? Diabetes? just ugly?
Unless (a) you have actual knowledge of your claim and (b) it was directly pertinent to this discussion, this was not a well-considered comment in this Forum.
Please leave such personal “observations” for the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Why not ?
They are not a ‘who’ until rather a long time after birth.
The Romans did not classify a child as a ‘person’ until it had eaten meat.
That’s an interesting statement - can you provide a citation for it? Also, does the term ‘meat’ here mean flesh, or is it used in the archaic sense of food generally?
If a woman thinks she cannot give a child proper care, she has a right to terminate the pregnancy. Actually, in the USA, no “excuse” is needed.
This applies to single mothers, working to support their existing family & trying to educate themselves–even if they know nothing about the fetus they are carrying.
It also applies to committed couples who want a child–but who do not think they can be good parents to a child with “problems.”
I know it would be morally wrong for me. I don’t know that it would be morally wrong for everyone, and I am not willing to decide for them. I am completely pro-choice. I want laws so that any woman who so chooses can get an abortion. Abortions, in my opinion should be legal, safe, and rare.
I chose only to get tests which reveal issues which can be addressed therapeutically in some way other than abortion. So, I am getting an ultrasound today, but a am not getting a afp.
My understanding is that it meant ‘flesh’
I’ll look for a cite, where I heard it was an explanation of why, where I live, infants were often buried in the walls/foundations of houses, and I don’t think that was the sacrifice bit - otherwise they would have had ceremonial trinkets with them.
I am not against abortion and I am not against parents making an informed decision to abort their **fetus ** if it a downs syndrome child.
I think it is wrong for those that oppose abortion to insist a mother or couple give birth to a child they do not want. I almost feel like every vocal pro-lifer should have to have adopted a child, preferable a child with a health problem or advance age (over 3) before they can speak up against abortion. If they also oppose birth control, they should probably adopt two kids.
Jim
I’ve never gotten this argument, from any angle at all. You’re saying, straight out, that Beethoven was worth more than Random Q Stannhauser. Is that really what you want to say? Even if it is, no-one knows before birth if you’re going to get Beethoven or Jeffrey Dahmer, so how could you possibly make this decision based on something like that? And even if you can, no-one misses the wonderful music of Alexander Attrigarth, who was aborted, do they? Even disregarding my previous objections, the argument hinges on this world being the perfect place and every deviation from the current state would have been something to grieve. It’s just not so.
I make it a point never to debate the legalities of abortion, as I think the legal issues and the moral issues are two completely different things. I think the point of this thread is more about the moral issues and what it says about our society that we feel that some people are disposable because of the circumstances of their health. Although I get the idea that if abortion is legal, and if a person does not find it morally objectionable, then the reason for having one doesn’t matter. But I think it’s much more complex than that. As a person who finds abortion immoral under just about any circumstance, I can’t see terminating a Downs pregnancy to be any more morally justifiable than terminating any pregnancy. I can certainly understand the reasoning and the fear (BELIEVE me, I understand the fear!), but I guess I just don’t think that any of us has the right to say who is worthy of life and who is not.
I’ve learned on these boards that the abortion debate does not hinge on the personhood of the fetus. Even if the fetus is a person, one argument goes, the woman’s right to her own body trumps that personhood.