do you have the full text of the article available? The title of the abstract is “Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review”
A couple of those conditions are considerably more severe than Down Syndrome.
Yes, of course it does.
I (along with most other people) would of course think you were quite wrong, naturally.
Lots of non-religious people oppose abortion - once again, because to them, it isn’t clear that a fetus is not a person.
I disagree - a 'person" to me is a being with conciousness. I do not however dismiss all that disagree with me as morally corrupt.
I can have all the empathy in the world for the sufferings of a murderer, and still think what they are doing is “murder”.
Example: moms who kill their babies while suffering from post-partum depression; people who kill abusive partners; etc.
Reading through that, it looks like these aren’t just DS cases, but include DS along with other abnormalities.
I still find it hard to believe that in a culture as rabidly anti-abortion as the US, that the perecntage would. I guess it just shows the hypocrisy of the culture if I’m wrong.
In any case, there’s still nothing morally special about having the baby even if I’m wrong that it’s a statistical minority.
Thanks. The study (despite the small sample size) seems to be good. One point I will mention: my wife was over 35 when our first child was born, over 40 for our second. Our children were clearly of increased risk for certain genetic disorders, including Down Syndrome. We were advised to have an amnio in order to provide an early diagnosis. We both decided that we would not abort for Down Syndrome, so we didn’t have the test (ince it carries a non-trivial risk of killing the fetus). I do not imagine we are the only parents so have reached such a conclusion. So, studies like the one cited might under-report the number of parents who would not abort because those parents choose not to have the tests necessary to confirm an early diagnosis.
I;m not arguing that this would signficantly shift the numbers; I don’t have any idea how significant it might be, but it is a potential area for under counting.
Perhaps (it isn’t totally clear - I have no medical training); but I found this part interesting:
In short, and counterintuitively, the more the child was deformed, the less likely it was that the parents would abort.
Their explaination is as follows:
However it may be, it would appear that a fetus diagnosed with Downs - but not more severely deformed - faces, it would appear, something like an 80-90% chance of termination, in the US as well as elsewhere.
My wife was over 40 for our first. We declined an amnio test (for the same reason), but we did do a non-invasive nuchal translucency test:
No risk of fatality with that one.
No, based on this particular study, DS fetuses are aborted in 92 percent of cases in which parents have chosen amniocentesis. It says nothing of parents, such as you, who decline amnio.
According to the citations here, the overall abortion rates for fetuses diagnosed wtih DS in the US cities for which they are known are less than 50 percent.
Oh, as to the OP, it was a disgusting question then and it would be a disgusting question now. I wish Dukakis had said something along the lines of, “That question is a discredit to you and your profession. Let’s move on.” It probably wouldn’t have won him the election, but it would have earned him some respect.
This really surprises you? most anti abortionists only want to punish women for having sex, their basic ideology boils down to “you spread your legs now face the consequences”. This is also why higher rates of pregnancy and STDs don’t matter one iota to people preaching abstinence education, as far as they are concerned the sluts are getting what they deserve and it reinforces their positions. It has nothing to do with any sanctity of life bullshit, its their puritanical values that make sex evil and women who have it outside of marriage whores. So of course its perfectly ok to have an abortion when they have a down syndrome fetus, THEY didn’t do anything wrong, why should they be punished?
I know I’m in the minority, but I think it was a legitimate question for Dukakis and it would be a legitimate questions for Palin.
It is one thing to hold a position in a vacuum, and another entirely when it affects close family members. Would anyone respect Dukakis less if he said, “Well, in that case I would support the DP” or if Palin said, “Well, if it was my daughter, then I would want the abortion” etc. I would thing they definitely would, as what is good for the unwashed masses isn’t good for them…
It’s an expression I have heard frequently before for the idea that a person is responsible for action, not the results of inaction. It seemed to fit nicely for the viewpoint you were expressing.
So it is down to percentages? Take action that will 100% end a child’s life - always a monster. Neglect to take minor action that will 95% save a child’s life - not a monster. Again, I am not too keen on your ethical calculator.
That’s because it isn’t my [p]osition I am demonstrating. I don’t think a fetus has equal rights to a living human being. But if it did, I still argue that a person would not be per se a monster, which is YOUR position, for choosing to end that fetus’ existence. I might not it to be a great moral position to take, but I do not think it automatically makes someone a monster that they would make that choice. There is a spectrum along which the morality of choices is to be determined, and choosing to end an innocent life does not automatically place one at the monster end.
Again with your percentages. As long as there is an out, a slight chance, then the inaction is not a problem.
Except I never said they were equivalent, and you know I didn’t. I said that letting a child die is the moral equivalent of killing one, in some situations.
Killing a child isn’t always wrong. Saving a child isn’t always right. You were the one dealing in absolutes - that someone in that situation would be a monster for making that decision.
I’m not surprised. Moral absolutes are so much simpler, especially when they result in the classification of people facing a horrific decision as automatically a monster.
Cite that. Even though you won’t find one, cause it isn’t true.
So?
She’d never make to be Secretary of State or mayor of New York City or Senator from Texas, for instance?
Regards,
Shodan
Just a heads up. Secretary of State is not an elected position.
Hrm, that brings up an interesting question (interesting for me, anyway, because I never thought of it): is it necessary to believe in a soul to believe that life begins at conception?
Of course, that’d be a hijack, but it is something to think about…
What’s a secular definition of murder?
Once again, you demonstrate only that you have no idea what position I espoouse. I have nothing that could reasonably be construed as declaring that a person was not responsible for the results of their inaction.
I have, in fact, said nothing at all on teh matter. You tilt at the windmills of your own mind. I suppose that is easier than actually engaging in rational debate with another person.
I said nothign about percentages. Are you reliving some past conversation with another person? Or are you simply so certain that your ethical understanding is perfect that you need not even trouble yourself to understand another perspective in order to criticize it?
I’m not surprised. Ignorance rarely breeds affection.
Choosing to end an innocent person’s life based solely upon the acts in this hypothetical would make one a monster. There is no spectrum here, only a single case. If in your imagination you were debating some scarecrow that declared ending an innocent life in all cases would make any person a monster, then I suggest you take it up with yourself.
For my part, I have commented only upon a single hypothetical case. I’ll happily discuss my own statements and positions, but I;m not particularly interested in standing in the middle while you shadow bos with your imagination.
Perhaps a list will help. Things I did not write:
[ul][li]Anything containing the words percentage, odds, probability, or outcome.[/li][li]Anything about the ethical value of inaction[/li][li]Anything that established a specific consequentialist framework for ethical value. (Implied by your fascination with outcomes and percentages.)[/li][li]Anything that established a specific deontological framework for ethical value (this isn’t directly imlied by your post - I just thought I would cover the field up front, since I cannot predict what herring will next emerge from your hat. And it might be where you were going with your action/inaction loop, assuming that you actually have some destination in mind.)[/ul][/li]Things I did write:
[ul][li]Situation A differs from Situation B in significant particulars.[/li][li]Situation A and and Situation B are not ethically equivalent.[/ul][/li]This idea appears to upset you, though you have yet to produce an actual argument that either the particulars are not significant or there is some higher ethical context that completely overrides the distinctions and makes them irrelevant.
Perhaps you should reread your own words. *"Under your analysis, Spiritus Mundi, a person who choses not to forgo a single Starbucks Grande Skim Mocchacino a week in order to prevent a child suffering an abhorrent death is not a monster, where as a girl who choses to not go through the personal risk and psychological trauma of pregnancy after a violent rape, possibly one by a family member, is a monster. I am not a big fan of your ethical calculator. *
So - you are not a fan of an ethical calculator that concludes A is ethically distinct from B, but you never said A and B were equivalent. Right. I concede the point. You simply said you were not a fan. It is possible that you agree that the 2 are not equivalen but simply do not like that fact.
Ah - so now you are saying they are equivalent. So when you wrote never you really meant not yet? Or is it the “some situations” hedge that you are hanging this rhetorical hat upon?
I am only talking about 1 situation. Take up the others with your imaginary playmates. Perhaps over a cup of coffee while nameless children die in imopverished places.
Right - has someone said otherwise (in real life, I mean. Voices in your head don’t count.)
Wrong.
Right. Are you seriously unable to tell the difference between a specific contextual ethical judgment and an absolute? That certainly seems to be the case.
But still not as simple as outright ignorance.
Can you point to ANYTHING Palin has said or done that indicates she’s going to try to use the power of the state to force her personal beliefs on others?
It’s becoming clearer that what Palin really is, is a Libertarian. There’s a video of her floating around Youtube where she gives a pretty hearty endorsement to Ron Paul. There’s also a story that she was seen attending a Libertarian party meeting some time ago. I have no idea if that’s true.
Ron Paul is pro life. In fact, his position on abortion is identical to Palin’s. Do you think that he’s the kind of man who, if he became president, would suddenly go on a religious crusade against women?
It seems to me that Palin is being tarred as one of these southern conservative types who want to use government to force their morals on everyone else. But when Palin is questioned about it, she always backs away from that. She’ll give her personal views, but that’s as far as it goes. The only thing she has ever done as governor in terms of social policy was to VETO a bill that would have denied spousal benefits to same-sex couples. A bill promoted and passed by her own party. Why? because she said it would be unconstitutional, and the state didn’t have the right. Can you imagine George Bush doing that?
Palin’s pro-life view is that of “Feminists for Life”, which she is a member of. They choose to promote life not by lobbying the state to ban abortion, but to help pregnant women with the resources and support to make it easier to choose to have the baby (for example, they advocate making school programs available for pregnant girls so they can complete their educations), and to try to change the culture so that a single woman carrying a baby to term is not scorned or rejected. And she is living that ideal with her daughter.
She is not a creationist. A creationist is generally defined as someone who disbelieves evolution and takes on a strict interpretation of the creation myth in the bible. Palin has said, “I believe in a creator”, and when pressed for details she said, “I do not profess to understand how all this came to be.” This, by the way, is exactly Obama’s position.
She has never tried to force schools to teach creationism or intelligent design, and in fact has explicitly said that it should not be part of the curriculum. The farthest she’ll go is to allow that should questions about creationism be raised by students in class, they should be fair subjects for debate. She hasn’t said what that debate should be, or what the conclusions should be.
Palin’s a devout Christian, and she’s a conservative. So she’s a ‘tightie rightie’, and automatically assumed of being in favor of sending the jackbooted thugs out after people who don’t toe the line. Barack Obama is a devout Christian. Why isn’t the same true for him? Because it’s a assumed that Democrats wouldn’t do such a thing. But Ron Paul is also a devout Christian, and no one assumes he’d kick off a culture war either, despite being Republican. Why? Because everyone knows he’s really a Libertarian, and Libertarians don’t do that.
Palin is much closer to Ron Paul than to Pat Buchanan. Speaking of which… She never supported Pat Buchanan in 2000. She supported Steve Forbes, who was the most Libertarian candidate on the ballot.
Yeah, she wants to overturn Roe V. Wade and wants to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape or incest.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That’s a good one. Libertarians don’t ban books, or tell women what to do with their bodies, or try to teach religion as science. How do you think Sarah palin feels about drugs? HHow about Guantanemo Bay? Warrantless eavesdropping? The suspension of Habeas Corpus? Do you think she’s libertarian on any of that shit?
Well, those ARE her stated goals.
That’s not as far it goes. She wants to legislate those views and we know that she’s tried to fire people who won’t go along with them.
She didn’t want to veto it, and if she didn’t have to she wouldn’t have. She said so explicitly. She was informed that the bill would not stand up. She had no choice about vetoing it.
A complete oxymoron, kind of like “Jews for Jesus.”
No, it is NOT Obama’s position. Obama has explicitly said that he accepts evolution and that he believes there is no scientific basis for ID. He answer to the question betrays ignorance about what the word evolution even means, and her evasiveness about it, combined with her stated desire to teach religious mythology as an “alternative” to science tells me all I need to know about what she thinks. When she’s ready to say that evolution is fact, period, and that there are no competing scientific theories, then maybe I’ll start taking her seriously (and the origin of the universe has no relevance to evolution, so I don’t care if she thinks there’s a “Creator.” That’s not the question).
The fact that she believes in the rapture scares the hell out of me too.
Is there a quote of her actually saying this? In any event, overturning Roe v. Wade does not mean abortion would be illegal at all. It means it would be up to the states to decide.
[/quote]
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That’s a good one. Libertarians don’t ban books, or tell women what to do with their bodies, or try to teach religion as science.
[/quote]
That’s good, because she hasn’t done any of those things. Not once. She has never said she wants religion taught as science. She HAS specifically said that creationism should NOT be part of the curriculum. She has never banned a book, or threatened to ban a book. She asked her librarian, “What would you say if I asked you to?”. Palin says it was a a question posed as a hypothetical, as a loyalty test (which is lame enough, but far short of actually banning books). And she has said she’s personally pro-life, but I can’t find any quotes of hers where she tries to tell women what to do about anything. Can you?
She’s smoked pot. She doesn’t support legalization, but she says pot isn’t a major threat and she’s not really interested in fighting it. She believe Methamphetamine is the current critical drug issue.
Can’t tell you. I’ve never read any of her positions on that. Given her comment at the convention about reading terrorists their rights, I suspect she’s more conservative than Libertarian in this area.
Of course she did. What the Republicans wanted her to do was to ‘stand up to the courts’ and force some kind of showdown. She told them to screw off.
She has not answered the question of evolution at all. The farthest she’ll go is that she believes in a creator. This is also what Obama believes. To be fair, I suspect that her position is not nearly as sophisticated as Obama’s. I think in her own mind she, like a lot of Christians, simply punt the question and fall back on, “It’s all too complex for me to understand”.
But that’s okay by me. Someone that unsure of her own beliefs is unlikely to force them on others.
Her and a zillion other Christians. What, do you think they’re going to start taxpayer funding big boats to the sky or something?