Abortion Question

[violatedsmurf80]

 I know that this topic is a very controversial one but this is not about the right or wrong or even prolife or antilife. It is more about the ethic behind the idea of abortion and the ethics and morels behind the fact if it is ok to abort a child that you know will or may have a certain disease or even retardation. Is it ethically or morally right to knowingly have a child that will have a retardation, autism or even dwarfism then abort the child because they have this disorder just to try again?

[Nam]

This topic has been done to death (no pun intended). 

This is the only comment I'm going to make on this topic based on the fact that it's been done to death.

I am not for abortion in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.  I've actually voted for laws in my state against 3rd trimester abortions (unless harm to the woman).  Technically, I'm not really for 1st trimester abortions either but it's quite different at that stage than in the 2nd or 3rd (especially the 3rd).

However, in saying all that: I am pro-choice.  This does not mean I am anti-life.  Neither does it mean that anyone who is pro-choice is anti-life.  I may not like abortion, personally, but I still feel that a woman has a right to choose.   Just like I may not like automatic weapons being on the public market doesn't mean I am against them being on the public market.  Only when it puts such weapons in the hands of criminals, and children would I vote against such measures.  The same with abortion.  I may not like it but a woman has a right to choose; however, if she gets to the 3rd trimester, I think that's going a bit too far unless it'll harm her personally if she doesn't.

-Nam

[velkyn]

this probably should be under the section with the other abortion threads in it.

I think you are more talking about the idea of attempting to remove diseases and conditions from the population.  That's basically eugenics but that word has a lot of baggage.  It is my opinion that it is perfectly fine to abort a fetus that will be unable to function.  I would prefer death over pneumonia, bed sores, etc.  However, the determination of "unable to function" is likely different for many people.  Mine might be harsher than someone elses based on conditions I can't imagine enduring.

The other question, should you keep trying if you get bad news and wnat to abort a defective fetus, is much harder. I do find it personally revolting to see parents who know they have an extremely high chance of some genetic disease but insist on having children who will very likely be affected.  I find it very selfish.   

[violatedsmurf80]

this probably should be under the section with the other abortion threads in it

Yes it should be.

 

...eugenics...

Yes that is the word. I agree.

The other question, should you keep trying if you get bad news and wnat to abort a defective fetus, is much harder. I do find it personally revolting to see parents who know they have an extremely high chance of some genetic disease but insist on having children who will very likely be affected.  I find it very selfish.   

do you think that there should be laws pertaining to this kind of selfishness

[velkyn]

It would depend on the law.  It is very, very hard to regulate what someone does with their body, being pro-choice I'm all about that problem.  I cannot personally think of a law that wouldn't cause more problems. 

I worked in health insurance for a while and did what's called "benefits utilization", how effective a service is, is the doc reporting the correct service etc.  One of the specialities I worked in was fertilization claims.  Some people will try as long as they have coverage.  I'm guessing some people would try to have a "healthy" child" as long as they could too.  I think it is a waste of time and resources that could be put to better use.  It would take some draconian laws to even try to enforce a limit on how many times someone could try.  You could say that you can do it as much as you want with yuor own money but then that creates a bad class distinction. 

[Frank]

yes

[One Above All]

Is it ethically or morally right to knowingly have a child that will have a retardation, autism or even dwarfism then abort the child because they have this disorder just to try again?

I assume that by "have a child" you mean "get pregnant". If so, no, it is not. They knew what would happen.

[nogodsforme]

Nobody should bear a child that they are unwilling or unable to care for. It doesn't matter whether I think a woman should have the baby regardless, and  should be able to care for and love that handicapped child. It is not my uterus or my life.

I don't believe there should be any restrictions on what a woman does about a pregnancy. It is her uterus and she is the one who has to live with the decision.[1]

Allowing other people decide whether and when someone else should have a baby is treating a woman like a mindless walking womb. Should women be forced to have babies they don't want (because they are handicapped, or the wrong race or gender or whatever bad reason) and then be forced to care for them or to give them up for adoption? That seems to be the only other alternative to letting women make their own decisions.

If a woman can get an abortion because she does not have the emotional and financial resources to support a child, then she can certainly get an abortion because she does not have the emotional and financial resources to take care of a severely handicapped child. I think too many people have children they don't want and cannot care for already.

People who feel badly about this are free to help out the families who have handicapped children. That would be more useful than berating women/families who choose differently.

1.	My motto is that it is better to regret having had an abortion than to regret having had a child.

[jaimehlers]

nogodsforme:  I agree, mostly.  The only other person who has any say at all is the father, and then only if they're living together as a couple, and the father is helping to support the two of them.  Nobody else has any legitimate right to try to make the decision for them.

[violatedsmurf80]

I completely agree with what you nogodsforme.

[jetson]

nogodsforme:  I agree, mostly.  The only other person who has any say at all is the father, and then only if they're living together as a couple, and the father is helping to support the two of them.  Nobody else has any legitimate right to try to make the decision for them.

And I think the woman has the final say.  However, there should be laws that allow the man to legally separate from any financial burden should the woman choose to ignore his wishes completely.  I realize how sticky that could get, but it wouldn't exactly be fair for a woman to get pregnant, not allow the man any say-so in the decision to go forward with the pregnancy or not, and then also be able to legally force the man to support the baby financially.  When it is consensual sex that results in an unplanned pregnancy, then it could be argued that someone did not take enough precautions to prevent the pregnancy, and it could also be argued that abortion is an acceptable way to release the burden from all parties. 

Wow, that would be weird.  Telling a woman that she must take an abortion pill if she is not willing to release the man of financial responsibility.  If it was unplanned, then she never wanted the pregnancy in the first place.  However, I can see her changing her mind, and following a new emotional path knowing she is pregnant.  Men too...

As usual, touchy subject, and one that will never find agreement among people.

[violatedsmurf80]

I think you have some points in you statement, but when it comes to a baby I think that women will always get what she wants because like many say it is her body so why should a man have any say. Just like in a custody hearing the woman will always get the baby unless you can prove her unfit. 

[Fiji]

There was a report on Belgian TV yesterday about abortions ... they highlighted one case where a fetus was aborted because it was shown to carry the gene for ... colorblindness.
Images of the movie GATTACA came flooding back. I'm all for aborting if there's something seriously wrong with the fetus ... Spina Bifida, Progeria, Down's. But colorblindness?
I'm colorblind ... poor vestimentary choices hurt my dating ability in highschool ... but other than that ... it doesn't hinder me all that much. My daughter carries the gene ... her sons will have a 50/50 chance of being colorblind too.
Sorry, I'm digressing.
Thing is, the only way to regulate this would be to draw an arbitrary line. And some 'mild' conditions will fall on one side of the line while others fall on the other side. And there'd be an endless tug-of-war for every single disease to get it from the abortion allowed to the abortion denied side (or vice versa).
A better solution in my opinion is to provide information and support if so required.

Did those parents choose correctly when they opted to abort their would-be colorblind child?
In my opinion, no. But I haven't walked a mile in their shoes. I don't know what drove them.
Did they do something amoral ... well ... no. They know best what they can and can't handle.

[nogodsforme]

That seems crazy-- to go through the trauma of an abortion for something trivial--OMG he's got genes to be colorblind, left handed, short. But do you want people with that kind of mentality to have that kid--or any kid? It's strange how some folks think silly, trifling people should be parents. I would much rather such people have an abortion if they think colorblindness is a defect. 

[velkyn]

exactly, NGFM. 

I often think that if I were "god", I'd make sure fertility was only handed out to people who could handle it, and not to every selfish, idiot human. 

 

[nogodsforme]

Every sperm that meets an egg does not have to become a baby. Why is this even a controversial statement, in a world of limited resources and 7 billion people? If the woman does not want to be pregnant, for whatever reason, no matter what anyone else thinks about it, she should be able to get an abortion under safe, sanitary, professional conditions.

Why is it that some folks think that abortion should be limited to rational, straight-thinking, responsible, "nice" women who have really good reasons for not wanting a child? A woman should not become a "mother" just because she happened to produce an egg that got fertilized. Our civilization deserves better. Our children deserve better.

From a pragmatic non-religious public policy standpoint, abortion laws should be limited to determining that providers are qualified, properly trained and working under sanitary medical conditions. Abortion should be considered a health care procedure like having a biopsy. There should not be any laws that determine who can and who cannot get an abortion, based on random facts like what magical imaginary being the local judge believes in, what state or city the woman lives in, how the egg got fertilized, or who the fertilized egg is inside of. 

Is she a slut or a virgin? Is she single or married? Did she use birth control? Does she already have kids? Has she had an abortion before? Is she 16 or 36 or 56? Did she like the sex? Was she forced or raped? Did she try to stop the guy? What do her parents think about the situation? WTF difference does any of that make? She does not want to be pregnant.

How does it help society to have people forced to be parents who can't even handle the basics of their own lives? We want thoughtful, careful, rational people to have kids, not people who act like the girls in some teen comedy show.

If a woman wants an abortion because she won't fit into her party dress in six months, she should be moved to the front of the line and given the operation for free. The more frivolous and non-sensical reason someone has for wanting an abortion, the more I want them to hurry up and get one.

Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan should have abortions every week if necessary. Please, please don't have a child just because you had sex and forgot to take a pill, you silly self-centered beeyatches. Babies require way too much work and committment to let just anyone have one--some people should not be allowed to have a chia pet let alone a human child. I do not want the next generation of kids born to frivolous, irresponsible, thoughtless, selfish people who are sporadically promiscuous and don't plan ahead or are too simple-minded, drugged up or drunk to use birth control consistently.

The only place I see any potential for real controversy among rational people is regarding the situation of the sperm producer--I do not think of him as "the father" until we know that there will indeed be a baby. Ideally, a man should know who he is having sex with, and if it is one of the aforementioned silly beeyatches, he should not want her to become the mother of his child.

If a man does not want to be a father, he should be making double sure of the birth control--vasectomy and a condom?  If a man wants to be a father, he should be with a woman who wants to be a mother. (I also think men should be able to foster and adopt kids if they want.)

[Frank]

There is not one word of the previous post I don't agree with. Couldn't have put it better myself. Well said indeed nogods.

[Traveler]

nogodsforme, please let me know when you run for president, or supreme court judge, or whomever can actually make a difference on issues like this.  You've got my vote.