Abortions and Disability-Free Societies

[The Greater Low Countries]

What if an abortion discussion on NSG was actually competent?
Well, we aren't actually discussing if abortion is right, no no no. Today, we ask:

Is it okay to abort fetuses if they will have mental or physical disabilities?

I ask this because there have been several articles, [url]www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/]including this one,[/url] that show nations like Iceland having only three babies born each year with Down syndrome. I also found this one, which is definitely biased against abortion of the disabled (but you know, it's the New York Times and it's an opinion piece), but it's still really moving.
What's my opinion? I don't like abortion, but even if I did, I would have a problem deciding with my future wife that we should abort a disabled fetus. I would consider this discrimination.
I'd love to hear your thoughts!

[USS Monitor]

It's not like the fetus has the mental capacity to get offended about concepts like "discrimination."

But we should still have an understanding that some people will choose not to abort (and it's their right to make that choice) or some disabilities won't be known until after the kid is born, and there will still be some disabled people and some need for services to support them.

[Grinning Dragon]

I think it's ok. In fact it was one of the things my ol lady and I discussed and we were in agreement.

[Cappuccina]

That is a bit eugenics-ish for my tastes.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Is it okay to abort fetuses if they will have mental or physical disabilities?


No, that should not be a factor at all into why someone should or should not get an abortion.

They can't afford the child or they will die while giving childbirth are the only factors.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Abortion should be legal for any reason the pregnant person wishes.

[Cappuccina]

Abortion should be legal for any reason the pregnant person wishes.

No, absolutely not. Unless it's for a very good medical reason.

[The South Falls]

Abortion should be legal for any reason the pregnant person wishes.

No, absolutely not. Unless it's for a very good medical reason.

Rape? You want it to be illegal in Rape? That's not a medical reason.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Abortion should be legal for any reason the pregnant person wishes.

No, absolutely not. Unless it's for a very good medical reason.

Why not? It’s not up to me or anyone else if someone should get end a pregnancy. A “fetus having a soul” is not a logical and scientific reason why a person should not be able to end a pregnancy. They will have to be the one’s dealing with it, not anyone else.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. Simple.

[Firaxin]

No, absolutely not. Unless it's for a very good medical reason.

Why not? It’s not up to me or anyone else if someone should get end a pregnancy. A “fetus having a soul” is not a logical and scientific reason why a person should not be able to end a pregnancy. They will have to be the one’s dealing with it, not anyone else.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. Simple.

Why not? It's not up to me or any other citizen if the state should exterminate the Jews. Jews being people isn't a logical and scientific reason why the state should not exterminate the jews. They will have to be the one's dealing with their evil, not anyone else.

If you don't like the extermination of the jews, don't kill them. Simple.

[Godular]

Abortion should be legal for any reason the pregnant person wishes.

No, absolutely not. Unless it's for a very good medical reason.

As all pregnancies are inherently life-threatening, the good medical reason exists on principle.

[Hakons]

Supporting abortion based on disabilities is plain eugenics. It is a moral evil, and anyone who supports it might as well go to the nearest disabled person and shout: "I wish you were dead!"

[Cappuccina]

No, absolutely not. Unless it's for a very good medical reason.

Rape? You want it to be illegal in Rape? That's not a medical reason.

I'm admittedly on the fence about rape abortions. There are good arguments both for and against it.

No, absolutely not. Unless it's for a very good medical reason.

Why not? It’s not up to me or anyone else if someone should get end a pregnancy. A “fetus having a soul” is not a logical and scientific reason why a person should not be able to end a pregnancy. They will have to be the one’s dealing with it, not anyone else.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. Simple.

I never said I believe in souls (which I don't). I don't believe abortion is ethical in most instances, it is an infringement of the fetus' right to life, which is also why I support legal abortion for medically high risk pregnancies (violates the mother's right to life).

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Why not? It’s not up to me or anyone else if someone should get end a pregnancy. A “fetus having a soul” is not a logical and scientific reason why a person should not be able to end a pregnancy. They will have to be the one’s dealing with it, not anyone else.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. Simple.

Why not? It's not up to me or any other citizen if the state should exterminate the Jews. Jews being people isn't a logical and scientific reason why the state should not exterminate the jews. They will have to be the one's dealing with their evil, not anyone else.

If you don't like the extermination of the jews, don't kill them. Simple.

We are talking about fetus, not people that have been born. And no, just because your religion compares abortion to genocide does not make it reality.

That’s a really sad and pathetic straw man there.

[Cappuccina]

No, absolutely not. Unless it's for a very good medical reason.

As all pregnancies are inherently life-threatening, the good medical reason exists on principle.

Most pregnancies in 1st world nations are not immediately life threatening, potentially yes, but nowhere near the norm.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Supporting abortion based on disabilities is plain eugenics. It is a moral evil, and anyone who supports it might as well go to the nearest disabled person and shout: "I wish you were dead!"

Fetus =/= humans that have been born.

[Godular]

As all pregnancies are inherently life-threatening, the good medical reason exists on principle.

Most pregnancies in 1st world nations are not immediately life threatening, potentially yes, but nowhere near the norm.

The risk of potentially debilitating/lethal complications remains nonzero, and as such the threat remains. I think you will also find that pregnancy related mortality rates in the US have been experiencing something of an uptick lately.

[Olthar]

As long as no one is forcing women to abort disabled fetuses, I'm fine with it. Anyone should be able to get an abortion for any reason.

[Hakons]

Supporting abortion based on disabilities is plain eugenics. It is a moral evil, and anyone who supports it might as well go to the nearest disabled person and shout: "I wish you were dead!"

Fetus =/= humans that have been born.

Sorry, you would say "I wish you were never even born!" Of course, that sounds worse to me. When you advocate for aborting disabled fetuses, you're saying diasbled people should have been aborted. Presumably because they're lesser than you, or something.

[Ryanasic]

IMO it is okay to abort for any reason before a point where the fetus develops enough (should be able to go past if it was made as a result of rape or could result in the mother's death) not sure exactly when though

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Fetus =/= humans that have been born.

Sorry, you would say "I wish you were never even born!" Of course, that sounds worse to me. When you advocate for aborting disabled fetuses, you're saying diasbled people should have been aborted. Presumably because they're lesser than you, or something.

I’m not saying that people with disabled fetuses should be mandated to get an abortion, I’m saying that the person that is pregnant should have that choice. My personal opinions should not matter.

[Cappuccina]

Most pregnancies in 1st world nations are not immediately life threatening, potentially yes, but nowhere near the norm.

The risk of potentially debilitating/lethal complications remains nonzero, and as such the threat remains. I think you will also find that pregnancy related mortality rates in the US have been experiencing something of an uptick lately.

This isn't the 1800s, until pregnancies become a virtual death sentence again, I see no reason to have on-demand abortions.

[Communaccord]

As to all this eugenics talk, one must realize that one of the original intents of The United States Abortion movement was Eugenics. Of course this was back when Eugenics was widely accepted and quite respectable. However In our current society at its best Abortion is marketed as a last resort option for those incapable of bearing the child to term, nor able to raise said child. This viewpoint is largely based on the idea of the cruelty inherent in birth, granting a being suffering and eventually death without consent.

Termination of disabled unborn is equivalent to sex selective abortion: IT IS DISCRIMINATION. No ifs or buts about it.

In short, denying life to another because of a disability is reminiscent of the Abortion movements Eugenic roots, that if it wishes to continue its promotion as “compassionate”, then all who support Abortion Rights must distance themselves completely from the idea of purging the disabled within the womb.

[Godular]

The risk of potentially debilitating/lethal complications remains nonzero, and as such the threat remains. I think you will also find that pregnancy related mortality rates in the US have been experiencing something of an uptick lately.

This isn't the 1800s, until pregnancies become a virtual death sentence again, I see no reason to have on-demand abortions.

So long as the person does not wish to take the risks, it is neither your business nor right to decide for another person how their body is used or what 'risks' they should undertake. You're right, this isn't the 1800s. This is an era that is a great deal more enlightened and egalitarian than those times were, and I'd like to think that we've graduated beyond that degree of autocracy.

[Cappuccina]

This isn't the 1800s, until pregnancies become a virtual death sentence again, I see no reason to have on-demand abortions.

So long as the person does not wish to take the risks, it is neither your business nor right to decide for another person how their body is used or what 'risks' they should undertake. You're right, this isn't the 1800s. This is an era that is a great deal more enlightened and egalitarian than those times were, and I'd like to think that we've graduated beyond that degree of autocracy.

Restrictions and limits on personal autonomy are necessary for civilization, however, and unchecked individualism across the board without boundaries or exceptions is a recipe for disaster.