Abortions and Disability-Free Societies

[Pensalum]

I think this is a tricky issue and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it yet.

On the one hand, I think a pregnant person should have the right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, or lack of reason they have.

On the other hand, I can see why aborting fetuses with certain disabilities could be discriminatory.

I think ultimately, raising a child with a disability may be more difficult, and if a pregnant person isn't equipped to take on that responsibility, then they should have the right to terminate pregnancy.

[Infected Mushroom]

No

Why not ? They have to choose. Why not base the choice on "it is like us" - even if that means you choose to bring a handicapped person instead of a nonhandicapped one into the world ?

because its unbelievably selfish

the child is going to be deaf...

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I don't usually reply to comments, but gee whiz man, that is hurtful. "Defective"? I know quite a few people with neuromuscular conditions, autism (which btw can manifest itself in such a way that you couldn't even call it a disorder), and other such things. They are wonderful people and just because they can't do some things doesn't make them "defective". Would you change your mind if your kid got depressed when he was 13?
It makes me really sad that you think this

Autism is not something that can be screened for before birth. Even if you do use prenatal screenings and abort deformed or genetically-disordered fetuses, that would not eliminate autism from the population.

They're more likely to GET those services if they're less expensive to the taxpayer. They're known to be stingy about this sort of thing. (See also opposition to public healthcare.)

Also, taxpayers are more likely to sympathize with disabilities that are no one's fault than with disabilities that are the parents' fault for giving birth to them.

Taxpayers can get stuffed if they think it's fair to let a child suffer with substandard care because the mother didn't want an abortion.

Some people don't want to get an abortion. That isn't the kid's fault.

Well, how do you propose getting around the will of the taxpayers, then?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Autism is not something that can be screened for before birth. Even if you do use prenatal screenings and abort deformed or genetically-disordered fetuses, that would not eliminate autism from the population.



Taxpayers can get stuffed if they think it's fair to let a child suffer with substandard care because the mother didn't want an abortion.

Some people don't want to get an abortion. That isn't the kid's fault.

Well, how do you propose getting around the will of the taxpayers, then?

Send them to labor camps if they cause problems, duh

[UniversalCommons]

There is another aspect to this discussion. The problem of sociopaths or people who have problems with basic moral decisions. Being a sociopath is a form of extreme disability. It can lead to genocide, unjustified wars with ones neighbors. Quite often people choose groups to exterminate so they can seize power or do very violent things. This is far more dangerous than the usual individual who is disabled who can't do anything. We watch for sociopathic tendencies in our population. These people often appear perfectly normal and are often quite successful.

[Fortlion]

I see no problem with abortion in any case. It's not your business to tell the pregnant woman whether to keep the foetus or not. I think it can also relieve the burden that is put on healthcare from having to tend to the new born disabled.

[Kernen]

There is another aspect to this discussion. The problem of sociopaths or people who have problems with basic moral decisions. Being a sociopath is a form of extreme disability. It can lead to genocide, unjustified wars with ones neighbors. Quite often people choose groups to exterminate so they can seize power or do very violent things. This is far more dangerous than the usual individual who is disabled who can't do anything. We watch for sociopathic tendencies in our population. These people often appear perfectly normal and are often quite successful.

Proof that personal morals just get in the way of success.

[Auze]

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.

The odds of dying in a highway accident are non-zero, therefore you should be legally allowed to blow up the car behind you.

[Salandriagado]

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.

The odds of dying in a highway accident are non-zero, therefore you should be legally allowed to blow up the car behind you.

No, because that doesn't reduce the risk.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Ok let me rephrase:

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

Why? Its the woman's body. Its the woman's choice. If she wants to abort a fetus because its Tuesday, so be it. Motivation is irrelevant.

Because aborting a fetus should only be done with a damn good reason.

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.

How about the other way around ? What if a deaf couple wants a baby through IVF. They would then have the choice of several embryos to implant.
should they be allowed to pick the embryo that will also be deaf "because they would better connect with it' ?

No, thats just selfishness on the parents part.

There is no reason why the kid needs to be deaf.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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

If they're going to be severe and quite negatively impact the quality of life there's certainly an argument to be made that it would be okay.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

That's not what D9THC said, though. He/she said "for any reason the pregnant person wishes."

Which seems reasonable enough, in the absence of any reason why abortion is wrong.

But it seems at odds with subsequently claiming that it DOES matter what the reasons are.

[Kernen]

Why? Its the woman's body. Its the woman's choice. If she wants to abort a fetus because its Tuesday, so be it. Motivation is irrelevant.

Because aborting a fetus should only be done with a damn good reason.

The fact that it's their body is all the reason anybody should ever need. People may invoke other rights for similar rationale. Abortion is no different.

[Herador]

Well yeah, a woman should and can abort for whatever damn reason she wants, it's her body.

But I'll guess I'll take a shot at chopping up the problem with a personal hypothetical. Let's say that tomorrow my wife takes a pregnancy test, and it's positive. We make the decision to keep the kid and give it our best shot, we don't have much but something just compels us to try for this little thing.

So things are going fine, I get another job to help compensate and we move into a cheaper place in a different town, hard sure, but we're having a baby. Even with all this, we're still going to be scraping by when we factor in a baby. I think we all know babies ain't cheap. Then one day a routine checkup reveals that the baby is going to be born with... I dunno, let's go with Cerebral Palsy, and likely (98% chance) has mental defects too, something contaminated our water and we hit double whammy on getting fucked over, just to make the hypothetical juicy. So what do my wife and I do? We can barely afford a baby without additional complication and now we find out we're going to have to care for a physically and mentally disabled child for the rest of their life? My niece has the same problems I mentioned, born early and six pounds too light (if I recall correctly, she was very thin). My wife and I are in our early 20's, not exceptionally well prepared for parenthood in any sense already, and only she has a degree and anything that might be considered a career.

What do we do?

It's hard, but we can't have that baby. The quality of care we would be capable of providing would be so far below the basic level that the child would need that we'd probably lose the baby to Child Services within three years, and knowing my wife she isn't going to carry a baby to term that we can't care for, she isn't going to bring a child into the world we aren't capable of caring for and she doesn't want to give her child away.

She'll abort, we've had this conversation a few times.

[Luna Amore]

Because aborting a fetus should only be done with a damn good reason.

The fact that it's their body is all the reason anybody should ever need. People may invoke other rights for similar rationale. Abortion is no different.

Bodily integrity ceases to be a compelling argument when it involves a second body. Because you are then impacting that person's bodily integrity.

[Kernen]

The fact that it's their body is all the reason anybody should ever need. People may invoke other rights for similar rationale. Abortion is no different.

Bodily sovereignty ceases to be a compelling argument when it involves a second body. Because you are then impacting that person's bodily sovereignty.

One should never have to subordinate one's bodily sovereignty to others. If my blood contains a rare chemical or genetic quirk that produces life saving properties, I should be under no obligation to give it up, regardless of the lives saved or the benefits derived.

[Luna Amore]

Bodily sovereignty ceases to be a compelling argument when it involves a second body. Because you are then impacting that person's bodily sovereignty.

One should never have to subordinate one's bodily sovereignty to others. If my blood contains a rare chemical or genetic quirk that produces life saving properties, I should be under no obligation to give it up, regardless of the lives saved or the benefits derived.

You should be obliged when it was you who created the person in the first place. It's basic personal responsibility.

You aren't killing another person in your example, you are refusing to save them/help them. They may or may not live without your intervention. With abortion, you are specifically ending the life.

[Kernen]

One should never have to subordinate one's bodily sovereignty to others. If my blood contains a rare chemical or genetic quirk that produces life saving properties, I should be under no obligation to give it up, regardless of the lives saved or the benefits derived.

You should be obliged when it was you who created the person in the first place. It's basic personal responsibility.

You aren't killing another person in your example, you are refusing to save them/help them. They may or may not live without your intervention. With abortion, you are specifically ending the life.

I see the perception of life in the fetus utterly irrelevant. Life is not inherently valuable. Ones autonomy over their body and tissue ought to be absolute absent obvious intent to surrender or abandon that right.

The rationale, therefore, to exercising that autonomy is irrelevant. A woman should be able to abort to prevent a congenital defect as readily as to prevent stretch marks.

[Luna Amore]

You should be obliged when it was you who created the person in the first place. It's basic personal responsibility.

You aren't killing another person in your example, you are refusing to save them/help them. They may or may not live without your intervention. With abortion, you are specifically ending the life.

I see the perception of life in the fetus utterly irrelevant. Life is not inherently valuable. Ones autonomy over their body and tissue ought to be absolute absent obvious intent to surrender or abandon that right.

The rationale, therefore, to exercising that autonomy is irrelevant. A woman should be able to abort to prevent a congenital defect as readily as to prevent stretch marks.

So you would be for abortions right up until birth?

[Kernen]

I see the perception of life in the fetus utterly irrelevant. Life is not inherently valuable. Ones autonomy over their body and tissue ought to be absolute absent obvious intent to surrender or abandon that right.

The rationale, therefore, to exercising that autonomy is irrelevant. A woman should be able to abort to prevent a congenital defect as readily as to prevent stretch marks.

So you would be for abortions right up until birth?

Yup. For funsies.

[Pope Joan]

This is part and parcel with eugenics.

I recommend a fine book by G.K. Chesterton. Eugenics and Other Evils.

[Kernen]

This is part and parcel with eugenics.

I recommend a fine book by G.K. Chesterton. Eugenics and Other Evils.

There is nothing wrong with individual parents screening undesirable traits from fetuses. The problem arises when the state so mandates.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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?

So we're discussing if abortion is right.

[USS Monitor]

There is another aspect to this discussion. The problem of sociopaths or people who have problems with basic moral decisions. Being a sociopath is a form of extreme disability. It can lead to genocide, unjustified wars with ones neighbors. Quite often people choose groups to exterminate so they can seize power or do very violent things. This is far more dangerous than the usual individual who is disabled who can't do anything. We watch for sociopathic tendencies in our population. These people often appear perfectly normal and are often quite successful.

That isn't something they can screen for in the womb.

[Page]

I believe that anyone should be able to terminate a pregnancy within the first two trimesters and shouldn't be asked why, so aborting fetuses with disability is covered by that view, hell even having an abortion because you flipped a coin is covered by that view, because no one should have to explain the reason for the abortion.