Do you find abortion due to the child´s disability offensive

Post Reply New Topic

I sit corrected. I did not know spina biffida could be treated.

ruveyn

I don't have a problem with any abortion that is done with the woman's consent.

i agree with this.

No, I find it merciful instead.

For the most part, in terms of normal pregnancies, I agree with you. However, if the woman wants to have an abortion, say, at eight months, than I feel uncomfortable with that. It's the woman's choice, and if the woman wants to that, she can, but I don't think it should be done at a very late stage in the pregnancy.



Now I'll actually talk about the subject of the thread. I completely agree with the above statement.

Yes.

Basing worth on ability is morally and ethically wrong.

Other than that, abort away. Too many people on this planet as is.

(Pretty cool how those two statements conflict with one another. )

/seconded.

I agree with ruveyn's point of view.

By child you mean fetus.

In theory I don't approve of abortion.
If the situation is severe enough to warrant it then maybe.
It's kind of a slippery slope, though...

No one but the parents, particularly the pregnant woman, have the right to parse the parents' particular circumstances as they relate to the potential issues of the fetus she carries.

I think possibly the condition you were thinking of is 'anencephaly', which is a neural tube spectrum condition, just as spina bifida is, but it means that a significant part of the brain/skull is missing. Usually, the baby dies within a few days, but I did see a programme where the Mum was praying for a miracle and had her child on life support for many years. Of course, there was no hope of a recovery and I don't know what the situation is with the child now. Acephaly means that the foetus has no head and this is very rare. As for spina bifida, there's a gradient of severity. Some people have no disabilities, as a result. I was born with a mild case of it and it hasn't affected me in any way.

I have a cousin with spina biffida. He has a knot of flesh on his lower back, but it's only a cosmetic issue. His parents were told he would never walk, but he's perfectly fine. He's retired with grandkids now.


I think most people agree that aborting fetuses with severe deformities, such as those with no brain or those who would live short painful lives, is morally acceptable.
What about the "gray area" abnormalities, though? What about Down's Syndrome? People with Down's enjoy life and have a reasonable life span. However, to varying degreees they also require lifelong care, and can have medical problems. They require a lot of effort and money that the parents may not have to give.

Until very recently- the past week or so- I was generally in favour of abortion. An embryo cannot reasonably be said to be a person, and if a woman is prepared to abort a foetus, which is an incredibly traumatic experience, then she's obviously strongly opposed to becoming a mother and will probably not be able to cope, one way or another.

Despite that, probably because I am disabled myself, I was against the termination of disabled foetuses, particularly if we started aborting autistic or dyslexic foetuses.

But then I though... why? That doesn't make sense. If anything, raising a disabled child is harder than raising an NT child, so abortion is probably more justified.

So I came to the conclusion that I am in favour of women or couples aborting their embryo or foetus after a genetic test confirms that they have a disability.

^

If we'd aborted people because of their having autism, we'd have lost great contributers like Einstein, Nicolai Tesla, Andy Warhol and Bill Gates.