ToadOfSteel wrote:
My only issue is with the third argument. As it stands now, yes, abortion is not genocide. However, simplistic NT's tend to lump all genetic mutations together, and Autism will be lumped with those pictures you showed above (even though it is unwarranted). Once a reliable genetic test for autism is found, those Autism Spoken For mothers will insist on abortions for every autistic fetus, on account of how they are just as "defective" as those examples you showed.. even though in reality autistics are capable of living the same lifespan as a "normal" person, Autism Spoken For will merely argue that their child will not lead a "normal" life, and therefore will be in pain the entire time. Since The Almighty Autism Spoken For knows this for a fact, they will continue to erase this "blight" upon the human genome, until every last autistic is exterminated.
Abortion can be necessary. Those examples you showed are proof. The fact that it can save the life of the mother is proof. I just think its incredibly overused. Many pregnant women get abortions because it's inconvenient for them to have a child, and they were too dumb to use a contraceptive (This doesn't count for rape victims however, since they didn't choose to have sex.) There are less extreme alternatives: surrogate mothers, adoption, etc. I think abortion should be legal, but its use should be extremely limited to possible death of mother or fetus, rape victims, or fatal congenital defect (emphasis on fatal, meaning child will not survive long once born)
When it actually becomes enforced, or all but, by society or government that autistic or otherwise different babies are aborted whether or not they could have a good life according to more objective standards, then it can be considered genocide and eugenics.
But right now, while it's still in the realm of personal choice, and the genetic component isn't quite clear? Maybe, given financial issues, the age or otherwise maturity of the parent, and the lack of help they would get in jumping through all the hoops and getting what they need for their child, not having the kid is best for everyone. Especially because adoption becomes less of an option once it's known that the child isn't "perfect." Even if it were just a case of moms wanting to abort their future children because they think that disabilities were disgusting or otherwise undesirable, would you want the kid to either have to live with parents who hate them or being constantly shuffled around in the government system, in both situations quite possibly not getting the care and support they need? In a situation like that, maybe the most caring thing a parent could do at the time is NOT have the kid.
In the case of autism and other disabilities, I think it needs to be that acceptance for people already in existence comes first, and then willingness to have a child with such a condition rather than abort it will follow. All forcing a girl to have a kid she doesn't want in order to prevent a prospective genocide will cause is resentment - possibly not only towards her child, but projected onto other disabled people as well. Just as now it is not considered taboo to have a mulatto/mixed race child although some challenges still remain because of the improvements of race relations, hopefully once disability becomes more visible and respected, having a child with a non-fatal or otherwise unbearable condition will become okay, too.
15 Sep 2008, 9:14 am
