How to Prevent Eugenic Abortions

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. Yes, you can. This is why we have blood banks--so we don't have to face the dilemma of one person dying if we don't force somebody else to give blood. Similarly, birth control, adoption, and support for parents are ways to prevent having to face the dilemma of killing one person to keep another from having to raise a child they can't support without serious problems.

A fetus can think, and yes, it has emotions. It is not yet self-aware, but it does think and have emotions. We know this because babies born prematurely have thoughts and emotions, and because we can measure brain-waves from rather early on.

May I also remind you that there are people who are adults and who have cognition that is about as sophisticated as that of a fetus. (Obviously they are different; they've had years to learn, their brains are not typical, and they are, of course, adults and not infants.) But if you are going to define a fetus as non-human on the basis of cognitive ability, then you must also define these people as non-human. More so, considering that the typical fetus will develop much more ability, and the adult with the profound cognitive disability will generally learn only a little more.

Last edited by Callista on 17 Apr 2010, 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The thing is most disabled people are as happy or unhappy as nondisabled people with the exceptions of conditions like depression which are defined by unhappiness. Most people who become disabled remain at their previous level of happiness after a few years of adjustment. The problem is that dome studies include having or not having certain abilities as factors in quality of life, which is basically an ableist bias. Remove that bias and measure our happiness and we are the same as everyone else. I have even heard that on some studies severely disabled people are happier than milder ones, which goes completely against conventional wisdom. Thre are disabled people who are unhappy and think it's their disability causing it hut often it's not, there's a lot of evidence happiness is more based on factors totally unrelated to being disabled. And many people with shorter than average lifespans are happy to at least get the amount of time they have rather than none even though some want more.

It is the medical profession (the ones who give counseling when genetic conditions are found) that tends to most severely underestimate the happiness of disabled people. Disabled people always rate our quality of life higher than doctors rate our quality of life because of their preconceptions about disability.

I am a good example of someone who totally flies in the face of traditional ideas of disability and happiness. I have been happy and unhappy but my unhappiness was caused by the way I saw the world rather than by my disabilities. I am autistic (and have very severe impairments related to that). I have an autism-related parkinsonlike movement disorder that is really just a separate name for one facet of my autism but it ensures that some autism-related impairments will only become more severe with time. I have a neurological-motor condition that severely affects my stamina and causes dangerous (like becoming so limp it's hard to breathe, turning blue/grey, having various parts of my body go hot and cold regardless of environment) things to happen if I overdo things (where overdo means doing amounts of activity that most people don't even notice they're doing several times throughout the day). I have a few pain-inducing conditions, two of which are each said to induce some of the most severe kinds of pain there is. I have a rare form of COPD. Among other things that I outright forget in the midst of dealing with this other stuff, but are considered serious in their own right. I use a motorized wheelchair, can barely walk (not enough to get around my apartment), use typed communication when I can communicate in words at all, and spend the majority of time in bed because going out in a powerchair that tilts me back and puts my feet up is exhausting. I often can't keep my eyes coordinated because of muscle problems so see double a lot. I most of the time need to be propped on things. I spend a lot of time unable to make the usual kind of sense out of what I perceive, or even aware that language and categories are possible. I am going to need an implant to make me able to fully empty my bladder, and before that was an issue I had serious trouble with incontinence (and still have leakage in both areas enough to need disposable underwear). And the stuff I openly talk about is the tip of the iceberg.

I should be incredibly unhappy several times over by most people's standards. This is just not in the least bit a situation most people equate with happiness. But I am happy, happier than many people I've met who have everything going for them. And I am not happy because of my remaining abilities either, I am certain I will remain happy even as I lose some of them (which I will, because that's what's been happening for ages anyway).

And I completely resent the idea that not being born would have made me happier, or that a nondisabled person has a better chance at happiness than I do. That's really obviously false. It's totally arrogant to look at someone's genes and predict whether they'd rather have existed or not. If I died tomorrow I would still rather have existed up till then, even though that would be less than half the average lifespan. And my experience is completely similar to the experiences of many other people I know with severe impairments, including ones that limit the lifespan.

Sure some disabled people are happy but lots of nondisabled people are just as unhappy so that doesn't predict anything even if some disabled people are certain it's their disability (just as some nondisabled people blame their breast size or ability variations not large enough to be considered disabled or many other traits that don't guarantee happiness even a little).

So as I said, deciding for someone else that their disability will make them rather not have existed at all is the height of really destructive arrogance. There's a reason people with Down syndrome protest eugenic abortion and it's not because they're unhappier than nondisabled people, rather the opposite. And screening someone out doesn't give that person a better chance at happiness, it just ensures the person has zero chance at happiness.

As far as noneugenic abortion, I loathe the practice but I am reluctantly pro-choice. Contraceptives don't work 100%. Pro-life people tend to downplay the risks and the stresses on the body that pregnancy takes just as prochoice people tend to downplay how much abortion sucks. And I have been told I would not survive a pregnancy. Some women who are nondisabled won't survive pregnancies. It is up to every woman whether she wants to take that risk at that point in time. The conditions around abortion are fraught with economic and racial inequality among other things. But women need to be able to avoid the risk of pregnancy without risking their lives on abortion. So I hate abortion but reluctantly believe it has to be legal.

But the idea of deciding to abort purely on the basis of disability sickens me. It's arrogant and horribly destructive. Plus there's a huge difference between choosing whether to have a child and choosing based on a child's individual characteristics. One makes sense and the other is nearly always fueled by bigotry and misunderstanding about disability.

But if there were none available, I wouldn't have the right to demand the use of someone else's blood. Say I had a very rare blood type?

If I had renal failure, could I demand to have my bloodstream attached to someone else's for nine months straight, causing all sorts of drastic effects on their body, to save my own life (I'm not sure if that can actually be done, I'm just trying to think of something equivalent to pregnancy here....)

A fetus isn't conscious until around 28th week if I remember correctly. Until then, there isn't even the issue of 'killing'. It's a piece of tissue.

Yeah, sorry should have clarified it a bit. It was in regards to involuntary incest, which would also be lumped under rape.
I should also add in the whole being able to do it if the mother and her child's life would be threatened by conditions (normally what comes to mind would be the woman is too small, stuff like that, its a bit hard to explain what exactly I mean.

Just to add onto those excellent points -- it's physically invasive and therefore risky, and practitioners are not always willing to do it for a woman who is young and/or has no children already. Because, as said, it's supposed to be permanent.

It really makes no sense to argue for tubal ligation as an alternative to abortions. No girl in her right mind is going to think, "hmmm, now that I'm sexually active, I should give up my entire reproductive future on the chance that I might have an accidental pregnancy." And no doctor in her right mind would agree to do it.

Last edited by willaful on 17 Apr 2010, 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I understand what you mean. I'm sorry that I've been unclear.

I exaggerated somewhat to try make a point because I believe that if there were laws that restrict choice that much (as the laws the op suggested seemed to me to be), it would be easier for those in authority to pass more controlling laws until a person couldn't do things that are now considered normal.

I'm a woman, I'm pro-life but if I became pregnant through rape I'm unsure if I could live through a pregnancy. Also, I don't think that a person should be forced into doing things.

I feel that all children are a gift from God, and that all human life is valuable. I also wouldn't do that to my unborn child, if I were to get pregnant. That would be hurting that baby, and myself. That's where I stand. I respect your opinions, and I peacefully ask, that you respect mine.

I don't view you as the op has appeared to have labled you. I view you as a person who had to make a difficult choice and you have my sympathy for any pain you may have felt (emotional or physical).

Anbuend, that was one of the best posts on this topic I have ever read.

That's a courageous decision (to have the baby no matter what the circumstances). I commend you for that, though that's not the decision I'd make.

If God wants to give me a gift, he should give me something cool, like better motor skills or the ability to write an essay

My time in this thread is done. I am moving on, in peace.

Wow, if I'm going to be called a 'murdering scumbag', then I reserve the right to call my judge an ignorant jackass.

Same here.

I do recognize that after a certain time in development the fetus is indeed a sentient being and not just a lump of gelatine, but we have to keep that in perspective. That time occurs somewhere around 28 weeks. Aborting before then is not 'killing a baby'.

embryos and fetuses are not children.

ruveyn

Nope, that's true. Human life stages go something more like fertilized egg -> blastocyst -> embryo -> fetus -> infant -> toddler -> child, and so on.

Just 'cause the fetus isn't a child yet doesn't mean it isn't human...

I think abortion ( if its ethical) depends on the situation in question. I rarely approve of it but occasionally do (like if my one bipolar friend would want one, I'm iffy about it, but could respect that decision). Also, have you ever heard about what happened to women who got illegal abortions out of desperation? My stepmom told me horror stories from Romania (I think their may also be a movie about a woman who wanted an abortion in Romania & the doctor gave her an ultimatum like this (not an exact quote): *presents two large barrels
"If the abortion is clean (the abortion is good) you'll wash yourself and go home. But if it is bad I will put you into this other barrel full of acid." This is why I say its better to have one done by a medical professional... fact is people will always have sex, meaning their will always be a risk of unwanted pregnancy.