TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Aborting our way to pefect kids?
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Aborting our way to pefect kids?

I'm against abortion, but that's not what I'd like to debate. According to the article below, there has been a rise in abortion used to get rid of babies that have curable birth defects. These birth defects include cleft palate, club foot or webbed fingers.

I guess I'd just like to know who thinks that these abortions are justifiable and why, even though these ailments can be "cured" post-partum.

I can sympathize with those who believe in abortion in the case of horrific birth defects and such, but I'm having a hard time swallowing the notion of abortion when it is because the child has a curable cosmetic defect.

quote:

Babies aborted for not being perfect 20:32pm 28th May 2006 The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects. Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show. Babies are being aborted with only minor defects. Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits. Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy. The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby. A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions. Campaigners warned we are turning into a society that can no longer tolerate imperfection. Doctors were recently told they can now screen IVF embryos to try to weed out inherited cancers. Ethical groups fear parents are opting for abortions because they are not told of the support and help available if they continued with the pregnancy. Details of the terminations emerged as new figures revealed an alarming rise in the use of an abortion pill that has been linked to 10 deaths. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that between 1996 and 2004, 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot. It is one of the most common birth defects in Britain, affecting one in 1,000 babies each year. That means around 600 to 700 babies are born annually in the UK with the problem, which causes the feet to point downwards and in severe cases can cause a limp. However it can be corrected without surgery using splints, plaster casts and boots. Naomi Davis, a leading paediatrician at Manchester Children's Hospital who specialists in correcting club feet, said: 'I think it is reasonable to be totally shocked that abortion is being offered for this. 'It is entirely treatable. I can only think it is lack of information.' Figures also show that four babies were aborted since 1996 because they were found to have webbed fingers or extra digits, which can be sorted out with simply surgery. Remarkable pictures recently have revealed how at just 23 weeks baby in the womb appears to smile, yawn and flinch in pain. In 2004 it emerged a baby was aborted at 28 weeks after scans showed it had a cleft palate. Curate Joanna Jepson tried to ensure criminal charges were brought against the two doctors involved but the authorities last year decided against prosecution. She however vowed to continue in her fight to make terminations illegal after 24 weeks and to ensure cleft palates were not included within the term 'serious handicap' and used to justify late abortions. Ms Jepson reacted angrily to news of the club foot abortions. 'The law was not designed for this,' she said. 'Actions like these are fostering a disposable attitude to human life and I'm extremely concerned it is going on. 'I am appalled that the medical profession is allowing or even suggesting abortions for these conditions.' Sue Banton, founder of the group Steps for parents of children with foot disorders, said last year one couple decided to terminate a pregnancy at 25 weeks after discovering their baby would have a section of foot missing. 'We gave them other families to talk to, but they just didn't want to know,' she said. 'It is terrible. 'I know lots of perfectly nice people with this condition and you just can't imagine them not being here.' Pippa Spriggs from Cambridge, whose son Isaac is celebrating his second birthday in July, was dismayed when as scan showed her baby had a club foot. 'Abortion certainly was not openly advised but it was made clear to me it was available,' she said. 'In fact he has been treated and the condition has now slowed him down at all.' Julia Millington, of the Alive and Kicking Campaign, said: 'It is all about our perceptions of perfection. 'Increasingly things are moving along the lines where nothing is good enough. 'It seems we can no longer tolerate any imperfection. 'Babies are at the mercy of ultrasound scans and what they may disclose.' Michaela Aston, from the pro-life group LIFE, said: 'One sympathises for many of the parents of these unborn children aborted after disability has been detected. 'What information are they being given by healthcare professionals so that they can make a truly informed choice? 'We suspect that many parents make the decision to opt for abortion in complete ignorance of the help and support available to children with disabilities and their families. 'For this, health care professionals must shoulder a large part of the blame. 'If, as a society, we are truly committed to equality for people with disabilities then such blatant discrimination against the disabled unborn must stop.' But Jane Fisher of the charity Antenatal Results and Choices defended the right of parents to terminate pregnancies when defects are found. 'This is not part of a move towards designer babies,' she said. 'These are difficult and painful issues.'

I saw this headline this morning. More than anything I think it illustrates a slippery slope. I'm not sure whether pro-abortion advocates had this in mind or not, but my guess is not. However, once you start down the slope, it becomes easier and easier to rationalize decisions like this. Once you've made abortion acceptable and lawful from a legal and political standpoint, where do you draw the line from an ethical standpoint?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Once you've made abortion acceptable and lawful from a legal and political standpoint, where do you draw the line from an ethical standpoint?

It depends on what you consider to be the ethical problem here.

Essentially, the entire abortion debate boils down to whether the fetus should be conferred the rights of a fully developed human being or not. The way I see it, if you believe that the fetus should be conferred those rights, then abortion must be considered universally wrong. Surely no rationale behind the "murder" of the fetus could be considered to be better than any other: the killing of an innocent is still the killing of an innocent. If, however, the fetus should not be conferred the rights of a person, then I fail to see where an ethical angle can be introduced. If the fetus has no rights, then there can be no more a right or wrong reason to have an abortion than there can be a right or wrong reason to have an appendix removed. The only moral consideration is that of the mother's.

In essense, I fail to see how the reasons behind having an abortion changes the framing of the debate at all. I may personally find something distasteful about a woman undergoing an abortion for "cosmetic" reasons, but I don't think there is a moral or ethical transgression here. The choice is hers and it is for her to decide what to do with the clump of cells in her womb, not me. On the flip-side, can it credibly be argued that the killing of a child because it happens to be ugly is really any worse a moral transgression than killing of a child because it was born out of wedlock? Isn't that basically what this is about if you support a moderate interpretation of "fetal rights"?

If there is an ethical dilema here, then it is that of late-term abortions. The point at which a fetus can credibly be said to be conferred with the rights of a human being is, for me, at the point of biological independence. As soon as there is a likelihood that the fetus is capable of surviving independently of the womb, then an abortion becomes at the very best a grey area or, more consitently, a moral and ethical wrong. Where the fetus is grossly disformed (and I'm not talking about webbed fingers, here) or the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then a late-term abortion is almost certainly the lesser of two evils, but other than that I'm not sure how it could be justified. In a biological sense, it's essentially infanticide.

So to sum my opinion on the matter up, an abortion performed before the third trimester is ethically acceptable and the rationale behind it is completely irrelevant. The real ethical issue here is that of performing late-term abortions for reasons that aren't motivated by serious medical concerns. Yet again, if the reason doesn't fall under one of these two categories, then it is completely irrelevant in terms of any ethical considerations: aborting an "infant" in the third trimester because it was conceived through a brutal act of incestuous rape would be just as wrong as aborting an "infant" in the third trimester because it has the wrong colour eyes.

Gattaca anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade aborting an "infant" in the third trimester because it was conceived through a brutal act of incestuous rape would be just as wrong as aborting an "infant" in the third trimester because it has the wrong colour eyes.

Do you really believe this statement?

In cases like these, I think an abortion should be mandatory. I sure as hell don't want those parents' genes passed on, and I highly doubt their capacity to properly raise a child, anyway.

i agree with renegade.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do you really believe this statement?

yes, he stated that the reasons for the abortion are irrelevant to the primary concern- the status of the foetus. thus an incestuous rape child has the same legal rights as a child with the wrong coloured eyes. i think it would be difficult to argue one child has a greater right to life than another.

imo a parent should be able to choose what they wish for their child. are we going to let the state make these decisions? then we'd be plagued with definitions of acceptable & unacceptable deficiencies in any given foetus. i think it should remain a private decision.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i agree with renegade. yes, he stated that the reasons for the abortion are irrelevant to the primary concern- the status of the foetus. thus an incestuous rape child has the same legal rights as a child with the wrong coloured eyes. i think it would be difficult to argue one child has a greater right to life than another. imo a parent should be able to choose what they wish for their child. are we going to let the state make these decisions? then we'd be plagued with definitions of acceptable & unacceptable deficiencies in any given foetus. i think it should remain a private decision.

I don't necessarily disagree with Renegade--I was just a bit troubled by the statement that an abortion resulting from a brutal incestuous rape is morally/ethically no different than an abortion due to a baby having a cleft chin or some other minor, cosmetic defect. Personally, I can't get myself to that position given the likely motivation behind said abortions. Yes, in a completely objective setting (not a bad thing), an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. But as stated, I find ethical differences given the underlying rationale behind them.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter In cases like these, I think an abortion should be mandatory. I sure as hell don't want those parents' genes passed on, and I highly doubt their capacity to properly raise a child, anyway.

I don't think that kids with minor defects that will correct themselves normally as they age should be aborted, let alone mandatory. The thing is that there are just so many people with bad genes, that if you'd start aborting them all now, there wouldn't be much of them left. But if it's a really bad defect or something that would make the kid suffer because of it, either emotionally or physically, then I'd go with the abortion. But ultimately, who says that all of these defects are exclusively harmful? Like why should a child with an extra digit be less capable at everyday life than a normal 5-fingered person? At least they'd make really good piano players

As for the fetus, I don't think it should be viewed as such a either-or situation, regarding whether it's an independent lifeform or a lump of tissue inside a woman. It's kinda both at the same time, and classifying it as one of those two categories is really not describing the full picture.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I don't think that kids with minor defects that will correct themselves normally as they age should be aborted, let alone mandatory. The thing is that there are just so many people with bad genes, that if you'd start aborting them all now, there wouldn't be much of them left. But if it's a really bad defect or something that would make the kid suffer because of it, either emotionally or physically, then I'd go with the abortion. But ultimately, who says that all of these defects are exclusively harmful? Like why should a child with an extra digit be less capable at everyday life than a normal 5-fingered person? At least they'd make really good piano players

i believe arbiter was referring to the behaviour of the parents who would like to abort due to (curable) cosmetic defects as genes

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 As for the fetus, I don't think it should be viewed as such a either-or situation, regarding whether it's an independent lifeform or a lump of tissue inside a woman. It's kinda both at the same time, and classifying it as one of those two categories is really not describing the full picture.

so, considering this belief of yours... where do you place the line between what's 'right' and 'wrong' ethically?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't necessarily disagree with Renegade--I was just a bit troubled by the statement that an abortion resulting from a brutal incestuous rape is morally/ethically no different than an abortion due to a baby having a cleft chin or some other minor, cosmetic defect. Personally, I can't get myself to that position given the likely motivation behind said abortions. Yes, in a completely objective setting (not a bad thing), an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. But as stated, I find ethical differences given the underlying rationale behind them.

Here's how I rationalized my beliefs ... the only rights that matter are the rights afforded to the fetus as opposed to the rights afforded to the mother. If a fetus has rights that supercede the parent than it doesn't matter how it was conceived ... it doesn't matter whether it was brutal rape or willing procreation. The fetus has inherent inalienable rights regardless of method of conception or it doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Here's how I rationalized my beliefs ... the only rights that matter are the rights afforded to the fetus as opposed to the rights afforded to the mother. If a fetus has rights that supercede the parent than it doesn't matter how it was conceived ... it doesn't matter whether it was brutal rape or willing procreation. The fetus has inherent inalienable rights regardless of method of conception or it doesn't.

You sir, have no rights.

The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!

My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all

oh...sorry...the retro Avatar and sig made me have a lapse.




Eugenics is such a fun topic.....


MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Eugenics is such a fun topic..... MrS

a discussion about eugenics actually sounds quite appealing

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Eugenics is such a fun topic..... MrS

Is that like ebonics for Europeans?

Hm....what about this little bugger?



http://www.local6.com/news/9290536/detail.html

quote:

Baby Born With Third Arm POSTED: 8:19 am EDT May 30, 2006 UPDATED: 8:24 am EDT May 30, 2006 SHANGHAI, China -- Doctors in Shanghai on Tuesday were considering surgery options for a 2-month-old boy born with an unusually well-formed third arm. Neither of the boy's two left arms is fully functional and tests have so far been unable to determine which was more developed, said Dr. Chen Bochang, head of the orthopedics department at Shanghai Children's Medical Center. "His case is quite peculiar. We have no record of any child with such a complete third arm," Chen said in a telephone interview. The boy, identified only as "Jie-jie," also was born with just one kidney and may have problems that could lead to curvature of the spine, local media reports said. Jie-jie cried when either of his left arms was touched, but smiled and responded normally to other stimuli, the reports said. Chen said doctors hoped to work out a plan for surgery, but the boy's small size made it impossible to perform certain tests that would help them prepare. Media reports said other children have been reported born with additional arms and legs, but in those cases it was clear what limb was more developed. Chen's hospital is one of China's most experienced in dealing with unusual birth defects, including separating conjoined twins.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Hm....what about this little bugger? http://www.local6.com/news/9290536/detail.html

Hmm..he might make a hell of a boxer!

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i believe arbiter was referring to the behaviour of the parents who would like to abort due to (curable) cosmetic defects as genes

Ah..makes more sense then

quote:

so, considering this belief of yours... where do you place the line between what's 'right' and 'wrong' ethically?

I'd say that as long as a child has a defect that's going to cause it to be incapable of functionally taking care of itself or a defect that would result in a premature death it would be better to abort. Otherwise, I'm pretty much against it. Stuff like down syndrome, missing limbs, blindness, etc.

Although, on the other hand, Arbiter did make a relatively good point. Aborting people who carry genes of such stupid people might not be such a bad idea after all.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I'd say that as long as a child has a defect that's going to cause it to be incapable of functionally taking care of itself or a defect that would result in a premature death it would be better to abort. Otherwise, I'm pretty much against it. Stuff like down syndrome, missing limbs, blindness, etc.

What about things like muscular dystrophy, which causes death around age 20. By the time you reach your teens, you're in a wheelchair-but you would have a nice, fulfilling childhood! I don't think there's a pre-natal test for it, so it's hypothetical, but one may be someday developed.

In any case, I'm not looking for an answer necessarily to the muscular dystrophy thing, I'm just pointing out that there are many, many flavors of birth defects, ranging from some of which may never be noticed (one guy had a dead siamese twin corpse in his body for 30-odd years) to those that will cause death in the childbirth process.

I'm just saying that your line is none too distinct, and lines like that are too arbitrary for my tastes anyway.

As for myself, I beleive in a woman's right to abortion, regardless of whatever reason. I beleive that she can CHOOSE to have an abortion for whatever reason she wants, whether it be because the child will have a birth defect, or the "wrong" color eyes, or because a stranger gave her 5 bucks to do it. It's none of my buisness, and certainly none of the government's.

quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat As for myself, I beleive in a woman's right to abortion, regardless of whatever reason. ... It's none of my buisness, and certainly none of the government's.

Well that's the whole freakin arguement right there: Is abortion a serious thing requiring justification or is it relatively frivolous, along the lines of getting a wart frozen off or getting your stomach stapled?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Hm....what about this little bugger? http://www.local6.com/news/9290536/detail.html

Probably (and by that I mean almost definetly) a result of all the pesticides, hormones, genetic modification, toxins from polluting the enviornment, and other unnatural crap.

quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat As for myself, I beleive in a woman's right to abortion, regardless of whatever reason. I beleive that she can CHOOSE to have an abortion for whatever reason she wants, whether it be because the child will have a birth defect, or the "wrong" color eyes, or because a stranger gave her 5 bucks to do it. It's none of my buisness, and certainly none of the government's.

Once women can ejaculate in other women and impregnate them, then perhaps it's purely a "womans'" right to deicide. Until that day, the feminatzis can kindly fuck off.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Once women can ejaculate in other women and impregnate them, then perhaps it's purely a \"womans'\" right to deicide. Until that day, the feminatzis can kindly fuck off.

thats a ridiculous statement. how can you compare ejaculation with carrying the child? theres a reason its a woman's right to decide- its her body.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN thats a ridiculous statement. how can you compare ejaculation with carrying the child? theres a reason its a woman's right to decide- its her body.

He's coming from the point of view that its half the father's baby

quote:

Originally posted by Sunflower He's coming from the point of view that its half the father's baby

yes, i know what he's saying. ergo my comment. to argue a man has equal rights with respect to the child is ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes, i know what he's saying. ergo my comment. to argue a man has equal rights with respect to the child is ridiculous.

No it isn't. Sunflower pretty much responded for me.

EDIT:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN its her body.

Yes, and what she's carrying inside it isn't only her's.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.