Abortion?

[Haltickling]

Inspired by BigJim's reply in a different thread (moral dilemmas), I'd like to know about your views on abortion.

Personally, I think that abortions should be allowed, but only under very restricted and closely controlled circumstances, such as described in our German law:

Abortions here are legal only
- if they are excuted by certified doctors
- until the 12th week of pregnancy (in some cases until the 22nd week)
- if the mother has had an intensive advisory consultation about the physical, psychological, and ethical consequences, and this consultation must take place at least 3 days before the abortion

AND
- if the pregnancy is a direct result of rape or sexual intimidation
- or if an ongoing pregnancy or complete birth bears severe medical or psychological risks for the mother
- or if the mother's present or prospective life circumstances present a severe risk for the mother's physical or psychological health in case of birth.

This doesn't include the risk of losing a job or financial consequences, as our state welfare system pays for the child if neither mother nor father have any income.

So, could you agree with those regulations, or do you think that any abortion is wrong in any case?

I'm aware that this is a highly emotional topic; please try to be civil in your replies. Thanks!

 

[qjakal]

Explosive issue...

Yikes...Hal old friend, why not just juggle lit dynamite! Probably safer than this topic overall. I've gone back and forth on the issue for 25 years or so, but lately I've begun to agree with one of the many bumper stickers I see on the subject>>>

"One penis, no vote on abortion" .

I honestly cannot say whether or not it's ever justified, even in these days of scientific advances allowing one to peek at a developing fetus. It steps SO close to a line between murder and necessity, and yet I think often of the young women whose lives have been completely engulfed by what having a child does to them when they're not prepared either financially or emotionally. Tough call...especially when you factor in the number of people who are dying to adopt infants. Yeah, I know...that didn't help much. It's a helluva question Hal....

 

[desdemona]

Hal,

You have guts. I find it refreshing when a man takes on the subject of abortion and offers legitimate reasons for why this action should be an option under very specific circumstances. The difficulty here in the US is that states tend to be the ones who set these standards and there is so much variation across the country. On a national level, I think it near impossible to get a consensus of when an abortion should be legal. That said, do I approve of abortion? As you outlined, I think there are very real instances where it is needed. From a moral standpoint, I don't have a qualm about ending life - when the time/circumstances are appropriate. This is a tricky subject because of the varying definitions applied to when life begins. As a scientist, I don't recognize life until the embryo has become a fetus - an organized living entity. I plead ignorance in human embryology - I don't know at which stage/week the embryo changes status.

I know that in dogs and cats, I can palpate fetuses about half way through their two month gestation. That's the stage where implantation has occurred - the bond between the mother's uterus and the placenta has been made. From a scientific point of view, I also know that it is much easier to abort these fetuses at this stage - either surgically or by injection of prostaglandins. But for me, there are so many unwanted offspring (and I refer to both the animal and the human kind), that it's more humane for me to think of terminating pregnancy as a mixed blessing (for dogs/cats). That said, I don't approve of the practice of abortion for birth control in people. Responsibilty of both parents should be the issue (or for dogs/cats - the owner).

But it does come down to this: how willing are we to accept responsibilty for death (or the choice of death) for one unable to make the decision? As a veterinarian, I perform euthanasias on a frequent basis. I take pride in my profession that we are able to offer some dignity and humanity to the final moments of a pet's life. This, too, comes under moral debate. Certainly we don't have that option for people suffering from terminal illnesses in this country.

That said, I take offense at the anti-abortionists who use violence to try to persuade others. If they believe that every human life is precious, then how does it justify killing any individual associated with an abortion clinic?

The debate raises the question of the rights of the individual. As a woman, I've heard many of us say that it should be wholly up to us as to what happens with our bodies. I do hope this argument is dying out since the pregnancy is the result of two people both sharing their DNA. If we continue to allow free choice, we open many doorways for abortion to be abused. On the other hand, if we follow the statutes that Hal outlines, we take away some of the individual's freedom. Certainly, abortion takes away the freedom of an unborn child. But the embryo/fetus is not a cognizant being. Just like power of attorney gives relatives the right to execute a living will, so as adults we must sometimes make painful decisions on behalf of another living being.

My feeling is that too much freedom may not be desireable. But if you can qualify certain freedoms, you stand a better chance of protecting society - even the minority. The freedom to act irresponsibly and dangerously doesn't benefit anyone. But banning the practice of abortion altogether is not only horrific, it takes away the one right I believe that we should all have - the right of self-preservation. If there are medical reasons why a pregnancy endangers a mother's life - then abortion should be a legal option. Outlawing it makes for even more dangerous/unhealthy situations.

Well, I've rambled enough...Good topic Hal.

 

[BigJim]

http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31317

The comments of mine that Hal refers to were made in the Moral Dillema thread, the URL is in the title field of this post. But here they are copied and pasted below.
-----------------------------------------------


Another indication that it's based on US responses, is the extremely high rate of "we're in the minority but we'll still put a bomb on your car if you do something we don't like" groups.

It'd be interesting if we could see figures that showed how many people who took part in this survey held the opinions they did because of their religious beliefs, or if they arrived at them independantly. The high scores against unmarried sex, divorce and homosexual sex suggest that this survey (from my point of view anyway) was carried out among people with quite strong Christian beliefs. Of course in America they might not seem that way but compared to Europe, America is very fundementalist.


Abortion is one that's highly debateable, but hasn't yet graced the TMF.

My take on it is that the mother should have every right to decide if her body should be forced to provide growth for what will become another human being. If it's wrong, then she and those involved with her will bear the karmic reponsibility or face the verdict on Judgement Day; depending on your perspective of it.

You cannot destroy a human soul. It is impossible. Not even the full might of Satan himself can do it. You might deprive one of entry into the world in a particular body, at a particular time, but that's it.
As for morality, I find it hard to believe that an almost microscopic ball of a few dozen cells with no neural or attached emotional function can suffer from the termination proceedure.

Yes it may be immoral before God/Allah/the Force/Spirit, but that is between the people involved and said deity. There is no suffering caused to innocent parties as a result of this proceedure, so I believe it is a case where people who do not approve should wind their necks in when it comes to interfering with people who do want to do it.

Now comes the shocking part........

I actually disapprove of abortion. I would not councel it or contemplate using it. If I was an expectant mother (quite a frightening thought) I would either make the best of life, or go for adoption.(Easy to say, seeing as how I'm male.) Adoption circumstances are much better today than they were thirty years ago, as is the emotional support that goes with them.
My personal beliefs are that the mother and father of the soon-to-bebaby attracted those circumstances to themselves spiritually and should deal with them properly. Similarly the soul of the soon-to-be-child selected that place and time to be born into this world for a reason, whatever it is. Maybe there's an advantageous lesson all concerned could benefit from in the long-run. going for a termination would be a waste of a learning opportunity, no matter what the ultimate solution is.
-------------------------------------

My views in a rather large and rambling nutshell. (But then you've come to expect that of me, right chaps?)

An unborn child is not physically aware of pain or emotion, only on the spiritual level. They also have nothing to lose in a sense because they havn't lived in that body yet.

This is a very emotive subject in any sense, but I think it is even more so in Americawhere people let their emotiveness run wild when they think it could score political points. The people I'm thinking of right now are those who lodge high court bids to stop the use of stem cells in helping paraplegic people to walk again. They reason that those cells could have become part of a complete human being if they were allowed to grow. Sadly that it total crap. The stem cells in question are those left over from IVF treatments that produce about 8-12 foetuses and only one or two generally implanted. The remaining foetuses are then clinically disposed of. Now those cells could be put to good use, but the people in the pro-life camp let either their idiotic and blind self-righteousness get in the way, or they go vote catching to the religious right. These prats would rather they get chucked in the bin than serve a worthy, human cause like spinal repair in people like Christopher Reeve.

Now aborting a foetus is slightly different of course, because there's a complete set of cells there, not the remains of unused embryos. However I really don't honestly believe you can compare a bundle of cells that would fit a dozen to a pin-head to a developed baby. I think there is a very clear difference between the two. IF the circumstances and personal choices are such that the mother decides to stop the ball of cells developing into an actual foetus, then I don't believe anyone has the right to stick their nose in her business. IF you've got a different opinion, then fine! Have your opinion and let other people have theirs. Them having theirs is doing no harm to any conscious or sentinent being, except you for daring to hold a different view.

And don't even get me started on those examples of pondlife who think they have God's blessing to plant bombs in clinics and on doctors cars. That sort of person rationalises if someone innocent gets killed that it was all in the cause of good and ad God's blessing. Sad, sad people......
Abortion in it's most acceptable form stops developed lives from being damaged and a baby beig bought up in an unloved enviroment. Their actions serve no purpose other than to reinforce their feeling of self-righteousness.

 

[BigJim]

By the way, I realise I incorrectly used the terms "embryo" and "foetus" to describe different stages of life.

Embryo- A ball of cells with no physical consciousness that is capable (usually) of turning into a grown person.

Foetus- The first stage of conscious life in this world. The step up from embryo when physical features have begun to evolve.
I was also inexact in the other thread when I used the phrase "unborn child". IN that sentence I would have far more accurate to have said "embryo".


Sorry if I caused any confusion with my lack of clarity in my earlier post.

 

[kurchatovium]

I think if the State is paying for the abortion those are great guidelines to follow.

However if a person is paying for it privately I think the state should have no say in it whatsoever provided your first three criteria are met:

Abortions here are legal only
- if they are excuted by certified doctors
- until the 12th week of pregnancy (in some cases until the 22nd week)
- if the mother has had an intensive advisory consultation about the physical, psychological, and ethical consequences, and this consultation must take place at least 3 days before the abortion

From a moral standpoint (not legal) I feel that abortion should be done only as a last resort. So I think morally it should only be done when the second set of criteria are met as well as the first.

- if the pregnancy is a direct result of rape or sexual intimidation
- or if an ongoing pregnancy or complete birth bears severe medical or psychological risks for the mother
- or if the mother's present or prospective life circumstances present a severe risk for the mother's physical or psychological health in case of birth....and I would add

or if the child itself has severe health problems and will suffer greatly.


Back to the marmalade😀

 

[JPie1]

very hard topic and very emotional. You know I used to be totally pro womens rights, womens choice, etc. The last 10 years have changed me in many ways as I struggled with fertility and praying for a child everyday. Now as an adoptive mother of 2 I thank the lord above that these 2 women chose life for these precious children. There are so many loving, generous wonderful waiting couples out there...but then again this is just my feeling. I do believe every woman has the right to decide for herself, myself I could never be pro abortion. Every little life is precious.


JPie

 

[Mimi]

Like JPie, I once also used to be very pro-choice and womans rights on this topic. I am still nearly 100% liberal on all topics except this one.

What changed my mind?

8 years ago, two close friends of mine who were married, seperated. It was her choice, not his, and he had a very difficult time dealing with the situation, given the child they shared together, the short 2 years they were married, and his undying love for her.

Two weeks after they seperated, she found out she was pregnant with their second child. Not wanting to give him grounds for marital reconciliation, she opted for an abortion. She asked me to accompany her on this excersion, and I did. I sat and held her hand through the entire procedure, and watched the abortion take place. I began to change my views on the topic at that very moment. Nothing like watching one performed to open your eyes on the reality abortion. After it was complete, she was released and we drove the two hours back home. I was very quiet on the way home, thinking about the injustice in the fact that HE had no say whatsoever in what she just had done. Sure it was her body, but it WAS his baby too...and shouldn't he be allowed some input on the fate of his unborn child? That thought intensified my new views on abortion.

One week after she had the abortion, he commited suicide. Needless to say, that nearly set my new views in stone.

My current stand on abortion was not official, however, until I became a mother myself. Something about actually having a child and experiencing that moment when they are born, and the undeniable love shared between a child and it's mother can really change your outlook on things. Add to that the fact I have lost three of my pregnancies due to miscarriages, and will likely never be able to carry a baby to full term again, and voila, you have a woman who has performed a mental 180 on the topic of abortion.

I DO approve of them in extreme cases...such as rape, incest, or maternal health risks. But I DO NOT feel they should be available as last resort form of birth control when women and men are not responsible enough to protect themselves from such instances. And that, unfortunately, is where they currently stand.

Mimi

 

[OBleedingMe]

I, for one, am Pro-Life all the way, and no BigJim, I'm not Christian (I;m Agnostic). And I'm not a "blind follower", etc.
DO you know what I fear the most of abortion? That it will make life much tougher for women who CHOOSE to bore their children, because you see, since a woman has a CHOICE to let her pregnancy to come to term, why should, therefore, a man be forced to PAY for that women's CHOICE? She could have had it aborted, she didn't HAVE to have it, so why should the man suffer? See what I'm getting at here?
With abortion, the woman not only controls the course of HER life, but also the MAN'S.
There won't be anymore deadbeat dads, because the woman could have had the child aborted, so he shouldn't have to pay for her choice. If she WANTS the child, why should he have to pay for it? It's her CHOICE to have the child, after all.

 

[avethibaltus]

I agree with Big Jim on this one and believe that the issue is relatively easy to solve although we in the US seem to have serious problems dealing with it.

It must be decided, once and for all, when someone becomes a human being. As long as this status is achieved once he/she is born the individual in question does not have the protection of the law (except where anti-abortion statutes are in place).

Were this status to be applied at the time of conception or after the 2nd trimester of pregnancy or whenever (there are experts who know at what point a "viable" human being exists) then local laws regarding murder and assault could be applied to stop abortions after this defined point. The opposite side of this coin would be that prior to this time the fetus would be considered an integral part of the mother and subject to her "whims", so to speak.

We will never stop abortions, regardless of what is done, but we must come to a point where we recognize this and provide alternatives.

Personally I view 99.9% of abortions as simply a matter of convenience. Any woman who has the procedure carried out must face her God and her self.

Something that Hal didn't mention and many may not realize unless they live along the Mexican border...the laws in the countries bordering Germany are not the same and often allow more freedom in aborting. What is not possible in Germany can often be done in one of these neighboring countries after a relatively short drive. Just ask the people who buy their drugs in Holland.

 

[Haltickling]

...or if the child itself has severe health problems and will suffer greatly.

That is a questionable reason, as this borders on euthanasia. What if the kid shows clear signs of a genetic defeciency (mongolism etc.), or other signs of disability (crippled limbs, siamese twins, brain damages etc.)?

 

[Haltickling]

I agree with a lot of you on many points. The psychological consequences of an abortion are enormous, much worse than in a case of a stillborn child.

I have some problems with a purely "scientific" explanation when human life starts, and I don't think that this should influence the decision too much. It's the termination of life, whenever it may take place.

However, I can neither agree with the argument that abortion shouldn't be allowed in any case (disregarding the cause), nor that it solely be the mother's decision what to do with her womb (disregard of life). Let me give you a few case examples:

A married woman gets raped by some stranger. Should she be forced to carry out that unwanted child? Imagine the consequences to the mother and her husband, and how they will treat the unwanted child! In this case, an abortion should be most certainly allowed.

A young woman, just 18 and still in college, gets pregnant during a wild party, just because of youthful foolishness. She is very talented girl and quite certain to make a good career in some prestigious profession. Should she be allowed to abort the child because it would ruin almost all her life plans? I think not. She will have to rearrange her life plans, but that doesn't justify a killing.

But I agree with avethibaltus that for those with enough money, the national law (wherever you are) is just a minor obstacle for an abortion. This world is getting smaller.

 

[shark]

I was wondering if this topic would ever be brought up here. Let's see how long it can remain civil.

My personal opinion is that abortion,while not necessarily supported,
can be understood and accepted. Cases of rape,incest,or medical necessity would be prime examples of abortions that are accepted, while cases of extreme retardation or handicap would be understood,if not supported.Agreed,this is very close to euthanasia,which is why I
would give it a lesser level of consent.

Too many abortions today are the result of people not accepting the responsibilities of life. There are a number of methods to avoid pregnancy,including abstinence. There are also a number of ways to get sexual gratification without risking pregnancy....those who can't figure this out can email me and I'll list them for you. It's only common sense not to take on responsibilities that one can't afford or
are incapable of handling on one level or another. Under NO circumstances should taxpayer funds be used to fund abortions that are not connected to rape,incest,od medical necessity.

We also have the partial birth abortion,which the Nazis would be proud of.The only reason this procedure is not murder is that the fetus is deliberately turned in the womb to come out breech. Legally,
the fetus is not born until the head comes out.The fetus is turned,
brain matter removed via syringe, and the now legally stillborn fetus removed entirely,and the removed tissue either discarded or used for research. There is also a black market type of scenario for said tissue or organs that is quite lucrative,as the abortion clinic involved gets paid for both the abortion procedure and the tissue "harvested".

Either way,a news report has recently said that the Supreme Court has decided not to reopen Roe vs. Wade. If this is accurate,abortion will remain legal. Since there is no US federal law concerning this,each state will set their own restrictions.

 

[Dragon321]

i would suppose that it depends on whether you believe in a soul. without the divine/human soul within it, an embryo is just a few cells until it becomes a fully fledged foetus. it becomes murder when the foetus is developed enough to feel pain. of course i believe that killing animals can be seen as murder, based on how well they are attuned to pain. personally, i am in favour of Abortion in cases of rape, incest, or other mitigating factors. also if the child in question has negligible quality of life initially (mutations, deformities making life painful, intellectual disability?) in any case where the child will be unable to fend for itself it may be prudent to perform a "mercy killing". although if this is the case, where do you draw the line? if a person will spend his/her entire life in pain, i think that person has a right to die which can be extended back to before their birth. however, some disabled people still have immense quality of life. in those cases killing is unjustified. my buddhist ethics mirror a utilitarian sense of ethics, but i am tending now towards Nietsche. of course i also think that a person has less right to life than an animal from a moral standpoint. i think we are morally inferior to animals, although this may be a simple case of us having a developed enough intellect to choose our path.

 

[BellaRisa]

Let me say that this is the best discussion I've ever seen regarding this issue, with intelligent responses rather than bickering-good for us!🙂


I agree with most of what I've read thus far, with a few minor exceptions:

The psychological consequences of an abortion are enormous, much worse than in a case of a stillborn child.

That really depends on the person. I speak for myself and many women when I say that I could handle termination of an unwanted pregnancy early on MUCH MUCH better, than losing a baby I'd felt stirring and moving within me for months, and wanted more than I can fully express here. I lost my first pregnancy at just 6 weeks, and that damn near killed my spirit-I can't fathom losing my child at birth. But interestingly, the many months it took me to conceive again actually strengthened my pro-choice feelings; having control over whether to try again, when, etc, brought home to me the gift of having those choices. *I* decided what would happen, not the government.


I truly wish there were a way to make pregnancy more equal between mother and father. But until the day that either one can carry the child, I believe that the decision should be with the mother. I sincerely apologize to all the males as I know it sounds unfair, but I really feel that what happens to my body is up to me. When we can *both* go through the emotional, physical and psychological consequences of child-bearing, the decisions will also be for both of us.


Growing up in inner city New York exposed me to horrific situations that sealed my pro-choice stance in stone. Yes, there are couples waiting to adopt babies. But not enough. And MANY don't want non-caucasian babies, the minority adoption rate is far, far lower. Furthermore, I've seen way too many babes born to young, poverty stricken mothers end up horribly abused and ultimately dead, found in basements and trash cans on the coldest nights of the year. Until 'the system' can look after and protect every single one of those children, I have to say I'd rather see the pregnancy end early. I consider abortion a lesser evil than months or years of starvation, neglect and torture that ends in death.

A young woman, just 18 and still in college, gets pregnant during a wild party, just because of youthful foolishness. She is very talented girl and quite certain to make a good career in some prestigious profession. Should she be allowed to abort the child because it would ruin almost all her life plans?

Yes, in my opinion. Condoms break, birth control fails. But the pregnancy that wasn't wanted can still be prevented. Questions like this seem to concentrate on the consquences for the girl--you wanted to dance, now pay the fiddler--rather than the child, and the need for mothers who actually *want* to be mothers. Forcing a woman who didn't want to be a mother to do so can be devastating to everyone involved, often far moreso than abortion aftermath. I feel that parenthood is an incredibly important decision, and should be a choice, not a punishment.

Bella

 

[BellaRisa]

Shark, I agree with everything you wrote except for this part:

Under NO circumstances should taxpayer funds be used to fund abortions that are not connected to rape,incest,od medical necessity.

I see your POV but I'm not sure. Taxpayer funds can go toward abortion and counseling for the woman, or the incredible cost of housing, feeding and educating the unwanted child for 18 yrs, if the mother gives up her rights and he or she isn't adopted and becomes a ward of the state. Morally my jury is out on this one, but if we're talking dollars and cents one might make more sense than the other.

Bella

 

[qjakal]

The Economics of Abortion/childbirth

Let me say that this is the best discussion I've ever seen regarding this issue, with intelligent responses rather than bickering-good for us!🙂

Growing up in inner city New York exposed me to horrific situations that sealed my pro-choice stance in stone. Yes, there are couples waiting to adopt babies. But not enough. And MANY don't want non-caucasian babies, the minority adoption rate is far, far lower. Furthermore, I've seen way too many babes born to young, poverty stricken mothers end up horribly abused and ultimately dead, found in basements and trash cans on the coldest nights of the year. Until 'the system' can look after and protect every single one of those children, I have to say I'd rather see the pregnancy end early. I consider abortion a lesser evil than months or years of starvation, neglect and torture that ends in death.

Bella

This brings up another side of the issue, at least in NY. At one time earlier in my business career I owned a number of rental units, most of which were set aside for low income/welfare housing. Being a different sort of landlord, I actually visited my units to check on their state of repair(disrepair) on a regular basis. The majority of the people utilizing the social services were just down on their luck or trapped in the system, but there was that 10% or so that were truly horrific parents and working the system for all they could get, economically speaking. Each additional child represented a significant increase in their monthly allotment, and in these few cases, they churned children out as a means of increasing their income, with little to no regard for the welfare of their children. Extra funds went towards the addiction of their choice, be it drugs, gambling, booze or general lifestyle. A few years of observing THAT sort of behavior would make nearly anyone call for mandatory court ordered abortions for these abusive parents......very sad situation. The best these kids could hope for was a kindly relative hauling them out of the hell their "parents" had thrust them into. Q

 

[MrPartickler]

the complexities continue...

I read this <b><a href =http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/25/court.ordered.birth/index.html> article</a></b> today on CNN and it made me think of this thread. It summarily confused the "clear cut" rape/disabled abortion scenario for me. So I'm even more baffled now. Seems like no matter the line is drawn there's just cause for debate.

This is definitely one of those problems where all the solutions seem less than perfect.

 

[BigJim]

Now as an adoptive mother of 2 I thank the lord above that these 2 women chose life for these precious children. There are so many loving, generous wonderful waiting couples out there...
JPie

I can't apeak as a woman, but I agree with all your sentiments Judy. 🙂

You don't have to be pro-abortion, but you can still be pro-choice. That would describe myself in fact.

 

[BigJim]

But I DO NOT feel they should be available as last resort form of birth control when women and men are not responsible enough to protect themselves from such instances. And that, unfortunately, is where they currently stand.

Mimi

I found that a very moving post Meems. Moving almost to the point of lump in thorat and tears welling time. 🙂


The thing about personal choice has to rear it's head though. You account told how your personal circumstances affected YOU personally. (And of course your friend's family.) I find it very easy to disapprove of what she did, because I found it just too convenient a solution. I also agree that it was almost criminal not to involve her ex-partner. I think it was available far to quickly and conveniently in that case.

But there are times when people are stupid, or when reliable forms of contraception fail for any number of reasons. There are times when a couple using two forms of contraception at once, can still achieve a pregnancy without wanting it. They could'nt have been more responsible as sexually active people, but it happened anyway. (Extremely long odds, but very possible ones.)


The question on my mind is, although you disapprove of it under those circumstances, would you support the people who throw legal suits into the ring to try to stop people they don't know from having an abortion just because they believe everyone should act they way they think they should?


Thanks for sharing that post Meems, it was very moving and VERY thought-provoking.

 

[BigJim]

I, for one, am Pro-Life all the way, and no BigJim, I'm not Christian (I;m Agnostic). And I'm not a "blind follower", etc.
DO you know what I fear the most of abortion? That it will make life much tougher for women who CHOOSE to bore their children, because you see, since a woman has a CHOICE to let her pregnancy to come to term, why should, therefore, a man be forced to PAY for that women's CHOICE? She could have had it aborted, she didn't HAVE to have it, so why should the man suffer? See what I'm getting at here?
With abortion, the woman not only controls the course of HER life, but also the MAN'S.
There won't be anymore deadbeat dads, because the woman could have had the child aborted, so he shouldn't have to pay for her choice. If she WANTS the child, why should he have to pay for it? It's her CHOICE to have the child, after all.

Sorry OBM, I didn't mean to imply that ALL pro-lifers came from a religious standpoint. I'll freely admit that it isn't the case.

The problem with your argument above, is that you are letting one scario out of literally dozens affect your view on the whole topic. (Or at least you've not mentioned any other factors that've swayed your judgement.) I don't think you can judge something as important as this purely from a single point view. It needs other consideration to be brught in.

 

[BigJim]

That is a questionable reason, as this borders on euthanasia. What if the kid shows clear signs of a genetic defeciency (mongolism etc.), or other signs of disability (crippled limbs, siamese twins, brain damages etc.)?

Perhaps we could do with a euthanasia thread as well then? Personally I am against aborting for disabilities because of my spiritual views, but I would'nt stop someone from doing that if it was their choice that they wanted to. Some people could'nt face the idea. Even so, there are plenty of loving, giving potential parents like Bella who would snap your arm off to adopt a disabled child.

Even considering it as euthanasia though Hal, it's more than that. It's euthanasia on a party who is unaware of their fate and has no part in the process. I'm for voluntary euthanasia, but I don't think abortion on the grounds of disability fits that definition.

Anyone?

 

[JPie1]

There are some very valid points made here on both sides of the issue, this by far I think is one of the most difficult, emotional and thought provocing topics around. I don't think there is one clear cut answer.

Mimi, what your friend did was downright, undeniably horrible. No matter what she thought of her soon to be ex to not include him in a decision like that is in my humble opinion, close to criminal.

Bella's thoughts are very valid to, for a child to be brought into this world where is going to live an almost non existance or horrible existance, then it makes you think. I wish more people would open up into giving children from different backgrounds a loving home. These children have love to give just like all the healthy white babies! Another thing that would help is to not have so many damn contrary state to state adoption laws, we need an overall federal one that makes it easier for these kids to get adopted. Here in CT it was actually a whole lot easier to go overseas then adopt domestically!

 

[BigJim]

i would suppose that it depends on whether you believe in a soul. without the divine/human soul within it, an embryo is just a few cells until it becomes a fully fledged foetus. it becomes murder when the foetus is developed enough to feel pain.

also if the child in question has negligible quality of life initially (mutations, deformities making life painful, intellectual disability?) in any case where the child will be unable to fend for itself it may be prudent to perform a "mercy killing".

I personally find these two opinions to be mutually exclusive. If you believe in a soul, then you generally also believe in a life plan, or similar. I personally believe in karma, although my view of it is considerably different from the likes of Colin Fry or the New age Movement.

I think people are born with disabilities from more than just physical chance. I think people are often born this way because they need to learn something from this way of existence. That being the case I think it's self-defeating to abort on disability grounds, especially given the amount of potential adoptive parents who would hapilly give their love and time to a handicapped child.

 

[BigJim]

Mimi, what your friend did was downright, undeniably horrible. No matter what she thought of her soon to be ex to not include him in a decision like that is in my humble opinion, close to criminal.

I have to agree totally. Even if the father hadn't have wanted another child, to not even inform him till after the fact was terrible.

I don't think you can use single scenarios to justify overall policies though.