Rather serious topic. Just wondering what other people think about this.
There seems to be a method where people can detect disabilities before birth, especially trisomy 21. Many people don't want such a child. But they don't even know what kind of human it would be.
I worked with disabled people for a year and came to love them so much. Personally I think that judging one's life before they are even born is wrong. So I'd never consider abortion, unless my child would be very much disabled. Like it could only lie in a bed and not even communicate, but there are even people who would care for such a child. Then I'd probably think about it, but can't say if I'd do it.
Oh, and even if it probably sounds like it... nah I'm not trying to preach

Last edited by BurningFish at 8:05 am, Mar 24 2013

________________
There's nothing to see here. Proceed with what you were doing or throw rainbows at random pedestrians.

and do you only want to hear the opinion of women since they obviously would have to make the decision?

________________

I don't think so... they do make the final decision, that's right. But I think men also have a right to tell their opinion on that. they are part of the family who'd raise the child as well after all.

________________
There's nothing to see here. Proceed with what you were doing or throw rainbows at random pedestrians.

well I would say yes, because I wouldn't want to have disabled children for various reasons. on the one hand the emotional stress for me and my...partner, on the other hand the one for the child for always being different than the others and such. much worse ,of course, if it couldn't even perceive being different.

the main problem here is that it depends on your definition of life. if you go with the catholic church and the like abortion could never be an ethically valid decision.
when you go with reason and say an embryo isn't a human yet and can't feel pain until the fifth month because it lacks a nervous system it it all looks different.

but in the end even reason and logic can't overwrite the right of the mother to choose for herself what to do with her body

________________

Quite a serious topic indeed... and well... if it was only about my decision ... (i.e., if i am not considering my partner's thoughts.. ).... then i would think about the abortion part...
Seriously i am just 22 and i have noooo idea what it really means to be responsible for a life.. or to be a father... but well from whatever tiny experience i have had in my life... i think..in my own personal opinion... it would very much be a punishment to that poor soul if i were to let him come into this world even after i knew that he might live a life of much of pain and possible agony...

I know... not all disabled people may live a "painful" life... many even live an equally fulfilling life if not greater than any other person but even so... since i can't control every factors affecting a life and can't essentially control that child's fate...so... well.. chances are he might lead a rather sad life...and.. i really wouldn't want that...

If i decide to let the child live or not.. either of the options would be very selfish of me to choose, i think... and so.. i would selfishly think about not letting that child experience any pain...

But then again... its just my opinion when i am being completely logical and rational... if i was really in that circumstances.... i really wouldn't know what to do.. and then most importantly... i must consider my partner's feelings...

PS: Sorry for blabbering too much... ^^

I accidentally clicked "I'd consider the opinion of my partner" but I meant to put "maybe". It's completely circumstantial for me.

I agree that there are some disabled people that live a sad live. I've seen that where I worked. But it's not like they are sad because they are disabled. They don't know how it would be if they weren't. They are sad because people neglect them. And because they know that they are "disabled". It's like they got a sign hanging around their necks from being told thousands of times. There were some that were partly abandoned by their parents or didn't have anyone left. But apart from that they cherished their lives so much. They are just like children their whole lives. I found that impressive.

I'm just saying that I don't think the disability makes their lives any less worth living. Most people want to live and they do too. I don't really think that we have the right to determine who is worth living.
I think if society wouldn't think them so scary they could live a more normal life.

But I agree it probably IS a big emotional stress for the parents. I can't really imagine that. I also would want my child to be happy at any costs, but even a normal child can experience extreme things you can't control. I guess with a disabled child it's just more likely. Hm, I don't know... Gosh, I don't want any kids at all, they'll worry me to death

Thanks for giving it a thought. I am just so curious about other people's opinion on that. It's really not an easy topic and there are of course many things to consider...

Last edited by BurningFish at 2:38 pm, Mar 24 2013

________________
There's nothing to see here. Proceed with what you were doing or throw rainbows at random pedestrians.

No, I could never consider doing something like that. It can't possibly be the right thing to do if it involves killing a helpless and innocent person, especially if that person is just a child. Such killing of innocent people should be prevented by the law.

Last edited by lynira at 9:27 pm, Mar 24 2013

________________
Manga Cover Database

define person

________________

What if the child was going to be born with a disease that would result in death in only a matter of years, like Tay-Sachs disease.

If it will be too much of a hassle and constant suffering for everyone, sure thing.

I would certainly consider it. From a cold and purely logical standpoint, such offspring are of inferior ability which jeopardizes their survival. Even if they survive, the quality of their offspring is more likely to be of poor quality as well. In the wild, the runts of the litter get eliminated, and only the strong are raised. While this certainly is a cold and calculated way of looking at things, it is the truth.

From a more human approach though, there are several key factors that I would definitely consider which is highly dependent on the disability they would have. I would consider the job opportunities for someone with such a disease, the dependency they would have as an adult, and the many social aspects that surround someone who is growing up in such an environment. MOST importantly though, I'd consider my ability to raise such a child and to love such a child, because ultimately if I end up loathing my only child for the extra burden their disability brings, then I would fail as a parent and only make their life worse. In that case, it'd be better to have them aborted. After all, you can only regret and suffer AFTER you are alive. The dead and those not yet born cannot do such a thing.

Ultimately, I would most definitely CONSIDER aborting the child if I knew it was going to be disabled, but that doesn't mean I'll do it. Like most things in life, not everything can be solved with a yes or no, so the option to abort should always exist no matter what others may think. What people often do not realize is that they have no right to decide what a parent does with their unborn child. It is the parents' decision whether to keep it and raise it, or to abort it. If you don't like their decision, then YOU raise the child.

It is easy to speak of morality, of ethics, and of what is right and wrong when you are watching from the sidelines, but unless you grew up the way they grew up, experienced what they experience, know what they know, and feel the way they feel, you can never fully understand their situation. If you can't understand their situation, then you shouldn't be involving yourself. Either butt out or step in help, but don't go around throwing your judgmental principles on others.

That is a very good question, and most likely the reason that people come to differing opinions about abortion. Well, here is the definition:

At the very least, all living human beings are people; therefore, any living human being may be defined as a person. A living human being's necessary qualities are the following:
1. living (not dead or inanimate)
2. has a unique set of human DNA (this defines the creature as human rather than another animal, and the "unique" part defines the creature as a particular creature (or example, creature A and creature B have unique DNA to each other. Therefore, creature A is a different creature from creature B.)
3. is a whole being rather than a part (for example, my foot is not "me," it's just a part, and losing my foot doesn't make me any less "me.")

A zygote, blastocyst, and fetus meet this criteria and are therefore living human beings. Therefore, a zygote (and, of course, the following developmental stages as well: blastocyst, fetus, baby, child, and adult) may be defined as a living human being, and may in turn be defined as a person. (Also, that person has as much right to be alive as anyone else, and so the killing of that person should be prevented by the law.)

(Explanation: 1. From the zygote stage forward, a preborn baby is made of living cells and is therefore not dead or inanimate. 2. Once the DNA from the egg and sperm has fused within the zygote, the zygote now has a unique set of human DNA. It is necessarily human because both the egg and sperm came from humans. It is necessarily unique because each half of the genome from the egg and sperm, which came from different beings, have combined into a new genome. Therefore, the zygote is a separate human being from the mother, not just some of the mother's tissue (because the cells within the baby have different DNA than the mother, so they cannot be the same creature). 3. When we refer to the zygote, fetus, or baby, we are referring to the whole creature, not just to one of its parts, so it is a whole being.)

It's true that it's easy to say what's right and much harder to do it. But there's no reason good enough to justify killing a helpless and innocent person.

This is the view taken by the law, and rightly so. (If you kill my 19-year-old mentally disabled cousin because you don't think his life is worth living, or because his existence makes your life harder (financially, socially, and/or psychologically), you will be charged and convicted of first-degree murder (even if you were his mother). Because you've killed someone innocent.) But currently an exception is made that it is okay to kill people before they have come out of the womb, because many people do not understand that preborn babies are people too.

It's really easy to sound judgmental when presenting an opposing idea... If it sounds that way, I apologize. I don't want to pass judgment on others--I just want everyone to know the truth, so that we can do what is right. I want us all to stop this terrible killing of innocent people who deserve a chance to live.

Last edited by lynira at 2:56 pm, Mar 24 2013

________________
Manga Cover Database

1. living means being able to sustain yourself. zygotes and embryos can't do that. they need the mother's body to do that
2. sure
3. a zygote is not automatically a full being. and especially not a human since "we" need more criteria than other beings.
in the definition the gift of reason the the ability of speech are included to divide us from other animals. an embryo doesn't have those, at least not until later developement stages.
furthermore, to be called a person you have to be aware of your own existence independend from others. it can be prooved that babys can't recognize their own mirror image until around the age of one and a half. therefore you can't call humans a person until that stage (and no legal entity,too, by the way). that's no problem since human life is protected by the human rights (and no sane person would think he can just g and kill a baby because it's not a person).
so the decision falls back on how to define the terms life and human.
because of that abortion is only legal before a certain stage of embryological development. the nervous system developes within the fifth month of pregnancy so abortions have to be done at a point where the possibility to harm a "human" can be excluded,plus, without a nervous system you can't feel any pain

________________

I understand you really well. I'll be an occupational therapist soon and I have several people with disabilities in my family (cerebral palsy would be the only one gotten through birth). But that's exactly my motive to consider an abortion. I know how gratifying it is to see them accomplish so much. That's what makes me fight so hard everyday, so they can have a beautiful, happy and normal life. My life choices and my circumstances make me think twice about having a children with disabilities if I can prevent it. How could I help the others if I didn't find the time for them? It's not because of the disability. I don't have any kind of stigma regarding that matter. I would love a child of mine, with or without disabilities. I would fight for that child and he/she would never know the pain of being called different. I know it's sad and it may sound terrible coming from someone that deals everyday with disabilities, but I want to help them that badly. And I know I would break down thanks to the emotional distress, I would be useless. So yeah, I would consider an abortion.