Hopefully most of the people who voted yes are thinking of the child and not simply because they simply don't want to deal with them. In my view, everyone is put on Earth for a reason but when it comes to others I have no say on what they do since it's their child.

Personally, I would probably not but depending on how severe it is I would maybe consider it. Like if they were in a state where they couldn't see, eat on their own, deaf, communicate, move, and had to be hooked up at the hospital at all times then yeah, that's when it'd be considered. But other disabilities where where they can communicate then yes, I would keep them.

Despite being disabled they still have the power to make just as big of a difference in this world than any one else. There are countless examples of disabled children who have inspired and brought hope to other and have participated in charities. They're living their life more than the average human because they are changing the world for the better. And to be able to say that was my kid would make me one proud Mother.

________________
Beavis: "Wait, what's pornography?"
Butt-head: "Uhh.. I think that's like, the study of porn."

If a child can get happiness and live then it's good, but what if he doesn't? If the doctor said your unborn child has a crippling disability that will leave him paralyze, unable to speak and in constant pain for 20 years and die before his 20th birthday, would you still give birth to him? It's a game of chance! Perhaps the doctor got it wrong! The child may find happiness! A gamble at life of a child! If you have enough hope to give birth to the child for a chance at happiness, do you have enough courage to watch your child suffer for the rest of his life and die while you could do nothing but watch? Can you really accept that you allowed that to happen to your child because you gamble with his life and lost? Do you have enough resolve to end your child's life when he begs you to end his suffering? People remember the success stories but always try to forget the failures.

The reality is everyday at least one or more children died because they lacked medicine, clean water, food or shelter. Saving them don't need a lot of money, just 1-2 dollar a day. There are a lot of organizations helping them but there aren't simply enough money to help everyone. You can spend $2 to save one child but you don't have $20,000 to save 20,000 of them. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't help them, it just mean that no matter what you do, you will watch the one you did not save die and there is nothing that you can do. Regardless of one's ideal or moral stance, you are always constrained by your limited resources. The amount of resources will dictate your options and a lot of time they will be unpleasant.

If you have 10,000 child being born in the next year and statistically speaking you will be unable to keep half of them alive pass their 5th year because you lack the resources to do so. What will you do? You can get 5,000 of the mothers to have abortions (assuming it's cheaper to have abortions), put the remaining resources into those alive and ensure 5,000 children get to live. You can try for a miracle and hope they all live happily ever after and have an almost certain chance of watching over half of them suffer and die while the other half suffer to live.

My example may be hypothetical but it's close to an actual case. A couple centuries ago, the Eskimo lived in a condition so harsh that food was limited and only men could hunt for adequate food. The women could gather food but they were significantly less than men as most food sources came from animals or large fish. Hunting was so difficult and harsh that several hunters died every year. The casualty of the men was so high that it caused an imbalance in the number of male and female in their tribes. If the ratio of men vs women get too low, the tribe would run out of food to feed everyone. They had to kill their new born daughters to keep the number of mouths to feed low enough.

Last edited by Oddwaffle at 2:12 am, Apr 4 2013

We can't even help our own people yet we're also concerned with foreign people and animals. There are fundraisers and organizations for everything from paying for children's education in third world countries to supporting new businesses in third world countries, yet even within our own cities we can't abolish unemployment, homelessness, drug addiction or domestic violence. We have children starving in our own country, but there are organizations devoted to saving animals elsewhere in the world. I'm not saying it's a bad cause, but our priorities are everywhere. With the amount of money pumped out to all the organizations, if we focused those resources into one issue at a time we could abolish a lot of the problems (while I know some issues are forever prevalent, we can at least greatly reduce the numbers to a near 0%) like we did smallpox.



While you can't guarantee they won't find any happiness or joy, the ultimate question comes down to whether that joy and happiness is enough. Sure they may be happy when they receive a present or when they enjoy a sunny day, but when the remaining 90% of their life is excruciating pain, is it really worth it? By that point, the issue won't be abortion but suicide, yet they potentially won't be able to do it due to the severe disability. Can they even make a competent decision on whether they want to live or die due to the disability?

There is no way to be sure that a child with a severe or painful disability will be happy or will suffer completely until after they have lived and died, so the only thing we can do is make the decision for them to live before hand. Do you take the optimistic approach and assume that one day they'll be happy, or do you take the realist approach and evaluate the situation fully. Since we cannot fully understand the emotions of other people, let alone one that has yet to live, we can only put ourselves in that exact situation and ask ourselves if we'd want to live through that. In this aspect, an abortion for a potentially severely disabled child is basically euthanasia to prevent excessive suffering.

That might be true, but in no way does it mean that killing innocent people is okay.

Unlike high-level consciousness, being able to experience things and having a brain is not unique to humans. Even small animals like mice have brains and can experience things, but mice are not people.

Also, about having a brain, remember that the brain forms gradually. How much of a brain is necessary? One brain cell? 100 cells? A fully formed brain (but only adults have this)? You'll have to pick a certain number of cells or stage in development if you want to use the brain as a requirement for personhood. But then you've got the problem of defending why you chose that number. Can you do it?

Agreed that people need to understand what a person is before they will be able to make a good decision about abortion. (Similar to how in America's history, people needed to understand how humans with non-white skin were equally as human (people) and deserving of basic human rights as those with white skin before they could understand why slavery and racial segregation needed to be outlawed.) Also I never thought anyone would take the position that not all humans are people, but nevertheless you are right that that seems to be the issue here.

You are of course correct that at different developmental stages organisms have different properties and composition, but at all stages, including zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, child, adolescent, etc., (living) humans have the necessary properties for personhood (they are living, have human DNA, and are their own whole organism rather than a part of another organism). Differences such as what organs each stage contains are not necessary, since organs aren't strictly necessary to be a living human being (organs can be replaced).

It is a miracle of technology and medicine that people can survive without their own vital organs (indeed people 100 or 200 years ago probably thought it impossible), but I am glad you agree that those with replaced organs are still people.

(I disagree with the "but" part, though. Two reasons: as long as one remains living (and has human DNA), abscence of one's own organs doesn't make one not a living human being. Second, to say "yes a person but with a 'but'" is to say that that human is less than 100% a person (in other words, 90 or 95% a person), but the idea of only partially being a person seems much too unreasonable.

You are right to correct me--size is indeed included in my definition of "living human being" (the living part). When I said it, I assumed it was understood that I meant within the size range of living creatures, but I probably should've been more clear.

I can understand where people are coming from for this line of thought ("living human being with no capability for high-level consciousness is not a person"). I have discussed the flaws with this a bit previously with shiratori, but this topic is difficult, so here is another example.

Consider this: there are people who become comatose (with brain damage so consciousness is not possible) who do awaken and recover. Some people in a vegetative state recover, as well. If not being able to think (no capability for high-level consciousness) makes a living human being not a person anymore, that would mean they were people before the coma, then they weren't people during the coma, and became people again when they recovered. That's really too unreasonable, so the capability for high-level consciousness can't be necessary for personhood.

Absolutely correct. Those traits are to be a living creature, to have human DNA, and to be a whole organism rather than a part of another organism (requires a unique genome).

I think so too. It's good to have one's ideas challenged, rather than becoming complacent. Also the goal of a debate is a noble one: it's simply to find the truth of a matter, which benefits everyone. (That's one of the reasons it's so important to be considerate and polite when debating: rudeness doesn't help anybody and obstructs the purpose of the debate.)

Money is not a good enough reason to kill a disabled child. This is an innocent person's life we are talking about! Coping with a disabled child and living in poverty is going to be extremely difficult... but that's not a good enough reason to kill disabled children. If it were, then it would be a good idea and a benefit to families living in poverty to mass-euthanize their children, especially if the children are disabled.

Killing of children in poverty is, of course, morally, ethically, and legally wrong, and please remember why: First and foremost, children and disabled children also are entitled to basic human rights, like the right to be alive. Further, the family and the child can still find happiness and joy in being alive, even if living is hard. And even if they don't at certain moments, they still have the chance to find happiness in the future. On top of that, a child, even a disabled one, brings a lot of joy to his/her family (and others too!), even if their financial situation is made worse. To everyone except the very confused, the joy a child brings to those around him/her is surely greater than a difficult social/financial situation caused by the child.

You're right that the discussion naturally leads there, and (arguably) the law may not have a place in this thread. I just mentioned prohibition by the law of killing of disabled children while they are in the womb, as an afterthought, since it is never a good decision and violates basic human rights of other human beings (which is the reason I would not consider aborting a disabled child).

Some others have made some similar posts, and I think your hearts are in the right place, wanting to prevent the suffering of others. But remember that even amidst suffering, people can find happiness in being alive and can also do a lot of good for others. So how can it be a good idea to end someone's life without knowing for sure that they won't be happy/help someone else?

Even if the doctor got it right, and the child has a disability, that child can still be happy during his/her life. How can it be a good idea to take that chance away? I think your motive is good, wanting to prevent the suffering of children, and I respect that. Just don't forget that what is also needed is good judgment to translate that good motive into good actions. The idea that death is better when happiness in life is not guaranteed is not a good one. Think carefully: no one is guaranteed happiness (true joy, not just pleasure or a good mood) in life; it depends on your own mind and attitude, so all of us may or may not find it--all of us only have a "chance," just like a disabled child! At the birth of every child, no parent ever knows for sure that the child will find happiness, even if the child is perfectly healthy. So if only a chance at happiness isn't good enough to let someone live, then we should all die and have the good will to kill our children, every last one, because death would be better.

In order to give my child the chance at happiness that we all have been given and deserve, I must be willing to endure it if my child suffers during his/her life, even if the suffering is long and great due to a disability or other disease. I won't give up. Although it will be painful for me to watch, my child is more important.

If I should take that idea to heart, then I should give as much as I can to help children & people in need, and then promote the killing of the rest. If that is a good idea, then we should mass-euthanize all of the people in need who I don't have the resources to help--children in orphanages, homeless people, children on the streets, families in poverty, they should all be killed. It would be a great mercy.

But surely you would not support this. Think carefully about why: First, I'm not alone--there are many others who have resources to give, and who do. Second, even if I can't help them today, I may be able to tomorrow, or the day after, etc. So killing the children I can't help today is not a good idea. Combine that with the first point, and you will realize that there is a large amount of help being given out every day, in a continuous stream. It's not a good idea to pick a day and say "the ones who haven't been helped by today, euthanize them," because more will be helped tomorrow. Third, even if someone suffers in life, doesn't mean he/she is better off dead, because he/she can still find happiness in living. Naturally, all these points valid for children after birth are also valid for children in the womb, since they are as much living human beings in the womb as out of it. So killing those children through abortion is not a good idea either.

About the Eskimo example, they could have simply taught their women to hunt. One could argue that a woman might not make as good of a hunter due to lower average physical strength, but most any woman (with training) can fire a bow, kill fish with a harpoon, etc. Hunting may have been dangerous, but losing a few hunters by chance is far better than mass-killing all their little girls.

It's not that kind of happiness that I am talking about (good mood, pleasure, etc.), but rather joy on a profound level, contentedness, peace. (Unfortunately, English uses "happiness" for both of these. I'll try using "joy" for what I mean instead.) That joy is definitely worth it.

Also, I agree that abortion in the case the thread is talking about is basically pre-birth euthanasia. This brings up another point. Even if we assume that euthanizing disabled people is acceptable, euthanizing someone before you are sure that he/she will have the disability that the doctor predicts is not a good idea. Tests for disabilities and diseases while a child is in the womb are, in general, not highly accurate because of things like not being able to examine the child directly and closely, how the child's body is changing at such a fast rate, etc. How horrible if the doctor tells me my child will have a terrible disability, probably suffer a lot, and die at a very young age, and hearing that, I abort my child, when in reality the child would have been born healthy. This would be a tragic, needless death of a healthy child! (Again, when I say "needless," it's assuming euthanizing disabled people is acceptable ("needed").)

This actually happened with a very good friend of mine: her mother was told a similar thing, the tests the doctor ran showed that she would die within a few years of being born (and of course, suffer until death). But instead she was born with just a mild case of a metabolic disorder, and is still alive today. It would be horrible if she had been euthanized based on the mistaken diagnosis.

In other words, on top of all the other reasons not to kill preborn children through abortion based on test results showing that the child will be disabled (because the child is entitled to basic human rights, because being disabled doesn't mean the child will never find joy in his/her life, and because the child will bring more joy to his/her family and others than the financial and mental stress his/her disability will cause), we don't even know for sure that the child will have a disability (or terrible disease/condition) at all! (The child would need to be more closely and directly observed and examined (only possible after birth) for the doctor to be sure he/she is disabled.) Surely no one would say that it's worth a few deaths of healthy children so that the disabled can be euthanized. So surely one should wait until after birth to euthanize the child (again, assuming euthanasia of the disabled is acceptable), that way it can be certain he/she actually is disabled. A child is equally a living human being in the womb and after birth, so it's no worse to wait until after birth for the euthanizing.

Last edited by lynira at 11:57 pm, Apr 16 2013

________________
Manga Cover Database