I don't like getting into heavy debates. I really don't even know what the hell anyone is talking about here. Person? Human? I thought they were one and the same. Maybe it's because I'm inarticulate. I don't know. Anyway, if I were pregnant and knew that the child would be disabled, I would still choose to have the child and give it a chance to live. I suppose this softness can be attributed to my background: I have a relative with Down Syndrome and I grew up with (and am constantly in and out of the hospital because of) a younger brother with a mental illness - Schizophrenia.

Despite knowing the pain and suffering that may be borne, I know that there can also be joy and love. For me personally, the only time I feel that the couple has a choice on abortion, is if the childbirth may cause the death of either the mother or child.

Still, it's everyone's personal choice. Everyone is accountable only to him/herself. So there's really no point in arguing who's wrong or right.



________________
[We need more staff!] Visit us at: http://www.stilettoheelsteam.net/

Wow, suddenly I feel powerless as a child of parents. The value of me being alive is now left to the whim of others.

So where does the value of me begin? Do I begin at the age of 4, where my earliest certain memory is a hospital ward after regaining consciousness from a brain infection, crying for my mum to come back who had only just left through a huge pair of doors? Do I begin at age 3, when I developed the ability to talk, late? Do I begin at age 2, when I developed walking ability, or age 0, when I came into the world with automatic motor skills and a human infant form?

What about before that? What about the completed human genome that makes me up for most of who I am, all of my biological data and personality traits that, if altered, changes me significantly for who I am now? Can I honestly say that I'm me without my human genome, that if your genome were to completely overwrite mine, that Erazen would still be Erazen?

If self-consciousness and self-determination were a condition of personhood, then that leaves me open to being killed between ages 0-4. If personhood were based on human-like behaviours, then that still leaves me open 0-3 or 0-2, depending on what that behaviour might be. If based only on form, you could say that 0 and before is prime hunting season.

So, age 0 and before: the development of the human fetus. The only thing that certainly defines me for a person now is my *potential* to become a fully developed person, i.e. the human genome and my existence as an organism. If you say that the human genome is not a potential person, then you'd only be left with a clump of non-personal organic matter that may be destroyed at the convenience of my mother. That clump of matter can also never be called a person until you can define that clump of matter as a person by other observed characteristics: form and birth at age 0, behaviour at 2 or 3, self-awareness at 4... or even maturation at 19.

If you say that the human genome is a potential person, then you are left with an entirely new dilemna: is potential worth letting live?

Who are you to decide if my potential is worthy of living?

Autism isn't easy to live with, really. I have an inability to connect with other people, and people find it uncomfortable to connect with me. But it does give me an unusual way of thinking about the world that I'd one day like to share with others, once I grow the ability to overcome that boundary. And once I do, I might feel like I have meaning in this life.

I want to know my meaning. I want to discover this world, and to share something with it.

So, if I were to jump back in time and appear before my mum, weakened from the stress of carrying me, and be able to give her the option of aborting me, would I do it? Hell no. And I don't think she'd appreciate her son telling her that he didn't want to live and cause her so much inconvenience, when I've got a future ahead of me.

As for embryos you're technically killing a thing and not a person. Making the mother who does not want it a slave to that child for the rest of her life would be the cruel thing, cruel for the mother and child alike. I do not wish for any baby to grow up in a family where it is not accepted and only seen as a burden.



Yes capability fits.



As I've said before I do not believe there are wake humans disabled to a point where they are not capable of consciousness. I might be wrong here but if there were, it would be a great opportunity for science to find out where in the brain consciousness is generated. As for comas, there is always the possibility of suddenly waking up, if there wasn't they'd be considered dead and not living persons either, right?

________________

How about this story... The family already have a child who's disabled and also has a severe heart disease from birth which caused the child to go to a coma and develope a serious brain disaese later on which will stay with him till the end of his life. Doctors know he will not last long anyway. And he's going to pass away in his teenage years. Now imagine you're the parents of that child and you're going to have another child. By testing the fetus doctors see this child also has the same problems and is going to have the same fate. What should you do? Let the second child live the same painful life of struggling in life and death?
I happen to know that family. The parents had two abortion after that, and years later had a healthy daughter that was even accepted to highschool for inteligent children. After their disabled child passed away they let the doctors take his organs to help other children in need.

I think it's not something to say it's absolutely right or absolutely wrong!! The parents should decide this but do this with an open heart and with love to their child, not just for getting rid of a disabled child in a cruel manner or don't want to have that child. That's very wrong. In a side note our paralympic athletes got more medal for us than our other athletes. I have met some of disabled childrena and adults. They are great people who know the real meaning of life so much better than others. Their parents are really proud of them. But sometimes the cases are very serious. Let me give you some examples:

I knew a family who had 3 disabled children(brain disease) and only the fourth child could go to school and university(He was a model student too ; ) ) and get married later. Parents are taking care of their first 3 children, but they are always worried what will happen to their children after they pass away. They are not living in a country that has a particular program to take care of those children either. So what about this?

I know another case too... a family with 3 duaghters all having severe autism and always have to be taken care of by their father.The children can't have any education to live on their own later. They have a severe autism and can't talk. Mother has passed away and the father is poor. you can't even imagine their situation. They don't even have enough food. The parents always hoped to give birth to a healthy child but this happened. So what is right and what is wrong? Are we really qualified to decide for those families?

It's difficult to decide. I'm a religious person. In our holly book it says God is the only one who decides how the child will look like. Even though I know this I still think there are times that abortion is somehow unavoidable and this is mostly because of the modern life and its unfortinate problems that indirectly affects mothers' health and the fetus. But what ever the parents decide, it's a very difficult sitution for them. So I think others should respect this. Sometimes you see people criticizing the couple for what they have decided in both waya round. Some stupid aunti-like people complain "why didn't you have an abortion? your life would be easier." they always look down on disabled people. In other hand there are some other self righteous ones say "why abortion? It's absolutely wrong" They don't put themselves in the place of those parents and think more deeply about their situation.

But what worries me now is the general rate of abortion in the world. It says 42 million in one year if they are telling the truth!! Now that is something to worry about. It's about killing one's own child with no acceptable reason at all in most of the cases. After discussing about parents with diseased or disabled children, this ratio makes me even more depressed.

Sorry for my bad English btw.

Last edited by Lilanar at 3:38 am, Apr 3 2013

I've skimmed through some of the arguments that have been mentioned. But while you people have been debating about the morality of abortion... What about the parents?

True, just because someone is disabled doesn't give anyone the right to deprive him/her of the right to live. But what if the parents are not financially capable of raising the child? Are they supposed to bring the kid into this world just to leave him/her at an orphanage somewhere? Or juggle multiple jobs to pay for the medical bills, resulting in the child being left at home or at the houses of various random relatives?

Or in the worst case scenario, if they weren't mentally prepared or mature enough to handle the extra responsibilities.. Would it be ok to make the decision to not abort "just because it is right", knowing that the child is likely to grow up ignored... Or even abused because of their disabilities?

Not everyone is capable or should be given the responsibility of taking care of kids who need extra help. So I feel that this is highly subjective and heavily depends on the families' situation.

________________

bringing in religious brainwashing into this is just silly

if the parrents for whatever reasons dont want to have a baby and for some reason yet became pregnant

then for all that is good in the world
go falco000n punch that shit right out[should probably go to a proper clinic]

be it disabled or not
wtf is wrong with you ppl
you are all mature and understanding on other subjects but abortion brings most of you right back to popeworshiping

you dont usualy care about the life on the ppl around you
real workers...who make the world you live in go round
construction/factory/electiritians/nurse/public servents/teachers/ ASO who make shitpay
the homlessman/woman who is going to freeze to death thanks to the fatcats sold the production part of the company to some asian country
not to mention
the ppl who slave for shit pay so that you can walk around in nice clothes or fine shoes
the ppl that die mining for all sorts of crap needed to make your shitty phones/laptops/surfboards
the exploited workers in china who die when they are 45 becouse of all the extremely hard labor they have to perform 16hours a day so you can drive your nice cars/run with those shoes/play with those videogames/computers/ ASO
so why the hell do you care about some unborn piece of blood

you ppl make me sick

Last edited by TaoPaiPai at 9:06 am, Apr 3 2013

If you haven't been watching this poll for a while, let me fill you in. A lot of the comments say that it would be too hard to take care of and that it would be easier to abort it.

On a less extreme note, medical diagnosics are NOT even close to being accurate (if it was, I would definitely have been a disabled child, same with my sister). And even though you're disabled, why the f*** does that matter? What about Temple Grandin and that guy who's almost fully paralyzed, but a very brilliant person (i forget his name).

Also, the stuff about it being different depending on the times is total BS. In the times of the Romans there wasn't abortion. They just left the child on the side of the road and walked away. Today, we just leave a newborn child in the toilet.

But he**, what do I know?

________________

Okay first of all, you are a hypocrite. What are you using to reply on this thread? A computer. I'm pretty sure you have access to all of the things you mentioned. Therefore, you are equally as guilty as any of us. Secondly, don't talk like you know how we feel/view other individuals.What makes you think we don't care for others? I, and I'm pretty sure others here, have volunteered and donated to charities all the time. Thirdly, you probably live in the lap of luxury in comparison to the hard worker you are talking about. You know nothing about their hardship aside from what the media fed you. What do you expect us to do? If you're so advent on promoting on how you care about those people why don't you sell all your worldly possessions and give them to charity. As a matter of fact, why don't you go over there and do something about it. So before you act all high and mighty like you are the better of us, look at yourself first.

A lot of people are treating this a a theoretical situation, a big "what if". They are seeing this objectively without realistic consequence (by realistic I am referring to the human condition which can not easily be predicted or accounted for). I doubt many of you have have children. If you are a parent I would chance on supposing you're opinion would be different then "2hard4me" or "MUH PRO-CHOICE". I just hope you mature a bit to respect someone's viewpoint/decision, and understand that others have emotional attachments and experiences that can not be simplified or summarized into a paragraph. Idiots abort children because they shouldn't have them, people abort children because they can't handle them, idiots raise kids when they're not fit to, people raise children because they want to. Disabilities occur in life. Some are more visible than others. We all have them. If you condemn someone else in a theoretical thread, that's proof enough that your parent(s) kept you despite your horrendous disability.

No, he never claimed he gives a shit about those people. He just pointed out that people are very selective of what kind of people they defend and whose anguish and pain they deny. He chooses not to care, but many people think they care while they do not actually care for the most part.

There is a real case for you people to chew. I don't really remember the specifics but it's about a father killing his 9-year-old daughter (maybe 10, i can't remember). The child was suffering from a disease that caused her some of her bones not to grow. Every year or so, the child needed to have several painful surgeries to keep her alive. She could not move or speak properly and always in pain and medications. The doctors said that would be her life and it would only get worse. She would suffer painfully for years, unable to move and eventually die of the disease. One day, her father took out his gun and shot her in the head after they came back from the hospital.

This really depends really. I'm assuming this is not a 'what if' situation but a pretty much statistically or mathematically predictable (e.g. a glass falls from a table will break into pieces - predictable). This problem has 2 parts: #1 Abortion and #2 Life with disabilities.

We will need some clear questions 1st. How do you know if a child is or will be disable? If it's an unborn child then usually the responsible party will be the parents as they have the consent to whether to keep the child or not.

Abortion is usually supported by the reality of parents realizing they will be incapable of becoming or unable to become responsible guardians for the child; financially or otherwise. You can't really expect a single 15 year-old mother to raise a child properly without a secured job or supporting family. Or parents with drug addiction problems or just generally unfit to be parents. Children sometimes get abandoned because the parents failed to continue to support their child or just because they are unable to do so. There are children who suffered for several years before they died when people failed at being parents. That's why abortion is a right and an option. People who saying otherwise better come up with a lot of money. Because, there are hundreds or even thousands of children died every year before they reached 5 years-old because they didn't have enough money for medicine, clean water, food and shelter.

However, if parents are able to support a child but the child is defective (disabled in some way) then should they do it? The answer depends on whether it's worth living if life is hard. Some people got certain diseases or disabilities that made their lives much harder than normal people. Some of them would consider suicide (i.e. cancer patients) while others would try to live. There are also psychological cases like husbands losing their wives would kill themselves afterwards. So it really up to the person experiencing the difficulties. A disabled child is the same. His/her life would be much harder than a normal person but it will have to be their choice whether they want to walk it or give up.

If the child is unable to make the decision (mentally and/or physically) then it will be up to the parents.

Back again, I see that this topic has (or has not) progressed quite a bit. WALL OF TEXT ALLERT::

Returning to an old note of morality (set aside so that we don't side-track everyone)

Back on topic:




This is a very good story. Emphasizing again that while we can judge or make opinions, we cannot truly understand the choice made unless we are truly in their shoes. This is why I advocate that the option be available, but that conditions or restrictions exist to govern it (to prevent frivolous abortions)



That's the odd thing about life though. Had your parents aborted you, you would not be having these thoughts to even care or worry about it. We are all living on the whims of others, or luck, that we're not a part of a mass shooting, an accident, or something else.

As for the value of being alive, I think your value of being alive begins when you can begin experiencing things, which is slightly ambiguous so let me clarify a bit further. The ability to experience things and to learn requires a brain, therefore you'd definitely need a brain formed. It is at this point where you begin to learn and become a person, more specifically "you".


This issue is such a hot topic now is because people have different definitions on human or person, and that a specific definition needs to be made before a law on the issue can be made. From what I see, one stance is human = person, while the other stance is human =/= person (pardon my blunt overstating the obvious).

I made a prior mistake of equating human, person, humanity, etc. earlier. As I mentioned earlier on the acorn-tree, egg-chicken aspect, yes they are varying developmental stages of the same "organism" but that is the point I am trying to make. An acorn, egg, or in this case zygote is considered one developmental stage, the sapling, chick, or child, is another stage, and the oak, chicken, or adult is the other stage. The key point I make with this comparison is that the first stage and the second stage in all of these situations consist of very different things (composition, organs, etc).

While eggs, acorn, and zygote possess or are composed of cells, they are in a very specific state. Eggs lack the organs present in chick/chicken, an acorn lacks a lot of the components that make up a sapling/oak, and a zygote lacks a lot of the organs that make up a child/adult. It is in this stage that a lot of the components/organs are created, which is why it is a particularly different stage of development from the rest.

And acorn/seed is not a tree (but it is a plant-life, or oak), but a sapling certainly is and the oak tree certainly is. I can eat an acorn, whereas I can obtain wood from a sapling and or tree. Similarly, a zygote is not a "person" (but it is human), whereas a child/adult is indeed a person.

The reason I make this judgment is once again largely based on the organs they possess, particularly key organs. As mentioned prior, the argument that replaced organs has been made, but you need to understand that this is an irregular state. Let me explain this in an aside:



So are they alive/living? I'd argue yes with a "but". Are they human? Yes, due to their DNA they are most certainly human. Are they a person? Yes with a "but". This but comes from the fact that they lack an organ but has replaced it with a substitute of some sort. If they could eliminate an essential organ and still survive without any substitute or help, I doubt we'd be calling it human (i.e. zombies).

Bringing it back to the the zygote aspect, the zygote lacks these organs. While it does possess its own organs, it doesn't have a brain, lungs, heart (the three big organs that typically matter most). It can eventually grow into a fetus to possess these organs (and by that point I would argue that abortions may not be permitted, potentially, but this is only covering a physical/biological aspect) but as of yet, it does not have them.

At this point a zygote is viewed as a cellular being. I must also bring my previous mention of size to light, because size does matter. No person can exist at the atomic scale, the basic unit of life doesn't even exist at the scale. No person can exist at the scale of planets either, so anything that is bigger, i.e. god, would not be a person. I also need to mention that our understanding of things is partially based on size as well. We can assume a wolf will be between specific sizes, or that a person will be between specific sizes, but they are generally within the same scale, measured in meters not micrometers (of course exceptions in size exist, i.e. a 100g chocolate bar versus a 20kg chocolate bar, but under the "norm" when we think chocolate bar our mind lands on the 100g chocolate bar).

To wrap up the physical aspect, a "person" (or "human" if you see the two the same, but then you'd have to define human separately from homo sapien, the species) is physically depicted based on their physical traits, size, organs, physical appearances that may vary but tend to stay consistent within a certain range. If I showed a picture of a baby, a child, or an adult to a child, they would easily recognize it as a person, but if I showed them a zygote, they would not be able to make that same conclusion.

While the physical argument doesn't prove a zygote is not a person or human, it does prove that a specific difference exists between the typical physical aspects of a zygote and a person (person as in people not a homo sapien). This type of identification or recognition is how children recognize, or differentiate between things.

From a "non physical" standpoint (i.e. consciousness, thought, et-cetera), a key different still exists between the zygote (lacking a brain and therefore cannot think) to a child/adult (possesses a brain, therefore can think). Both are still "human/homo-sapiens", but are not necessarily a "person" (and this is where the argument of human = or =/= person lie).

The issue of consciousness, thought, or cognitive ability is brought up, i.e the case of the comatose patient. No one argues that the patient who is in a comatose state "WAS a person", since they could think, but in their current state, are they a person?

From one standpoint, people would argue no. As mean as this sounds, they do not possess the ability to think or to make decisions, therefore they are not very different from a vegetable (living, but not conscious). In terms of whether they should live or not, they cannot make the argument for themselves, therefore a second party (relatives) makes it for them. In this case, some people argue that the definition "person" is extended to them by their relatives or those that fight to keep them alive, because without these people and without support, they'd certainly be dead. If a comatose patient is NOT a person, then arguably, a zygote is NOT a person in the same way (ability for conscious thought).

For those that argue yes a comatose patient IS a person, one must ask why they make this argument. Their definition of a person must therefore extend beyond "thought" and be based on other traits. If thought or consciousness is not the only thing to define a "person", then there must be other characteristics that define a "person", such as physical features (returning to the zygote/adult argument), their past experiences/personality (traits that a zygote would not possess since it has no experiences yet) or other traits (that I cannot think of at the moment). In this case, while a comatose patient IS a person, one cannot argue that a zygote IS a person as well (UNLESS someone does come up with a trait/definition of person beyond what I have thought of. I'm only human, it's late, I can't think of them all).

I've ranted long enough, these debates are awesome because they bring a lot of different perspectives and thoughts together (even thoughts that I myself would not have thought of to begin with). While the argument of whether a zygote is or isn't a person still remains, by stance on abortion still remains the same, but for a reason completely different than the "person" argument that is made.

I argue that abortion should be permitted, under specific conditions and restrictions, but in the same way that euthanasia, and even capital punishment should be permitted, once again under specific conditions and restrictions. The reasoning behind that is, there is no absolute in the world, and although highly unlikely, there are theoretical circumstances where yes, abortion, euthanasia, or capital punishment SHOULD be permitted (from a religious standpoint, god in his infinite wisdom gave us the ability to create life and take life for a reason. He gave us free will and intelligent thought to determine WHEN it is time to create and take).

You guys talk about overcoming the disability and all that. That's really a nice thought. But we have to be realistic. You have no idea how many parents come to me wanting their child to be "normal". They have him/her going to every therapy you may think of just with that desire. It's wrong to think that way. They are not accepting their child's disability. I'm not saying you should just accept the disability and do nothing to improve your situation. But that's not being realistic. Some limitations will never EVER go away, no matter what you try to do. More than 90% of the people never overcome their disability, they learn to live with it. They accept themselves (did Stephen Hawking overcome his disability? No. But it didn't stop him from become who he is now). And that's how they are normal. That's what is amazing. Also, children need time to play. That's how they grow, that's how they develop, that's being normal.
Having someone with disabilities in our family can be overwhelming. Some parents have to quit their jobs (with only one parent working) to be able to be with the disabled person. Also, you didn't think of the family's finances. A disabled person demands a lot of care. My cousin (that has cerebral palsy) needs medicine and other health products that cost more than 80 euros per month, besides the other devices he needs. It's expensive. A lot, really. So what if a disabled child is going to be born in a struggling family? They should have the right to decide.
So there are a lot of issues that should be considered. And you're leading this thread to another thematic: "Should abortion be legal or not?". Just imagine it's legal and then discuss.

Depends on the disability.

It really does.

If you got a kid whose going to live 10 years in constant pain then die because of his birth defect.
then yes.


But if its something where the kid can get expect a reasonable quality of life then no.

No, that's not quite right. A fetus is already a living human being and therefore a person (because he/she is living and has a full set of unique human DNA, and is not just a part of another organism, but a separate, whole organism.) Also, defining something as a person on the basis that it has the potential to become one can't be correct. (If it was, every egg and sperm would also be people, which is ridiculous.)

Yes, the circumstances are cruel, and I doubt very many of us can understand the extent of how hard it is... No one would wish for a child to be unaccepted and unloved... No one wishes for their child to have a disability... But is that a good enough reason to kill? Enough reason to kill an innocent and helpless child? No, it isn't.

Consider how a mother who can't see her child, a precious fellow human being, as anything more than a burden is very confused. And remember that a person who has a terrible childhood still has the right to be alive. Also, they still have the future (they may even be so mature as to find joy in living even during that awful situation)--you can't guarantee that their future will be so horrible that it's not worth living... no one can guarantee that. So how can it be the right thing to do to end their lives and prevent them from seeing that future? They may find great happiness during their lives, do amazing things despite their disadvantages or disabilities. You've no guarantee that they won't. That means, they still have a chance--and who has the right to take that chance away by killing?

Actually, there really are people who are sort of awake, but are not in a state of functioning consciousness; it's called a vegetative state (it is because the brain is too damaged to manage consciousness). So if the capability of high-level consciousness is necessary for personhood, they aren't people (but of course they are, so it can't be necessary).

As for comas, I chose the word "some" very carefully (I probably should have explained it better, though). The kind which are not relevant to my rebuttal are the ones where the capability of consciousness is not lost, but for other reasons the body cannot manage sufficient functions to wake. For the ones I was talking about, the brain is damaged to the point where consciousness is not possible, so they would not be people under your definition. (By the way, just as sometimes people can recover from a vegetative state, sometimes people do wake from these kinds of comas (depending on the extent of brain damage, I would assume).) However, even for the ones who wake up, there is definitely a period where there is no capability for consciousness (the person's brain literally can't do it, even if there vital functions are good), so they can't be people if we use your definition. And when they wake up (provided they wake to full consciousness, not vegetative), then they can be considered people again. But surely they are people the entire time, so capability for high-level consciousness can't be necessary for personhood.

(By the way, (risking being off topic, but I'll just mention it very quickly) apparently there is actually a big debate about when a person should be considered dead... some say when vital functions stop, but they can sometimes be restarted. Others say when brain activity stops, but people can sometimes have brain activity stop (due to drugs/severe condition like hypothermia) and then resume again.)

I think I've given a rebuttal to all the counterpoints so far, so, I maintain that an embryo is both a living human being and a person, entitled to the same basic human rights as the rest of us, even if he/she is disabled.

No, thinking someone's life will be horrible is not a good enough reason to kill that person. Even if you're most likely correct that they will suffer a lot, you can't guarantee that they won't find any happiness or joy in living, so killing them can't be a good decision.

But you are absolutely right in saying that people cannot just say killing helpless children is wrong, and then do nothing. Stopping someone from killing an innocent person is of course the right thing to do, but we must consider what comes after that as well. Convincing a mother who can't take care of her disabled child to put him/her up for adoption rather than aborting, but then walking away, leaving the child to live in an orphanage, without ever lifting a finger to provide any support or to visit or to try to adopt the child, is definitely not right. Saving a child from death by abortion is only the first step.

We who have the means also have the duty to do whatever we can to help not only the children who are saved from abortion, but also the mothers and families who were desperate enough to consider killing their child. If we have more money than we need, let's give it to someone who needs it more. If we can support a child, let's adopt the children whose mothers can't take care of them. Also, why not devote oneself to a career that will improve people's lives, so that fewer pregnant mothers are in a desperate situation in the first place? I firmly believe that I have no right and no excuse not to help others, so I want to live my life doing these things. And may I be punished severely if I don't.

Last edited by lynira at 11:12 pm, Apr 3 2013

________________
Manga Cover Database