• Handicapped babies and abortion
    38 replies, posted
Okay, this is something that got me thinking after the thread in Sensationalist Headlines about the pictures of the baby with anencephaly. Gunfox cited their blog in which they said they apparently found out 3 months into the pregnancy that the baby had anencephaly yet they still chose to have it. This was followed by ak'z raising the following point: [QUOTE=AK'z;36027069]Maybe they didn't want to kill it before it has lived, who cares they're the parents so why does anyone else's opinion matter? Is it cruel for them to create defective life?[/QUOTE] Which raises an interesting point. The question this debate is about is: [b]If you're pregnant with a baby with a severe physical handicap and you know it very early into the pregnancy, what is the right decision to take? Is it better to abort it or should you keep going and give it, depending on the handicap, a much shorter and considerably worse life?[/b] I side with the formerly mentioned part of this debate. Taking the anencephaly baby for example. You have brains bulging outside of his skull, eyes bulging out, a completely deformed head. Even if it did live to the same age a regular person does, that is going to be a fucking awful life. I doubt something like that doesn't hurt at least physically but I can't even imagine the psychological pain one would go through. Hell, the baby lived for 8 hours. 8 hours! And who knows what sort of 8 hours the baby went through. So good fellows of FP, what do you think? Is it better to spare the child and abort it or to have it?
Handicap is a very archaic word to use nowadays. Ultimately, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer - it'd be easy to argue that for the above case, maybe it would have been the better option, especially considering the very low chance of survival. Yet, we cannot argue that every individual who is identified with a special need / disability from birth [that will be lifelong] does not deserve their chance to live.
I'll bite. I would spare the dignity of the child and abort it, although ultimately it is up to the parents whether they will commit to the responsibility. If that is the case, I would only have admiration for the parents. Recently my parents told me that if I was born 'retarded' (pardon the bluntness of that statement) then I would've been put up for adoption; in other words, they wouldn't have considered me worth their parenting life. My ma has always had a weird view that she should get something in return for raising a kid, that it shouldn't be thankless work but that's going off the point somewhat.
[QUOTE=Comrade Lurker;36036835]I'll bite. I would spare the dignity of the child and abort it, although ultimately it is up to the parents whether they will commit to the responsibility. If that is the case, I would only have admiration for the parents. Recently my parents told me that if I was born 'retarded' (pardon the bluntness of that statement) then I would've been put up for adoption; in other words, they wouldn't have considered me worth their parenting life. My ma has always had a weird view that she should get something in return for raising a kid, that it shouldn't be thankless work but that's going off the point somewhat.[/QUOTE] your parents sound like horrible people.
If my baby was going to be born with some sort of PHYSICAL defect, I would probably go ahead with birth anyway, since you never know when there's going to be a scientific breakthrough and we find a cure for Diabetes or create replacement legs for people. To me, only the mental state of a person matters. If they're a near-cripple, I probably won't notice. If my baby was going to be born with some sort of MENTAL defect, I'd likely abort. There is definitely the possibility of a scientific cure, but by the time they find one, it might be too late for my child to begin a normal education and advance to become a "normal" human being. And quite frankly, I don't want to be put through the mental and literal cost of raising a child that may not be able to hold a spoon at age 5 without flipping out and putting it in my eye. I'm not made of money and I don't have the most stable psyche to begin with.
I would say I am for it. As cruel as it may sound I would rather end the child then let it have a painful life. And @ Comrade Lurker Why do you say "commit the responsibility" You're making it sound like a crime or something?
[QUOTE=Ironic Man;36036927]Why do you say "commit the responsibility" You're making it sound like a crime or something?[/QUOTE] Nah I didn't mean to make it sound like a crime. I meant it in the context of having a child, because there's no doubt having one will drastically change your life. [QUOTE=lotusking;36036862]your parents sound like horrible people.[/QUOTE] They're not, they just have weird views on things, that's all.
Personally I have a very loose opinion anout abortions. Any mental, sensory or limb defect will severely hurt their chances of leading a successful and independant life. That's an abortion. For me it is all about the child's potential. If they can become a millionaire without medical assistance, I think the child should live unless the mother doesn't feel ready. If they don't feel ready, the child won't be raised properly and that will damage their potential.
Scotty, many blind, deaf or people without some of their limbs can go on to lead sucessful lives. Mental, on the other hand, is different. People with sevre menal disabilities such as down syndrome or, as in the case of the OP, anencephaly. It's just some of the lessons i learned playing katawa Shoujo.
Anencephalic babies are never conscious, so the baby never experienced anything.
-snip
Depends on the severity of the handicap. I'm probably, in so many eyes, a terrible person for thinking this, but if the child has otherwise no chance of survival without assistance, why try? I would rather abort my own handicapped child than pump money in trying to save it. I can't in good conscience let a handicapped child try to fight its way to survival, especially through artificial means. I guess what i'm saying is, if you take modern healthcare out of the equation and in those conditions the child would not survive, then what are you really accomplishing by using modern healthcare to save the child?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;36042491]Depends on the severity of the handicap. I'm probably, in so many eyes, a terrible person for thinking this, but if the child has otherwise no chance of survival without assistance, why try? I would rather abort my own handicapped child than pump money in trying to save it. I can't in good conscience let a handicapped child try to fight its way to survival, especially through artificial means. I guess what i'm saying is, if you take modern healthcare out of the equation and in those conditions the child would not survive, then what are you really accomplishing by using modern healthcare to save the child?[/QUOTE] This ideology really doesn't work at all considering in centuries past just how many infants died during & shortly after birth. C-sections, premature births, & so many other such predicaments are common place & essentially quite fixable in the modern world. Not so much in our pasts. Also, what is accomplished? I'm pretty sure there are a number of diabetic individuals & those born prematurely who enjoy being alive thanks to big bad artificial means.
It depends on what the parent feels. It's fair to say we can't imagine what it must feel like to have life growing within us, and if we were to imagine this experience, I'm sure we'd hope for nothing more or less than a perfectly healthy child. This argument is veering towards morality. Is it under our judgement for someone's choices when creating life. The above parents give up the baby to adoption. There's nothing wrong with that, people who want to raise children, who can't have them have more opportunities, it would be more selfish to abort at that point. The parents life would change completely anyway, it's definitely a more difficult challenge considering these children who are innocent are punished by biological flaws, and that aspect would frighten and dishearten all parents.
[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;36045894]This ideology really doesn't work at all considering in centuries past just how many infants died during & shortly after birth. C-sections, premature births, & so many other such predicaments are common place & essentially quite fixable in the modern world. Not so much in our pasts. Also, what is accomplished? I'm pretty sure there are a number of diabetic individuals & those born prematurely who enjoy being alive thanks to big bad artificial means.[/QUOTE] You're using the wrong example. I was basing the example off the one in the OP.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;36042491]especially through artificial means[/QUOTE] surely you can't be against western medicine. "let nature take its course" is not a good answer when life expectency was in the 30s two hundred years ago.
If you were not born perfect, should I cancel you?
[QUOTE=ToumaniSquirrel;36047196]If you were not born perfect, should I cancel you?[/QUOTE] If you were born living in unending agony, should I force you to live?
[QUOTE=Turnips5;36047597]If you were born living in unending agony, should I force you to live?[/QUOTE] there wouldn't be a "you" in the first place.
coathangers ftw [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=AK'z;36046192]surely you can't be against western medicine. "let nature take its course" is not a good answer when life expectency was in the 30s two hundred years ago.[/QUOTE] Did you not read the post immediately above yours or...?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;36048386]Did you not read the post immediately above yours or...?[/QUOTE] no. You made the initial post that "artificial" medicine keeping someone alive is pointless. Regardless of what context, you still made that point.
snip
abort; you wouldn't take a healthy person and give them horrible disabilities so why create a person like that?
[QUOTE=kaven;36056513]Eh, diabetes and premature births isn't really something serious that would affect kids in ways that they can not live. Well, maybe premature births.[/QUOTE] You entirely missed the point of my post. It was a response to a response & not the OP, hence the big blue box above it. & both conditions would be quite fatal without modern medicine.
It really depends on the severity of the condition. This is a very similar situation to euthanasia which I support so I guess I am on the side of having the choice to abort.
If it is something that will end the child's life early to the point of the child not being able to enjoy anything, then yes, I think abortion would be the best way to go to spare the parents less grief and having to raise a child they know will never be able to have a career, family, etc. Any disease that makes someone not live past [b]early[/b] adulthood or childhood makes me think that the child may eventually find out and realize that what they accomplish won't help them later in life, because they won't be there to experience it.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ZhiW7p8XU[/media] my stance. thanks [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;36057793]You entirely missed the point of my post. It was a response to a response & not the OP, hence the big blue box above it. & both conditions would be quite fatal without modern medicine.[/QUOTE] Oh missed that.
there is absolutely no justification for murder under any circumstance. You cannot kill someone who's defenseless just because they (according to your subjective assessment) can or will develop some handicap in future. That is all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.