Martian

Personally, I'm all about the middle ground. I think people have a habit of polarizing issues for the sake of simplicity, when the issues may not themselves be polar. Thus, we end up with one camp saying 'abortion is good!' and another camp saying 'abortion is bad!' with neither side considering that abortion may be good/useful/right in some situations and bad/wrong in others.

Of course, the problem then becomes one of where to draw the line. What constitutes a a 'bad' baby? Is it projected quality of life for the child? For the parents? Projected utility? Some combination of the above? One could argue that a child with Down's syndrome passes all three tests; people with Down's syndrome are perfectly capable of living happy and productive lives. That's not to say that they're no different from you or I; one need only have eyes to see that an argument of that nature is absurd sentimentalism. On the other hand, the question then becomes one of whether it's ethical for the parents to destroy a potential human being due solely to inconvenience.

Aborting a baby due to bad cirumstances on the part of the parent is one thing. If I'm in a position where myself and the lady in question are not ready or able to provide a positive environment for a child, that may be considered as an option. On the other hand, aborting a child due to perceived defects within the child itself does carry some potentially heavy implications, namely in what constitutes a defect worthy of abortion. Fortunately it's not a choice I've had to make; I don't want to meet the person who can choose to abort lightly, whatever the reason.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Jinn

Yes. In order to be a morally consistent (philosophically and practically) pro-choice person, you'd have to believe that fetuses were subhuman or non-human.

Otherwise, you'd be arguing philosophically that it is okay to kill the cells, as they are not human, but feeling practically that it couldn't be aborted, because it had some sort of special meaning (like being human)?

EDIT:

Why not? I'm right here, what's wrong with me? It's just a collection of cells, as far as I'm concerned. No different than fighting the common cold; my body is killing all sorts of parasitic cells.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Martian

Again, this is a black and white approach to a grey issue. I think one can attach value to an embryo or fetus in recognizing the potential to become a human being, without necessarily equating it to a human baby carried to term. The potential for life carries a value all of it's own; abortion may be the proper response when the expected value of that life is less than the trauma (or even inconvenience) caused to the family by carrying it to term and birthing it.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Ustwo

I think most pro-choice people haven't really thought it out very far. When someone who I think has a 'real' honest pro-choice point of view like that woman who had one of her twins aborted because she didn't want 2 babies, only one, shes viewed almost universally as some kind of monster.

If you really think a child in the womb isn't human yet, for whatever reason, then why should the abortion be anything beyond a simple medical decision? An abortion is the equivalent of mutual masturbation.

Of course you can be pro-choice and still love your children, but after they are born, before then they would just be a choice that needs to be made in the first 2 trimesters.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

inBOIL

When I asked if eliminating Down's with a cure was wrong, I didn't expect anyone to respond with "I don't know." I don't see anything wrong with eliminating a disease from society, but that's problematic when you can't eliminate the disease without eliminating those people who are afflicted with it. Of course, eliminating Down's (or cleft palates, or anything else) through abortion leads to the issue of whether a fetus counts as a person, which I don't feel the need to get into, as it seems to be a separate (although related) issue. But it seems as though you are viewing the disease as a part of the person who carries it, rather than as a condition separate from the person.

I'd also like to point out that when a Down's fetus is aborted, there is often a healthy fetus created afterward that would not have existed. To some extent, refraining from eliminating people with Down's results in preventing those healthy people from being born. These "replacements" probably wouldn't have constituted a distinct community/group within society the way the Down's people would have, but that doesn't make denying their presence in society any less serious than eliminating those with Down's.

__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

Ustwo

I dont' see any grey in this one.

Its not like you can partially abort.

The only grey is in the sophistry played by the proponents.

I'll add I am pro-choice, but I don't play games about it. I think you are killing human life, but if you chose an abortion then perhaps your DNA is best left out of the gene pool.

None of this 'I'd never consider and abortion myself but I support a womans right to choose' bullshit most politicians who support it spew.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ngdawg

Actually, I think that way and I'm not a bullshit spewing politician...I do support a woman's right to choose, it's just not my choice. I support the vegan's right to not eat meat, that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a steak.

Ustwo

I see so an abortion is like a dietary choice.

Sort of like how I don't like carrots.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ngdawg

Yep.
And a pro-carrotter would force you to eat them. Pro-choicer couldn't care less if you ate'em or not.

Lasereth

Ok so everyone expects me to have a kid with DS to talk about it or have experience dealing with people who have DS.

Oh wait I do have experience with DS.

My friend's sister has DS. I watched his sister nearly ruin his childhood. I watched the sister with DS totally ruin the older sister's childhood. Want to go out to eat with friends? Too bad, stay home with DS sister. Want to go shopping? Too bad, need to save money for meds for DS sister. Want to move out when you're 18? Too bad, stay at home working part-time so there's someone to watch the DS sister. Want to go out in public? Too bad, the DS sister can't act correctly in public. Need money? Ok, so get a job! Whoops, can't work but part-time because the DS sister needs 24/7 care. The DS sister is an adult now and has the mind of a 3-year old (not exaggerating).

DS can and will have a negative impact on a family regardless of love and affection for a sibling or child. I lived with this family multiple times and saw how the DS sister affected them.

abaya

Thanks for this, I appreciate it... I think it's valuable for the discussion at hand. Just to make sure I understand properly: is this what your friend told you about how he feels towards the situation, or was it your outside observation?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Plan9

Thus allowing DS ruins the quality of two lives... the person with it and the person who has to babysit.

Oh, I'm not that selfless. *slams the Abort button*

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

ngdawg

DS wasn't the issue alone, it was how it was handled there-with the parents putting the caretaking and responsibility(read: guilt) on unprepared siblings. Yes, siblings should help out, watch out for each other, but not be made to stop living because a third has trouble doing so. That's not Down's, that's the parenting.
A childhood playmate of mine was retarded and while he hung out with all of us on the street, including his older brother, it was his mom who took care of him, not the 4 other siblings. Hell, we didn't even know David had anything wrong with him until my mom said he had. He was just another kid in the bunch to us.

Telluride

Many people practice their own little version of eugenics whether they'll admit it or not. People generally prefer to date those who are attractive, intelligent, and healthy rather than those who have physical or mental disabilities.

Personally, I find the abortion of healthy children to be much more unethical than the abortion of disabled children.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Plan9

Bingo.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

ring

Was his name O

I am a bit tipsy doodle will you forgive me?

Baraka_Guru

Choosing someone you are attracted to physically and intellectually over someone who is lacking is hardly eugenics when you consider it as a natural process that occurs in other species as well. However, other species aren't as guilty of segregation, sterilization, and genocide.

The selection you mention isn't eugenics as it is commonly known.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

Oh, wouldn't it be like:

Natural selection + modern (non-survival-based) society/culture's ever-changing desires = pseudoeugenics.

Semantic conflict applies to the bingo'd post above but I did think it was a useful point in that what is "most fit to reproduce" has changed from quantifiable physical superiority to completely trivial details like hair color and bust size. Just ask the average college guy what he wants to stick his wang in for the answer. Social anthropology in action.

It was already stated that natural selection doesn't play much of a part anymore. Any retarded 400 pound couch anchor can make babies and due to all the wonderful advances in technology and government... like megamarts and minivans and MySpace... the meek have indeed inherited the Earth.

Not right or wrong, of course. Just how it is, I suppose.

...

Humility / Ego:

I'd imagine a lot of people would be in favor of ridding the world of defective human beings... as long as it isn't someone they know or their own creation.

...

Genetics: Take one for the team.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Telluride

I know what I mentioned isn't actual eugenics. That's why I referred to it as "their own little version of eugenics". It is an attempt by people to find a partner with the best possible genetic makeup, which is kind of the point of eugenics. And, as you pointed out, doing so is a natural process. People do it. Animals do it. I don't see anything wrong with it.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Baraka_Guru

I see your point.

* * * * *

And I wouldn't want to rid the world of imperfect human beings, considering that some of history's greatest doers and thinkers were "flawed" somehow.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

That makes me think of that saying regarding, "10,000 monkeys with 10,000 typewriters."

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Telluride

I agree. I'm not interested in ridding the world of people who are imperfect. I'm guessing that most other people don't want to do that, either. But, at the same time, there is no way in hell I would want to have children with a woman who had some really serious "imperfections".

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

lurkette

To the point of the OP, I don't think it's unethical to require this test because of the potential conundrum for the parents. If it's positive, the parents can make an informed choice instead of being blindsided. If you know that you'd keep the kid even if it had DS, then what's the problem? I do think it's unethical to require the test because amniocentesis is not without risk, and the mother should have the option to decline. If it was just a simple saliva test or something, I wouldn't think it was unethical to require it at all. Arbitrary, perhaps...do they also have to test for cystic fibrosis, fragile X, etc?

I think there's a line to be drawn for each person/couple - disorders they'd be able to live with vs....not. I personally would not want to raise a kid with Down's. But I think everyone's entitled to make their own choice about that. In my world, the more information the better. But that's me.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Ustwo

There is a new Downs test which is non-invasive and its suppose to be very accurate. I'm assuming this was the test they were doing, and being it was required by their health care system it was more to test the validity of the test itself for their own records.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.