 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
quirky
Deinonychus
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
Posts: 340
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RampionRampage wrote: | What about in the incidence of horrible genetic diseases like Tay-Sachs?
Definition for those who dont' know or aren't Jewish:
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/taysachs/taysachs.htm
to quote: Even with the best of care, children with Tay-Sachs disease usually die by age 4, from recurring infection
Basically, they're born, they suffer their whole lives, and they die.
Waiting on those prenatal tests is wicked. My sister in law had them done on the twins and for a short period, people didn't want to get too excited about the pregnancy. Thankfully they were negative, and they're beautiful and happy and healthy.
Edit - It's most common among Ashkenazi jews, which is why I made the above reference. |
I would definitely abort in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
outlander
Blue Jay
Joined: Apr 10, 2007
Age: 63
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: Slippery Slope argument ? |
|
|
| Apatura wrote: | | ....... because once abortion is prohibited for one reason, another reason will be introduced, and so on. |
Hmmmmm; Curious, the Pro life people say almost exactly the same thing, only the other way around. Curious and curiouser.
_________________
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Phagocyte
Low-Functioning NT
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 1824
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But what, exactly, should be done?
Regardless of of your stance on this issue, doesn't a mother have the right to abort her fetus regardless of the reasons? It seems oppressive to impose limitations. And what kind of autism are we exactly talking about? The term is loosely used to refer to all functionalities, but there's a major difference between a retarded autistic who is completely unable to cope with the world and a perfectly intelligent person with Asperger's (I am NT and there are many diagnosed AS people here who lead richer social lives than I do). I am irked by the concept of grouping all forms of autism together. Many of these anti selective-abortion topics are blatant straw man arguments.
_________________
I am neurotypical - I just want to find out more about Asperger's Syndrome.
But Master! Does not the fire need water too? Does not the mountain need the storm? Does not your scrotum need kicking?
-Chever |
|
| Back to top |
|
outlander
Blue Jay
Joined: Apr 10, 2007
Age: 63
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phagocyte wrote: | | ... Regardless of of your stance on this issue, doesn't a mother have the right to abort her fetus regardless of the reasons? It seems oppressive to impose limitations. .... |
Not necessarily. It depends on how you define "right" and just who will be oppressed.
Under current legal situation in the USA, the option is subject to limitations based on viability of the fetus. Under the Roman law (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paterfamilias the "father" of the family (Paterfamilias) could end the life of any child at any age, let alone prenatally.
Should the father of such a child have a right to participate in the decision. A very interesting case hit the courts some time ago when a woman got pregnant after agreeing with her lover that there should be no child born of their relationship and when contraception failed she changed her mind and he sued to be absolved of child support because she had broken her "contract" with him by refusing to have an abortion. In other cases the father of the child has pleaded with the court to prevent the death of their child and offered to pay all expenses and provide all the care involved in raising the child if they were given custody. Are these fathers being oppressed by allowing the woman sole choice ?
As the Pro-Lifers argue, the decision to have or not have a child should ordinarily lie in the decision to engage in action prone to conceive one. After one is conceived, then it should not be destroyed. If you disagree with them, then would you absolve the lover in the above mentioned case from child support? After all, he engaged in copulation just as the women who have abortions do. Why should he bear the responsibility of child rearing if women are allowed to escape it via abortion. How would that be equal protection before the law?
Destruction of an innocent human life is arguably a form of oppression.
It is in the cowardice and laziness incompetence and ignorance of our legislators that much of the trouble lies. They have not had the guts to tackle the issue of when life begins, and under what conditions an innocent life can be destroyed. The cowards ducked the responsibility and let the courts usurp their power.
I, myself, cannot accept the notion that the woman and woman alone should make that decision. There are too many others with legitimate interest in the matter. While I would give the woman an absolute veto on abortion, I cannot accept the concept of absolute authority being given to the woman in all situations.
_________________
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Phagocyte
Low-Functioning NT
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 1824
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outlander wrote: | Destruction of an innocent human life is arguably a form of oppression.
It is in the cowardice and laziness incompetence and ignorance of our legislators that much of the trouble lies. They have not had the guts to tackle the issue of when life begins, and under what conditions an innocent life can be destroyed. The cowards ducked the responsibility and let the courts usurp their power. |
I don't by into the abortion = murder concept. Especially considering that most abortions take place in the first trimester.
The father, of course, has every right to participate in the decision, but ultimately (and from a legal standpoint) it should be up to the mother, as it is here body. The burden is primarily hers.
_________________
I am neurotypical - I just want to find out more about Asperger's Syndrome.
But Master! Does not the fire need water too? Does not the mountain need the storm? Does not your scrotum need kicking?
-Chever |
|
| Back to top |
|
outlander
Blue Jay
Joined: Apr 10, 2007
Age: 63
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Phagocyte wrote: | | I don't by into the abortion = murder concept. |
Neither do I necessarily. I would characterize it as the taking of a life, and our society has various rules under which that is allowed. I believe the closest paradigm is the "right of self defense" a situation in which the taking of a life is allowed when their is a threat of death or of grave bodily harm. That of course speaks directly to the issue of when the mother's life or health is in grave danger.
| Quote: | | Especially considering that most abortions take place in the first trimester. |
I believe that the stage of the pregnancy is probably a weak factor in the decision. It was however something that the supreme court could work with to seek a balance between the "pro and anti advocates" on the matter of when is the life in question actually a "human life". Likewise the issue of "viability of the fetus" is a weak issue. For example an auto accident causing serious damage to the brain of the fetus could easily negate any relevance of trimester or viability.
| Quote: | | The father, of course, has every right to participate in the decision, but ultimately (and from a legal standpoint) it should be up to the mother, as it is here body. The burden is primarily hers. |
Are you advocating that the father should be able to require the mother to participate in a moderated meeting of record in which both parties put forth the case for or against which each of them favors. If you do not advocate something like this, then the statement that "The father has every right to participate in the decision" is reduced to an irrelevancy.
In a civilized society there are many burdens that a citizen is expected to bear. For instance:
-- taxes are borne by the wage earner or purchaser
-- the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff
-- child support payments are borne by the non-custodial parent
-- military service obligation is borne by the draft age men
-- etc.
In the cases specifically noted, the decision does not lie in the hands of the bearer of the burden. The individual's societal role determines the responsibility for the burden but society/culture/government has placed the decision elsewhere. For abortion there are many places the authority could reside and indeed it could be a shared authority (e.g. the decision could be vested in a majority vote of the mother, the father, the doctor, a judge and a qualified guardian ad litem). The problem is that we have not had a civilized discussion utilizing the appropriate decision making processes of our culture to establish how such a decision should be made. The Supreme Court should never have made the decision that it did. There is a flaw in the U.S. constitution in that there is no provision for holding the politicians "feet to the fire" when they are reluctant to do their job for fear of alienating some part of the electorate who may never vote for them again. It was their responsibility to establish which person or persons should have the responsibility and authority to make such a decision. Some would say that requiring the mother to continue the pregnancy is slavery, but the same is said of taxes, child support, and military service.
_________________
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 6853
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Apatura wrote: | | Rjaye, our thinking is actually the same on this. I am pro-choice but it grieves me that people would abort autistic fetuses. Yet I also recognize that if you start limiting access to abortion, it becomes dangerous territory, because once abortion is prohibited for one reason, another reason will be introduced, and so on. |
Which is more important- womens' rights or the rights of the unborn?
It comes right down to that question, doesn't it?
IMO womens' rights cannot supercede the rights of the unborn. OTOH, the rights of the unborn should not dictate how a woman lives her life. This balancing act is virtually impossible to achieve, hence the abortion controversy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ThatRedHairedGrrl
Sea Gull
Joined: May 11, 2008
Posts: 223
Location: Totally confusing all the passing piranhas
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
See, that's something that always puzzles me. Didn't the Greeks have something similar? (There are instances in mythology of babies being exposed, at least - witness Oedipus - and it's implied it was the father's decision, and the Greeks allowed women very few rights.) And yet people in this debate almost always mention the Hippocratic Oath, in which the doctor is supposed to promise he won't give a woman drugs to terminate a pregnancy. The implication is that - as in most ancient cultures (with the possible exception of Egypt, but I'm not sure) - the man had power over both wife and child as his property. Any argument that draws from any of those cultures (and that includes the Old Testament, which is the one most frequently used in that way!) needs to be looked at with that in mind.
As far as my views go...abortion is not a good thing (I wish the pro-lifers would lose this idea that feminists think it's something women do for their own amusement!) and shouldn't happen as often as it does. But, it happens. Women who decide that for health, emotional, practical reasons they cannot bear and raise a child, should be allowed to make that decision. And when it does, it should be legal and safe. And we should be taking every other possible step towards making it less necessary - i.e. better sex education. I mean, about relationships, about the whole emotional background, which didn't happen in British schools when I was at one, and I've heard that 'abstinence education' is creeping in over here now - which is not good, as the US figures seem to show that kids taught that way still have sex, but with less chance of them using contraception.
Also, adoption - for those who feel able to take that route - should be made quicker, easier and more socially acceptable. A couple my parents knew had a baby adopted when I was young, and I recall the disapproval because they were youngish, married, and seemed healthy and financially OK - nevertheless, they'd decided, for their own reasons, that they could not keep this child and that it would have a better life with a couple who wanted a baby. As an unplanned kid of the 'wrong' sex myself (and trust me, I knew it even then), I was always puzzled that people thought they were somehow bad for doing that.
Selective abortion for disabled (or potentially disabled) fetuses is a sticky issue. There are some conditions, undoubtedly, where I would abort and anyone should be allowed to - I mean, like anencephaly (google it if you like, but be warned, it's horrible to look at), where the child won't survive birth. But, our knowledge of genes really is primitive right now. Downs shows up, sure, but its effects range from total disability to kids who are near-normal and live fulfilling independent lives. And what about progressive diseases that may be in the genes, but don't show up till later? What would have happened to Stephen Hawking, or Jacqueline du Pré?
And, Rjaye, interesting you mention fat people - there was a survey over here in the UK a few years back that found that something like 11 out of 100 people questioned would abort a child carrying an 'obesity gene'. Now apart from that being simplistic (both genetically and in terms of actual health risks - the kid might not be fat, and even if they are, they may be perfectly healthy), it shows something of how superficial some people have become. There are reports in the UK that some women have had abortions for cleft palate - which, sure, sometimes causes feeding difficulties, but often is purely cosmetic and is in any case correctable by surgery. If this did happen and isn't a tabloid rumor, it's deeply disturbing.
_________________
Birds scream at the top of their lungs in horrified hellish rage every morning at daybreak to warn us all of the truth but sadly we don't speak bird. |
|
| Back to top |
|
sartresue
Radical Aspergian
Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Posts: 2147
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: Prenatal Tests and Abortion |
|
|
Abhortion topic
What bothers me more than abortion per se is the designer babies concept--selection based on sex, IQ, future height/weight, future appearance, etc. Potential human being becomes a list of desired characteristics, and then storing the embryo until the right time/womb becomes available. Prochoice becomes prechoice. (for the record, I am prochoice, but the Pandora's box is opening much wider than just a choice based on random chromosomal analysis, or not choosing to give birth because of psychological/physical issues.
_________________
Radical Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind
Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 6853
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pandora's Box. Hmm. This expression is becoming more and more literal as the issue develops.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Goche21
Velociraptor
Joined: Oct 03, 2007
Posts: 471
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pro-life, so of course I find this disgusting.
But then, we live in a world that already takes lives for granted, Why wouldn't the upper class want designer babies at the cost of a few lost fetus'. In their minds, these aren't even human yet, it's like throwing away a defective blueprint.
Simply disgusting if you ask me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 6853
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sorenna
Sea Gull
Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This does bother me. I like to be here. I know I am a problem to most people and dependent. But no one in my familiy wouild rather me not be here.
I appreciate the intense discussion here on abortion. Yes, I find it sad that 80% of Down's are aborted. And I think most mothers would indeed NOT be properly informed, especially those who are of lower incomes. Dr's love to think that poverty=stupidity. They may over exagerate the implications of having a child with autism or only address the stressful situaitons. The same reason they will give a poor woman the birth control implants for free, but charge her to remove them!!
As long as health care is a coportate commodity, choices will not be based on what is best, but what is most lucrative and cost effective. Autism cost money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 6853
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Life costs money. Money controls the world, but can love still make it go round and round?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
quirky
Deinonychus
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
Posts: 340
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have a hard time taking a position on abortion. I know plenty of people who most people would say should have been aborted because they were born to parents who didn't know how to take care of them or had mental or other issues. Many of these kids are messed up, but I wouldn't say they live horrible lives - I think they'd rather live than have been aborted. Some overcome all of their circumstances and are doing great. Some do have horrible lives. But given that many kids born to incompetent parents or with certain birth defects suffer a lot, does that mean on the whole they don't deserve to live? Think of how many great people there have been that came from broken homes or had disabilities. One can't assume that their lives will be awful, nor can one assume that someone with a stable family or a flawless biological makeup will not have a horrible life. I understand abortion is a complex issue - women who have them aren't cold blooded murderers, they're in extremely difficult circumstances. I wouldn't have a child that would die in its first years of life of a painful condition (tay-sachs etc) - but someone mentioned a kid who would develop Huntington's - would every sufferer tell you they would rather not have been born? It presents fairly late in life, so many sufferers had a good early life and a family etc - would they wish that hadn't happened? Think of how many of us wouldn't exist because an ancestor had been aborted for various reasons - think of how many great minds we would have lost. However, I do realize many kids grow up in horrible circumstances that they don't deserve because their parents had no business having kids. I'm not against abortion i all circumstances, but it makes me nervous. I assume the autism spectrum is a combination of genes going awry - will they be able to differentiate between someone with mild autistic tendencies and someone with severe autism? Think of how many parents would abort kids who would have been almost typical children. It just seems like a slippery slope at times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
