Prenatal tests and abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Hmmmmm; Curious, the Pro life people say almost exactly the same thing, only the other way around. Curious and curiouser.

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 ret*d 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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

Pandora's Box. Hmm. This expression is becoming more and more literal as the issue develops.

A strain of it is also found in French Canadians from southeastern Quebec, where my mother's family comes from. I don't think my family was affected, though.

I agree with the idea of a media campaign to educate people about the positives of AS. I see no reason to wait until a test is developed. Such a campaign would be beneficial today.

Abortion is a difficult topic because there is no "fair" solution. As was mentioned, who has more rights? The mother? The unborn? What solution could be found to be fair to both and to the father and grandparents, etc, etc that would fit in all situations? None, of course.

The other difficulty is determining whether or not a life is worth living. Who can say whether or not the terminally ill infant thinks its life of suffering is worth living or not? The same argument applies to anyone who is non-communicable. We can't determine the value of their lives because they can't tell us what they think their lives are worth.

I think the closest thing to fair is to allow the mothers to make their decision and to base it on any reason they want. In today's society the mother is most likely to be the one raising the child and can probably judge best as to what the future will hold. That's where the media campaign comes in. If mothers thought AS could be a positive, you might not see the 80% abortion rate.

I do think it is likely that "the autism spectrum" will be obsolete in the future. Scientists will probably discover causes (Fragile-X, etc) that only fit some people on the spectrum. Genetic tests will probably identify one or more causes, so some people with ASD will slip through the tests until every possible cause is identified.

The true statistic is 90-95%, not 80%, of Down's babies are aborted. Not just aborted quickly in the first few weeks of development, but aborted in the second trimsester, when they are almost viable to live outside the womb.

Abortion has not prevented poverty, out of wedlock or teenage births, but it has prevented Down's babies from being born. How interesting.

I have no problem tip-toeing around this issue. IMO, Yes, abortion is horiffic, and especially when done to prevent a person with an intellectual disability or difference from being born, and taking another human life has nothing to do with the integrity of your body or your individual rights. And as a mother of 3 who had to endure less than ideal circumstances I am fully qualified to make that statement, thank you. I do think there are some circumstances when it is more ethical to abort than to not abort, such as in the Tay-Sachs case, but the majority of abortions are purely selfish. Of course, there is no law that says you have to be a kind and generous person.

I tend to agree.

I've been following this discussion, have to say--very interesting!

I think chances are, that in the future, prenatal testig will become very common (even normal) in western countries. As most have mentioned Downs are already aborted most of the time. But it also happens that an embryo is aborted because of a certain genetic defect. There is a list of known genes that are coupled to some very serious diseases (such as Tay-Sachs, Huntingtons Disease). This list is waiting to be expanded.

A part of artificial insemination (IVF) is testing the fertilised eggs for their appearance and genetic make-up. If one of these genes is found the embryo is not introduced back into the mother. Also the cell is being selected for its appearance: if it doesn't look good, there's a good chance it won't make it. So these embryos are discarded or even frozen for scientific research. This is called Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). I've read that for every IVF baby some 80 embryos are lost. Effectively these are abortions too.

Do some of the opponents also reject in vitro fertilisation?