|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "Tentative pregnancy"/prenatal euthanasia
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
In actuality, the hypothetical people we have been discussing are presumed to be wanting to avoid a situation that they find intolerable.
Our tolerance for intolerance is rightly limited.
If a person finds it intolerable to work with a black person, or to live in the same neighborhood with a Jewish person, we don't support their intolerance. We condemn it, in the clearest possible terms.
Yet when the intolerance is directed at the disabled, and when it affects not just where the person works or lives, but whether they live at all, suddenly it's not only to be tolerated, it's to be supported and understood.
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't understand it. The eugenic abortion of fetuses demonstrates an intolerance of disability at a level that is just mind-boggling.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Maybe it is headed that way. But I don't think we're there. Yet. And I think this fails to factor in the medical establishment's probable motivation of fear of lawsuits from parents who wanted perfect children.
I'm sure this is part of it, too.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Like taking vitamin whatever (sorry, can't remember which one it is) because it's supposed to help guard against spina bifida? Not drinking alcohol during pregnancy? Giving up smoking?
its folic acid before conception and in the first three months of pregnancy that drastically lowers the chances of spina bifida.
which in a way leads me to this hypothetical question. if a magic fairy were to appear to a couple and wave her wand and say "if you wish it, you will never have a child with a birth defect... no question of abortion or fetal selection, simply that any egg and sperm that meet will concieve a child free of all birth defects", would it be wrong of the couple to say "yes"? and if so, why?
and if so, was it wrong of me to take my folic acid and vitamin supliments when i was pregnant, and to avoid drinking, because i was trying to avoid a child with a birth defect?
and if i'm not wrong in trying to avoid having a child with a birth defect, and if your someone who doesn't believe in the absolute impermissability of abortion, then where does the difference come in? if its permissable to try and avoid having a child with a birth defect by some means, and if its permissable to have an abortion in some circumstances, then why is it impermissable to have an abortion to avoid having a child with a birth defect?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
Well, I don't think that's entirely true. There are plenty of hereditary disorders for which the genetic markers have not been identified or a reliable test has not been created. Even some genetically identifiable diseases (such as Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease) have variants with identical symptoms for which the gene has not been identified.
And - as chukovsky mentioned - if nobody in your family's recent generations has had recognisable symptoms you would almost certainly not take part in any genetic screening anyway. Yet the particular combination of genes that made this baby could throw up a disorder.
The chances are low, but it is perfectly possible for parents with no known history of hereditary disorders to produce a child who has one.
This is exactly what happened to my uncle and his wife, who now have two children with cystic fibrosis and one without. They chose to go ahead and have the second and the third child even though the first one had already been diagnosed and they knew how hard it was to care for a child with CF. But CF life expectancy is so good these days (40 and rising, so likely to be much higher by the time these two under-10s are in adulthood) that I have a hugely hard time understanding how anyone could decide otherwise.
Other family members have completely supported their decision, even though all they know about CF is that when they were younger children died very young; the same ones mutter about the distant relative, in her 30s with Down Syndrome, and check that soon-to-be mothers in the family are having amnio. That's why I was enquiring if people had noticed a difference in attitudes depending on the disorder a child might have.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
and if i'm not wrong in trying to avoid having a child with a birth defect, and if your someone who doesn't believe in the absolute impermissability of abortion, then where does the difference come in? if its permissable to try and avoid having a child with a birth defect by some means, and if its permissable to have an abortion in some circumstances, then why is it impermissable to have an abortion to avoid having a child with a birth defect?
Perhaps because some people would say, at that point you already have a child with an inborn disorder; the same as if your child is diagnosed, age 7, with autistic spectrum disorder.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't understand it. The eugenic abortion of fetuses demonstrates an intolerance of disability at a level that is just mind-boggling.
You don't need to understand the point of view to recognize that it is distinct from another point of view that you do not share. It may be that you think that eugenics is wrong and that you also think that terminating an unwanted pregnancy is wrong. That doesn't make them the same thing.
Eliding them seems to be a debating point to add credence to a position that is otherwise questionable -- as in "capital is theft."
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
I'm not sure that parents in this situation are only concerned with their own needs and tolerances. They may also genuinely feel that life would be intolerable, or at least very difficult, for their prospective offspring. Whether you agree with that or not in a particular case, I think it's unfair to assume the motives of the parents are entirely selfish.
From the other side of the issue, my dad has one of those pesky inheritable conditions for which no gene marker has yet been identified. We have no waying of knowing whether I have the bad gene without symptoms, or whether I'm a carrier, or whether I don't have it at all.
Worst case scenario any child of mine could be born with a painful, degenerative condition that would lead to death in early teens (that last didn't happen to my dad, obviously!). Even worse worst case scenario, I could produce such a child then develop late onset symptoms myself, leaving me unable to care for the child.
I struggled a long, long time with this unguessable probability and eventually decided to try for a baby. What I struggle with mainly is my suspicion that this is a horribly selfish decision, since I am forcing an unknown risk on another who has no choice. (At my age, of course, the whole issue is increasingly likely to be moot)
Anyway, I've wandered on somewhat, but what I'm trying to say is that I think it is unkind to assume that every parent who aborts a fetus with a disorder is doing it out of a wish for a perfect child. They may be trying to do the best for everybody concerned, whether wrongheadedly or not.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Re: taking care of yourself so that avoidable defects are avoided is certainly not eugenic anymore than avoiding waking under a falling piano (though you are wasting worry re: not drinking any alcohol at all -- despite the US government's hysteria on the subject, no well-designed independent study has ever demonstrated any kind of raised risk for defects under 14 units of alcohol a week during pregnancy).
Actually, the obsession with the all-natural pregnancy also has overtones -- the mother being responsible for ensuring that the kids are as perfect and brilliant as possible. Perhaps the abortion for defects is part of the same societal impulse, but a darker side.
I'm working on coming up with a less loaded term than "eugenic abortion" that is also truthful and having trouble. Some call it "therapeutic abortion" but that seems a euphemism to me. It's not exactly therapeutic, is it?
[ 03. August 2005, 18:53: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
chuk, what i said was "if you believe that abortion is permissable in some circumstances". why is it acceptable to abort a fetus that doesn't have a defect, but not one that does?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
Wanted to add: despite what I just said, I share Laura's discomfort that abortion seems to have become almost the default option when a disorder is discovered pre-natally.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
Wanted to add: despite what I just said, I share Laura's discomfort that abortion seems to have become almost the default option when a disorder is discovered pre-natally.
This is really what is at the center of my discomfort. It's more about society and what we collectively support and call good through our use of technology, and what we as Christians should do in that society. Which is really the question for so many Purgatory debates, isn't it?
Now, I just had a chat with someone who pointed out that there are some very rare conditions which can be detected in utero and treated in utero, so that would be another real positive good from prenatal invasive testing.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
chuk, what i said was "if you believe that abortion is permissable in some circumstances". why is it acceptable to abort a fetus that doesn't have a defect, but not one that does?
That's not what I was arguing about: what I was saying is that every woman has the right to say "if I was in her circumstances" (having the risk of a genetic disorder) because every woman IS in her situation.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Again, facing the off chance that something might go wrong is not the same as facing the very likely chance that a specific thing will go wrong. We're not all in the same boat in this regard. There's no CF or hemophilia in my family. (Though it hardly matters, as I'm unlikely to ever have children.)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
and if i'm not wrong in trying to avoid having a child with a birth defect, and if your someone who doesn't believe in the absolute impermissability of abortion, then where does the difference come in? if its permissable to try and avoid having a child with a birth defect by some means, and if its permissable to have an abortion in some circumstances, then why is it impermissable to have an abortion to avoid having a child with a birth defect?
Perhaps because some people would say, at that point you already have a child with an inborn disorder; the same as if your child is diagnosed, age 7, with autistic spectrum disorder.
chuk, huh? this is what i was responding to.
[ 04. August 2005, 08:12: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
[qb] I think we need to differentiate between the potential for age-related chromosomal defects which can occur for anyone and hereditary disorders. The latter are not as widespread and your status can be determined by examination of your own (and your partner's) DNA.
Well, I don't think that's entirely true. There are plenty of hereditary disorders for which the genetic markers have not been identified or a reliable test has not been created. Even some genetically identifiable diseases (such as Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease) have variants with identical symptoms for which the gene has not been identified.
In which case, amnio won't tell you anything at all, and so is largely moot as far as the OP is concerned. That it could happen to anyone is true enough, but it is not a typical concern of anyone without more information.
quote:
And - as chukovsky mentioned - if nobody in your family's recent generations has had recognisable symptoms you would almost certainly not take part in any genetic screening anyway.
This is not true. We were given genetic screening because of my ethnic background [French Canadian, Italian-American]. There was no history of Tay Sachs in my family, but it does occur in French Canadians and Cajuns with increased frequency.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
And - as chukovsky mentioned - if nobody in your family's recent generations has had recognisable symptoms you would almost certainly not take part in any genetic screening anyway. Yet the particular combination of genes that made this baby could throw up a disorder.
The chances are low, but it is perfectly possible for parents with no known history of hereditary disorders to produce a child who has one.
Me and mine have wrestled a lot with this question recently.
They discovered that my nephew had a congenital heart defect (transposition of the great arteries) through a sonogram. After we finished crying, we went into research mode - finding out everything we could about the condition, its treatment, etc. We talked to doctors, we talked to people who had been through it, we changed our ideas of what was going to happen when my SIL gave birth.
At some point, someone suggested to my brother that, in the US at least (SIL was in France), termination of the pregnancy was one option. He was appalled, as he already had a relationship with his son. I pointed out that this problem was treatable - he wasn’t looking at seeing his wife through the last couple of months of pregnancy only to watch his kid die almost immediately. (As our mother had a Hitler-qualifying disability that she refused to reveal to most Christians, we both have some strong feelings about eliminating certain segments of the population just because ‘normal’ people have to do a bit more).
Since nephew was now seen to be at an increased genetic risk for other disorders, the doctors started pressuring SIL to have an amnio. I objected on general principle, as I didn’t want her having the test just because she was being pressured to do so (not that I told anyone this, as I wasn’t asked). My brother objected on the grounds that it increased the risk of her having a miscarriage, and it wasn’t going to change their decision to carry the baby to term. In the end, SIL had the amnio for peace of mind - she needed to know.
The amnio showed no problems.
And, in the final ironic twist, nephew turned out to have an even more rare congenital heart defect which meant that he didn’t actually need surgery.
Technological advances have allowed us to get on some really iffy moral ground wrt creating designer children. I don’t like that the default position for a lot of people seems to be to test for disorders and terminate the pregnancy if the child isn’t ‘perfect.’ I keep wondering what they’re going to do when their kid grows up, dyes their hair purple, and starts skipping school and bringing home disreputable boys (or, more appropriately for some of my friends, when the kid grows up and becomes a Southern Baptist).
Of course, my grandmother prayed that her children would die as children if they weren’t going to grow up to be Christian. I’d hate to think what would have happened if she had been given the option of knowing and put in charge of the decision.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There's no CF or hemophilia in my family. (Though it hardly matters, as I'm unlikely to ever have children.)
There may be no CF in your family, but 1 in 25 people of northern European descent, slightly lower for southern European, carry the gene, so you have a pretty high chance of carrying the gene. Much higher than, for example, the risk of having a Down Syndrome child at 35 (1 in 300). The incidence at birth is of the same order of magnitude (1 in 2500 versus 3 in 2000).
They are talking about introducting universal testing at birth for CF - families would be very happy for that to happen because currently many children aren't diagnosed for a couple of years which gives children a huge setback in terms of therapy. So the next step might be universal prenatal testing. There currently isn't preconception counselling or testing unless you have the gene in the family, I imagine the risk of Tay-Sachs must have been higher in Choirboy's family than the general risk of CF in the UK population (unless they have universal counselling/preconception testing for CF in people of N. European origin where he lives?)
This is actually where I see the slippery slope to eugenics: currently we can find out quite a lot of things pre-birth, and we have already decided some of them (Down Syndrome, cleft palate, CF) are allowable grounds for abortion, whereas others (sex, dyslexia*) are not. So the law/society already decides what type of foetus can be terminated and what can't, as well as parents.
*There are I think a couple of families in which a gene for dyslexia has been discovered. I used to work with a family that had a gene, which has been identified, for a spoken language impairment: affected members had about a 10 point drop, on average (range 0-30) in IQ, taking at least one member into the not-really-employable range, with about a further 20 point drop in the equivalent language measure, however most of the family had regular employment: chef, cleaner, joiner etc. Family members are hard to understand, though, don't learn to speak till they are 4 or 5, and at least two members had had psychiatric illness too (we have no idea if it's related. It's a big family). The effects are pretty variable between individuals in the family.
When I last saw them one of the unaffected young adults' girlfriend was expecting a baby. He wanted to know if his baby could have the disorder (the answer was no since only affected family members have affected children). But we strongly suspected his girlfriend probably, rather than he who knew his siblings had good quality of life, was wondering about a termination if the baby was affected.
So, where will society draw the line? Will we say it's fine to terminate a child with the gene for autism but not a spoken language disorder? A spoken language disorder but not dyslexia? Dyslexia but not an irritable temperament? Irritability but not femaleness?
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
I have found this thread fascinating and thought provoking.
My own angle on this issue is perhaps a little different from what has been discussed so far. I think medical science has considerable power in western cultures and this power in part relies upon the unknown. So as a 41 year old woman who may find myself pregnant, I will be advised that the risks of my baby suffering from a long list of possibilities are very high, and I will be offered tests and informed of my options dependent upon the results of those tests. I will not be offered any positive information (such as the potential for success) or encouragement or simple celebration at the fact that I've found myself pregnant. The emphasis, for whatever reason, is upon the 'what ifs', and only the negative 'what ifs', and so I am trapped.
I've thought this issue through in great depth over the last few years, partly because I'm ageing and don't have children, but mainly because my two sisters-in-law and now my sister (all of whom are in their mid 30s and have had/are having their first child) have gone through the whole ritual of becoming informed, giving almost everything up (just in case), having scans, tests and more scans until finally two of them produced healthy baby boys and one will hopefully produce a healthy baby girl (because I would now like a niece, please).
The one common denominator in their experiences has been the presence of fear: fear that eating soft cheese will give the baby lysteria; that eating nuts will give the child an allergy; that smoking will make their baby small; that being pregant in their mid 30s at all will leave their baby disabled.
I would suggest that when a pregnant couple is 'advised of the risks', what they are in fact faced with is not the opportunity to make an 'informed decision' but rather the choice to overcome their fear of how their baby may turn out and whether or not they can handle the outcome. I don't think this stage stands alone, but is the finale to the ritual of pregnancy that seems to me to consist of so many fears, most of which have arisen because of medical knowledge and statistical analysis.
I don't believe that what is going on here is eugenics. But I do think it is an issue of social control. I am not blaming the medical profession, btw: playing on fears (either deliberately by scaremongering or indirectly through the imparting of knowledge) seems to be a feature of contemporary UK society. What is happening is, I think, more subtle than eugenics; more in line with Foucault than with Hitler.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Just want to say sorry if my post seems out of synch with the debate. By the time I'd got my 'deepest thoughts' together another zillion posts had been written! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think we need to find a word other than "eugenic" to describe this sort of abortion.
I've been thinking about this. Maybe it isn't yet eugenics -- the yet bothers me, but I'm trying to go there. Can we call it prenatal euthenasia? Is that both honest and accurate?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
People in this "borderline" range may have fared better in a simpler, agrarian society. They'd have been made occasional fun of, taken advantage of, just as they sometimes are now -- but they'd have been able (if not physically handicapped) at least to scratch out a living and to contend with most of what was required of them.
Anyone who is under any illusion that it is somehow "easier" in more traditional societies should have watched African School on BBC4. I have been involved in a project looking at children with all kinds of disabilities in a similar setting, trying to work out how to diagnose disabilities accurately, persuade parents their children are educable, and find school places for them, and the story they showed of the fate of children with special needs in that setting is all too common.
Here is an interview with the special needs teacher of the primary school they are featuring.
Point is taken; however, I didn't mention anything about traditional societies. I mentioned simpler, agrarian societies (meaning earlier in time). And it is true that the practice of institutionalizing people with disabilities developed in response to some pretty horrific treatment of those individuals, often by
family members. However, this institutional response more-or-less coincided with the fallout from increasing industrialization and societal complexity.
Life really was simpler (and often also more brutal) earlier in time. People didn't need to read or drive or figure out surcharges on their utility bills.
Any contemporary society -- in first, second, or third worlds -- is forced to deal with the complexities of modern life at some level.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think we need to find a word other than "eugenic" to describe this sort of abortion.
I've been thinking about this. Maybe it isn't yet eugenics -- the yet bothers me, but I'm trying to go there. Can we call it prenatal euthenasia? Is that both honest and accurate?
"Prenatal euthanasia" strikes me as an excellent term. Let's use it for a while and see if the implications that emerge seem right.
ETA: You've clearly got your thinking cap on, josephine, as usual. Thanks for working on coming up with this term.
[ 03. August 2005, 22:37: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I think it will work for me. It allows the question of whether the intent or the effect of these thousands of individual decisions is eugenic to be a separate discussion.
And it also, I think, clarifies why my response to prenatal euthenasia is different when the fetus is anencephalic than when the fetus has a cleft palate or a club foot. I think euthenasia is problematic for many reasons, but in the case of the fetus with anencephaly (or comparable defects), I can put myself in the other parent's shoes and find where the decision came from. For other defects, I try to put myself in theother person's shoes, and try on their decision, and it remains horrific.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
My family has an obscure genetic condition. My mother and my grandmother have it and I - I'm told - have a fifty percent chance of having it. I don't know, though: there is a gene test, but it's only available for research so, although my blood is sitting in a lab somewhere in central Europe, it'll only be tested if a researcher decides my family is particularly interesting.
So the odds are I won't know for sure until I start manifesting symptoms. But, if I do carry the gene, there's a fifty percent chance I'll pass it onto my children.
As genetic problems go, it could be a lot worse. An increased risk of heart disease, aneurism and of miscarriage. A near certainty of aesthetic changes to my face and neck which can be pretty unsightly. And a good chance of losing central vision. But presentations vary, and what the odds are of developing life changing problems is unknowable. The problem with these rare conditions is that there aren't enough patients to crunch the numbers.
So I've had to do some weighing up of what this means for my life, and for whether or not (if the opportunity presents) I have children. If I could wave a magic wand I would choose that my kids do not get this gene. But magic wands don't happen.
Would I terminate a pregnancy if the foetus carried the gene?* Almost certainly not. But I'm not sure. Every parent wants the best for their kids, and peering in the mirror anxiously to check for the early changes in your face - knowing that those changes might lead to blindness - is not something I'd wish for my children. Were the condition something like cystic fibrosis, which carries with it the likelyhood of early death, I think I'd be rather more inclined to abort.
I think the cut off point - for me anyway - would be when 'a pregnancy' becomes 'this child', which is an emotional transition which will happen at different stages for different women. And one of the difficult decisions, I suspect, that anyone in this situation has to make is weighing up what is best for that child-to-be with what may be best for the family.
Because whilst society absolutely should be able to cope with 1% or whatever it is (made up figure!) of individuals with disabilities, for that family it's 100%, which is a very different ball game.
All I can say is that, emotionally, my concerns about passing on a genetic defect are not, I don't think, about wanting a perfect "designer baby" to satisfy my own needs; instead, they are about not wanting to see that child suffer. That may be "intolerance of disability" but I do not think it's entirely selfish.
Peronel
*This assumes a test were available. Right now, it ain't.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
All I can say is that, emotionally, my concerns about passing on a genetic defect are not, I don't think, about wanting a perfect "designer baby" to satisfy my own needs; instead, they are about not wanting to see that child suffer. That may be "intolerance of disability" but I do not think it's entirely selfish.
It may not be selfish. But I think it's unrealistic.
The first noble truth of Buddhism is that life means suffering. M Scott Peck starts his book, The Road Less Traveled with the statement, "Life is difficult."
When I was trying to decide whether to divorce my first husband, I told my priest that I wanted to do whatever would protect my children from pain. He told me that life is painful, that I can't protect them from pain. If you're lucky, you might get to choose this pain vs that pain. But you don't get to choose a life free of pain.
A woman I knew on a disability support list some years ago used to whine and moan and complain. Why was she afflicted with her disability? If only she didn't have this problem, she thought, she wouldn't have any problems.
But that's not true. If she hadn't had that problem, she'd have had other problems. None of us gets a problem-free, pain-free life.
The question to ask, when deciding about euthenasia (prenatally or postnatally), is whether the suffering is so severe, intractable, unmanageable, and pervasive that it is truly better to be dead than to continue to live. In some cases, it might be reasonable to conclude that it is. But most people would agree, I think, that the cases where euthenasia for a nonterminal illness are appropriate are few and far between. Certainly, no one would consider euthenasia for a child or adult with Down Syndrome or cleft palate. Why is it acceptable for a fetus?
I know you have the perspective of seeing your family members deal with the disease you're most at risk of. You know whether they would consider euthenasia appropriate for their disorder, and if so at what stage. Others might want to look at Not Dead Yet for the perspective of at least some people living with severe disabilities.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
"Prenatal euthanasia" strikes me as an excellent term. Let's use it for a while and see if the implications that emerge seem right.
ETA: You've clearly got your thinking cap on, josephine, as usual. Thanks for working on coming up with this term.
Works for me, too. Also then we can drag into the discussion the tangent about how there is now a protocol in the Netherlands for euthanizing babies who suffer from awful painful soon-to-be-fatal defects.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Josephine wrote: Yes, I do think that eugenic abortions are worse than other abortions, because I think that eugenics is an unmitigated evil.
Should they therefore be illegal? If so, who should be prosecuted? The doctor? The parents? All three?
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Should they therefore be illegal?
I don't think it would be practical to make them illegal. As long as voluntary abortions are legal, saying you could have one for this reason but not for that reason would be unenforceable. "Yes, I found out the fetus carried Down Syndrome, but I also found out at about the same time this other situation, which makes this a really bad time for me to be pregnant at all." And how would you prove the "real" reason? It just wouldn't work.
But that's the lesser reason that it wouldn't work. The greater reason is that our society has already accepted eugenic abortion -- make that prenatal euthenasia as the normal, acceptable, appropriate thing to do if the fetus has any diagnosable disorders. You wouldn't be able to make it illegal if you wanted to, and if you somehow were able to make it illegal, you'd never be able to enforce it. Making something illegal when most people not only don't consider it wrong, but many people consider it the right thing to do is just not going to accomplish anything.
The thing to do, I think, is to work for a cultural change. We need to work towards a culture where people with disabilities are accepted, where intolarance toward the disabled is considered just as ugly and evil as racism. We need to work for a society that treats its vulnerable members with justice, where aborting a fetus because it's disabled is just as unthinkable as aborting a fetus because the daddy is black.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Josephine wrote: Yes, I do think that eugenic abortions are worse than other abortions, because I think that eugenics is an unmitigated evil.
Should they therefore be illegal? If so, who should be prosecuted? The doctor? The parents? All three?
Nope. Not possible to make this illegal and not "regular" abortion. And anyway, it's clear that even those who feel the strongest here are willing to consider prenatal euthanasia for hopeless and fatal disabilities.
It's a question of Christian witness and Christian ethics in difficult situations.
IMHO, of course.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
Sorry if this is veering into tangent territory, but there is emerging a third way between serene acceptance and abortion, - reported here a couple of years ago - of foetal corrective surgery. Of course, the OP's invasive screening will have taken place first. The financial cost is enormous compared to abortion, and that will produce triage dilemmas.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
Over 20 years ago I gaver birth to a full-term, apparently healthy baby who died 3 days later from a rare congenital heart defect. There was no indication of anything wrong during pregnancy, and I believe such a case would still slip below any current screening tests - not that I had any. Three comments
- I have always been thankful I did NOT know what was about to happen. It was traumatic enough without that.
- I was offered but refused amnio (but would have to travel some considerable distance to get it) on my subsequent 2 pregnancies (which were fine). This particular defect wouldn't be detected, and I wouldn't abort anyway (esp as death was inevitable if the condition did repeat). I certainly didn't want to go through such agony again - but it was that or never to get pregnant again.
- I endorse other people's comments about the effective randomness of rare genetic abnormalities; there's no family history, no-one is sure whether the cause of the defect really is genetic, or possibly environmental - and this can happen to anyone. You really can't keep worrying about it - though you do.
Of course I recognise that my views might be very different if my son lived a life of severe disability instead of dying so young. I really don't know.
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Should they therefore be illegal?
I don't think it would be practical to make them illegal. As long as voluntary abortions are legal, saying you could have one for this reason but not for that reason would be unenforceable. "Yes, I found out the fetus carried Down Syndrome, but I also found out at about the same time this other situation, which makes this a really bad time for me to be pregnant at all." And how would you prove the "real" reason? It just wouldn't work.
[snip]
The thing to do, I think, is to work for a cultural change. We need to work towards a culture where people with disabilities are accepted, where intolarance toward the disabled is considered just as ugly and evil as racism. We need to work for a society that treats its vulnerable members with justice, where aborting a fetus because it's disabled is just as unthinkable as aborting a fetus because the daddy is black.
Currently, abortion on the grounds of gender is not allowed in the UK. In many areas families can find out their child's gender before birth. In some areas it is policy not to tell the gender. Where families find out the gender, it is perfectly possible for them theoretically to then say "my marriage is going to break up if I have another baby" when actually what they mean is "my husband says I'm not a proper wife if I give birth to another daughter". This, I assume, is why some areas have the no-gender-information policy. I believe this applies to families who have had amniocentesis for other reasons too.
It would be possible in principle - and is what is done in some areas - for medical authorities to have a list of conditions/genetically determined characteristics that they do tell the family and a list they don't tell the family, so that decision to terminate can be made on any information they have, but cannot be made on other information.
Any condition in which chances of survival are likely to be improved by prenatal/perinatal treatment, c-section etc., might reasonably be expected to be on that list. Since at the moment what isn't told the parents seems to be randomly determined, based on where you live, perhaps that's where society needs to take a good hard look.
(On the last point: I knew someone who, on finding she was pregnant and penniless by her equally penniless E. African fiancé, proposed to her parents that she spend a couple of years at home in the rural Midwest with the baby, till she and he were in a position to support all three of them. Her mother reminded her that she really didn't remember what life was like at home, and she had a termination. This was about 10 years ago.).
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
See, now, in places like India and China, local technicians will buy a sonography machine almost solely for the purpose of determining sex so that women can abort girls. This has resulted in towns where there is a marked sex imbalance. While the Indian gov't has made some move to ilegalize abortions for gender selection and prevent sonographers from reporting the gender, I find myself wondering what the result of that will be. Before gender-based abortion, poor women typically poisoned or exposed or drowned extra girl babies. I think an abortion at 16 weeks for that purpose is an evil, but is it more evil than murder after birth? I don't know.
Chukovsky:
What you propose vis-a-vis not giving parents information would be a legal/political lead balloon. People are going to feel they have a right to know everything they can from these procedures. And frankly, reasoning like that from a nurse someone quoted earlier in the thread is going to drive it, too. Severely disabled children are a financial burden in a socialized health system. I'm betting there are people in gov't who think i.d.-ing those cases is a positive good.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
I'm betting poor women still drown or poison girl babies; if you are rich you can afford an ultrasound and an abortion.
If we will give parents information on those serious disorders we can currently test for, but we won't give (some) parents information on gender, where then will we draw the line? If we can test for skin/hair colour prenatally, will we allow parents to know that? What about temperament? Both of these seem to have a strong genetic component.
Most of the things which currently parents can have information on, and choose to terminate based on, are things with extremely variable outcomes - and some individuals who test positive genetically can lead regular lives with long life expectancies. I think this also worries me, as parents seem - for whatever reasons - to be operating on the worst-case scenario (my child will die aged 2, my child will never live independently) whereas given the way treatment and therapies are going their child is likely to live to 40/hold down a job.
I just see this leading to terminations at the slightest of risk to the child's wellbeing (some people die of asthma attacks so we should not have a child with a risk of having asthma, some children with dyslexia don't finish school so we shouldn't have a child with dyslexia).
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
I'm betting poor women still drown or poison girl babies; if you are rich you can afford an ultrasound and an abortion.
Without claiming that abortion is an "easy" choice, I suspect it is somewhat easier than infanticide.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
I'm betting poor women still drown or poison girl babies; if you are rich you can afford an ultrasound and an abortion.
Without claiming that abortion is an "easy" choice, I suspect it is somewhat easier than infanticide.
FCB
Right.
And chukovsky: you're assuming a world in India where poor women are prevented from aborting because they haven't the money to pay an OB to do it. Poor women often (apparently) have access to low-cost sonography, but the abortion isn't necessarily the expensive surgical kind. That's not how AIUI poor village women abort, for the most part. They know the herbs to use. And according to the NYT article I read a while back, rich and middle class are less likely to abort girl children as it's for the poor that having the wrong kind makes the most impact, at least in India and China.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm with josephine and others in this debate who see this as involving some kind of eugenics. Maybe not systematic eugenics in a "strong" sense, but sufficiently systematic in that the medical people know which conditions and disabilities they want to screen for.
I read a fascinating paper recently that touches on the subject. In it, the researcher put some questions to research ethics committees in various medical establishments. When asked simple questions like "is it ethical to screen for Down's syndrome?" most of these ethicists answered "yes". However, when the question was broken down and the implications of performing the test were examined, most of the ethicists came to the conclusion that it was not ethical.
I'm disturbed by the thought of a society that places such arbitrary limits on who can - or cannot - be born into it.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
I don't have a problem with the term prenatal euthanasia, but I would actually rather talk about eugenics. The distinction I see is that an individual couple makes a decision about prenatal euthanasia, but eugenics is essentially a policy or group action.
I'm not really interested in spending time talking about an individual couple's decision, as I think that will inevitably detour into dead horse territory. I do think it is important to discuss whether current treatment guidelines are a de facto policy for eugenics. After all, all of those individual choices that contribute to a trend are made on the basis of advice provided under these guidelines.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm with josephine and others in this debate who see this as involving some kind of eugenics. Maybe not systematic eugenics in a "strong" sense, but sufficiently systematic in that the medical people know which conditions and disabilities they want to screen for.
I wonder to what extent that is true. Much screening is a matter of what tests can be performed relatively easily. The existence of the test at a reasonable cost may decide that you screen for a given thing. The extent to which these things are systematic is not obvious to me.
Certainly, there are tests which have been developed in response to specific felt needs -- be they from the medical establishment or the general public. But it isn't obvious to me that there is quite the top-down vision of what should be that your post suggests.
Indeed, my sense is that this lack of reflectiveness is part of what weighs on Laura. While the abortion component adds a huge emotional wild-card into the discussion, it seems that the overall relationaship between tests and social significance can be seen as a matter of concern in many contexts.
For example, many people are concerned that identifying genetic markers that are correlated to, say, prostate cancer susceptibility may result in health insurance companies adopting a rate structure that would make some people uninsurable. Is this what we want as a society, or is it an unintended consequence of medical research? To what extent should we make the application of this research conform to a centralized, ideologically-based purpose, and to what extent should we just let the chips fall where they may?
This seems to be basically the same abstract question that Laura was raising with the example of amniocentesis. But I may have misconstrued her concerns.
--Tom Clune
[ 04. August 2005, 15:17: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I don't have a problem with the term prenatal euthanasia, but I would actually rather talk about eugenics. The distinction I see is that an individual couple makes a decision about prenatal euthanasia, but eugenics is essentially a policy or group action.
I'm not really interested in spending time talking about an individual couple's decision, as I think that will inevitably detour into dead horse territory. I do think it is important to discuss whether current treatment guidelines are a de facto policy for eugenics. After all, all of those individual choices that contribute to a trend are made on the basis of advice provided under these guidelines.
So you would rather talk about an individual doctor's decision to recommend an amnio and suggest that abortion is an option? Guidelines are guidelines, not rules.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So you would rather talk about an individual doctor's decision to recommend an amnio and suggest that abortion is an option? Guidelines are guidelines, not rules.
You are right that guidelines are guidelines. But they don't just come from nowhere - the treatment guidelines represent the consensus opinion of the clinical community involved. It is reasonable to make a case (or defend against an assertion) that those guidelines as such represent a de facto policy of eugenics. In particular, they will have infludence on both doctors and parents in the individual decisions that are made (along with many other factors), even if not one of compulsion. Insurance companies also put some stock in treatment guidelines, so this is another source of potentially fruitful questioning.
Talking about a hypothetical individual (whether a doctor or parent or an insurance claims executive or a disabled person) is only going to degenerate into dead horse territory. I'm fine if people want to talk about that, but there is another place.
On the other hand, guidelines will have a role in shaping societal behavior in general on average (if not necessarily in every specific case). If you're interested in the [i]trend[i/] toward prenatal euthanasia then this is a good place to start. If you're interested in debating abortion in specific cases (and calling it prenatal euthanasia as a genus), it still strikes me as dead horse territory.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I think there might be an advantage in calling these abortions prenatal euthanasia rather than eugenic abortion. Parents aren't going to see what they're doing as eugenic; those making the decision won't find that term applicable to their particular situation. But they could very well see the term euthanasia as applicable.
And I think, perhaps, if that were the standard term used for this sort of abortion, it might well make it clear precisely why it is an inappropriate choice when the fetal defect is slight and the prognosis is good -- cleft palate, for instance, or red hair. (In the article Adeodatus linked to, 10% of the ethics teams thought that screening with subsequent abortion for "embarrassing conditions" like red hair was ethical.)
My position on this seems to be at one extreme. For those who don't find prenatal euthanasia for relatively minor conditions troubling -- why not?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Chukovsky:
What you propose vis-a-vis not giving parents information would be a legal/political lead balloon. People are going to feel they have a right to know everything they can from these procedures. And frankly, reasoning like that from a nurse someone quoted earlier in the thread is going to drive it, too. Severely disabled children are a financial burden in a socialized health system. I'm betting there are people in gov't who think i.d.-ing those cases is a positive good.
This is the aspect I was pondering on earlier. At what point, if ever, will it be seen as a public good to abort "defective" foetuses? Will the point be reached sooner in countries with a government-run health system, or in those with private healthcare?
I thought initially that the former was more likely, but I think it quite possible that insurance companies might force the issue by excluding ongoing care of babies whose disabilities were, or could have been, detected in utero by standard tests.(Or do they do that already?). Governments are suseptible to voters having strong views on the sanctity of life, and most western governments are big on human rights at the moment. I can't say I've ever encountered an insurance company with principles.
I must say that my own experience in the NHS, when faced with a positive test result and abnormal pregnancy, was an immediate acceptance and noting of my wish to continue with pregnancy regardless of the defect found. No-one ever questioned that decision, or put any pressure on me at all.
I so disliked the idea of "conditional pregnancy" that I did not have any of the standard tests in my second and third pegnancies. I reasoned that, since I had no intention of terminating for any defect at all, the tests were pointless. I did have scans, but did not know the sex of the baby. I accept that some tests might be useful to help decide the mode of delivery etc., but tests for abnormalities not requiring treatment before or during birth were not for me!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
My position on this seems to be at one extreme. For those who don't find prenatal euthanasia for relatively minor conditions troubling -- why not?
I just don't tend to see a fetus as a human being at all. I understand that there are Christians who see all sperm as somehow human (though seldom do they see eggs in that light...), which stretches through to zygotes and fetuses. I understand that such people genuinely feel that stem cell research is hideously Mengelean, for example. I just don't.
I recognize a living person as a person. I do not recognize precursors to humanity as human. With modern technology, you can't avoid gray areas -- if science can generate life on a petrie dish, does that mean that all fetilized eggs are as human as an infant?
For some, the answer is yes. For me, I am willing to let the adults involved choose their view. An expectant mother may feel that her fetus is her "baby," and may genuinely mourn its "death" in the event of a miscarriage (quotes to recognize alternate understandings, not to suggest anything artificial in the woman's view). I would genuinely want to mourn with her over her loss, without feeling that I had to say that a woman who chose to voluntarily terminate a pregancy was commiting murder.
It isn't really a matter of argumentation. It is all, wherever one happens to be along the spectrum, a lot more reptilian than that.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I understand that there are Christians who see all sperm as somehow human
Aside from the Catholic family in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, I've never heard this view espoused.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sewanee_angel
Shipmate
# 2908
|
Posted
I know this discussion is not really about creating "designer children" (ie genetically altering/engineering children to have traits we value) before/during pregnancy but I think the two issues are closely related.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis* seems to be growing in acceptance. Downs, CF, gender for "family balancing" are all mentioned as things one might wish to screen. It seems (from my quick google search) that there has been a bit more public debate about the ethics of prescreening/genetically altering while in-utero for "improvements" but not about prenatal euthanasia. Is that because while, secretly, people may all want** children who are above average we don't want to feel like the neighbors cheated to get their above average child?
Here's a link to an interesting article about Down's and screening.
*This site is for a company that offers such services.
**Yes, I'm generalizing and it isn't true for many people, maybe not even a majority.
[ 04. August 2005, 19:17: Message edited by: sewanee_angel ]
Posts: 598 | From: a van down by the river | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I just don't tend to see a fetus as a human being at all. I understand that there are Christians who see all sperm as somehow human (though seldom do they see eggs in that light...), which stretches through to zygotes and fetuses. I understand that such people genuinely feel that stem cell research is hideously Mengelean, for example. I just don't.
Actually, I think most people see it as a spectrum. It's undeniably human (what the heck else would it be???) but at which point does it acquire the rights of a born human being? I think the arguments there, you find on the Abortion thread in Dead Horses. At some point, around I would imagine viability, people are going to start thinking, "at this point, it's not abortion, it's infanticide". Legally, that point is around viability right now, which is probably a bit late.
But anyway, back to the topic at hand, I can see why thinking that a fetus at any point is not human until it has been born would cause tclune to feel the way he does.
But its humanity or not doesn't mean that the decision to abort for defects of any kind at all will not affect the human population. Of course it will.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But its humanity or not doesn't mean that the decision to abort for defects of any kind at all will not affect the human population. Of course it will.
Indeed, as will the birth of any baby (which is why I want pregnancy to be legal, safe, and rare ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But its humanity or not doesn't mean that the decision to abort for defects of any kind at all will not affect the human population. Of course it will.
And one of the ways it may affect the rest of us, I'm afraid, is that it can lead us to believe that those who have already been born with Down Syndrome or red hair or other inconvenient condition shouldn't have been allowed to be born.
I don't think many people are saying that out loud, yet.
But you do find, in the world of special education, people who think it's unfair that kids with special needs should get anything any different from anyone else. Even when it's not about money -- I know parents who have been told that it's wrong that their daughter be permitted to have a water bottle at her desk or to take extra breaks, even though she's taking medication that causes intense thirst. Other kids aren't allowed that. Why should she be?
When I was in college, there were people who thought it was absurd to put in curb cuts and ramps, because there weren't any students who used wheelchairs at the school. We had a deaf student who had been trained at an oral school, and some people thought she shouldn't be there. Her voice was too unpleasant, she was too difficult to work with (you had to face her when you talked to her), she was too difficult to understand. She should have gone to the deaf school, with other people like herself.
Does the availability of prenatal euthanasia reinforce this attitude? Make it more acceptable and more prevalent?
I think it does. But if tclune, or anyone else, disagrees, I'd like to hear their reasons.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Does the availability of prenatal euthanasia reinforce this attitude? Make it more acceptable and more prevalent?
i doubt it. these attitudes pre-existed long before the availability of legal abortion.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
