The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

[El_Machinae]

Perhaps if you could fix the blindness, that is one decision. But that isn't really what we are talking about. If termination is the option then what we are doing, essentially, is looking at all those who are congenitally blind and saying - this world would be better if a different, sighted, person existed instead of you.

Thematically, this is the same as scenarios involving prophylactic usage amongst teen women and their partners. We're then looking at those born to teenage mothers and saying "this world would be better if a different, younger, person existed instead of you".

I don't agree with the reasonings. I don't think that discouraging teenage pregnancies is the same thing as disparaging those born to such unions. It IS close, in some ways, but it's not the same.

 

[CKS]

I don't believe that the soul is present from conception. Perhaps what we are saying is, this world would be better if you (your soul) were in a body that had sight. And, likewise, this world would be better if you had been born a few years later.

 

[Farm Boy]

Thematically, this is the same as scenarios involving prophylactic usage amongst teen women and their partners. We're then looking at those born to teenage mothers and saying "this world would be better if a different, younger, person existed instead of you".

I don't agree with the reasonings. I don't think that discouraging teenage pregnancies is the same thing as disparaging those born to such unions. It IS close, in some ways, but it's not the same.

You extrapolated one step too far with the example.

Encouraging prophylactic use in teen women is making a judgement call regarding age of parenthood, social structure, many other things, and you are right - there is no judgement being directly made about those born to such unions. It certainly can have that as an indirect impact, but that isn't the "why of the why" that that decision is made.

Encouraging termination of a blind or deaf fetus because it is blind or deaf is nothing but a disparagement of those born as such. Disparagement is a pretty underwhelming word too, considering the depth of "malice" in the action taken to achieve prevention.

I don't believe that the soul is present from conception. Perhaps what we are saying is, this world would be better if you (your soul) were in a body that had sight. And, likewise, this world would be better if you had been born a few years later.

I can see what you mean if you are operating under your premise of souls. My take on religion is a bit more bound to the biology of the matter. I find them inseparable.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm sorry, 'malice'? No, no malice. In fact, in the blindness example (unlike the teenage pregnancy) there's no disparagement. There's not even an implicit contempt for blindness, never mind explicit. Children born to young parents might find themselves snubbed for being what they are, in fact, 'bastard' is a explicit insult. There's almost no analogue to the blind.

 

[Farm Boy]

Bastard as an insult is pretty passe. Even if it's given value it is an insult at a situation, not the person. I mean, this isn't the 1200's.

If you actively terminate something because of a quality it innately has - blindness, deafness, ginger hair, gender, whatever - there only plausible reason you would have for doing so is because you observed somebody with that quality and whispered to yourself, "Never again. It would be better if this person never was."

 

[Traitorfish]

If you actively terminate something because of a quality it innately has - blindness, deafness, ginger hair, gender, whatever - there only plausible reason you would have for doing so is because you observed somebody with that quality and whispered to yourself, "Never again. It would be better if this person never was."

Is that bad?

 

[Farm Boy]

That would be my point, yes.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why is that bad?

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd been wondering where you were.

I suppose nothing innately wrong. I mean - talk about a potential bang up way to end blackness in America without ever actually having to kill anyone. Wewt.

 

[Cutlass]

I'd been wondering where you were.

I suppose nothing innately wrong. I mean - talk about a potential bang up way to end blackness in America without ever actually having to kill anyone. Wewt.

That only assumes that abortions would be compulsory.

 

[Traitorfish]

I suppose nothing innately wrong. I mean - talk about a potential bang up way to end blackness in America without ever actually having to kill anyone. Wewt.

It is wrong to refuse to employ somebody because they are black, therefore, it is always wrong to refuse to employ somebody?

 

[Farm Boy]

That only assumes that abortions would be compulsory.

True, it's an intentionally weak response. The whole point is what arbitrary characteristics from your own experience are you going to use to value the existence of another?

 

[Farm Boy]

It is wrong to refuse to employ somebody because they are black, therefore, it is always wrong to refuse to employ somebody?

You are making exactly my point? My apologies if you've read the whole exchange and I've not communicated it effectively. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[El_Machinae]

Bastard as an insult is pretty passe. Even if it's given value it is an insult at a situation, not the person. I mean, this isn't the 1200's.

If you actively terminate something because of a quality it innately has - blindness, deafness, ginger hair, gender, whatever - there only plausible reason you would have for doing so is because you observed somebody with that quality and whispered to yourself, "Never again. It would be better if this person never was."

I'm sorry, I just cannot unsee how this is the same as teenagers and prophylactics. Most people honestly believe that we should reduce the number of teenage pregnancies, and I'll disagree that (some) people don't look down their noses at bastards. It's honestly condescension.

But, to give into your point, I think that it's okay to try to reduce blindness and I think that blindness is a handicap that the majority of people did not consent to. Refusing to create blind people is not a sin (and intentionally doing the opposite - creating blind people - is not something I approve of), and this does not suggest any poor opinion of currently blind people

 

[bhsup]

Are you actually saying that if a couple found out their child was going to be blind, you would be opposed to them giving birth to that child?

 

[El_Machinae]

Depends what you mean by 'opposed', because I have my caveats about when (in fetal development) an abortion is morally acceptable and when it is questionable. I think intentionally creating a blind person is a choice that shouldn't be made lightly. It is not easy to make an analogy.

If I carried a gene that interacted with a gene that my wife carried, and this gene guaranteed blindness, would you be opposed to us giving birth? I mean, if this gene could not be overcome, you'd understand why we'd want to have a baby, even though it would be blind. You might not completely approve, but you'd fight whatever concerns you'd have, because you'd understand.

If the gene could be overcome, but we could not yet afford the treatment, then it would be a bit more of a concern if we chose to create children now anyway. Someone might still understand why we didn't chose to wait, but it would be harder to suppress those concerns.

My thesis is that selecting sperm is insignificantly different from selecting an early fetus. If you'd hesitate nursing a specific sperm to full personhood, similar reasoning would apply to an early fetus.

 

[Cutlass]

True, it's an intentionally weak response. The whole point is what arbitrary characteristics from your own experience are you going to use to value the existence of another?

Who says anyone will be making a choice for someone else rather than just for themselves?

 

[History_Buff]

Are you actually saying that if a couple found out their child was going to be blind, you would be opposed to them giving birth to that child?

I wouldn't be opposed to the child being born, but I wouldn't object if the parents decided to abort because of it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Who says anyone will be making a choice for someone else rather than just for themselves?

Well, that would be the rather delicate point of this whole rather polite disagreement, would it not? Parenting seems to be a choice that largely carries value to the parent insofar as it provides an opportunity to give to another. Given that, doesn't it seem rather counterproductive to qualify or attempt to custom-order what should rather be a prime example of unconditional love?

 

[Cutlass]

Well, that would be the rather delicate point of this whole rather polite disagreement, would it not? Parenting seems to be a choice that largely carries value to the parent insofar as it provides an opportunity to give to another. Given that, doesn't it seem rather counterproductive to qualify or attempt to custom-order what should rather be a prime example of unconditional love?

I don't think many people look at it from that perspective. And even if they do, not all would put aside all practical considerations. Some prospective parents are simply not going to be that selfless. While others will have enough self knowledge to know that they are not up to the challenge/potential heartbreak. This is not a one size fits all. And maybe they would love the child, but be unable to meet its needs. You cannot project your values and your strengths onto others, because often they will not have the same.