I agree with this and would only add that I think any child is going to be a burden; at least with a child with Down's Syndrome you know what to expect. A "normal" kid still has the possibility of being a huge drain on their parent emotionally/financially/etc.
True, I don't think there's a child on the planet that isn't completely terrible. I don't know why "for the children" is always a reason to do things. It should be that if you think of children, you want to do things like cancel Christmas or make all candy illegal.
and i'd say that you have an awful perspective on the value and beauty of love and life, but both claims are completely unhelpful, senseless and invalidate one's argument. that's why i told you that your post makes me sad; i'm not saying that you have to live like me or think the things i think (why do people get so upset and defensive in arguments such as these? no one is promoting any type of universal homogeneous world-view); i'm only expressing my opinion (the right to which tepes so vehemently defended in his post for whatever reason) that an outlook that requires human exceptionalism or ability as a requisite for love or affection is incredibly depressing to me. that's all.
I'm a pretty big fan of love and life, but I just think fetuses (and infants YEAH I'M GOING PETER SINGER ON THIS ONE) are little blobs of flesh that aren't smart enough yet for me to be a fan of them. So aborting them for any reason is fine by me as long as it's what the parents want to do.
yet isn't it an essential part of human development? i guess i just have difficulty understanding how it's any different than killing a toddler, who also is not capable of living independently or thinking critically.
Why? All I've said so far is that I know I'm not going to be able to raise a child with DS - don't you agree that in this case, the best thing to do is not give birth to a being who isn't going to be loved as much as they should be? That goes for an unwanted child as well. If you think you're not suited to raise a child, don't have one. in b4 "if you don't want a child, don't have sex"
there you go. and no, i don't agree in that case; i think my other posts make it pretty clear. since wogbog brought up peter singer, i'd say that if it's a question as to whether a parent has the right to eliminate an innocent child or not (and singer makes it an already established point that it is an "innocent child"), well...they might legally, but ethically, i don't believe it's correct--especially under this circumstance.
Well, it isn't obvious that it's the best thing to do. You have to understand that what you said sounds absurd to someone who believes that a fetus has moral standing. From toothy's point of view abortion is probably very similar to infanticide, which I'm guessing you find morally reprehensible; there are a few ways to justify abortion even if a fetus has moral standing, but they are hard sells, and an unloved child isn't one of them.
Let's ressurect this thread Since discussions based in distinct moral values are fruitless, let's try another angle to rekindle this discussion. I will base my question on 2 assumption: 1. The cost of raising a DS child is significantly higher than that of raising a non-DS child, both economically and emotionally; 2. Child given up for adoption, especially child with DS, will on average have a poor quality of life. The situation: A couple is expecting a child, only to discover it has DS. The couple then comes to a decision that they cannot afford the costs to raise a DS child (again, costs both in economical and emotional terms). The decision was based on purely rational thinking: the "joy" derived from having that child would probably not be enough to compensate for the "grief" caused by the cost of child rearing. Given this situation, the couple decides to give up the child for adoption if they are unable to abort it. In this (rather unpleasant) case, what is the choice with the worst moral outcome? Deny abortion and you have a child whose prospects for quality of life look very poor. Allow abortion and you are effectively murdering a fetus. Which brings another question into the fore: is there a significant number of DS children who are given up for adoption? What is the prospect for quality of life that DS children have in orphanages? Is the use of taxpayer money to support orphan DS child justified, given that they could have aborted earlier and the money put to better use? As the previous text demonstrates, i am quite a cynic. Thus i don't think i will be able to contribute much to the discussion when my moral views can be briefly described as "inhumane". But i will try to respond to questions to the best of my ability.
This is why I'm so often disinterested in the argument over abortion. Unless there is some kind of plain definition on when a human being has the rights of a human being, it is completely moot. The "living independently" argument means little to me, as well...an infant cannot survive without their mother, so should they have human rights if a fetus does not? Not to mention, while a fetus need not be carried by a man, he/she is equally as much a "part of his body" as the female, given the fact that half of his/her origin is the father's. So basically...I have difficulty with arguments that attempt to rationalize a way to avoid a financially or emotionally costly child when the question of whether or not it is a human being remains unanswered. I'm being intentionally non-committal with my argument; being a believer in contraception, I don't really even KNOW at what point I'd say a fetus is a human being or not...but most of the arguments I've heard against it are normally pretty unsatisfactory...especially considering that, as far as i know, murders of pregnant women are double homicides (by all means, correct me if I'm wrong)...is it only a human being if the mother decides that she wants it? If so...how is that an ethically sound rationale at all?
There are several problems here. Disabled children usually get government assistance, so you can't assume that raising them will be tougher financially. Depending on the country you live in it can actually be way cheaper. I'd also point out that you shouldn't rush to assume the emotional cost would be higher either, since many parents of disabled children would claim that they wouldn't want their children to be any other way. Even those that say it's emotionally tough may say that the experience overall is very rewarding, or that the positives outweigh the negatives. But my point here is that emotional cost is too subjective a thing for people who have little or no experience with handicapped kids (most people here) to be considering and making judgments on. Quality of life can't be measured just by initial conditions (having DS, being given up for adoption). The environment at large is just as big a factor. DS kids born in the middle ages and locked up in basements would have been set for miserable lives, but in a society that understands them properly and provides for them they most likely live happier lives than the average Joe.
Since thread has been bumped, I will reiterate my views: 1. Either a fetus equals a post-birth human in terms of having rights, or it does not. That is the only issue that is truly at debate. It has nothing to do with women's rights or privacy rights, because nobody would argue that a women has the right to terminate a post-birth human or that privacy rights could allow such a thing. 2. If the fetus is equal to a post-birth human, then abortion must be regarded as murder. If the fetus is not equal to a post-birth human, then it is not murder. 3. If abortion is murder, it should be illegal in all circumstances, even the ultra right-wing view concerning rape and incest, since being victim of one crime cannot give a person the right to commit a crime against a 3rd party. If abortion is not murder, then the reason for having an abortion is not relevant, and having an abortion requires no explanation or justification on the woman as far as why she is having the abortion, since there is no crime or moral injustice being committed in having one.
An infant can't survive on their own, but can't they survive without their mother? I think that's a relevant difference. I might be totally wrong about it though. I tend to share your views, but I think that even were the fetus a person, there is still an argument for women's rights allowing an abortion. I'm thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment) . I think it's pretty convincing, in the case of rape especially. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong. However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: "right to life" and "right to what is needed to sustain life." The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thomson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort.
It's an interesting argument, I will have to think about it. However, it would be more accurate if they took out the "in bed for 9 months" part. Pregnant women are not bedridden (usually). In fact, many that were previously active remain active until the last month or so. There are pregnant women that ride bikes. It's interesting to note, as well, that this same argument would appear to suggest a mother can abandon her baby if she wants to (as long as she doesn't take an action to specifically kill the baby). She could just leave the baby in a crib, leave the house and never come back. Or a child of any age. I suspect that this is a conclusion that we don't want to reach, so let's see if there is a logical way to disprove it.
