Do You Think It's Alright To Have An Abortion If Your Child Is Diagnosed Ill In Utero

[Seil]

The question I want to ask that I couldn't really fit into the title box was "Do you think it's okay to have an abortion if your child is dignosed with an incurable condition while in utero?"

With medical technology, we can discover prblems with a new born before they're born, but I want to ask about down syndrome specifically. It's a disorder characterized by the presence of an extra twenty-first chromosome. There's a list of complications involved with down syndrome, like increased risk for heart disease, eye problems and epilepsy.

Some people have their own opinions on abortion of a child with the disorder.
While those with down syndrome speak out.
Some parents actually choose to have babies with disorders.

Originally Posted by http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6225871

A study of 78 parents of Down's syndrome children shows that, while most were in favour of abortion for a handicapped fetus, they were divided equally on whether euthanasia (no distinction made between active and passive euthanasia) was an acceptable practice. Only a third considered an average Down's syndrome child could be a suitable candidate for euthanasia. While parents argued that the degree of handicap of the child was the crucial factor in making this decision, in fact the social class of the parents themselves was the only variable which was statistically significantly related to their opinions. Differences arose from the parents' lack of agreement on what constituted a sufficiently severe handicap.

KIE: A 1981 study of parents of Down's syndrome children in South Wales surveyed parents' attitudes toward abortion and euthanasia for severe congenital handicaps. Of the 78 parents responding, 60 approved of abortion for a handicapped fetus. They were equally divided on whether euthanasia, active or passive, was acceptable but only a third approved of euthanasia for the average Down's syndrome infant. Although parents considered the degree of handicap the crucial factor in their decisions, researchers found social class to be the only statistically significant variable.

A deaf couple hopes to have a deaf child.
A deaf man speaks out against handicapped abortion.

Not many people look at medical technology going both ways. Yes we've discovered a way to diagnose illness before the child is born, but we've also taken strides to help the disabled:

Things like cochlear implants are available.
A cochlear implant is major surjery, though. It's not as easy as sign language.

What's your opinion on abortion if the child is kown to have a condition or disorder tat's "incuable?"

[The Sevenshot Kid]

I'll say the same thing about abortion that I always say. What a woman chooses to do with her own body is none of our concern and we should take measures to protect a woman's rights. Personally, I don't think that getting an abortion because a child has an illness is a good decision but I'm not a woman and I wouldn't have to deal with the problems that come with raising a sick child.

[Premmy]

It depends, and there's a lot to say concerning Ableism

Sighted:"Oh it must be soooo terrible being you, I couldnt LIVE if I was blind"
Blind Guy: "I'm going to start kicking your ass now, tell me what it looks like"

If I learned that the child would have a condition that would cause it to suffer for two weeks, get worse, then die? Yes I'd probably abort it. If I found out my child would be born with a mental or physical disability? probably not.

[Amake]

Am I going to tell someone to keep or not keep their baby? Probably not.

Would I keep a such disabled baby myself? Well right now I can't think of any reason not to that isn't selfish or fascist. But who knows what you might think when it's happening to you? I might pussy out. I really don't want to have to make that choice. But then, why not leave it to the kid when he or she is old enough?

[Insert horrible old Viking saying about leaving prisoners alive since it can be remedied later]

[Kim]

Depends on whether or not the person having the child wants an abortion. If it's a matter of deciding whether or not you want one, I think it would largely depend on your ability to raise a child with that condition.

[Aldurin]

Unless the child will be in constant physical pain (and mental pain resulting from it), there will be a medical way around it that does not involve killing babies.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Premonitions

It depends, and there's a lot to say concerning Ableism

Sighted:"Oh it must be soooo terrible being you, I couldnt LIVE if I was blind"
Blind Guy: "I'm going to start kicking your ass now, tell me what it looks like"

If I learned that the child would have a condition that would cause it to suffer for two weeks, get worse, then die? Yes I'd probably abort it. If I found out my child would be born with a mental or physical disability? probably not.

Both my wife and I find the idea of abortion reprehensible in general. Killing a living person usually for the sake of personal convenience: this is what most abortions are. I understand those who say, "I've the best interests of the child in mind" - you really want to help. Even so, who's to say that child would agree? Autistic children, those with Downs, they can live long, healthy lives, even do great and interesting things. Destitute families who "couldn't afford" their children have resulted incredible, world-changing people throughout history. "Incurable", "inevitable" death isn't always - my mother survived a cancer that was "unsurvivable". It's not easy, and I don't wish make light of people's decisions, but ultimately, when abortion is decided (one way or the other) a person is deciding to take someone else's life into their own hands without that other persons' opinion or consent. Would I like to go through life without feet? No. But I'd surly rather have my feet amputated and continue to live than die just so I could keep my two walking thingies. Similarly, sight, hearing, even taste: these are things I wouldn't want to give up, but I'd rather live, just because there might be something, somewhere out there that I find that makes my life worth living for.

This is why "incurable" diseases aren't something that sways me. I know I don't want to live life 'disabled', but I'd much rather live disabled than die. Life sucking right now? Well, I'm not going to kill myself because of it. I'm also not going to kill someone else because of it.

For me, one personal example, is that my twelve year old niece. She was "supposed" to die anyway shortly after being born: four months premature, infected with disease, her twin brother also dying, and my sister likely to die during the delivery. My sister refused an entire medical staff when they indicated that abortion was the only way to save her life. My sister is fully recovered (and went on to have a second set of beautiful, healthy twins), and now, my niece is healthy, having survived her "certain death" disease, has grown out of her "life-long" asthma, and is a math and music prodigy.

To clarify, while I know that this isn't a board for deep religious debates, I have to explain that much of both my wife's and my own opinions come from our deep faith in the Lord. We're Christians, very committed, and we believe strongly in principle of the sanctity of human life. Further, we have friends - people who are in our lives - who have had abortions. Christian or not, universally, with no preaching or prompting on either of our parts (we aren't into the whole "guilt you" thing with our friends), there is a very long-lasting regret.

One other thing about the tests: they aren't always right. My god-daughter was "known" - mind you the doctors claimed certainty - to have downs. She did not, and shows absolutely zero signs of the disease. She is, in fact, above average in every category at her school.

And, to dispel any question, all these doctors I've mentioned were from across the east coast of the USA. North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, the Bahamas, and several in California and (if I recall correctly) New York and Illinois - people from across our fair country performing tests and making claims of certainty. These tests have been done across the course of two decades, the most recent three years ago. Medical science, though very advanced, and something I am personally very thankful for, isn't perfect, and can be wrong. My life and family have proven that over and over again.

Oh, and I had no discernible heart beat for quite some time while I was in the womb. My mother was told I was probably dead and would likely need to be aborted. *checking my pulse* I seem to be doing okay.

What my wife and I have decided is to take whatever comes, and love that person, doing the best of our ability to create a good life for as long as they (or we) have it. It might not be easy, but "easy" rarely comes packaged with "life".

EDIT:

Originally Posted by NonCon

Depends on whether or not the person having the child wants an abortion. If it's a matter of deciding whether or not you want one, I think it would largely depend on your ability to raise a child with that condition.

That brings up another reason often given for abortions - the inability to raise the child. Adoption agencies do exist. While adoption isn't easy, infants are often adopted rapidly. And simply not wanting to give up your child to someone else is pure selfishness. On a final note, "inability" normally is little more than "unwillingness". We're spoiled here in the States. If we can't give clean running water, three squares, and a warm bed, we presume that we have nothing. Try telling that to those who lived in abject poverty in Lithuania. I lived there for several years after the Soviet Union fell. When we first arrived, people were thrilled when they had "meat" (a piece roughly equivalent to the length of a cut nail, and half as wide) in the entire pot of "chicken noodle soup". In restaurants too. Usually a single-family apartment had three or four living in it. The water had to be boiled in five iterations to separate out the junk that was in it (pouring off the top each time), and hot water was only turned on when the Pope was in town or when it had been below -5 degrees for five days in a row (specifically, this was so the pipes didn't burst). I learned really quickly that life did not revolve around what we normally consider 'necessities' here in the States. This is not easy living. And this was some far sight better than tribal villages I've visited in the Philippines who live without medical assistance or electricity or running water at all, yet somehow still manage to have babies who grow up to have fulfilling lives. Again, I'm not making light of how difficult such a life is. It's hard. I know this. But there are many options here in the States to help with that. There are people who are willing to raise children with disabilities. I know a couple in North Carolina who sought out a retarded child because she was retarded, and raised her, so that she'd have someone to take care of her.

[Premmy]

That's a very interesting post that has very little to do with mine that you chose to quote.
My post said:
Baby-twenty-four hour head-explodey disease? abort
Anything else?keep
edit: actualy I guess it does kinda have something to do with my post, it's just lost in all the other stuff. Carry on.

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by Invisible Queen

Would I keep a such disabled baby myself? Well right now I can't think of any reason not to that isn't selfish or fascist.

Fascism only applies to nations and has nothing to do to with abortion.

Personally, if my S.O. had asked me for my input, I would say abort it if it's something that's going to be more than something moderate.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by tacticslion

Killing a living person usually for the sake of personal convenience: this is what most abortions are.

Originally Posted by tacticslion

On a final note, "inability" normally is little more than "unwillingness".