NationStates Jolt Archive

The citizens of my country are hyper-educated on the facts & philosophies of the abortion topic. At grade school level, they can inform you that women seeking abortion through rape or incest is about 3% of the abortionists who simply do not want the child.

Abortions are taken before court officials to decide whether or not it can be allowed, because we believe the unborn child has that right. The Gaurdian Ad Litem speaks on behalf the fetus which cannot communicate for him/herself.

On count the majority of abortions made in my country, pronounced legal, were made in favor that the child and/or mother would not survive the birth.

Some argue that abortion should be considered if the fetus will be born with a birth-defect such as "retardation". Court hearings investigate these defects by an disallowing a parent's idea of "perfection". Simply because the baby will not be "perfect" does not make a good consideration for abortion.

How close to 'perfection' does the protection come though? Would abortion of child destined to suffer dreadfully from a congenital disease be allowed? It seems to me that if the child and it's parents are destined to suffer, then why bring it into the world? I am pro-choice, but here I believe that were I not, my view would be similar...

In some aspects they are right.

In cultures where there must be a male heir.....

How ever, I still don't like the idea of some old tosser deciding what's right or wrong on this issue.

Might be going ok at the moment but then you could end up with "God decided this for you and you must live with it" types.....

The basis of this method was never to simply place these decisions into the oldman viewpoints of some judge, but to allow the fetus to have representation (a voice if you will) of his/her own council.

The judicial over-seeing of what-is and is-not perfection, in accordance with the birth of a child, was remanded due to the oversight that a child born retarded should be aborted simply because he/she faces challenges.

There is a considerable difference between growing up with some physical or mental hurdles AND facing the possibility of an early death.

Our courts were needed to examine the idea that a parent might not want a child because they do not believe a retarded child is worth living... the belief in this is not true, as any parent of a retarded child can tell you.

I think it is unfair to give birth to a child who will be given an unfair disadvantage in life through mental retardation. It's just cruel to let them be born. They will always been dependant on someone. It's wonderful to be born with good brain fuctionality.

Our courts were needed to examine the idea that a parent might not want a child because they do not believe a retarded child is worth living... the belief in this is not true, as any parent of a retarded child can tell you.

Any parent of a retarded child has already let that child be born.

Ask all the parents that aborted their retarded child. See, you are limiting it to a control group that already agrees with you.

It's because of people viewing retardation as a disadvantage that these court rulings were so needed. There are several closeminded individuals who are to ignorant to understand that there are mentally handicapped people functioning throughout societies without anyone's assistance. This kind of ignorance leads people into the choice of abortion. If you think that a child who is retarded is disadvantaged, then you are clearly misinformed, and too stupid to make a decision on whether or not your own child should be allowed to live. Thank God we have a court system that places council in the defense of the unborn child, or idiots would be aborting babies simply because they'll be born dislexic.

I think it is unfair to give birth to a child who will be given an unfair disadvantage in life through mental retardation. It's just cruel to let them be born. They will always been dependant on someone. It's wonderful to be born with good brain fuctionality.

Wouldn't it be considered cruel to allow a child to be born into those conditions? Parents like to give their children as much help as they can, and that viewpoint could even be considered loving, couldn't it? Not wanting to have their child go through life always being dependant and unable to do things, maybe feeling unwanted all their life?

It's because of people viewing retardation as a disadvantage that these court rulings were so needed. There are several closeminded individuals who are to ignorant to understand that there are mentally handicapped people functioning throughout societies without anyone's assistance. This kind of ignorance leads people into the choice of abortion. If you think that a child who is retarded is disadvantaged, then you are clearly misinformed, and too stupid to make a decision on whether or not your own child should be allowed to live. Thank God we have a court system that places council in the defense of the unborn child, or idiots would be aborting babies simply because they'll be born dyslexic.

Isn't that a brain disorder and not retardation?

Medically speaking, deslexia is defined as a learning disability... the same as retardation.

Soooo...no, it's not the same?

It's because of people viewing retardation as a disadvantage that these court rulings were so needed. There are several closeminded individuals who are to ignorant to understand that there are mentally handicapped people functioning throughout societies without anyone's assistance. This kind of ignorance leads people into the choice of abortion. If you think that a child who is retarded is disadvantaged, then you are clearly misinformed, and too stupid to make a decision on whether or not your own child should be allowed to live. Thank God we have a court system that places council in the defense of the unborn child, or idiots would be aborting babies simply because they'll be born dislexic.

They can test for dislexia?

Most abortions for "retardation" are for downs syndrome and many of those don't function well in society. Sure they are cases but the majority. When people get news of a handicap they get the full detail as to what it means(speaking for the US that is). One to get an informed idea of what it means and two to make sure they can't be sued because they didn't warn the parents.

I do challenge your statement about simple handicap abortions. Care to post numbers?

If you think that a child who is retarded is disadvantaged, then you are clearly misinformed, and too stupid to make a decision on whether or not your own child should be allowed to live.
as the sister of a mentally disabled brother, i can tell you that the mentally retarded or disabled are most certainly at a disadvantage, and that saying so isn't an "uninformed" or mean view...it's simply the truth. somebody who has lost their legs is at a disadvantage compared to people who have fully functional legs, just as somebody who has lost significant brain function is at a disadvantage compared to those who are fully functioning.

now, whether or not their disadvantage is a reason they should die (or never be born in the first place) is certainly open to debate. i think my brother is one of the nicest people on the planet, and is probably going to spend his whole life helping other people because he is just that wonderful, so i don't think his mental disabilities render him worthless as a human. he is more likely to lead a happy life than most of the people i knew in college, quite frankly, and if he ever breaks a single law in his life i will be utterly shocked...he won't even jaywalk, for pete's sake. of course, he may never be able to live without assistence, and i would call that a serious disadvantage; he simply doesn't have many of the options that "normal" kids have, and he never will.

trying to claim that a handicap isn't a disadvantage is pure crap. it's clearly a disadvantage, and nobody with half a brain can wrap their mind around the idea that it isn't. however, overcoming disadvantages can make people stronger, more compassionate, or help them find other talents to compensate for their disadvantage. lying about the existence of the handicap, or trying to pretend that it's not a disadvantage, doesn't accomplish anything, and if you had ever spent time with a diabled person you might know that.

Medically speaking, deslexia is defined as a learning disability... the same as retardation.

No not really. Deslexics can get a "normal" education if it's spoted and they are taught how to deal with it.

Retardation limits the capacity to learn.

An intersting thing I heard is that deslexics are great in the Art areas.....

How close to 'perfection' does the protection come though? Would abortion of child destined to suffer dreadfully from a congenital disease be allowed? It seems to me that if the child and it's parents are destined to suffer, then why bring it into the world? I am pro-choice, but here I believe that were I not, my view would be similar...
what kind of congenital disease? baldness?

now if they were oging to be born with something that has never ceased to kill a child before their 11th birthday...

If you abort someone because they are not "perfect", at what point does it stop?

A painful disease that will leave a person debilitated for life?

A disease that will end in early death? and how early? 10 years? 15? 20? 30? 40? 50?

Full-Paralysis? Parapelegic? Missing limb?

Mental Retardation? What level of mental retardation? less than 85 IQ? 65? 50?

Down's syndrome? Diabetes? Increased Chance of stroke? Deaf? Blind? Mute?

Or how about someone going to born to a lower class? That's a disadvantage.

Or someone born to a minority? The racism they probably will undergo will be a disadvantage?

What about someone who will be disadvantaged due to a slightly below average intellegence, they'll be disadvantaged?

Or how about someone who will not be as physically fit? They won't be able to keep up with others? They may have an increased chance of dying early?


You can not say that someone should be killed because they might be disadvantaged. Once you open that door where does it stop? Who draws the arbitrary line between normal and disadvantaged? Different people will have different lines?

And who are we to decide that being killed is better than living in physical pain, or with a physical disadvantage?

i think that is exactly the question, Telelei

at what point is someone "better off dead"?

bottle's brother is at a disadvantage because he has a mental disability. does this mean it would be better if he had never been born? i expect that anyone who knows him would say "NO!"

what is the value of imperfect human life? and just who is so perfect that they would pass the test?

one of my good friends has a terrible progressive disease that will kill him some time between his 40th and 50th birthday. he is 32 now. does this mean his life has no value because it is severely limited? would it be better that he had never been born? i would say NO. i am a better person for having known him. his life is precious to me.

they have a treatment for his disease now. it is abortion. a pregnant woman has a test done and if her fetus is shown to have this disease she can abort it. i certainly wouldnt blame her for choosing abortion but i find the choice profoundly disturbing.

If you abort someone because they are not "perfect", at what point does it stop?

A painful disease that will leave a person debilitated for life?

A disease that will end in early death? and how early? 10 years? 15? 20? 30? 40? 50?

Full-Paralysis? Parapelegic? Missing limb?

Mental Retardation? What level of mental retardation? less than 85 IQ? 65? 50?

Down's syndrome? Diabetes? Increased Chance of stroke? Deaf? Blind? Mute?

Or how about someone going to born to a lower class? That's a disadvantage.

Or someone born to a minority? The racism they probably will undergo will be a disadvantage?

What about someone who will be disadvantaged due to a slightly below average intellegence, they'll be disadvantaged?

Or how about someone who will not be as physically fit? They won't be able to keep up with others? They may have an increased chance of dying early?


You can not say that someone should be killed because they might be disadvantaged. Once you open that door where does it stop? Who draws the arbitrary line between normal and disadvantaged? Different people will have different lines?

And who are we to decide that being killed is better than living in physical pain, or with a physical disadvantage?
*grabs a toboggan and dives down the slippery slope

Medically speaking, deslexia is defined as a learning disability... the same as retardation.
In the REAL WORLD (does anyone here want to talk policy and not philosophy?) our science does not yet permit us to identify someone who will be born dyslexic. It barely has the tools to screen for the most serious of birth defects and genetic abnormalities. To run these kinds of tests is extremely costly, prohibitively so. The only people with access to these tests are those who have enormous financial reserves, as these tests are not covered by insurance.

By the time the technology is advanced enough to figure out how to spot dyslexia in utero birth contraception technology will be better, too. I don't know of a single woman who had an abortion that wouldn't have opted to not get pregnant in the first place.

Something to consider for the "it's just a disease" types. Not picking on anybody in particular.

A friend told me this story about her brother.

Just an average working american who has a son. She says he is the ideal boy. The role model for what everybody wish they could have. As she says "I hate kids so for me to say that means something"

Brother decides for another. The second one is a severe downs syndrome case that requires 24/7 attention.

For the liberterians. They decided to be responsible for their actions and raise this kid themselves. I forget what the wife and brother do but it's some kind of blue coller thing and I think a service sector job; it's not enough to get a decent insurence package(lets not mention that many if not all insurence companies have a set limit to payouts and will drop coverage when it's hit. I know a guy who had that happen).

These people had "normal" lives; now exist only to monitor the kid. The first kid is now 180 degree reversal in personality as he has fallen by the wayside as his parents try to take care of his brother.

The father is just a hairs breath from being fired. The woman quit her job(my friend said she was going to get fired). I forgot to mention they lost their house.

So how is this living and how has their lives improved from this?

Any mother who would abort a fetus simply because she was afraid that it wouldn't live a full, happy, life; or it would extremely inconvenience her and her family must have no love for her child.

I'm not a woman, so it might be different for me, but if my significant other and I produced a child, and it would not survive past the first week of life, I would still encourage her to go through the pregnancy. I would love my child forever, even if I only knew it a short while.

I'm pro-choice, but I would be heartbroken if I got someone pregnant and they aborted the child, even if it was to live a life of disability.

I'm not a woman, so it might be different for me, but if my significant other and I produced a child, and it would not survive past the first week of life, I would still encourage her to go through the pregnancy. I would love my child forever, even if I only knew it a short while.

Out of curiosity, what if it was only going to live a few minutes and those minutes would be agonizing. What if, on top of that, simply attempting to give birth to it placed the mother in danger? Would you still encourage her to go through with it?

Any mother who would abort a fetus simply because she was afraid that it wouldn't live a full, happy, life; or it would extremely inconvenience her and her family must have no love for her child.

I'm not a woman, so it might be different for me, but if my significant other and I produced a child, and it would not survive past the first week of life, I would still encourage her to go through the pregnancy. I would love my child forever, even if I only knew it a short while.

I'm pro-choice, but I would be heartbroken if I got someone pregnant and they aborted the child, even if it was to live a life of disability.

It is not as easy as you think and it's very easy to think you will handle it a certain way until you are faced with it..

My wife had a sister born with a "rare" case of cystic fibrosis. I call it rare because they doc's after the autopsy said they had never seen such a case. Her body looked like it had been living with the disease for 20 years.

She lived two weeks. All of it in the hospital; under machinery and drugged most of the time. My mother in law once remarked that she belives the sister never recognized her.

That was about 30 or so years ago and they are still messed up over the event. I will throw in my father-in-law is one of those hard core no emotion cases where if it can't live then help it die.....

Everybody handles it different but don't delude yourself that it will be simple.

Finally, I read a paper by a Dutch CF Researcher who has the disease himself.

As he remarked(well not exact):

How is the quality of life improved by having another child with this disease? It did not improve my families life. It lessoned it. Another CF child does not help improve my life.

If a family makes the heart wrenching decesion of abortion, I am happy for the child. For it will not have to live the life I have.

Watching your child slowly die is the most hateful thing to do. If there was anything to challenge your Religous beliefs, this is it.

This is the dark side of science. Before, a child was born and you delt with whatever problems it had.

Now you have advanced warning; which is the cause of the philosophical debates......