Part 2: what if you found out their diagnosis 1 week after birth
What else does it bring if I keep the one-week-old baby alive but suffering to not only himself but all people around him: parents, grandparents, annoyed neighbours, teachers in special schools, eventually indifferent docters?
If it’s guaranteed Hitler will do what he will do, will you kill infant Hitler when you travel back in time? The example in part 2 is just a milder Hitler.
Part 1: Yeet
Part 2: Looks like I’m down with the sickness.
Every human has an innate right to access Healthcare and this involves prenatal care for expectant mother’s. Mother’s should have access to screenings for a variety of chromosomal issues some of which are literally incompatible with life and the baby will not live more than a few days if at all. Mothers should also have access to post-natal care. Children with disabilities deserve to have access to Healthcare and education.
It is the United States, the UK, France, “israel” and their NATO nazi allies that jave worked to systematically deny most human beings on earth from having access to basic levels of healthcare and education.
Additionally these fascist colonial entities have imposed destruction that causes more children to be born with significant disabilities. Look at what happened to children born in Iraq after the US invasion. What is happening to Children born in Gaza today. I am sure there are many such examples in history.
As fucked up as it sounds, if it’s early enough that there isn’t any chance of it being considered alive, I’d let the family decide whether or not to do it on their own because not every family is capable of that type of constant care and/or affording the bill to pay someone to help.
As for a week after birth, as fucked up as it sounds, if you truly cannot afford the constant care, then probably putting them up for adoption to a family that can afford the care is better, IMO, than not being able to afford to care for said child and having potentially seeing them die from lack of care you cannot afford.
Sometimes you need to make hard decisions to keep afloat financially.
I think it’s ethical to abort any baby. It’s parasitic on the host, if you don’t consent to the idea how is it any worse than getting a flu vaccine
If you don’t think you can provide a better life for your kid than state care could I see putting it up for adoption to be ethically mandatory
I remember discussing this in an undergrad biomedical ethics class. Pls don’t ask us to do ur homework lmao
Jury was still out by the end of class discussion btw. This one was complicated lol
I had business ethics so it was boring questions like “should we advertise to kids” or “do cigarette manufacturers have souls”. But ya this seems to be pretty divisive so far.
Yeah it really splits the crowd. There were three case studies from the course but I can’t find my offering’s outline and I forget the third case study. The first one was: “A woman signs a form saying that if she gets dementia she wants euthanasia in the late/developed stages of the illness. Later, she gets there, but this ‘version’ of her has a really high quality of life and is quite contented. Do you follow through?”
In between there were discussions of frameworks like Aristotelian/Kantian/utilitarian ethics. There were also some medical specific stuff, like the biopsychosocial model of disability. Pretty neat overall, though tbh I wish I took an ethics class more relevant to my current academic pursuits (math)
It’s not ethical to not abort the pregnancy in this case. There is nothing wrong with getting rid of the fetus, there is everything wrong with letting a person disabled to this stage from the start emerge.
About part 2: I think euthanasia is ethical in this case. Certainly more ethical than emotional blackmail with “unborn child”.
Doctor wouldn’t know how severe.
Down syndrome is regular DNA but one extra copy that interferes randomly with the building of the body.
Every kid is different.
The doctor told us the fetus might have issues based on growth. We didn’t care.
My son was born with down syndrome. The doctor we had said he may not talk much, may not move much, etc.
He will talk your ear off. He graduated highschool with a modified plan. Got the Phys Ed award in the regular grade 12 program. He reads, writes, excels at video editing and PowerPoint creation, excellent at figuring out technical stuff to a degree. Highly social and works partime.
His birth showed me that acedemics aren’t as important as enjoying life for what it is.
What you’re asking about is eugenics. People with downs syndrome can lead rewarding lives. Many people who work with those of us with downs say that they have the highest satisfaction with life of anyone out there. They do require a lot of costly and time consuming care in early life, but there is no reason a child born with downs can’t have a life they find fulfilling.
Given that, I would say if a mother’s only reason for aborting is the downs syndrome, that probably leans towards unethical. However if there are any other reasons a mother might choose to abort that fetus, it’s ethical. But terminating a pregnancy because the child has an “undesirable” trait is both eugenics and ableism which rarely result in ethical decision making.
Even under the umbrella of downs syndrome being the only reason, I think there’s variability. “I won’t be able to take care of this child” is quite different from “This child has an undesirable trait.”
Is it ethical to abort a child with any kind of disease/syndrome that requires more resources, time, and money than the parents can afford? If we had rephrased it as an adoption, it would be inarguable child abuse for a couple to adopt a special needs child they have no capability of raising.
I don’t disagree with you. Unwanted children do not have happy outcomes, especially those with disabilities. However if you are applying the logic of adoption to that of eugenics you should tread carefully. If society is allowed to impose restrictions on adoptions, why not biological parents? Perhaps pregnant women should have an income test? If a mother can’t afford to feed her child should she be allowed to retain custody or have the baby at all?
If a pregnant person decides they cannot afford it or aren’t up for the commitment that’s ethical. If a pregnant person decided to abort out of some pity for people with downs, well that’s eugenics and ableist, so probably unethical. Pragmatically though the result is the same.
Personally I interpreted the question as an individuals dilemma, I never intended for it to be a societal, or government sweeping legislation or expectation to abort any fetus with disabilities, just whether or not it was ethical for an individuals decision to abort. I dont think government or law should exist at all, so I wouldnt support any government restrictions on reproductive rights
sure, even after birth
zero ethical dilemma for me
let me flip the question:
if you KNEW the child you were going to conceive had the same chance of the same condition, would you still have sex?
if you’d skip it, then i see no issues with an abortion.
we don’t have foresight, but we do have hindsight. how we use it is important. nobody gets asked if they want to be alive. how dare anyone bring someone into a life of pain without their consent? part 2: if you don’t take responsibility for your own disasters, you are the disaster.
There are many factors to take this decision, but mainly in how long in the term is the fetus and the resources situation of the family (work, economic, external support, their health, etc).
In an ideal world though, induced abortion should not exist since it is the society who should completely support, and adaptively to the children’ special needs, but when society fails at that and, so far, #all societies are, it is the family and doctor the only ones who should only make the decision on a fetus. The only argument today should be when a fetus becomes a human.
We should treasure far more families that dedicate more than the usual percentage of resources to take care of their weakest of their members (children or parents) than basically anyone else in society like we do with youtubers, sport players, oligarchs, politicians, etc.
Your punchable.
You’re extremely punchable.
Removed by mod
I think it’s ethical to abort if your fetus is perfectly healthy.
It’s kinda besides the point. If a woman wants an abortion she should get an abortion. Downs syndrome or not, it doesn’t matter.
I don’t mean in a her body her choice kinda way, I mean is it more ethical to let them live their natural life knowing that they would possibly suffer immensely vs not letting them live a life at all
So you’re asking should all prior with special needs be terminated so they don’t suffer? Should all poor people?
Kinda slippery slope there tbh…
I think that anyone who isn’t ready to be a parent should have that option not to. Special needs or not. Forced birth and zero support after is terrible.
If it’s ethical to abort just because you don’t want the kid (and it is), then it’s ethical to abort for any reason.
Also, it’s no one’s business why people choose to abort.
it’s no one’s business why people choose to abort.
This. The only answer to “why” is “fuck off”, and for so many reasons. It’d suck to agonize over the decision, and once it’s made to then be second-guessed by some rando.
I mean more like “is a life of suffering worth living and would a parent want that for their kid” rather than the ethics of abortion
Preventing incurable pain and suffering to a conscious being is ethical. There is dignity in both life and death.
