Eugenics-lite or just a consequence of choice?

I think that aborting fetuses with high potential for genetic disorders (not just limited to Down Syndrome) is the most logical, morally defensible choice.

I know a young couple who are 100% anti-abortion (due to religious beliefs) who were told their child would be born with severe birth defects. I can't remember the nature of its issues, but I do remember that the doctors encouraged them to abort because the baby had almost no chance of living 6 months and would suffer terribly in that time. What did they do? They had it anyway hoping that God would do some sort of miracle.

Baby was born. Was in intensive care and likely incredible pain. Died several weeks later. These idiots still "thank God" to this day for "blessing" them with this "miracle," even for the short time it was alive.

If you can even consider that "living."

I think that kind of decision - to have a baby knowing that it will suffer and/or have a miserable existence - is selfish and morally repugnant. Rather than terminating the pregnancy before the baby was able to suffer, they willfully brought a baby into the world to do nothing than suffer in pain and die a miserable death. All because they don't believe in abortion. It's disgusting.

Of course, that's just an extreme example. When it comes to other issues, such as Down Syndrome and I suppose autism could be included in this as well, I think it should be up to the parents and I wouldn't judge them negatively at all for electing to terminate the pregnancy.

Whenever these types of discussions/debates pop up, there's always the pearl-clutching camp who say how immoral it is and then trot out examples of people with Down Syndrome and Autism who are perfect joys to their families and the world.

But, the examples they cite are almost exclusively from the high ends of those spectrums. Even the parents of DS and ASD children who are proponents of not aborting these fetuses are usually parents of children on the high ends of the spectrums. These activists/advocates seem to totally ignore all of those children born on the mid to low ends of the spectrums, who are severely intellectually disabled, who require constant care, who will never be able to survive on their own, who will never be able to function in society at all, who will be at the center of extreme, brutal emotional and financial anguish for their families until the day they die.

1 out of every 10 babies born with DS die before they're a year old. Of the ones who survive, many of them have heart problems that end their lives before adulthood (half of them are dead before they're 30). Only 20% of people born with Down Syndrome in the US (who survive) are ever able to hold down a job. That's incredibly low, but it's one of the highest rates in the world.

I have a family member who has ASD and is around the mid-point of the spectrum and it has been incredibly tough on the family. She needs almost constant supervision and it's unlikely she'll ever be able to hold down a job. She has been and will likely continue to be an extreme emotional and financial burden on her family until the day they die. And then what? Who will take care of her then?

People who are shocked or appalled by the notion that a parent of a child with certain disorders or disabilities would ever wish they'd been able to abort that child, likely aren't people who spent 20 or 30 years dealing with a severely disabled child. They are people who have no experience dealing with the consequences of the severe parts of the spectrums.

What person would rather watch their child and family suffer for decades, rather than avoid all of that needless suffering?

Now that screening for DS is available, I think it's unethical for it not to be mandatory. We should endeavor to minimize suffering as much as we can, wherever and whenever we can. And, as much as I totally agree that the option to abort or keep should be legally available to all parents and that decision should be at the parents' discretion, I think it is immoral to knowingly, intentionally bring a child into the world that will suffer and cause suffering to the family as well. I'm saying that as a general point, not referring specifically or solely to DS.

And, of course, just because a fetus has a high probability of developing a disorder of some sort (no matter the disorder) doesn't guarantee that it will develop that disorder and doesn't guarantee that it will be one of the severe cases. But, how many people would want to take that risk with their child? I don't know. It's a messy, complex question that I don't have the answer to, and I doubt anyone else does either.

An 80% or 90% chance of developing something is still a 10% to 20% chance of not but, strictly (and somewhat coldly, I suppose) speaking, I think it might be best to avoid that chance altogether. But, every parent will have to grapple with that decision on their own.

For this type of topic, I can't help but think back to that family I mentioned earlier, and also families I've encountered who had DS/ASD children at the severe, low ends of the spectrums, and I think about the absolute, heartbreaking hell those families have had to go through. Whatever the case, willfully choosing to bring a baby into the world when you know it and your family will have a very shitty quality of life - just so you can have a baby and believe that "all life is precious" or whatever the reason - is a shitty, selfish, immoral thing to do.

I've read a few pieces from people who are against what Iceland is doing, but I have to admit, I have a hard time getting on board with the arguments proffered. I don't doubt that doctors telling women about the screening option leads to more abortions vs. if they just didn't say anything about it. But to me, it looks like anti-abortion activists are just being lazy. If they want women to keep babies w/ down syndrome and other similar ailments, make the case for that. Win the debate and change people's minds about it. Insisting that women not have access to information about their baby, just because a certain portion of them might end up having an abortion, seems deeply wrong to me.

 

Of COURSE this is a form of eugenics. Anyone saying otherwise is very good at deluding themselves.

I'm just going to post a video interview here of the great man, doctor, and scientist Jerome Lejeune who discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome and developed the method of prenatal testing for it and other genetic disorders. He's been called the father of modern genetics. He spent his life trying to find a cure and advocate for those afflicted with it. It was incredibly painful to him to know people could and did use the genetic work which he developed, to identify and abort those with Down Syndrome. The first 3 minutes of the video are the most important, and it is there he speaks of the cost to society of Down Syndrome, and the cost to society of aborting those with Down. I've transcribed some, but it's far better to watch the man who is at the center of this issue discuss it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_QjrZY4WP4

I'm not deluding myself. For numerous reasons, I prioritize a woman's right to choose over all other considerations. Period.

ETA:

If anti-abortion types want to walk the walk about being "humane", they could start by stepping up and insuring universal health care that would cover all the care costs, forever, of mother, child and family, plus any other extra  costs having such  a child entails. Also, they can all adopt such children that the family can not or does not wish to take care of. They'd still be forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want, but at least I'd believe it was about humanity.

Unfortunately, anti-abortion folks tend to be in favor of cutting all such assistance, and I don't see many lining up to adopt disabled babies.

I'm perfectly consistent. I simply disagree on priorities.

ETA:

And you don't address my points about the financial, emotional, and physical toll  (for the whole family) of carrying for such children.

And the financial and physical toll. They matter.

You cannot assume that all the people discovering their fetus has downs (or worse) are equally placed to care for such a child. Their resources, financial, emotional, and physical, may be stretched to the breaking point, where they could handle a normal child, but not one that has special needs that will have to be covered the rest of its life.

What if they are poor, have six kids already they are strapped to feed and educate, a marriage that is strained (or no marriage at all), no nearby family? What if they already have a special needs child? What if one of the parents is physically or mentally disabled, suffers from severe depression, etc., and the extra burden would just be too much?

...

That's taking choice out of the equation altogether -- that's assuming it's fine to force women to carry a baby to term and give birth. And frankly, though I understand all the arguments against abortion (and would have a very hard time having one myself, I must add -- my pro-choice position is actually not about me at all), I simply don't think it is.

Here's one of my fun hypotheticals. Let's say a magical procedure has been devised to save lives. Here's the catch. To save a particular person's life, an unwilling relative must be forced to gradually gain 30+ pounds over the course of 9 months, then either submit to serious surgery or go through an unknown number of hours of excruciating pain.

The unwilling relative will have to give up certain activities during the 9 months, and will suffer some lasting, perhaps permanent effects from the experience, ranging from relatively minor to major. (stretch marks, varicose veins, etc, are extremely common, and there are much worse possible effects). There is a small chance the unwilling relative and the patient will die, but it's pretty small.

Oh, by the way, the unwilling relative will have to pay any medical and other costs (loss of work, etc.) that relate to the 9 months and the final excruciating pain, not to mention that pertaining to any after-effects.

But doing that would save a life. Probably, anyway. Small chance it won't work out -- a chance that increases if your resources are strapped.

So here's the question -- would it be moral to force the unwilling relative to save that life at that cost?

My answer is no. It sucks that the person dies, but you cannot force that other person to go through all that for their sake. A lot of people might go through it voluntarily -- I certainly would have done so if it would have saved my father. But if they wouldn't, it simply wouldn't be right to ask them to pay that price. It is, I submit, the price a woman pays when she is forced to carry and deliver a child she does not want.

I think we're talking about two different things, Cassandra. You think I want to legislate against all abortions and force women or girls to carry all babies to term. But I'm not. I don't think that's realistic, and I'm honestly trying to be pragmatic. What I'm against is a society that promotes abortion for any and every reason, which the Roe v Wade decision does, and a society that promotes sexual freedom in all of its expressions, with personal pleasure at the forefront of decision making here rather than morality or consequences. And of course, in this particular discussion, a society (Iceland) that promotes abortion by pressuring pregnant women to 1) have the testing done, and 2) act on a positive result with an abortion.



www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

What I'm after is a society that places more value on every human life, disabled or not, and that places more value on the sex act so that it is taken with the seriousness and personal responsibility it should be. And a society that is clear in not only its respect for the most vulnerable among us (and that includes the unborn, the elderly, the ill, the disabled, the disenfranchised), but also the RESPONSIBILITY we have to care for the most vulnerable among us. This goes deeper than mere legislation to outlaw abortion (which will only force them to back alleys, anyway). The change must be at the root of the problem - how we view each other, how we view what an unborn child is at any stage of pregnancy, how we view the disabled, how we view our own responsibility in all of this.

Damn, I have to run out for a bit. Will be back.

One last thing -- I think, for your hypothetical to work better for me, you'd have to add in something about the unwilling relative being the CAUSE of the other person's predicament in the first place, by a choice they freely made knowing their relative could become sick from their decision. If they understood they were responsible to some degree, then I think we'd be in a different place with regards to more people voluntarily doing it rather than the need to force anyone.