Searching for Perfection=more abortions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
That seems so judgemental to me.

Isn't it judgmental to determine what constitutes a quality of life worth living? If a cleft lip constitutes "not worth living" why should the decision to kill them end at birth?


I understand where you are going with the emotional level of the decision, but I think this would be the case in most abortions.
 
Again, is it me, or does anyone else thing we will have the technology to identify other "defects" in the womb?

Doesn't this worry anyone?
 
What do you mean by concern? Are you afraid what it will lead to? Because you have to understand that in medical research, things will be discovered that you may or may not like.

That technology could save your child, or it could lead someone to abort theirs. Are you willing to sacrifice the life of your child in the name of halting a technology which may lead to other, undesirable effects? Let's be fair and objective here - the same technology that allows for detection of cleft palate also allows for early detection of spina bifida and doctors have now developed in utero surgeries which have the potential to completely change these children's lives. So, do you say no to this on the chance that 1 in 10 or whatever may just choose not to have the baby at all?

It's an easy decision for me.
 
I am not against technological advances, however, I am not certain that this, like any other technology, is going to be used properly.

Maybe this is the way we become more like sparta? To me that is a bad thing.
 
To be honest with you, when you asked if it was a concern, to me it is a minor one, if at all.

Considering that we don't eat properly (North American diets are repulsive), we poison the atmosphere with oversized cars we don't need and then we even bitch about the oil prices and support regimes overseas so that we can keep our gas guzzlers going, we smoke and continue to produce tobacco, we continue to militarize the world while 2 billion don't have access to drinking water, we let people die of AIDS in Africa so that some old fart in the West can have Viagra, we live sedentary lives, we are contributing to global warming, our children are living through an epidemic of juvenile diabetes (thanks to the aforementioned diet), we have people blowing themselves up in discos and restaurants, people flying planes into buildings, cancer rates totally out of control, our bodies are not decomposing normally after death thanks to all the preservatives, we're annihilating dozens of species every day, cutting down forests, dumping crap into the oceans and rivers, waging wars, etc.

If we're talking about inappropriate uses of technology, in utero diagnostics are way, way down on the bottom of my list of things causing death and destruction in the world.
 
thank you...for entertaining my question.

Any chance they can identify bi-polar disorder in utero in 100 years? What about homosexuality?

How many parents would just asume NOT have a child grow up to be homosexual. There are people who have said on this board it is a genetic defect (NOT MY POSITION).

Just because this is a MAJOR priority now in your mind, does not mean that we will be in this situation later.

Again, thanks for your opinion.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


Let's use a hypothetical situation here: a couple finds out that their child will be born with such severe disabilities that it will live for only a few months or years, will have no quality of life and will suffer unimaginably throughout its entire life. In your opinion if they choose to have an abortion, then they shouldn't have got pregnant in the first place?

Yep. I don't believe humans have ANY right to decide when to end another human life, period. Sorry, absolutely nothing will convince me otherwise. Playing God is the greatest and worst form of judgement, I think.
 
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1260&storyid=1417801

Bond for Daniella Dawes


June 2, 2004

A SYDNEY woman who suffocated her autistic son has been given a five-year good behaviour bond.


NSW District Court judge Roy Ellis today sentenced Daniella Dawes, 39, to the good behaviour bond for the manslaughter of her 10-year-old son Jason at their Kings Langley home, in Sydney's west, on August 4 last year.

The crown had earlier accepted her plea of manslaughter on the grounds she had diminished responsibility for the killing due to a mental illness.


Judge Ellis said Dawes had already suffered enough and the circumstances of the case were so exceptional to warrant a non-custodial sentence.


"It is little wonder this offender was unable to cope on the morning of the 4th of August 2003," Judge Ellis told the court, which was sitting at Parramatta.

AAP


Sidetracking here, but I thought of this thread when I was listening to the news this afternoon.

:(
 
nbcrusader said:
Why is this case different if tests show an unborn child will be autistic, and it is aborted?

Either way, the result is the same.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
No a sidetrack at all. Why is this case different if tests show an unborn child will be autistic, and it is aborted?

In threads like this it becomes increasingly hard to not make generalisations. This case specifically is like every other in that there are extenuating circumstances. They're all the same in their differences. Can any of us imagine suffocating our own child? Can you imagine being at that point? I sincerely doubt we can. It is a long road between deciding to continue with the pregnancy and ending up at such a devasting moment. We can list the 1000 things this woman should have done. What could have been done. What if's. I dont know what to think about this case. I really dont. I'm not a fan of abortion, and never murder. But this woman. It broke her.
How can we prevent abortion and also prevent people from reaching this point? You only need to skim the surface to know the need is far greater than available resources.
 
But I also can't see somebody getting rid of a baby on the basis that in five years they MIGHT freak out and kill it. That's like, don't marry a guy who drinks, in 5 years he might get drunk and choke you to death, or don't drive to Las Vegas, you could have a wreck. You never know what's going to happen. The kids the lady drowned in the bathtub in Texas were perfectly healthy. I believe everything deserves a chance.
 
Last edited:
I think this example does show what someone must go through before they reach the point of making a decision like this
how desperate someone can be

the problem I have with threads like these is that at some point you start to think that someone wakes and makes a list like:
* 10am - hairdresser
* 1 pm - abortion
* 4 pm - grocery shopping
* 7ish - dinner

there must be a set of rules of what society thinks of as acceptable, because it's impossible to judge every individual case
but I think that it would help if we had some more insight in what drives people to get to this point
 
Salome said:
I think that it would help if we had some more insight in what drives people to get to this point

Right. Which is where I get stuck b/c I can't imagine anyone ever getting to that point.....
 
This is why (in response to Salome's post) I believe that pro-lifers need to come out of the conservative closet. I call myself "theoretically pro-life but pragmatically pro-choice," in that I believe abortion should be a safe and legal option for women but that we as a society must work against the factors that lead women to choose abortion. What are some of these?

POVERTY. I suspect this may well be the number-one reason why American women, at least, have abortions: they or their partner(s) or family(ies) cannot afford to raise a child. While this condition can be argued against in light of the programs available (AFDC, WIC and what have you), the fact is that many of these programs (WIC is an exception) basically require that one remains unemployed. Couple that with a lack of education, lack of child care, lack of family and community support, and a prevailing political and social milieu that is hostile toward the poor, unplanned child, and it's not shocking that women feel so overwhelmed by an unplanned pregnancy that they feel they have no choice to abort.

How to combat this? We must turn around the idea in society that the children of poor single women are somehow unwelcome or worth less than the planned children of the middle-class and wealthy. Those few brave voices willing to stand up for the dignity of these children by adopting them, educating them, supporting the education and well-being of their mothers, fathers, and family members, and otherwise helping to secure their future must become louder, and they must multiply. The motto of Planned Parenthood--"Every child a wanted child"--must extend to the children of the poor, the young, the unemployed, the immigrant, the illiterate, and the otherwise "undesirable." If we as a society could actually come to want these children, I suspect the mothers would become more amenable as well.

RAPE. While I do mostly accept the argument that only a small percentage of abortions occur because the mother became pregnant via rape, I also know that rapes are by far the most underreported violent crimes, and consequently abortions performed due to rape may also be underreported. Nevertheless, it is a population that must be addresses.

How do we combat this? We work against the culture of violence and domination. We teach children from an early age to empower themselves in healthy ways--after all, rape is not about sex but rather about power. This, perhaps more so even than the above, requires MASS sociological change that will take GENERATIONS to resolve. Just as prostitution may be the world's oldest profession, rape may be the world's oldest violent crime. In order to stop even this small percentage of abortions from happening, we must get serious about ending rape. If we can wage war against drugs and terrorism, why not rape too?

STIGMA. I suspect that a number of abortions occur simply because the woman is ashamed of being pregnant: her family might effectively disown her; she may be beginning college or a career; she may be embarrassed about her birth control failing. While these are perhaps less serious reasons to have an abortion (except perhaps the first condition, where women may indeed face abandonment or abuse), we must nevertheless look to work against these conditions is we are to get serious about ending abortion.

How do we combat this, too? We make workplaces and schools friendlier to mothers and young children. We make schedules flexible, health care more accessible and affordable (better yet, universal). We make child care high-quality, efficient, and truly child-friendly. Most importantly, we start to refute the idea that an unplanned pregnancy is BAD, BAD, BAD. We tell our young women that while pregnancy at a young age may not be the best idea, we also tell them that it is not the end of the world, and that ALL children should be welcome. I'm not saying ENCOURAGE teenage or young adult pregnancy, but my gosh, we need to stop rending our garments every time a young girl gets pregnant. Here, I think, so-called irresponsible cultures might have the right idea: where the child is welcomed into a large extended family and brought up not just by parents, but by aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, siblings, and family friends.

GENETIC DEFECTS, DISABILITIES, DISEASES DIAGNOSED IN UTERO. The point of this thread, yes. There's not an easy answer to this one. As some have pointed out, how could you tell the parents of a child who will be born in great pain, live a very brief life in great pain, and likely die in great pain that they should prolong their agony and that of their child? I don't think you can do that. Abortion might well be a more merciful solution for all involved. That said, of course most cases are not so extreme.

Again, I feel the remedy is slow, gradual, and must radiate from the heart of our society. We must provide greater support for parents of disabled children and realize that not everything is within our control. We must welcome even "less than perfect" children and work against messages that bringing these children into the world is irresponsible or selfish.

I feel that abortion cannot be a good thing for society in the long run and on a mass scale. But, if in some cases abortion is a sin, I feel that it rarely lies only with the mother who chooses it. It lies with the politician who cuts WIC, Head Start, school lunches, public education, prenatal and neonatal health care, and countless other programs. It lies with the uncaring boss who refuses to grant time off for the mother trying to care for her child or children with little support. It lies with the town gossip who grumbles about "illegitimates" or "bastards." It lies with the clergyperson who, even in 2004, refuses to baptize a baby born out of wedlock. It lies with the partner who refuses to practice reponsible birth control or support an unplanned child. It lies with the rapist and those who turn a blind eye to the problems of rape, sexism, and sexual violence in general. It lies with anyone who has had the opportunity to extend a hand of welcome to the unplanned child and his or her mother--and who has failed to do so.
 
Last edited:
While I think your post is an excellent one, I wonder if my thoughts have been somehow lost.

If parents, are indeed able to choose to abort a child because a cleft palate is a "defect" that may cause a lifelong hardship.....

Who is to say that ADHD and BiPolar disorder are not reasons to abort? People (PARENTS) in this country are applying for SOCIAL SECURITY benefits for 8 year old children in this country because they are considered to be suffering from a disability.

When the technology moves ahead of todays technology and more and more "defects" are able to be identified who is to say that these children will not be aborted.

How many of the world's great minds would not have been on the planet? We are treading down a scary raod in my mind when we have 8 year olds getting SS benefits because they are already being labeled disabled. Again we have had people in FYM imply and say that homosexuality is a defect. I fear that if we do not look at this issue now we are going to be no better than others who have searched for the perfect race.
 
All I can tell you, Dread, is that as someone who was diagnosed with an enzyme defect when I was 21, and now I've had to undergo really extensive tests to diagnose a rare genetic disorder affecting my immune system (the complement pathway to be specific), with 100% certainty, I would rather have known about this when I was a child or for my parents to have known before I was born than living with it for 25 years, being shuttled from one specialist to the next with no real answers and chronic symptoms that keep getting misdiagnosed. We also believe my father may have the same disorder (it is autosomal dominant) and he's lived for 55 years with uncontrollable immune system responses! You try it for a week, and you'd be quicky convinced of when you want to be diagnosed and 55 years after the fact would not be good enough, I presume. I believe that the VAST majority of diagnostic tests will be used to help people, and a small minority may lead to what you predict. For me, it is not even a question of what the right thing to do is. Not at all.
 
Im not aware of how the US Social Security system works for people with a disability. Over here, it usually means a modest income and/or discounted medications, discounted public transport and sometimes additional funds to pay for a carer. I dont see what is wrong with providing these types of benefits to people with bipolar disorder or any other disorder. ADHD included. If these people require medication then they should have access to it. Otherwise the Developed World would be no better than the Developing World where the poor and the il are disadvantaged.

History is littered with examples of persecuted people = the albinos, twins left to die as they are considered 'evil', red heads, gypsys, AIDS patients whatever, you name it. BUT, and this is what gives me hope, the world has usually resolved these cases in the end. Some times passively, some times violently eg WWII.

The original example outlined two Poms - hardly a global or even national majority. There are despot countries currently doing far worse things which I consider to be a much bigger threat to the planet than two people in England.

I honestly believe the world is getting smaller and tighter and if anything really went arse up then the rest of the planet would crack down pretty darn quick. eg the US military torture of Iraqis.

I dont believe your thoughts have been lost in the thread. My opinion, and its soley my opinion, is that you are the only one in this thread taking a bleak twist on the designer babies argument.

<beli ducks from everyone disagreeing with her :uhoh: >
 
I have not said I am against medical advances to help treat these things.

Do not misread what I am saying.
 
But you are essentially worried about advancements which would allow people to get a proper diagnosis at the right time. That is part of treatment, don't you agree? You can't really have it both ways, because for example, undiagnosed cases of the deficiency I am being typed for have a 50% mortality rate! So I'm sorry, but diagnosis through DNA sequencing is incredibly important, and it is part of treatment as the medical community sees it.
 
As for it being only two people....I wonder how many were claimed for other reasons. I am willing to bet that if it were just two, there are more that listed other reasons.

Maybe this is a topic for another thread....but I have yet to see any child that deserves a monthly check for having ADHD or Bipolar disorder. Sorry....after ten years of teaching, I see parents trying to make money off their kid.

But again, my point is....if they are willing to try and get money for their kid....I think people would consider abortion in order to not have to deal with an ADHD kid. Why not try again to get the kid without it?
 
anitram said:
But you are essentially worried about advancements which would allow people to get a proper diagnosis at the right time. That is part of treatment, don't you agree? You can't really have it both ways, because for example, undiagnosed cases of the deficiency I am being typed for have a 50% mortality rate! So I'm sorry, but diagnosis through DNA sequencing is incredibly important, and it is part of treatment as the medical community sees it.

I am essentially worried that children with "defects" or what someone feels is a defect will be aborted for a shot at a "perfect child".

I am not opposed to medical technology used to "treat" medical conditions.

Please bear with me, but are yousaying that you would rather have not been born? I am not saying this at all to be rude or hurtful, but if you are responding to what I am saying, that is part of my problem with the whole topic. I am worried that inutero advancements will provide people with a reason to abort, for a better geneticaly sound child.
 
Again, I think this comes down to how you view people - a mother wanting some kind a financial aid to pay for her childs medications OR a mother who has decided its a good way to make a fast buck.

I honestly cannot see the world from your point of view. I dont believe the vast majority of people are 'evil' as you seem to apply. You havent said that in so many words but thats how your words reach my ears.
 
beli said:
Again, I think this comes down to how you view people - a mother wanting some kind a financial aid to pay for her childs medications OR a mother who has decided its a good way to make a fast buck.

I honestly cannot see the world from your point of view. I dont believe the vast majority of people are 'evil' as you seem to apply. You havent said that in so many words but thats how your words reach my ears.

Yep, I see it as evil. :huh: And you have had interactions with how many of these people to come to the conclusion that I have come to in these situations. If you would like to characterize my position in this light from a message board be my guest. If you feel you know me from a message board enough to characterize me in this light, be my guest.

I am not sure if I should laugh or cry right now.

I am not about to go into how I have reached my conclusions....
 
Dreadsox said:
I am worried that inutero advancements will provide people with a reason to abort, for a better geneticaly sound child.

Dread, dont mean to play dirty here, but Im going to. Until you have carried a child in your own womb you wont understand how flippant your remarks seem. Yes, there are a minority of women who abort babies for absolutely no good reason. But the majority of women are actually emotionally attached to their child within.
 
I can appreciate you not liking my response, but nothign I have said has been flippant. You are talking about a father who missed NONE of his wifes appointments during two pregnancies, and spent more hours than I can count, listening to his wife's belly with a stethascope, and whom played games with the babies, and sang songs to them while in the womb. Unfortunately some people seem to think fathers are not attached as well.....probably because so many "fathers" are not taking responsibility for their children. Again a topic for another thread.

Nothing I have said in here is flippant. You may not like my position, but nothing is meant to be flippant.
 
Back
Top Bottom