Extremely high? What percentage do you imagine when you hear the rate is "extremely high"? I pictured something like 90%, but according to this article, it's something like 50%. I'd like to see a breakdown in the percentages, with separate numbers for the women who generally think abortion is morally wrong and women who think early abortion is merely ridding the body of an unwanted growth. It might be that these 2 groups are about equal in size, and the women in Group 1 have a 1% incidence of abortion when the unborn is known to have Down syndrome, and Group 2 has 99%. Together, the result is 50%.
But I don't think women divide neatly into 2 groups. It's more of a spectrum, and there are also women who haven't thought about the question in any depth. I can also imagine how a woman in Group 1 might arrive at the decision to have an abortion, and how a woman in Group 2 might decide not to. (In the first case, a woman facing a known challenge might abandon principles she'd previously embraced in the abstract. In the second case, a woman might think that destroying the unborn because of something about that individual is murderous in a way that is not like the generic rejection of a pregnancy happening at an inconvenient time.)
Back to the linked article:
[S]ome parents of children with Down syndrome are celebrating the news that North Dakota has become the first state to outlaw abortion for fetal conditions like Down syndrome. One parent wrote that “it felt like a small victory seeing that abortions based on Down syndrome were banned — like saying, see, individuals with Down syndrome are valued and protected."...Piepmeier — who has interviewed women who chose to abort in this situation — opposes this kind of law. Unsurprisingly, these women described an "incredibly painful decision," focusing on the difficulties the child would face.
Noting that the North Dakota law won't stop abortions — these women will simply travel out of state — Piepmeier says if North Dakota really cared about the fate of children with Down syndrome, it would take the money that it will now need to be spent in litigation defending the law and spend it on making the state a more "welcoming place for people with disabilities."
পোস্টগুলি
২৭৭টি মন্তব্য:
277 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»I wonder how many of the people who are against this law will be against a similar law in the future when/if prenatal testing for homosexuality is available.
a more "welcoming place for people with disabilities."
Well, if we would just encourage global warming, it would be a much more welcoming place.
I am surprised it is only 50%.
Let me tell you what happens when you make a place more welcoming for people with disabilities. People with disabilities move there, and then the services that you may be mandated to provide by law have to be provided to a whole bunch of new people. And that costs money.
It's called the marketplace.
And I'm also surprised it's "only" 50%. Extremely high connotes well over 90% to me.
It might be that these 2 groups are about equal in size, and the women in Group 1 have a 1% incidence of abortion when the unborn is known to have Down syndrome, and Group 2 has 99%.
You seem to be implying that this should make Alison Piepmeier less troubled. Why would that be?
@Michael,
I am surprised it is only 50%
You & me both. Growing up in northern Alabama in the 60s to 70's there was no shortage of families with a Down's Syndrome child or young adult.
Where I live now in the DC suburbs, there is exactly ONE Down's Syndrome adult in the neighborhood I see with any regularity.
I can see the case for Group 1, but I wouldn't expect that many to really exist in Group 2. I suppose Group 2, if it included those who believed in abortion as OK for a timing issue in the abstract, but then change their minds when they actually have a fetus inside of them, would actually exist.
Not sure if my point was clear, but I can't see a actual pregnant woman plannning an abortion, but then changing her mind just because the baby has Down's.
Troubling or not, the 50% is not a surprise for the reasons you state. Since I think there would be more Group 1 than Group 2, then I would actually expect something slightly higher than 50%.
1. Money will only be spent to defend the law because people opposed to abortion restrictions will sue. Should they choose not to sue no money will need to be spent to defend the law.
2. The decision is "painful" because the mother knows she's doing something wrong, eliminating another human being's life because you (the mother) don't want to deal with the additional challenges of having a disabled child. That's why it's painful for her.
3. People with Down Syndrome are amongst the happiest, most wonderful people anyone will ever meet. The "difficulties" they face are mostly borne by their care-givers. See point #2 above.
4. Abortion supporters cannot allow any "exceptions" to the absolute right to kill a baby for any reason because that opens the door to people examining and why and how often all abortions occur.
5. This is why the Roman Catholic Church is so opposed and hated by the Left. Because of the absolute insistence on regarding all human life as intrinsically valuable and loved, regardless of disability or circumstances. It inconveniences the hell out of the "me-first, last, and always" tenor of the modern culture.
Women who generally think abortion is morally wrong don't even test for Downs Syndrome.
I really don't like abortion, and argue against it most of the time, but if I knew in the first trimester, I'd vote for termination, the earlier the better. Second trimester would require that it be certain and pretty severe. Even third trimester if the child was gong to be helpless and suffering it's whole life. All this is without it actually being my child, which might change everything. I too am surprised it's only 50%.
Women should never be required to make "incredibly difficult" decisions.
Every should be easy for them. Especially killing their kids.
Abortion when pregnancy represents a risk to a mother's health is unquestionably reasonable, but the term 'risk' has a range of interpretations. Abortion in the case of rape seems unequivocal since allowing these pregnancies to go to term would essentially incentivise rape. Abortion to relieve the pain and suffering that genetic mutations will cause also seems unquestionably reasonable, but again there is a spectrum of pain and suffering.
There are so many grey areas here that government should butt out completely. The decision to bring a pregnancy to term ultimately has to be the mother's. It's her body and her life resources that will be invested in the child.
Incidentally, North Dakota is making itself a "more welcoming place for people with disabilities." The legislature is saying that North Dakotans won't kill you before you draw your first breath if you are a person with a potential disability.
What they are doing is by definition welcoming to people with disabilities.
And non-welcoming to people who would kill them out of personal convenience.
I don't get it. If a fetus has Down's Syndrome, you can't abort ... but if it DOESN'T have Down's Syndrome, you *CAN*?
So an extra chromosome is a "YOU CAN'T ABORT ME" card now?
Steve said...
Women who generally think abortion is morally wrong don't even test for Downs Syndrome.
This is not universally true. I know of at least one women who is personally opposed to abortion who had genetic testing so that she and her doctor could prepare for any potential difficulties with the pregnancy due to genetic problems.
Here we are dealing with the intended and unintended consequences of abortion, feminism, excess government interference in our lives, and a hundred other problems that happen when we muck around with social engineering and yet we think we need to add SSM to the stew.
We really are stupid as a society.
Areasonableman,
You are correct not universally true but generally true.
... and yet we think we need to add SSM to the stew.
Althouse is apparently unable to make this connection.
I'm not surprised at 50%. As in most things half of us will think oppositely than the other half. I think it simply reflects our societal philosophical divisions.
Downs Syndrome children are sweet, loving, but I'm sure there are some older parents who worry tremendously about the time that the adult child will no longer have a living
parent to care for them.
And yeah, the money spent in litigation could've been spent helping these families instead.
Abortion in the case of rape seems unequivocal since allowing these pregnancies to go to term would essentially incentivise rape.
How so? Are you implying rapists would be encouraged to commit more rapes because their offspring would not be subject to abortion?
The Peace Garden State can become the Big Hug State.
Pianoman - exact same thought. That also occurred to me during the sex-selection anti-abortion threads. So you don't want a boy? Don't voice it, no problem?
Might be too much to ask in this share everything world.
Eugenics.
Our son (now 27) was born with congenital birth defects (not Down's), and we knew that he had agenesis of the corpus callosum before he was born. We never considered abortion, but my wife gets very angry when someone tries to press their opinion on families in this situation.
Pianoman: I don't get it. If a fetus has Down's Syndrome, you can't abort ... but if it DOESN'T have Down's Syndrome, you *CAN*?
So an extra chromosome is a "YOU CAN'T ABORT ME" card now?
No, of course not - you can abort a Down's Syndrome for the same reasons you can abort a non-Down's Syndrome baby. It's just that the Down's Syndrome can't be the reason.
Which, of course, leaves one to wonder how they would determine the actual reason for the abortion...
I also wanted to say I think most pregnant women are tested for the Downs marker.
Noting that the North Dakota law won't stop abortions — these women will simply travel out of state — Piepmeier says if North Dakota really cared about the fate of children with Down syndrome, it would take the money that it will now need to be spent in litigation defending the law and spend it on making the state a more "welcoming place for people with disabilities."
No fair spending the same money twice.
I thought she was going to suggest taking the money that North Dakota will now need to be spent in litigation defending the law out of the highway budget for roads heading out of state.
My wife and I chose not to genetically test because we were told at the time that the test itself had a non-negligible chance (perhaps 1%) of terminating the pregnancy. It's possible newer, more safe methods have become available since.
What about if a genetic marker is found for homosexuality?
I suspect that a vast majority of parents would choose to abort. After all, the real interest of parents, just like all animals, is to maximize the chances that their genetic line will endure.
What is called "homophobia" is, in most instances the preference of parents for children who will give them grandchildren.
Is it OK to abort for homosexuality?
Christians are simply fascists from the other side. They use the power of the state to control people.
@Pianoman: I don't get it. If a fetus has Down's Syndrome, you can't abort ... but if it DOESN'T have Down's Syndrome, you *CAN*?
So an extra chromosome is a "YOU CAN'T ABORT ME" card now?
@SeanF: No, of course not - you can abort a Down's Syndrome for the same reasons you can abort a non-Down's Syndrome baby. It's just that the Down's Syndrome can't be the reason.
Seriously?
"Oh, it's got an extra chromosome? Oh. Well, I changed my mind, I don't want this fetus any more. The reason? Ummmm .... well, it's certainly NOT because it's Down's Syndrome. The reason is because I changed my mind about having a child. Yep, that's the reason all right. Besides ... get your hands off my uterus, you control freaks! I have a right to abort!"
The abortion advocates understand how this law is intended to expose the eugenics underpinnings of abortion. The ND legislature is trying to create a wedge in the general public.
If people in general come to see abortion for genetic reasons as suspect and selfish, the light starts to come on for abortion for other reasons, as well.
Abortion and birth control have always been about sacrificing the future for the sake of the present, and specifically about controlling how many "undesirables" make it into the future.
The more normal, non-political people think about this reality the less well it will go for abortion advocates.
Click through to the actual article. The actual number is clear as mud. The 50% number is just the author's best guess as to terminations among all down's pregnancies regardless of whether the Mother was informed or not. Saying one born one terminated works out to fifty percent but is hardly an actual measurement.
The actual measurements of terminations against diagnoses are all over the map with the lowest being just north of 60%, with the average of averages being somewhere between 70 & 80%.
I'm wondering, in North Dakota you can't abort for Downs Syndrome, even before the heartbeat, which is detectable in the 5th or 6th week? Downs testing by ultrasound and blood test doesn't happen until the 16th week.
Why did they single out Downs Syndrome? Is it still legal North Dakota to abort a baby with other genetic issues? Or is it illegal to abort any baby at any time afte a heartbeat is detected?
It would be interesting to read that law.
My long-headed view says at some point down the road, the cumulative effect of abortions on demand will be that pregnancies will be rare.
Or do we know for sure that kind of radical "procedure" will go biologically unnoticed and adaptations/anomalies will not occur?
I mean, if global warming is predicated on such a premise, that there are consequences to how we choose to live, it begs the question...doesn't it?
Are we sure that what women are doing to their bodies is only their business and not anybody else?
I guess this is not really focusing on this tread (Down-syndrome abortions) alone... but as I said... its a long-headed point.
My wife and I had a baby/fetus with some strange chromosomal disorder. The baby had only 3 heart chambers, and was hopelessly deformed. The doctors said it could not have lived a couple of minutes outside the womb.
My wife's decision, with which I completely concur, is to abort.
I completely support that, and had it been up to me, I would have made the same decision without hesitation. I can't imagine the emotional distress of having a baby that's highly deformed, only to watch it die. Better to get it less developed.
Are there people who believe that baby should have been brought to term?
Yes Dante, many people, I'm shocked you would even have to ask.
As I've said to you at a different time, I don't blame your wife for her decision.
Are there people who believe that baby should have been brought to term?
I can't make that decision for you.
My sister gave birth to a boy with spina bifida. Her husband is a doctor and she's an RN, so they knew something was seriously wrong before he was born.
Doctors told my sister that he would be lucky to survive to the age of 5 or 6.
He lived until he was 32, surrounded by a family dedicated to caring for him and including him in every aspect of family life.
Better to get it less developed.
It is also safer for the mother to abort early vs. to give birth.
Would this have been allowed in North Dakota under the law just passed? I don't think so. Maybe they should have stipulated 'normal heartbeat'
In Canada we have unfettered abortion. My children are in their mid to late twenties, and they have NO peers with Down's Syndrome. The next generation, I see zero Down's individuals. I was told by single 40 something women who were trying for their first child or carrying their first child, that if the test comes up positive for Down's, they are aborting the baby, so that they still have some time to try again. I cant make a comment to that as |I would violate the decorum of the website. But dont worry, I told her exactly what I thought, she was not impressed.
Yes Dante, many people, I'm shocked you would even have to ask.
You're shocked by some pretty silly stuff, Inga, but that's because you worship a false God.
There, I said it.
When considering if 50% is high, you have to know what to measure this against. For instance, what is the abortion rate for mothers who have this test performed and it comes back negative?
My estimate would be a rate very close to zero. Women who become pregnant at an inconvenient time just get an abortion as soon as possible after they find out they are pregnant. The kind of people who have ammnio are trying to have kids. They aren't going to abort if the kid is healthy!
So, I'll ask again.
Say there's a gay gene.
Humans, like all animals, reproduce in the hope that their genetic line will survive for generations.
Homophobia is, in fact, most often the preference of humans for children who will give them grandchildren.
So, is it OK to abort when and if the gay gene is discovered?
Sarah Palin nods.
So killing half of the children isn't extremely high. Huh.
If 1 out of 2 gays on your street were killed by their parents would that be extremely high to you?
Liberals are so mentally odd. Killing kids is good to them. Killing kids because they are girls/gays/whatever-the-liberal-favored is bad to them.
Odd.
Because of improved health care/social responsibility the load of deleterious but non-fatal mutations in the human population is steadily increasing. Without abortion or embryo selection to limit this growth the human population will become increasingly less healthy. Is this a desirable outcome?
Not that long ago Nature brutally weeded out the weakest before they got to breed. Was this a morally superior solution?
"Are there people who believe that baby should have been brought to term?"
------------------
"I can't make that decision for you."
4/2/13, 11:46 AM
North Dakota can now make that decision for you.
Shouting Thomas said...
Say there's a gay gene.
There isn't a gay gene.
North Dakota can now make that decision for you.
I'm not the government of a state.
There is a difference, right? I'm not sure you can grasp that.
Remember that kid Corky on the show who's name I can't remember. He had Downs Syndrome and He was lovable as hell. Who would want to abort Corky?
ST, Inga's already said she would exempt gay fetuses from abortion. the question is whether she would allow abortion on a gay down's fetus.
There isn't a gay gene.
Let's pretend for a moment that there is one.
They say they were "born that way."
"Abortion in the case of rape seems unequivocal since allowing these pregnancies to go to term would essentially incentivise rape."
Apparently, A"Reasonable"Man believes rapists are motivated by some evolutionary compulsion to spread their genes. A dubious thesis, in my opinion.
The concern is not principally about "people with disabilities". The concern is about respecting individual dignity and preventing a general devaluation of human life.
The responsibility of society begins with promoting the general Welfare. The responsibility of the mother and father is to raise their child.
With any compromise, the concern is that it will sponsor progressive corruption.
My wife and I are trying to have children.
I'm 44, she's 41.
She only wants one.
She's from China, with all their societal attitudes toward pinning all hopes on one child to pass on the line.
If she gets pregnant and the baby has significant birth defects, I don't know how she's react. I have been weakly pro-life, but if she wants to abort, I don't think I can force her to not.
"You're shocked by some pretty silly stuff, Inga, but that's because you worship a false God.
There, I said it."
4/2/13, 11:47 AM
You say all sorts of stupid shit ST, what else is new?
Based on the article, the author is interested in terminations of wanted pregnancies. Within that population, one would suspect that abortion results almost entirely from: 1) actual or predicted health problems of the fetus; and 2) actial or predicted health problems of the expectant mother.
For unwanted pregnancies where the woman initially decides to have an abortion, there may be no reason to test for Down syndrome, and hence no data, but the termination rate should be close to 100%. For unwanted pregnancies where the woman initially decides to go ahead with the pregnancy, a positive test for Down syndrome might result in a considerably higher termination rate than for the "wanted preganncy" population.
The aeticle doesn't seem to support the idea that some women may plan on abortion, and then decide against it solely because of a positive Down syndrome test result.
(By the way, what's the rate of false positives?)
Why exempt gay fetuses from abortion?
I could make the same liberal argument as for Down's syndrome.
Liberals constantly tells us that gays must live under horrible oppression and that they are beaten down and insulted just like blacks under Jim Crow.
Wouldn't aborting the gay fetus be an act of mercy that saved the parent from the heartbreak of facing the end of his genetic line, and saved the poor fetus from the life of misery that gays must endure?
Whenever man tries to put himself in God's place, only bad things happen. The internal agony people suffer when they try to make decisions with themselves in the place of God is inevitable.
It is rebellious arrogance of the highest order and the alienation that results is it's own punishment.
@ST: "So, is it OK to abort when and if the gay gene is discovered?"
Kind of a funny story -- I have a FaceBook friend who is a rabid foaming at the mouth Leftist. She has suddenly, out of nowhere, become pro-life ... and THIS is the reason. She's convinced that the "gay gene" discovery is imminent, that doctors will be able to devise a pre-nup test for it, and that parents will choose to abort for that reason alone.
I'm sure this caused her brain to start smoking ... and after the fire had settled down, she emerged as a pro-life advocate.
It's amazing what a little cognitive dissonance will do to a person.
Personally, I don't believe there is a "gay gene", so the question is moot. The Human Genome Project has been cranking away at this problem since 1990, and they haven't found it ... and I don't think they're going to either.
Nathan Alexander said...
If she gets pregnant and the baby has significant birth defects, I don't know how she's react. I have been weakly pro-life, but if she wants to abort, I don't think I can force her to not.
Which is reasonable.
"North Dakota can now make that decision for you."
---------------------
"I'm not the government of a state.
There is a difference, right? I'm not sure you can grasp that."
4/2/13, 11:52 AM
ST, but you are OK with North Dakota's heartbeat law?
Steve:
Exactly. Decent women, and men, implicitly acknowledge any and all risks associated with procreation, including an extended period of inconvenience which may harm their material, physical, and egoistic standing. They do not question the value of life or their responsibility to care for a developing human life.
Corky is probably lucky that he doesn't understand that well the implications of abortion. Because if he did he's essentially being told he should have been killed at birth and he's worthless.
Considering their defects, there are a lot of "retarded" people who do more with their lives than people who aren't handicapped. think of all the losers who don't have disabilities who are heroin addicts or who go nowhere.
Think of Christy Brown (My Left Foot). He was smarter than most of the people who said he should have been aborted, more talented, and had more drive than they ever could (that comes with having to prove that you shouldn't have been killed at birth because you are worthless as a human).
ST asks: Is it OK to abort for homosexuality?
Provocative question, ST, to which I think the answer is emphatically No. On the other hand, a noted SSM advocate reasoned that Downs Syndrome is grounds for seclusion and arguably negation of political aspiration for the parents:
What Palin has done is use her children, having failed to actually rear them. She is still doing it on her reality show. That she has gone so far as to use and thereby abuse a child with Down Syndrome whose interests are clearly in seclusion, careful nurturing and care, and constant parental attention, tells you a huge amount. link
ST, but you are OK with North Dakota's heartbeat law?
Don't know the specifics.
But, clearly, the era of the free for all abortion era must come to an end.
When you reach the point where abortion slaughter houses are killing living, already delivered babies by the thousands by severing their spinal chords with a scissors, something is definitely wrong.
Because of improved health care/social responsibility the load of deleterious but non-fatal mutations in the human population is steadily increasing. Without abortion or embryo selection to limit this growth the human population will become increasingly less healthy. Is this a desirable outcome?
Not if you are looking to create a master race.
He had Downs Syndrome and He was lovable as hell. Who would want to abort Corky?
Not all DS kids are high functioners. There's no way to know, before they are born, what kind of care they will need.
As far as false positives go: Yes, there are some. Most positives mean a second test is ordered.
"Noting that the North Dakota law won't stop abortions — these women will simply travel out of state — Piepmeier says if North Dakota really cared about the fate of children with Down syndrome, it would take the money that it will now need to be spent in litigation defending the law and spend it on making the state a more "welcoming place for people with disabilities."
Seems to me this criticism cuts both ways. If Piepmeier, and like-minded people, really cared about vulnerable women, they would take the money they will be spending on lawsuits and spend it instead supporting women who travel to other states to get the abortion they seek.
Pianoman wrote:
Kind of a funny story -- I have a FaceBook friend who is a rabid foaming at the mouth Leftist. She has suddenly, out of nowhere, become pro-life ... and THIS is the reason. She's convinced that the "gay gene" discovery is imminent, that doctors will be able to devise a pre-nup test for it, and that parents will choose to abort for that reason alone.
Ah, someone who recognizes the implication of her pro choice position and thinks it leads to a horrible outcome.
At least she's honest about the implicatoins.
Yes, if you are pro choice and there is a gay gene, you should expect that people will abort their babies because they don't want them born gay. And you should not comment on that choice.
Pianoman wrote:
Kind of a funny story -- I have a FaceBook friend who is a rabid foaming at the mouth Leftist. She has suddenly, out of nowhere, become pro-life ... and THIS is the reason. She's convinced that the "gay gene" discovery is imminent, that doctors will be able to devise a pre-nup test for it, and that parents will choose to abort for that reason alone.
But she as a woman is ok if people abort girls as a choice?
There isn't a "gay gene"?
When did the Lefties give up on that one?
I can remember the She Devil of the SS howling at the top of her lungs how the science was settled on that one.
Man, I have got to renew my subscription to the Troll Central Daily Fiction. The stuff you miss.
If you accept that people are not homosexual by choice. That it is not environment. You are left with genetics.
Either literally a location of code within the genome or the chemical expression/alteration of code.
And seeing as sexual drive is obviously genetic through the simple study of sexual reproduction within mammals, we will find the genetic or chemical triggers of sexual attraction.
There will be a "homo/hetero" test. Just as there are "boy/girl" tests.
The world is aborting girls at a higher rate than boys. And soon aborting gays at a higher rate than heteros.
Why is that "bad" to those of you who support abortion? If you support killing kids at the mother's will ... why should her reason matter to you?
Downs Syndrome children are sweet, loving, but I'm sure there are some older parents who worry tremendously about the time that the adult child will no longer have a living
parent to care for them.
************
I worked in agencies serving the DD population for over a decade - you see this ALL the time. Usually, once the parents are gone the burden is borne by an older sibling - if they are lucky enough to have one in a position to do so.
Downs Syndrome children are sweet, loving, but I'm sure there are some older parents who worry tremendously about the time that the adult child will no longer have a living
parent to care for them.
************
I worked in agencies serving the DD population for over a decade - you see this ALL the time. Usually, once the parents are gone the burden is borne by an older sibling - if they are lucky enough to have one in a position to do so.
Despite my limited medical knowledge, I'd bet that at some point a genetic marker for homosexuality will be found, or that some other test, such as relative hormonal levels in the womb, will disclose the sexual identity of the fetus.
We've been lectured endlessly that it is not a choice. Even by such luminaries as Lady Gaga.
So, it's biological.
So, why not abort?
I did not say there was a gay "gene". I did however say that the baby's brain in a certain stage of development is THOUGHT to be affected by either testosterone or estrogen and the result is that the brain of the fetus imprints the sexuality of the opposite sex.
AReasonableMan said: "There isn't a gay gene."
You'd better be careful with that. If there's no genetic base, then being gay is a choice, which then removes from being gay the categorization of a "suspect class" that is due heightened scrutiny in legal cases heard by federal courts.
I did not say there was a gay "gene". I did however say that the baby's brain in a certain stage of development is THOUGHT to be affected by either testosterone or estrogen and the result is that the brain of the fetus imprints the sexuality of the opposite sex.
OK. So, how about if that "imprinting" takes place in the first trimester?
Aborting is OK?
Inga says: "Downs Syndrome children are sweet, loving, but I'm sure there are some older parents who worry tremendously about the time that the adult child will no longer have a living parent to care for them."
No need to wonder, all parents of special needs kids worry what will happen to them when there is no longer a parent to care for them. Most of these parents don't advocate killing them at that point either.
Shouting Thomas wrote:
We've been lectured endlessly that it is not a choice. Even by such luminaries as Lady Gaga.
As Gaga sang:
I'm beautiful in my way
Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way
Actually, if God makes no mistakes then that would mean Downs Syndrome isn't a mistake either. And you would only be born that way if your mom didn't decide that you weren't worth living because of your gayness. So, you wouldn't be born at all.
IS Lady Gaga pro life.
There is only a gay gene when it is of benefit to the left gay lobby. It is sort of like the weather climate dichotomy.
Science is a ratchet that only turns left.
It seems to me that the New York Times needs to maintain a bit more consistency. I have a distinct recollection that one of the major complaints about Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign from the left in general and writers for the Times in particular was that she did not abort a Downs child. Now they're publishing an article from Ms. Piepmeier extolling the virtues of carrying a Downs child to term. Come on, guys, let's get on the same page.
I'll repeat my own liberal argument for aborting gay fetuses...
Liberals constantly tells us that gays must live under horrible oppression and that they are beaten down and insulted just like blacks under Jim Crow.
Wouldn't aborting the gay fetus be an act of mercy that saved the parent from the heartbreak of facing the end of his genetic line, and saved the poor fetus from the life of misery that gays must endure?
Big Mike wrote: It seems to me that the New York Times needs to maintain a bit more consistency. I have a distinct recollection that one of the major complaints about Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign from the left in general and writers for the Times in particular was that she did not abort a Downs child.
You will never get an admission from the NYT that that is true. All there is is the written record. I do recall asking many many times in these comment section: "whence the animus?"--particularly to Carol_Herman (who I thought would give a straight answer). Fields of cricket chirps came as my answer.
Then, Typhoid Mary, you're getting into even more dangerous territory.
The other alternative explanation that I can think of is that gay identification is the result of parental sexual abuse or, if you want to put it in more neutral terms, influence.
A theory that, in my personal observation, holds some water.
Back when Margaret Sanger was starting planned parenthood and acting all progressive and acting like the good eugenecist, for her day she was advocating setting up clinics so that they could get rid of the unfit, the infirm and the lesser races. Yes, she was one of those types, sorry feminists.
The whole point was to have fewer black kids. If I was a black kid I'd be offended by the whole notion. But if it's ok for the pro choice movement to kill off black kids, kids who belong to a minority, then why would there be an issue kiling off gay kids? If they were black or otherwise.
Pro choicers have already crossed the rubicon. No going back now.
Even if the baby were aborted for the most banal or evil reason you could ever possibly think of, there is no reason for pro choicers to judge that choice.
It's like being left-handed. Is that a "choice"? Nope. Is there a genetic marker for it? Nope.
Or having perfect pitch. Was that a "choice"? No. Is there a "perfect pitch gene"? No.
"It's like being left-handed. Is that a "choice"? Nope. Is there a genetic marker for it? Nope."
Science has proven there is not a left-handed gene? Can you provide a reference? I'd like to read the paper.
Big Mike:
They are challenging people who oppose elective abortions by focusing the discussion on exceptional cases and, of course, money. Ironically, the reason to choose an elective abortion is that the child, especially a child with physical or mental defects, will deprive a mother, and father, of their material (e.g. money), physical (e.g. sex), and egoistic standing. They hope to challenge people's certain support for life by questioning their investment in its support. This is why Piepmeier, and Althouse, shift the focus away from the child and the responsibilities of the mother and father.
So, if emotional appeals are mutually effective, who will submit first? Will it be people with the better principles or argument, or whoever is more capable of committing emotional extortion?
There isn't a gay gene.
Why do you believe this?
. I have a distinct recollection that one of the major complaints about Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign from the left in general and writers for the Times in particular was that she did not abort a Downs child.
I have a distinct recollection this is bullshit.
n.n.:
I put up my own experience, twice now. I don't see how that's selfish or egotistical. Please explain it to me.
Witness the many horrors and evils when the creature convinces himself he is the Creator.
All these endless Gordian knots people tie themselves into result from that one, foundational, error.
Garage Mahal notes: I have a distinct recollection this is bullshit.
Yet we never got a satisfactory answer for where all the visceral loathing (PDS) came from for the likes of Michelle Goldberg (not to single her out but she rises to the top). When answers aren't provided, people seek their own answers. It's like your own constant drum beat back then that all ODS was rooted in racism.
"I don't get it. If a fetus has Down's Syndrome, you can't abort ... but if it DOESN'T have Down's Syndrome, you *CAN*?"
I see the sense in this idea. It's a case of targeting the unborn because of something about it. The woman actually wants a baby at this time, but doesn't want this one, because it has a disability. I can see that there would be women in a mixed category where the timing is bad and she's iffy about going through with it and the fact that it has a disability is a factor in the decision, but the linked article talks of interviews with women who had abortions when they really did want a baby. So these were cases of destroying a fetus because of its qualities, because you don't like what it will be after it is born.
50% isn't right. That's the % of all Downs babies that are aborted. The percentages of women who know the baby is Downs who abort is much higher -- I've read repeatedly figures of 90%.
I've also read repeatedly that the Experts are promoting new tests for Downs, and promoting making them absolutely routine for all women (not just the over-35s), so as to "prevent" Downs Syndrome in the future (where "prevent" means "abort all Downs children".)
Unsurprisingly, these women described an "incredibly painful decision," focusing on the difficulties the child would face.
Let's see: permitting life, breathing, laughing, eating...no, that would entail suffering, too, probably. Plus I'd have to be at the clinic a lot, probably...and there are many unforeseen things that will interfere with time at the gym.
Kill it. NOW.
Wow. That was anguishing.
I can't imagine the anguish that will result if gayness is predictable from blood tests during pregnancy.
But think of the suffering that would be prevented!
Dante:
There is a natural death and a premeditated abortion. You made a choice. Whether it was in the best interest of the developing human life is unknown. However, acting on anything less than faith, or personal interest, there is a general presumption of innocence and viability.
Remember, human life, from conception to grave, is in a perpetual state of development, of which the terminal date and condition is unknown.
It's like your own constant drum beat back then that all ODS was rooted in racism.
More made-up B.S. But that's okay. You're a VICTIM of something dammit! You wouldn't be a rightie if you're weren't.
If people like Piepmeier really cared, we would close our prisons, shut down our criminal courts, and use the money in our schools instead.
Why fight against the evil in your midst when you can go off and claim to be doing good elsewhere?
Garage Mahal goes on record denying his own historical record. Fine. There is no reasoning with that.
Let's also be clear here about the difference between one who is "think abortion is morally wrong" and one who is pro-life. Many of the former category, which is accurately called anti-abortion, are politicians. They are against abortion for some amorphous moral reason, but can't exactly explain why. One who is authentically pro-life, on the other hand, will tell you, rightly, that abortion at whatever stage kills an innocent human being. This is true regardless of his or her cognitive ability.
One who is merely anti-abortion might very well go ahead a abort a child on whatever basis they irrationally decide, but one who is genuinely pro-life never will.
@Pianoman: "I don't get it. If a fetus has Down's Syndrome, you can't abort ... but if it DOESN'T have Down's Syndrome, you *CAN*?"
@AA: I see the sense in this idea. It's a case of targeting the unborn because of something about it.
I thought abortion was a "civil right", and that the state couldn't restrict a "woman's right to choose"? Since when did that "right to choose" suddenly vanish because her fetus has an extra chromosome?
Seems like it would be hard to defend this one in court.
Jane,
You're basically correct. I provided much the same information up thread. But the regulars have moved on to other topics.
90% is probably too high though. Click through to the study link embedded in the article for more info.
I was about to raise the same point as Bender. Those "if they really cared" arguments are so facetious.
Even worse is when prochoice zealots claim to know that prolife people don't support women who choose to continue pregnancies under difficult circumstances. Would love to see a comparison of which side provides more support (financial and volunteer hours) at pregnancy crisis centers. I would place a very large wager on which it is.
Dante:
You may find it curious, but I am not judging anyone, or even classifying them as selfish or egoistic; although, I am identifying those characteristics as motives for their behavior.
I am also suggesting a vote to promote a general outcome (i.e. normalization). In this context, it is necessary to recognize that a human life is in a perpetual state of development from conception to grave, where its terminus is an unknown date and condition.
I also recognize individual dignity, which demands a reconciliation of disparate, and often incompatible, imperatives and interests.
Constitutional scholars here, am I right about this?
In order to be a "suspect class" due heightened scrutiny under the 5th and 14th amendments, the class under discussion must meet 4 criteria, one of which is that it has characteristics that have been declared "immutable", that is, an individual can not voluntarily move in or out of that class. So race and sex are suspect classes, for Constitutional purposes. In order for homosexuality to be considered a suspect class, it must be immutable, which one could claim for it if there were any genetic base(s) for it. Ergo, those who want heightened scrutiny claim that homosexuals are just "born that way" and "can't help it".
The problem with this is, scientists have been looking for a biological basis for homosexuality for quite some time now, studying genes, prenatal hormones, and (the latest) so-called epigenetic markers, and they haven't been able to prove any causation. What this means is, at least as the scientific evidence stands now, homosexuality does not meet the immutable characteristics criterion for being considered a suspect class.
It might, however, be considered a "quasi-suspect class", which has to meet some but not all of the criteria of suspect class. But that's another story.
I see the sense in this idea. It's a case of targeting the unborn because of something about it. The woman actually wants a baby at this time, but doesn't want this one, because it has a disability. I can see that there would be women in a mixed category where the timing is bad and she's iffy about going through with it and the fact that it has a disability is a factor in the decision, but the linked article talks of interviews with women who had abortions when they really did want a baby. So these were cases of destroying a fetus because of its qualities, because you don't like what it will be after it is born.
the only sense in it is that you want a fig leaf to support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy withput also supporting eugenics. Tear off the fig leaf and own it...if you leave the determination of right to fetal life to the mother, you must let her feelings preside even when you disgree with her moral reasoning.
Corky is probably lucky that he doesn't understand that well the implications of abortion. Because if he did he's essentially being told he should have been killed at birth and he's worthless.
Chris Burke (the actor who played Corky) was in an episode of Touched by an Angel that was about this exact thing. He plays a guy working in a coffee shop. Meanwhile, a cappuccino machine salesman learns that his unborn child has Down Syndrome and he wants to abort. The salesman is played by the guy who played Corky's dad. Needless to say, Chris (who reveals himself to be an angel) convinces him to accept his child.
Garage Mahal goes on record denying his own historical record. Fine. There is no reasoning with that
I'm used to this sort of libel.
Whether it was in the best interest of the developing human life is unknown.
I don't think there was much room for doubt about what was going on. But, you weren't there, so you really have very little basis on which to say otherwise.
While it was ultimately my wife's decision, not only do I support it, I applaud it, and would readily take responsibility for it if it were to take pain away from my wife.
For whatever reason, when women auto-abort, there are no funerals, and women often don't even know they are pregnant. Why is this any different?
And in my view, having kids is a very arrogant thing to do, except that we as humans are programmed to do it.
Needless to say, Chris Burke is also very strongly Catholic.
I remember seeing him bring up the gifts at a Mass at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.
"I thought abortion was a "civil right", and that the state couldn't restrict a "woman's right to choose"? Since when did that "right to choose" suddenly vanish because her fetus has an extra chromosome? Seems like it would be hard to defend this one in court."
I wasn't talking about whether the law violates the Constitution. I was only talking about whether the law made sense, in response to a comment that seemed to say that it made exactly the opposite of sense. Just talking about why a rational person might draw the line between the DS embryo and the normal embryo and give favored treatment to the DS embryo.
I haven't read cases that focus on the actual reasons why the woman is choosing to abort.
Let's say we tried to ban abortion when it is for the purpose of sex selection. You'd have to extract the reason from the woman. How would you do that?
There's the idea of banning the test that would enable the option.
You might want to do that.
There has always been a strong level of support for eugenics in all its various forms, from "three generations of imbeciles are enough" to "blacks are chattel property" to "let's kill our child for his own good." To be sure, those eugenicists who sought to get rid of the Jews got many of their arguments from American eugenicists.
Do women have to give a reason for getting an abortion?
@Althouse- i don't see how you thread the needle on this. If the reasoning doesn't make sense according to your views on Constitutionality, then why would it make sense ethically either? The Constitutional argument is that the women's right to bodily autonomy trumps fetal right to life, so why does her reason matter?
@AA: "Let's say we tried to ban abortion when it is for the purpose of sex selection. You'd have to extract the reason from the woman. How would you do that?"
Exactly my point. I guess you could force someone to swear on a Bible/Koran/CopyOfBraveNewWorld, or whatever ... but it just seems like an unenforceable law. The woman would just give whatever reason was "legal", and get the abortion that way.
Or she could travel to South Dakota, or any other state, and get the abortion anyway.
I'm just mystified when politicians put out crap like this. A law that is this easily defeated is just useless, and it leads to people having less and less respect for the "System".
Dante:
You asked, so I will answer.
Yes, there are people who think an unborn child, in the situation you described, should be allowed to come to term. I am one of those people.
To decide that another human being's life is not worth living, however short that life may be, is more power than any human being should have.
Sometimes we take life because of self-defense, or because of a grave crime committed; but the situation you described is neither of those.
I am very sorry you, your wife, or anyone else is ever in that situation, and I have no desire to add to your pain. So I will say no more about your situation unless you ask me to expand or clarify something I've said.
Pianoman said...
It's like being left-handed. Is that a "choice"? Nope. Is there a genetic marker for it? Nope.
Or having perfect pitch. Was that a "choice"? No. Is there a "perfect pitch gene"? No.
This is basically correct. Just as there isn't a smart gene or funny gene or grumpy gene. These kinds of characteristics are complex and multigenic and there are probably multiple pathways to roughly similar outcomes.
trumpetdaddy wrote;
5. This is why the Roman Catholic Church is so opposed and hated by the Left. Because of the absolute insistence on regarding all human life as intrinsically valuable and loved, regardless of disability or circumstances. It inconveniences the hell out of the "me-first, last, and always" tenor of the modern culture.
And this is the irony that seems lost on the prochoicers.
Gays have been saying that gayness is not a choice but you're born that way. Which SEEMS to suggest that it's biological. It's in the genes.
It's the pro lifers that are saying every fetus has worth. Which would mean even the gay ones that are born that way.
So who really hates gays more? The side that says even if its gay it shouldnt be aborted or the side that says that if a mom doesnt want a gay baby she should have the right to terminate it.
And how many "gay" babies of the millions who were aborted would have been born but for pro choice women not giving a shit about their lives aqnd viewing them as a clump of cells.
Oh, for cryin' out loud! You don't know there is no "left-handed" gene.
Fr Martin Fox said...
To decide that another human being's life is not worth living, however short that life may be, is more power than any human being should have.
Sometimes we take life because ... of a grave crime committed;
Anyone else find this juxtaposition of absolutes a little inconsistent?
On the subject of aborting babies because of Downs, or other genetic disabilities...
I wonder if anyone is reflecting on the long-term consequences of this--not just of the question of aborting these children, but also of the likelihood of someday being able to correct the genetic abnormality that gives rise to the syndrome.
In short, is there any reason to think that effectively eliminating, from the human race, certain genetic patterns, would have unforseeable consequences for humanity as a whole?
Does the human race "need" a certain diversity of genetic "input" as the generations unfold? Would narrowing the range of that genetic imput give rise to problems? Does this even make sense?
I'm not a geneticist, so I really don't know whether this is a reasonable concern.
FYI, I am not advocating resistance to therapy that repairs a genetic disorder. I am against destroying unborn children who have genetic disorders; but repairing such a thing is an entirely different matter. I am merely wondering aloud about how it might play out.
A Reasonable Man:
I don't advocate the death penalty, I'm against it, and the Catholic Church in particular has said we should avoid it as much as possible.
But the Church has not said it is intrinsically evil.
My point was that it's one thing to say someone has, by a grave crime, forfeited his or her life; something very different to say one forfeits ones life because of an extreme level of physical disability.
"Anyone else find this juxtaposition of absolutes a little inconsistent?"
Not me.
Gaymaica Farewell.
Down the way where the nights are gay
And the sun shines daily on the mountain top
Inga took a trip on a sailing ship
And when she reached Gaymaica she made a stop
But sad to say Inga's on her way
Won't be back for many a day
Her heart is down, her head is turning around
She wouldn't touch a little lesbian in Kingston town
With the disclaimer that I'm not a geneticist...it seems obvious to me that one can rule out a "gay gene" in the sense of a Downs Syndrome genetic cause, without saying that homosexual desires are therefore merely a "choice."
That allows for four other possibilities:
1) That there is some sort of "predisposition" toward same-sex attraction that is inherited, along the lines that some theorize that some inherit a greater disposition to addictive behaviors. A disposition can be there, yet only sometimes arise, depending on environment or triggers--including choices.
2) That it isn't a matter of a "gene" but as Inga said, something that happens with hormones during pregnancy--or, for that matter, something that happens in the person's body after being born. Not "genetic," yet not exactly "choice."
3) It's largely a matter of environment and upbringing, still not "choice" but not genetic.
4) Some combination.
The other thing that seems obvious is that there isn't one form of homosexuality, but several forms. Some people say they find their situations very fixed, and who can argue with them? Yet others do seem more fluid; some do find therapy or what-have-you effective. Some people seem to move across the spectrum largely through choice.
It also seems common-sensical to say that some people who experience some degree of same-sex attraction can, nevertheless, experience enough level of opposite-sex attraction as to make a successful marriage. Fitting people to the Procrustean Bed of fixed categories in this area seems awfully illiberal, and yet how often "liberal" rhetoric on this subject does exactly that, doesn't it? (And to be fair, so does some "conservative" rhetoric, in a different way.)
@garage, back at 12:30 you called bullshit on me. Will this do for a start on demonstrating that I was right and you are wrong?
There's plenty more where that came from.
"So these were cases of destroying a fetus because of its qualities, because you don't like what it will be after it is born."
The quality of the fetus that pro abortion doesn't like is that might be a "punishment" or an inconvenience to the so called woman. It will be a baby. Babies are not always convenient. All of the other details are just that. Details. That can be useful in distracting us from the real issue.
"Sometimes we take life because ... of a grave crime committed;
Anyone else find this juxtaposition of absolutes a little inconsistent?"
No. Sometimes a grave crime, I assume you mean murder, makes the murderer unfit to live in society. They become unfit by their actions. Their actions endanger the lives of others who are innocent.
Babies are not unfit to live simply because of an assumption on the part of a bunch of social engineers. In fact a very good case can be made that those who commit abortion are committing murder themselves.
This is not that hard to understand if you get your head out of your posterior.
Because of improved health care/social responsibility the load of deleterious but non-fatal mutations in the human population is steadily increasing. Without abortion or embryo selection to limit this growth the human population will become increasingly less healthy. Is this a desirable outcome?
==========================
Lots of issues surround this. Medical science is keeping those with serious defects alive a lot longer than they would have when they "naturally expired" in very religious times.
The cost of that "miracle medicine" to avert "natural expiration" of the genetic mistakes is ferocious and passed on to other patients and insurance ratepayers.
14 million American families are now collecting regular disability checks for one or more family members...a significant part of which is from the least fit and mentally cognitive being supported long enough by the State to spawn a new generation of the like. Average IQ in the US, using 1920s test results as a baseline, is lowering, not increasing.
People have sort of realized that all the talk of "cures" for fatal or crippling genetic disorders, going on long before "Jerry's Kids and the Cure for MD" - has been bogus. The only real cure for things like MD, cystic fibrosis, like for eliminating hip dysplasia in German shepards and a line of chickens where 30% develop leukemia - is to breed it out - inc breeding the trait out the carrier pool.
Free trade, globalization, and declining real wages in America has meant that for many families, the wife working out of the home is now an economic necessity. Which makes for another inducement to test and abort if need be - so the 2nd wage earner is not lost to being a 24/7 caretaker for a child with defects so severe they will always need a caretaker. Or if single, the women who now bank on the taxpayer to pay all the costs of the woman, child, and other family since they are unable to leave home to work. (remember, 14 million families are now collecting disability checks).
And to wrap things up, the Right to Lifers are typically those most opposed to paying lifetime welfare to mommas with kids with serious mental and physical defects.
The liberal view, which is the non-religious view, is that aborting a down' syndrom baby is the proper choice. At least this was the case 20 years ago. 20 years ago, health care providers put tremendous pressure on women over 35 (like I was) to have genetic testing so that you could find out if your baby had down syndrom and then terminate the pregnancy. I think that they should also tell you how many women over 35 declined to have genetic testing done--because that should be part of the statistic too because that is where the real conversation about down syndrom/abortion with the woman takes place. I am surprised at the number of woman who agreed (or were convinced) to do genetic testing and then had the guts to decline to abort.
there was a story a while ago about a woman who only wanted girls (or maybe it was boys) but kept getting pregnant with boys. So she aborted all of her fetuses until she got a girl (or boy).
And the article was posited about the morality of what she was doing.
What morality? I thought it was the mothers choice. So if she doens't want a black baby or a gay baby or a boy or a girl or a kid with a cleft palate or whatever, it's her choice.
If you've left it up to "choice" then you cant' suddenly parse the choices people made since you are negating choice.
Yeah people abort for horrible reasons. Is this somehow news to pro choicers? But even if they do, it's still their choice.
We just had discussion about what to do in the case of late term abortions when a baby is being aborted but somehow manages to survive the procedure and is out of the womb and breathing on the table. And the planned parent representative believes that it should be left up to the mother and the doctor to choose.
So, the doctor and mother could choose infanticide. Why then couldn't a mother choose to abort a kid with Downs Syndrome?
Looks as if we've almost rid ourselves of Down Syndrome.
Hooray?
Choice is choice, n'est ce pas?
Following the link to the article that suggests 50% - the author chucks his own data to arrive at that number:
Termination rates for Down syndrome in the United States are not tracked by most states. The 2012 study reviewed reports, the most recent of which were from just three states: Hawaii, California, and Maine. Termination rates varied widely, from Maine actually exceeding the 90 percent rate—93.3 percent—to the California study having the lowest reported rate of 61.4 percent.
The 2012 report quoted a range of rates to choose from: 67 percent, representing the weighted average of the three most current studies; 74.2 percent, the weighted average of all studies with unique populations; and, 85 percent from hospital-based studies. In the end, the best that could be concluded was that the 90 percent figure probably was not accurate; the termination rate was probably lower; but by how much is still not clear.
But then the author says with doubt on the exact rate nationally, it is best to just say at a minimum, that for every livebirth of a Downs, one is aborted because a California study showed 47% of statistically expected Downs babies are delivered.
(Note that over 50% of all births are to heavily 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen Catholic hispanics in California now. People with extended families that can be caregivers, and people that will see an income boost once the disability paychecks from the US and the generous California welfare system start coming in.)
The article does not address how credible the hospital stats of abortions vs. live births are(85%) nor how high they are (>90%) in well to do white families in Maine, NY, and Florida.
@garage, back at 12:30 you called bullshit on me. Will this do for a start on demonstrating that I was right and you are wrong?
No.
I haven't read all of the comments but wanted to correct this: the abortion rate for fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome is not only 50%. 90% is probably a better estimate. Both Wikipedia and Politifact put it around there.
Steve said...
Women who generally think abortion is morally wrong don't even test for Downs Syndrome.
My wife did not have an amniocentesis for our fourth child, because we reasoned that it wasn't worth the risk, because even if it had turned up Down Syndrome, we wouldn't have aborted.
20 years ago, health care providers put tremendous pressure on women over 35 (like I was) to have genetic testing so that you could find out if your baby had down syndrom and then terminate the pregnancy
The testing is done in stages now. During first trimester you have an ultrasound that measures nuchal transparency which is one potential marjer. Second trimester is quad testing (blood test which looks for several markers for various genetic disorders.)
Everyone gets those. Later you can opt in or out for the more invasive, and more sensitive, tests for Down Syndrome, i wasn't pressured (three years ago, when I was pregnant at age 44) but then I had already made it clear to my healthcare prividers that I wouldn't abort under any circumstances.
I think the discrepancy in stats can be summed up like this: the vast majority of children today born with Down syndrome are to mothers who chose not to have amniocentesis or other invasive screening tests done during their pregnancy. The vast majority of children whose mothers chose those screening tests, made the decision to terminate them when they recieved a positive test result.
The North Dakota law also bans sex-selection abortions.
Piepmeier's opinion on that would be an interesting piece of logic.
The Law
I am very sorry you, your wife, or anyone else is ever in that situation, and I have no desire to add to your pain. So I will say no more about your situation unless you ask me to expand or clarify something I've said.
Yes, I would like you to clarify something. So if it were up to you, you would force people in this circumstance to take the child to term?
In other words, your certainty of your position would cause you to force people to your will?
Dante I have a question for you....how would the situation have differed if the prenatal testing had not been available? Do you think that infanticide is justified in cases like that? Why or why not?
North Dakota would've prohibited your wife from having the abortion, Dante. Read the law Rabel linked to. Big state government.
I would also like to note, Dante, that I think the situation you faced is heartbreaking and I can understand the decision you and your wife made even if I disagree. I also find it courageous that you are willing to discuss it, and sad that some of the comments are quite harsh.
Does the human race "need" a certain diversity of genetic "input" as the generations unfold? Would narrowing the range of that genetic imput give rise to problems? Does this even make sense?
Sure humans need genetic diversity, though whites have much less of it than blacks, and did quite fine for many tens of thousands of years.
However, I fail to see anything wrong with genetic modifications that eliminate the propensity for heart disease, cancer, or Cystic Fibrosis.
Indeed, with Cystic Fibrosis they already experimenting with gene therapy. If successful, the DNA will be different in the lungs of these people, and they might live. Are you opposed to that? Why or why not? If somehow the gene therapy were to convert the DNA of all cells in the body, would that be wrong?
Would you be willing to tell the child "Sorry, you have to die because you will change the basic building blocks of your DNA, and according to my belief you should not?"
How is that different from eliminating genes that cause terrible outcomes from the gene pool?
The State knows best!
@Original Mike: I don't have any cites claiming that the "Left Hand Gene" *doesn't* exist.
I'm saying that nobody has found it, despite having years to search for it. Sort of an "argument by authority"; if it's not been found YET, it's almost a certainty that it doesn't exist.
Taking my other example -- perfect pitch: The same is true here. The gene for perfect pitch has not been found. I don't believe that it will be found, because if it were there, it would have been found already.
I agree that's it's not 100% scientific proof. But you could argue that EVERYTHING that hasn't been found in the genes falls into that category as well.
"They haven't found a 'musician' gene yet, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
"They haven't found a 'will believe in Astrology, and have a foot fetish' gene yet, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
"They haven't found a 'likes walks on the beach, Thai food, and enjoys art museums on weekends' gene yet, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
EMD said...
Looks as if we've almost rid ourselves of Down Syndrome.
Hooray?
Unfortunately we will never eliminate trisomy, it is spontaneous i.e. arises new in each generation.
For most chromosomes when there is an extra copy the fetus will not be viable resulting in a natural abortion. From one viewpoint, medical abortions of the few trisomy carriers that do come to term is only slightly improving an existing natural mechanism.
Dante I have a question for you....how would the situation have differed if the prenatal testing had not been available? Do you think that infanticide is justified in cases like that? Why or why not?
Personally, I don't have much of an issue with early term abortions. I don't like the social consequences.
So it wouldn't make much of a difference to me. But say you convinced me a fetus were conscious, instead of a blob of cells (you know, all forms of birth control have anti-attach compounds, which means there is a lot of aborting going on if you view life as beginning at conception).
So, if I were to think that way, yes, I would think quite differently about it. Because I would not want to take a conscious child and kill it, and I had no evidence the child would live a life of minutes of incredible suffering. But to take a fetus/baby to term, only to watch it suffer horribly and in a state in which it is more aware of its horrible suffering, without the tools we all develop to deal with death, to me is unconscionable.
I'm not into causing suffering, whereas it seems some on this board are more interested their beliefs than the suffering of the baby, in fact of everyone involved.
Dante:
The difference is natural death and premeditated abortion.
I will not presume to judge you, but the motives I have cited are accurate. I cannot, however, determine if your decision to prematurely terminate a developing human life was an act of kindness to prevent a tragic life for yourself or the child.
In any case, that is not my interest in this context. My purpose is to promote a general outcome. There will always be exceptions which will need to be considered individually or in classes. The goal is to identify principles and establish policy which will engender, but not guarantee, positive progress for all men and women.
As for procreation being inherently selfish, really? It would require an extraordinary dissociation from reality to reach that conclusion. I have not yet experienced an event to cause that fundamental divergence.
In any case, a decision that you made previously, does not require you to support or make the same decision again. That is your choice. It is not hypocritical to change your position in order to acquire better alignment with your principles. That is evolution. That is the nature of human development from conception to grave, and with each succeeding generation.
Let's hope we choose the right principles to guide our development.
@Pianoman: My point is not some esoteric argument about absolute scientific proof. Rather, it's the mundane one that we have a LOT more to learn about biology and genetics. It's probably decades too soon to be making definitive statements like "there is not a left-handed gene."
I think the point about genetic diversity is simply that we should at least consider potential unintended consequences. It's possible that some undesirable genes tend to group with other desirable ones, for instance.
One instance I wonder about is infertility. As in vitro becomes more and more prevalent, are we not likely to have even higher rates of infertility in the next generation? In vet medicine we see a few dog breeds that would cease to exist withput the intervention of C sections (English Bulldogs, the most prominent example.) I wonder if the human population might eventually become incapable of reproduction without technological intervention.
Inga said...
I did not say there was a gay "gene". I did however say that the baby's brain in a certain stage of development is THOUGHT to be affected by either testosterone or estrogen and the result is that the brain of the fetus imprints the sexuality of the opposite sex.
Stick it up your pet wussy.
We had several "discussions" on this and you swore up and down how homosexuals couldn't help it because they came out of the womb that way.
Dante:
Suffering is a subjective term. It is used as an emotional appeal, typically to distract from the issue being discussed.
What you are describing is an article of faith. What others are demanding is an objective, consistent standard, which will not arbitrarily discriminate between men and women throughout their life (i.e. development).
Edbutcher, what do you not understand? If a fetus has it's brain altered by hormones in UTERO, it is BORN altered. He/ she WOULD come OUT of the womb altered.
And edbutcher I use the term "baby" when describing a fetus, partially because St. Croix made the point that in Roe v. Wade, the term "fetus" was used to dehumanize the baby in utero.
Get it? Or are you going to continue show your abject stupidity?
Such an important discussion!
Pretty soon we can have these excellence philosophical discussions as we watch our government auction off exterior states to pay for our cronyism and baby boomer greed.
Personally I think Hawaii should go first. I was born in Alaska.
Inga said...
Edbutcher, what do you not understand? If a fetus has it's brain altered by hormones in UTERO, it is BORN altered. He/ she WOULD come OUT of the womb altered.
Give up on Ed. His views are such an extreme and comical stereotype that I originally thought he was joking. It is now clear that he has no sense of humor.
@Original Mike: "It's probably decades too soon to be making definitive statements like "there is not a left-handed gene."
Thing is, I keep seeing articles like this one, where researchers claim "near certainty" that these factors aren't genetic.
In this particular article, the subject of "epigenetics" is explored. It's different from genetics.
The context of OUR discussion is Down's Syndrome .. which IS found in the DNA. Left-handedness, and perfect pitch are, I believe, good examples of things that are NOT.
Research may find that these other factors will be found in epigenetics ... I don't know. But it's not as simple as the advocates wanted it to be either.
I remember getting into an incredibly long argument about this topic way back in 2001. The guy I was discussing it with actually started SHRIEKING that there was a gay gene, there had to be, and the Human Genome Project would find it, just you wait and see! And yet ... here we are 12 years later and ... nothing.
Remember when antioxidants were the key to health? Recent research suggests the opposite may be true.
Hubris, pianoman, hubris.
(BTW, I don't mean to imply that there will be one gene to explain, for example, left-handedness. If it's the interaction of genes, that still means it's genetically based and could be predicted and then aborted-for.)
Off to my weekly lab-meeting.
Dante:
Yes, I think the law should prohibit abortion in all cases; but the law should not prevent a woman from receiving necessary medical care that may have the unavoidable harms for the unborn child, including the ending of the child's life--i.e., the removal of a cancerous uterus.
You can call it "forcing my will" if you like, but that is what law does. Laws against rape and theft involve the exact same force--for equivalent reasons: we stop people from doing harm to each other.
Dante asked me:
Would you be willing to tell the child "Sorry, you have to die because you will change the basic building blocks of your DNA, and according to my belief you should not?"
How is that different from eliminating genes that cause terrible outcomes from the gene pool?
Not at all. As I said in my earlier question about the value of genetic diversity:
"FYI, I am not advocating resistance to therapy that repairs a genetic disorder....I am merely wondering aloud about how it might play out."
So as far as I can see, repairing a genetic defect--either in utero or later, however that might work--is a good thing, provided it is carried out ethically: i.e., I'm against harvesting the cells of embryonic humans, and deliberately creating embryos in order to farm them for their cells or body parts.
I have a cognitively disabled sister now and I had an autistic brother who died at age 6 years ago. I am one of ten children....one of whom won an Olympic Silver Medal at the Barcelona Olympics (in crew that she learned here in Madison), one is a principal of a major Chicago HS, four others are esteemed and rewarded teachers, one is a successful corporate lawyer and the other siblings are all successful in their fields.
Our father was a polio victim who wore a leg brace and retired as a successful engineer from Bell and Howell. Our mom was a revered and acknowledged pediatric nurse.
My folks were told to institutionalize both of their disabled children back in the day (this meant the Dixon State Mental Hospital in Illinois - now closed). They kept these two children at home and this made all the difference to us all. We grew up defending and appreciating the blessing of special children.
My cousin was pregnant at 43 and her gyno doc told her she was carrying a Downs Syndrome child early on. He refused to treat her further if she did not chose to abort. True story. She found another gyno doc and her 21 year old son - Downs Syndrome - has been and still is a completely wonderful, awesome young man who has a great job and is living independently in his own community based residential home in Chicago.
Thank people like my two parents who founded an organization called The Voice of the Retarded in Chicago back in the 1960's. I remember them taking us all downtown to the Loop to protest with signs a movie at the Oriental Theater called "The 21st Chromosome" about a mongloid terrorizing a city.
Shame on anyone who advocates the technological elimination of imperfect fetuses. It's called nature. Humans should be different from other animal species. We ought not abandon the weakest and most needy.
If you say it's OK to eliminate a defective fetus - or any unwanted fetus - you are on the "embryo designer" side of human reproduction and you can never claim - ever- to be opposed to infanticide.
You can call it "forcing my will" if you like, but that is what law does. Laws against rape and theft involve the exact same force--for equivalent reasons: we stop people from doing harm to each other.
I am glad then, that your will is not law.
@OriginalMike: Fair enough.
I'm not into causing suffering, whereas it seems some on this board are more interested their beliefs than the suffering of the baby, in fact of everyone involved.
Well apparently you can give as good as you can get. I see it more as an acknowledgement that we can't fix everything and there's a large does of hubris in pretending we can or should try to do so.
As for the distinction on timing of an abortion and consciousness, I'm not buying it. Introducing the idea of "early term" as in shortly after conception, isn't relevant (I'm an absolutist, BTW, and don't practice artificial birth control so no gotchas there.)
The decision point for you ghad to have come considerably later though. O, how anyone determines just how conscious the fetus is at those stages, or how to make a clear call between the consciousness of a second to third trimester human and a just born one, is beyond me. And certainly, when talking about a very late twrm abortion (not saying this was the case for you but I wonder where and how you'd draw the line), the consciousness just before and just after birth would be identical. The only difference isnthat the adults involved have to witness it, so it sure does seem like that's the suffering that everyone really tries to avoid.
I'm against harvesting the cells of embryonic humans, and deliberately creating embryos in order to farm them for their cells or body parts.
Well, it seems this is no longer necessary. It would be good to get to the bottom of that one. Where scientists arguing from a false position? I hope not.
Has research been retarded because of some people's concerns about the use of embryonic stem cells? Again, I hope not. It would be a real shame if research has been impeded by a number of years.
I would take it from your position that even if embryonic stem cells were the only viable stems cells on which to perform research, that you would still ban it, and regardless of whether it would save many tens of thousands of lives. Is that correct?
And finally, would you have forbidden use of the existing embryonic stem cell lines, again with the same assumption: there were no alternatives and their use would save tens of thousands of lives?
I am quite curious about this. It isn't meant to be snarky. I'm trying to understand whether you have an absolute moral reasoning here, or whether it has any give.
PianoLessons said...
Shame on anyone who advocates the technological elimination of imperfect fetuses. It's called nature.
Nature is very efficient at eliminating imperfect fetuses, just not perfectly efficient.
Dante said:
...I had no evidence the child would live a life of minutes of incredible suffering. But to take a fetus/baby to term, only to watch it suffer horribly and in a state in which it is more aware of its horrible suffering, without the tools we all develop to deal with death, to me is unconscionable.
Well, I simply disagree, as is obvious.
But I would ask this: why is it only the suffering an infant experiences?
Children are born safely, reasonably healthy, only to face suffering later in life--and some of that is forseeable, with some disabilities or diseases. What's the cut-off? How long does someone's life expectancy, outside the womb, have to be, before you change that calculation?
For that matter, parents lose children to accidents, fire, crime, etc. That may happen while the child is an infant, or into adulthood. If a parent knew what would happen, would it be "better" if the child were aborted, to avoid that bitter outcome? Why?
FWIW, I've stood by parents in some of those situations. I was with a woman, whose grief I could not imagine, storm back and forth outside her home, while the police were inside: her son had committed suicide. It was the second child she lost; her first was murdered. She kept saying, to her son: "____ (daughter) didn't have a choice--but you did!"
I've also helped parents who had miscarriages. I was with one couple that had two of them.
However a child is lost, I can't imagine anything more horrible, and prayed as hard as I ever did--simply that somehow, I could offer something for them.
Well apparently you can give as good as you can get
Yes, I'm an asshole. Actually, I'm trying to strip off the fluff, so everything is laid as bare as possible. It's not pretty what is going on underneath in these discussions.
The only difference isnthat the adults involved have to witness it, so it sure does seem like that's the suffering that everyone really tries to avoid.
I disagree. I think the more conscious one is, the greater the suffering. So I have a moral difference with you and Fr. Martin Fox on this. I think it is immoral to bring a child to term only to have it suffer.
Dante said:
I would take it from your position that even if embryonic stem cells were the only viable stems cells on which to perform research, that you would still ban it, and regardless of whether it would save many tens of thousands of lives. Is that correct?
Yes, for the same reason that I would oppose harvesting organs from people, even if it were the only way to "save many tens of thousands of lives."
And finally, would you have forbidden use of the existing embryonic stem cell lines, again with the same assumption: there were no alternatives and their use would save tens of thousands of lives?
Yes, for the same reason that I find it repugnant to benefit from medical research on unwilling participants, whether in Nazi camps or in Tuskegee Alabama.
I am quite curious about this. It isn't meant to be snarky. I'm trying to understand whether you have an absolute moral reasoning here, or whether it has any give.
I am not offended.
Reasonable Man: Nature does dominate us all - no question.
But I will never forget my experience in college when my housemates (we called ourselves a commune back then LOL) got two rabbits and they - of course - had babies. And it was told to me by my housemates that the mother rabbit bashed and bit to death one of the weak babies to death in their cage while I was happily at class.
Humans simply must be designed to do better - that's the lesson I learned back in the day.
Humans are designed to escape the cruel ravages of nature but also to discern the cruel ravages of their own God like technologies.
This is where I'm at right now.
Inga said...
Edbutcher, what do you not understand? If a fetus has it's brain altered by hormones in UTERO, it is BORN altered. He/ she WOULD come OUT of the womb altered.
And how do the hormones suddenly erupt to alter the brain?
Sounds like someone is trying to describe a genetic abnormality.
Dante:
I disagree. I think the more conscious one is, the greater the suffering. So I have a moral difference with you and Fr. Martin Fox on this. I think it is immoral to bring a child to term only to have it suffer.
Well, here's the crux of the matter; in the words of yours I just quoted, I bolded the key word that I contest: no life, no matter how short, is defined only by suffering.
Look at this way: while there are people whose suffering is great enough to lead them to commit suicide, that is still a remarkably rare thing, and we do have evidence of many of those people regretting it after attempting it.
We have vastly more people, who endure terrible suffering, yet who struggle intensely to survive, rather than give up.
Or to put it another way. There would seem to be a lot of evils in the world, that I could fix, if only I had the power to do so. And the more power, the more good I can do. Isn't that a key theme in the Lord of the Rings?
Father, your compassionate opinions on this thread are very welcome.
Sometimes it's easier to believe the doctor's advice, but not always prudent.
My sister's friend aborted a child who the doctors were certain it wouldn't live long. She cried about it six months later to my sister full of regret. I believe Tim Tebow's parents were told to abort.
There are some who might cherish and value the time spent together, even if the time on this earth was short. There are people who specialize in newborn photos with your child, so that families can remember their loved one.
Dr. Martin Fox:
I offer you an argument you have not yet articulated.
A defective or deformed child is not doomed to suffering - and nor are their parents or siblings.
In fact - they have been given a truly special gift that not many experience.
Just trying to help you out here.
Shame on anyone who advocates the technological elimination of imperfect fetuses. It's called nature. Humans should be different from other animal species. We ought not abandon the weakest and most needy.
If you say it's OK to eliminate a defective fetus - or any unwanted fetus - you are on the "embryo designer" side of human reproduction and you can never claim - ever- to be opposed to infanticide.
=====================
YOur problem is that you think abortion is the same as killing a delivered baby.
In 2,000 years of law, it is not.
And even infanticide to weed out defectives was common globally, including in Christian Europe...until the industrial revolution have people the luxury of surplus resources where those with serious birth defects could be supported on a widespread basis without threatening the critical needs of the able bodied and able minded.
Piano:
No problem, feel free to add anything you like.
Cedarford: You are correct here. Thank goodness we have "evolved" as humans to allow defective fetuses to be born and have access to an education. God Bless America (because few other nations extend the right to an education and community support to these so called "defective" fetuses.
Who cares what atrocities to the defective unborn happened in the past? We live in the here and now and we recognize the importance of their presence amongst us.
Surely you do not agree with Senator Barbara Boxer wherein she says a REAL baby is “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html
Cedarford and others:
How stand you all on last week's Panned Parenthood response on Post-Birth Abortion:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html
That Boxer quote is astonishing. I never quite know how to react to statements like that and the one by the Planned Parenthood rep the other day. On the one hand I tend to find it preferable that people are being honest, and logically consistent. But on the other hand, what an abomination!
Seriously folks - I dare you all to read Anne Coulter's rather famous satire (in the vein of Jonathan Swift) response to the Andrea Yates case where a Texas Mom killed her children - post-birth.....
http://old.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter090601.shtml
Why is there always this assumption that no one who is pro-life cares about the child after it is born?
Some random "I'm a conservative" guy on one of my google+ groups the other day accused "conservatives" of not even realizing that mentally ill people exist (or they wouldn't fuss about the fully able folks living on government hand-outs, or something). It was really weird, actually. Sure, you're pro-life, he said, but fussing about government dependency is because you never met a mentally ill person in your life.
Huh?
In any case... it's pretty normal for "free abortion for any reason" people to think that abortion for a reason is wrong. Abort a daughter because you want a son? Wrong. Abort a homosexual child (if we could test that)? Wrong. If a promiscuous sort had her fetus tested to find out its race... wow... WRONG.
Oopsie, I can't bother with birth control? Empowerment, sister!
"Better off dead" is a really horrible thing to consider about your disabled child, so I can absolutely see why advocates for Downs people think it's wrong to abort.
That Boxer quote is astonishing.
The United States Supreme Court has defined the unborn as property throughout the pregnancy, including partially-born infants. Not a single Justice argued in Carhart or Carhart II that a newborn baby had rights, or that the murder statutes might apply.
Justice Scalia, in his Casey "dissent," argued that some societies define newborns and the incompetent elderly as non-persons, too. Suggesting that the answer is unknowable and he has no idea what a person is. This is the same Scalia who has written two books on how to read texts!
Scalia's Casey dissent is incoherent (rare for him) because of his failure to think about the baby's life, or her legal status. He compares abortion to bigamy (suggesting that no baby is involved at all) and to slavery (suggesting that a baby has been legally dehumanized). Scalia has brought up pro-life arguments, but only as a hypothetical. He is apparently okay with Oregon or New Jersey killing newborns and the incompetent elderly.
Boxer's position--as vicious and callous as it is--is unanimous on the Court.
St. Croix: You are obviously attached to the law (and I am not) but do me one favor.
Explain to me how Griswold vs Connecticut was not a complete set-up, staged sham that led to Roe V Wade?
I have tons of evidence to argue that Griswold is a corrupted, politically motivated and egregious scam.
What do today's law schools teach about this insider job?
St. Croix - In case you don't answer (and I'd be amazed if you did) to my challenge on Griswold....
Do you not accept that Scalia has been and remains all over this scam?
Tell us now about Ginsberg's and the other progressive lib judges ruminations on infanticide.
We await.
We have vastly more people, who endure terrible suffering, yet who struggle intensely to survive, rather than give up.
Is this meant to be a moral argument? Or justification of your position.
I find your position immoral. You are required to suffer because of my beliefs.
And FYI, a major theme of the LOTR was that power corrupts. The corrupting power, in this case, was the ring.
Explain to me how Griswold vs Connecticut was not a complete set-up, staged sham that led to Roe V Wade?
Griswold is irrelevant, in my opinion. Liberals love to conflate the two cases. If you overturn Roe, you'll have to overturn Griswold, too!
No you don't. There are many unenumerated rights cases. We might object to all of these cases on anti-democratic grounds. But you don't have to. You can object to some and not others.
And of course the objections in Roe are far more serious. It's not just the anti-democratic nature of the opinion.
It's the baby-killing. It's the infanticide. It's defining people as property and outside the law.
That is (obviously) what is motivating the pro-life movement. The Supreme Court has ignored this criticism because to acknowledge it is to acknowledge the blood that is on their hands.
I have tons of evidence to argue that Griswold is a corrupted, politically motivated and egregious scam.
It doesn't matter. I think the Court would uphold Griswold on stare decisis grounds, maybe unanimously. And there's no state that wants to outlaw birth control. It's a non-issue.
What do today's law schools teach about this insider job?
Douglas' opinion is politely mocked.
Let's say we tried to ban abortion when it is for the purpose of sex selection. You'd have to extract the reason from the woman. How would you do that?
How do you prove race discrimination?
Or sex discrimination? It is, in fact, exactly the same as any other sex discrimination case. You prove it the same way.
The person who seeks to play God with another human being's life, defining for that person, with no input from that person, what is an appropriate level of "suffering" that third party should have to endure or not endure, arbitrarily at the whim of this person playing God, accuses another person who seeks only the non-execution of the third person, "immoral?"
Rebellion against God always is followed by arrogance and hubris on the part of the rebel, is it not? How dare I be denied the right to be God? You immoral person for denying me my divinity!
Use statistics! Liberals love 'em.
It violates federal law, by the way, to discriminate against the handicapped. Let alone murder them. Some people might want to call that a hate crime.
The power of the ring was in enabling the hubris, arrogance, and vanity of the wearer to be realized in the world through power over others.
Tolkien was a very religious man, well schooled in Catholicism. His most famous work is replete with examples of his understanding of Catholic theology.
At the Holocaust Museum they talk about the Murder of the Handicapped.
Probably just a coincidence.
"I find your position immoral. You are required to suffer because of my beliefs."
The best one could argue, I think, is that someone else doesn't have the right *for me* to decide if I must live and suffer.
In the case of abortion, though, you're making that choice for someone else, that *they'd* be better off dead.
There are serious philosophers and who-all making eugenic arguments from a "better off dead" position. Like Singer and some Duchess (IIRC) who either feel as though there ought to be the right to make even a post-birth decision that someone's life is not worth living (Singer says age 2?) or even to kill disabled persons who are older because they are suffering.
I could argue for your good that you not kill yourself while depressed and despondent because of your situation or physical pain. As Fox said, many people who try to kill themselves are glad when they fail. But it's still pushy, to try to keep someone from a permanent solution to what may be a temporary situation or a temporary feeling.
But deciding that someone not yourself is better off dead... that's a significant step farther.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন