Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ice · 03-22-2003, 11:35 PM

Please excuse me if I posted this in the wrong forum, and move this to the appropriate forum if I have. Thanks. I will learn where to post what as time goes by.

Oh, and also excuse me if this has been done before, but I didn't see any threads about what I'm about to discuss.

---

Since I'm only addressing this to pro-choicers, I'll assume all who reply in this thread support basic abortion.

---

We all agree that abortion (the basic procedure anyway, for those opposed to late-term and partial-birth abortions) is a right not to be denied to women. Most, if not all, are in agreement that a woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body, to decide for herself whether to carry a pregnancy to term or to abort it.

Would anyone protest against abortion decisions based on genetic makeup though? Seemingly, we don't when the fetus has a high/certain chance of carrying mutated genes which would arguably lower the quality of life for the potential/future person(s), like Down's Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.

However, I seem to hear much dissent when I asked if they would protest against abortion decisions based on the fetus' sex, sexuality (assuming that in the future genetic markers are found which determine/predispose one to one sexual inclination or another), race, eye colour, or other physically non-debilitative but (arguably) socially-debilitative attributes.

Are these acceptable dissent if one holds that women are the ultimate arbitrators of their own bodies and the spawn of their own bodies?

keyser_soze · 03-23-2003, 04:46 AM

They have obviously never seen the eyes of a 2 year old girl struggling to breath and not drown with that breath, to see the fear in their eyes as their hearts start failing, and after 6 months of suffering, the glazed look of the knowledge that they are about to die. Pro-birthers are fscking morons. It is a womans choice, bar-none. And in cases where the child would be malformed, or live a painful existance, abortion is the RIGHT thing to do. All pro-birthers can kiss my hairy back side.

Zulu · 03-23-2003, 06:13 AM

Ice,

I'd see no reason why not too, unless we get into a 'slippery slope' argument. It's a form of eugenics, to be sure, but I cannot see any reason why this kind of information should be withheld from the parents [which is in fact the question here].

-Zulu

Ice · 03-23-2003, 06:27 AM

keyser,

I'm actually not ranting against pro-lifers. I guess you see no problems at all then if a woman were to abort because the child would be (or have a higher chance of being) ugly, short, black or gay?

Zulu,

I already assume (sorry, should have said so) that the information is freely available.

Zulu · 03-23-2003, 06:35 AM

If it's available of course it should be allowed to be used.

That makes for no discussion.

The question is: SHOULD it be available?

-Zulu

keyser_soze · 03-23-2003, 07:29 AM

Ah, you mean for subjective traits. It is still a womans rights. I guess you are picturing a kind of gattaca world, and it makes you uncomfortable? Do not worry, such a thing could never happen to mankind, it's not in our nature to ALLOW perfection. We shy away from any such direction all too quickly.

Ice · 03-23-2003, 07:42 AM

Actually, it doesn't make me uncomfortable. In fact, I argue for it. If I want to support a right to abort, I support it unconditionally or it'll be prone to arbitrary decisions of when it is and is not okay.

Kintaro · 03-23-2003, 08:11 AM

Giving birth is like buying a car...... would you honestly want to invest more than you have on something without an engine (working heart), a steering wheel (brain), wheels (arms/legs), a good paint job (skin abnormalities, like excessive moles or inability to have sunlight, don't use race in this), and all the other machinery inside working 100 % (tank, piping, exhaust --> stomach, intestines, anus (and more)) ?

Buyer beware. Refusing to disclose car defects is illegal. Same should be for birth defects.

Ice · 03-23-2003, 09:08 AM

Kintaro - birth defects is automatically reported I would assume, unless we start re-classifying defects. However, is it okay for one to class homosexuality, skin colour, etc as potential defects? Or at least, less than desirable. Much like how you'd pick a silver coloured car over a lime-green one, or one with a sports muffler instead of without (assuming sports mufflers are standard equipment).

dk · 03-23-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ice
Kintaro - birth defects is automatically reported I would assume, unless we start re-classifying defects. However, is it okay for one to class homosexuality, skin colour, etc as potential defects? Or at least, less than desirable. Much like how you'd pick a silver coloured car over a lime-green one, or one with a sports muffler instead of without (assuming sports mufflers are standard equipment).

Actually because abortion is billed as personal choice, birth defects go unreported.

03-22-2003, 11:35 PM	#1
Ice Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 206	For Pro-Choicers Only: Abortion Based On Genetic Makeup Please excuse me if I posted this in the wrong forum, and move this to the appropriate forum if I have. Thanks. I will learn where to post what as time goes by. Oh, and also excuse me if this has been done before, but I didn't see any threads about what I'm about to discuss. --- Since I'm only addressing this to pro-choicers, I'll assume all who reply in this thread support basic abortion. --- We all agree that abortion (the basic procedure anyway, for those opposed to late-term and partial-birth abortions) is a right not to be denied to women. Most, if not all, are in agreement that a woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body, to decide for herself whether to carry a pregnancy to term or to abort it. Would anyone protest against abortion decisions based on genetic makeup though? Seemingly, we don't when the fetus has a high/certain chance of carrying mutated genes which would arguably lower the quality of life for the potential/future person(s), like Down's Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc. However, I seem to hear much dissent when I asked if they would protest against abortion decisions based on the fetus' sex, sexuality (assuming that in the future genetic markers are found which determine/predispose one to one sexual inclination or another), race, eye colour, or other physically non-debilitative but (arguably) socially-debilitative attributes. Are these acceptable dissent if one holds that women are the ultimate arbitrators of their own bodies and the spawn of their own bodies?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-23-2003, 04:46 AM	#2
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	They have obviously never seen the eyes of a 2 year old girl struggling to breath and not drown with that breath, to see the fear in their eyes as their hearts start failing, and after 6 months of suffering, the glazed look of the knowledge that they are about to die. Pro-birthers are fscking morons. It is a womans choice, bar-none. And in cases where the child would be malformed, or live a painful existance, abortion is the RIGHT thing to do. All pro-birthers can kiss my hairy back side.

03-23-2003, 06:13 AM	#3
Zulu Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 102	Ice, I'd see no reason why not too, unless we get into a 'slippery slope' argument. It's a form of eugenics, to be sure, but I cannot see any reason why this kind of information should be withheld from the parents [which is in fact the question here]. -Zulu

03-23-2003, 06:27 AM	#4
Ice Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 206	keyser, I'm actually not ranting against pro-lifers. I guess you see no problems at all then if a woman were to abort because the child would be (or have a higher chance of being) ugly, short, black or gay? Zulu, I already assume (sorry, should have said so) that the information is freely available.

03-23-2003, 06:35 AM	#5
Zulu Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 102	If it's available of course it should be allowed to be used. That makes for no discussion. The question is: SHOULD it be available? -Zulu

03-23-2003, 07:29 AM	#6
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	Ah, you mean for subjective traits. It is still a womans rights. I guess you are picturing a kind of gattaca world, and it makes you uncomfortable? Do not worry, such a thing could never happen to mankind, it's not in our nature to ALLOW perfection. We shy away from any such direction all too quickly.

03-23-2003, 07:42 AM	#7
Ice Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 206	Actually, it doesn't make me uncomfortable. In fact, I argue for it. If I want to support a right to abort, I support it unconditionally or it'll be prone to arbitrary decisions of when it is and is not okay.

03-23-2003, 08:11 AM	#8
Kintaro Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 247	Giving birth is like buying a car...... would you honestly want to invest more than you have on something without an engine (working heart), a steering wheel (brain), wheels (arms/legs), a good paint job (skin abnormalities, like excessive moles or inability to have sunlight, don't use race in this), and all the other machinery inside working 100 % (tank, piping, exhaust --> stomach, intestines, anus (and more)) ? Buyer beware. Refusing to disclose car defects is illegal. Same should be for birth defects.

03-23-2003, 09:08 AM	#9
Ice Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 206	Kintaro - birth defects is automatically reported I would assume, unless we start re-classifying defects. However, is it okay for one to class homosexuality, skin colour, etc as potential defects? Or at least, less than desirable. Much like how you'd pick a silver coloured car over a lime-green one, or one with a sports muffler instead of without (assuming sports mufflers are standard equipment).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.