Father Chooses Baby With Down Syndrome Over Wife

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

isn't there a possibility that a lack of understanding of the suffering actually improves quality of life? if you don't know what you're missing, are you really missing it? like you said, it's not black and white at all, but from my view I'd have to say any life is better than no life

So what you are saying is that ignorance truly is bliss?

[RazorStar 4,025]

Abortion is such a difficult topic that there really is no side that can be considered right or wrong. However I'm of the mind that freedom is the highest priority of the individual, and that there should always be an option available to the parents. I'm not saying abort all the fetuses, but if there is a reason why you cannot justify supporting a child, you probably shouldn't be bringing a child into this world.

 

Also, murder is not a black and white issue. If it was, why would there be discussions on the death penalty? Why can a cop kill someone who is trying to kill them (Or for the jaded, why can a cop kill whomever they want?). To answer Thanatos' question about the difference between killing a child in the womb and on the hospital bed is X hours of labour. From what I hear there is no more painful feeling than pregnancy, so why should someone be subjected to that many hours of torture if they were not going to love the child unconditionally?

 

As disgusting and completely abhorrent this sounds, even to me... I think that should be an option. If both parents (or just the one if the father bailed before then) can look at their child and say "we don't want him or her", it could be justified to kill it. If it would just be abandoned to die anyway or neglected for the rest of it's life, it'd be a mercy. Now I've gone and made myself depressed.

[BwareDWare94 723]

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

 

If its a human being, it doesn't matter. Nothing else matters- unless you are willing to say you'd make the same choice for a child who was just born who had Downs. Peter Singer would agree with that stance, for one, so its not unheard of.

 

But if the child is a human, all the nice sentiments in the world about being able to live well or live life fully doesn't matter one whit. You're murdering a human. It is, in fact, a black and white issue.

 

- Then this is a fundamental disagreement that we just wouldn't be able to get past. Nothing is ever black and white. I'm a bit surprised that you see it that way. You're obviously a highly-educated person who is capable of thinking of things from many viewpoints. I am surprised that you would close yourself off to other possibilities, even in a topic where you have strong feelings on the matter. There is always a gray area whether a disease-ridden life is better than no life at all. As I said before, even us healthy people suffer a lot in life, even if we are happy and healthy for the most part. I can't imagine going all throughout my life being so unaware of what life really has to offer. I can totally understand why some people might choose to abort a child if he or she would only live a life of pain and suffering.

 

 

You, uh, kinda cut off the part in dashes there. Nothing else matters UNLESS you are willing to say... etc.

 

Otherwise, your stance doesn't make logical sense and isn't coherent in itself.

 

Premise 1) A fetus is a very young human being.

Premise 2) Killing very young human beings, just because they have a debilitating mental disease, is wrong.

 

Therefore: Killing a fetus, merely because they have a debilitating disease, is wrong.

 

You would have to argue that either A) The fetus is not in fact a human being, or B) It is okay, in certain cases, to kill off infants because they have a terrible mental disease.

 

I don't really see any other way to come at it.

 

@Razor: Sure, but two things. A) Drugs can help with the pain. B) You're weighing this pain against a human life.

 

I'm all for a debate over whether its a human, but I don't see how if it is a human there is any other option here.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

 

 

You would have to argue that either A) The fetus is not in fact a human being, or B) It is okay, in certain cases, to kill off infants because they have a terrible mental disease.

 

 

 

If you read my post, that's exactly one of the things I said.

[GA_Eagle 595]

 

If you read my post, that's exactly one of the things I said.

Hmmm something something nazis. Hitler, Godwin... Blah blah eugenics.

[Cherry 1,302]

Thanatos, I'm curious, what is your belief on abortion during a pregnancy caused by rape?

 

In regards to the "is it a human yet?" discussion.

 

I think claiming it's a human being at conception or not a human being until birth are both wildly inaccurate claims. It's based on the scientific definitions, not personal opinion, that allows the current abortion laws to exist.

 

The majority of pro-life arguments are solely based around the idea that it's a human at conception, not based on scientific definition.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Chernobyl426

[Thanatos 2,847]

Naw, my position on when it becomes a human is as follows:

 

If no outside interference occurs, it will by default become a human being. Does it become a human when the egg and the sperm collide? Hard to consider that group of cells a human... but when does it occur? Does it occur when it starts to look like a human? When it has a heartbeat?

 

If, and this is the place we are currently at, we don't *know* when it becomes a human, why are we not erring on the side of caution? If people are wrong, as I believe they are, and fetuses are humans, we have murdered over 50 million infants over the course of the last forty years. We should be like, woah, we don't know when these things become humans exactly, how about we not kill them at all until we are sure we aren't killing a human being!

 

When's the scientific definition? Princeton claims that life begins at conception. I've never heard another scientific claim, actually.

 

When does that life become human? It certainly immediately is a potential human. When is it classed as an actual human? This doesn't seem to be cut and dry at all. Here's a paper written by Dr. Condic that claims it happens at the moment of conception. While this opinion is certainly not shared 100%, there is nothing that I see that claims anything like an ability to abort at 3 months. Certainly, at the very least, once we can detect a heartbeat, it is a functioning, alive, being of some sort, and should cease to be able to be killed.

 

As far as rape goes, it is an exceedingly difficult question because you are forcing the victim of a crime to continue suffering from that crime for nine months, a punishment they did nothing to deserve and which could psychologically scar them for a very long time. While I personally would still weigh the life of a human over that in the majority of cases, I am not going to put that into law, if I had that power, because of the fact that the woman is a blameless victim in this matter. It is too hard for me to say that all women should be forced to bear rape pregnancies to term. So I'd be okay with an exception being made.

 

It is important to note that over 95% of all abortions are done not because of fear for the life of the mother, or incest, or rape. These are very small percentages. Outlawing abortion merely because its convenient would stop the overwhelming majority of abortions, so I'm not going to get stuck on a small percentage of abortions that the left uses to paint pro-lifers as radicals. Passing a law with exceptions for incest, rape, and life of the mother is an acceptable compromise.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Thanatos19

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

If you read my post, that's exactly one of the things I said.

 

The problem with this scenario is you, (generic you) are making the choice for them. Based on what? What you would think in that situation? Personally, I'd rather exist than not.

[blotsfan 2,112]

It is important to note that over 95% of all abortions are done not because of fear for the life of the mother, or incest, or rape. These are very small percentages. Outlawing abortion merely because its convenient would stop the overwhelming majority of abortions, so I'm not going to get stuck on a small percentage of abortions that the left uses to paint pro-lifers as radicals. Passing a law with exceptions for incest, rape, and life of the mother is an acceptable compromise.

 

What actually happens is that women get black market abortions which are a lot more dangerous and painful. This happened before abortion was legalized and is actually happening again in the states where they've effectively removed all of the clinics.

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

What actually happens is that women get black market abortions which are a lot more dangerous and painful. This happened before abortion was legalized and is actually happening again in the states where they've effectively removed all of the clinics.

 

If you are arguing that we shouldn't outlaw abortion because women will still get them, just in less safe ways, that argument holds no water and is entirely nonsensical.

 

"We shouldn't outlaw murder because people will still kill each other, they'll just do it in less safe ways."

"We shouldn't outlaw stealing because people will still do so, and they'll bring guns to do it, and people might get hurt."

 

It's utterly irrelevant to the morality of the issue.

 

If you are simply pointing out what does occur, then yes, that is a sad thing, but two things. A) The number of women who get back-alley abortions is undoubtedly far far less than the number of women who would get normal abortions and B) yes, this can result in some women receiving injuries and/or death, which is a horrible thing to have happen, but if the fetus is a human, then they are actively engaging in killing another human. You can't use this logic to allow abortion to remain legal since it would hold for any other crime.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Thanatos19

[oochymp 2,393]

 

If you are arguing that we shouldn't outlaw abortion because women will still get them, just in less safe ways, that argument holds no water and is entirely nonsensical.

 

"We shouldn't outlaw murder because people will still kill each other, they'll just do it in less safe ways."

"We shouldn't outlaw stealing because people will still do so, and they'll bring guns to do it, and people might get hurt."

 

It's utterly irrelevant to the morality of the issue.

 

If you are simply pointing out what does occur, then yes, that is a sad thing, but two things. A) The number of women who get back-alley abortions is undoubtedly far far less than the number of women who would get normal abortions and B) yes, this can result in some women receiving injuries and/or death, which is a horrible thing to have happen, but if the fetus is a human, then they are actively engaging in killing another human. You can't use this logic to allow abortion to remain legal since it would hold for any other crime.

but when you compare abortions to actions like murder and theft you're treating abortions as inherently harmful which is only true if you consider the fetus a human at conception, and most people don't agree with that premise

[BwareDWare94 723]

There's more to it than just "is the fetus a human being?" in my opinion.

 

If you don't want children, don't be careless with sex. Do we honestly think that most aborted fetuses are the result of unprotected sex while the female partner is on BC? No. That's not statistically possible if BC is as effective as it claims to be.

 

I think the common sense deduction here is that too many people have sex with no contraceptive in place to prevent pregnancies.

 

To knowingly do such a thing regularly, and to expect that a pregnancy will not eventually result from that, is pure stupidity. And then to decide to end the pregnancy altogether, whether it is a human life or not, is so incredibly selfish.

 

When you factor in how carelessly people have sex, many abortions are absolutely abhorrent.

 

Yes, condoms suck. There's no way around that statement. They take away much of the sensation and many of us (myself included, and I'm sorry if this is TMI) eventually react to the latex. Well, guess what? If my partner isn't on birth control, I'll wrap it and get half of the experience. Just my two cents.

 

Don't knowingly have sex with no contraceptives in place and then feel justified in aborting the fetus that is the result of it.

 

This isn't a generalization. This is putting two and two together.

Edited February 15, 2015 by BwareDWare94

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

But see... Is it really your problem or issue to deal with? If you are at the point where it either doesn't matter to you if the fetus is a person or not or if you are at the point where you believe it isn't yet a person, is it really any of your business?

Personally, I find abortion in general to be pretty ridiculous. I don't like the thought of it, I don't like the thought of other people getting them. It's a practice I very much do not like. However, I am very firm in believing deeply in individual liberties / freedoms / rights. So while abortion isn't something I would ever advocate, I find it hard for me to tell other people not to do it. It just doesn't seem like my place, it doesn't seem like it's any of my business. I have no right to rule over other peoples lives and interfere like that.

Again, that's under the assumption that the fetus is not a person. I usually lean in the direction that the fetus is a human at conception. I see no reason why it wouldn't be (just my personal belief). But that opens up a whole new set of dilemmas for me. Say the fetus is a person... While I still want to stay out of the mothers business and don't want to interfere... The fetus now too should have some sort of 'rights', so to speak. Then you get into this big debate about whose rights are more important and really if ANYONE should be making the decision to abort the child. You let people have their own individual liberty and freedom just as long as they don't infringe on the individual freedoms and liberties of another individual -- which I am prone to believing is the case when a mother makes the decision to abort.

And then you have the golden exceptions... Things like rape. Who in the bloody hell would force a child and baby onto a woman / family / etc after she had been raped? I sure hope not many people. And that leads me down an even darker road... IF I am somebody who believes the fetus is a person, and that aborting is murder -- why am I all of a sudden okay with murdering a child conceived through rape? It's a terrible situation, but it's still 'murder' so to speak. So, if I can make a justification in that scenario where a mother doesn't want her child and is free of her choosing to kill it, what kind of position am I in to deny the killing of a child a mother doesn't want in any other situation?

And that is why abortion provides more gray area for me than any other political issue out there. I can literally argue with myself or anyone else for or against every side of the coin. I see merits and flaws with all of it...

[Sarge+ 3,436]

But see... Is it really your problem or issue to deal with? If you are at the point where it either doesn't matter to you if the fetus is a person or not or if you are at the point where you believe it isn't yet a person, is it really any of your business?

 

Personally, I find abortion in general to be pretty ridiculous. I don't like the thought of it, I don't like the thought of other people getting them. It's a practice I very much do not like. However, I am very firm in believing deeply in individual liberties / freedoms / rights. So while abortion isn't something I would ever advocate, I find it hard for me to tell other people not to do it. It just doesn't seem like my place, it doesn't seem like it's any of my business. I have no right to rule over other peoples lives and interfere like that.

 

Again, that's under the assumption that the fetus is not a person. I usually lean in the direction that the fetus is a human at conception. I see no reason why it wouldn't be (just my personal belief). But that opens up a whole new set of dilemmas for me. Say the fetus is a person... While I still want to stay out of the mothers business and don't want to interfere... The fetus now too should have some sort of 'rights', so to speak. Then you get into this big debate about whose rights are more important and really if ANYONE should be making the decision to abort the child. You let people have their own individual liberty and freedom just as long as they don't infringe on the individual freedoms and liberties of another individual -- which I am prone to believing is the case when a mother makes the decision to abort.

 

And then you have the golden exceptions... Things like rape. Who in the bloody hell would force a child and baby onto a woman / family / etc after she had been raped? I sure hope not many people. And that leads me down an even darker road... IF I am somebody who believes the fetus is a person, and that aborting is murder -- why am I all of a sudden okay with murdering a child conceived through rape? It's a terrible situation, but it's still 'murder' so to speak. So, if I can make a justification in that scenario where a mother doesn't want her child and is free of her choosing to kill it, what kind of position am I in to deny the killing of a child a mother doesn't want in any other situation?

 

And that is why abortion provides more gray area for me than any other political issue out there. I can literally argue with myself or anyone else for or against every side of the coin. I see merits and flaws with all of it...

 

More or less, this is basically my entire point in this thread. You just went into more details with different scenarios.

[Thanatos 2,847]

but when you compare abortions to actions like murder and theft you're treating abortions as inherently harmful which is only true if you consider the fetus a human at conception, and most people don't agree with that premise

 

This is true oochymp. My point is that if you do believe a fetus is a human, then the argument that abortions will occur anyway, just in less safe ways, is meaningless. If its a crime, then whether or not that will still occur if its outlawed does not have any bearing on whether or not we should outlaw abortion. Its a nonsensical argument.

 

Nor does it follow that you have to believe that a fetus is a human at the instant of conception to also believe abortion is most of the time a moral wrong. We abort after the ability to detect a heartbeat, (18 days in one case, though it varies from infant to infant), for example, and the majority of polls I am looking at, even *international* ones, show that roughly 50% of the respondents either believe that the fetus is a human at the instant of conception, or when a heartbeat is detected. This one in particular has 46.2% of respondents saying that a fetus is a human at conception, (22.7%) or when a heartbeat is detected, (23.5%).

 

As for the US "most people" at least the majority, agree.

 

There are several polls that use numbers such as the following: 59% of Americans believe human life begins at conception as of 2008. 46% believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, and 12% believe that when an embryo is implanted in the woman's uterus, then human life begins.

 

Here's you a question, oochymp, as a lawyer, (-in-training, maybe? Can't remember if you finished law school yet or not.)

 

How can you justify charging someone with a double homicide for murdering a newly pregnant woman, as we have done multiple times in America, and then not say that the fetus is a human being? Does the mother's intent to carry the child to term- or our assumption that she was going to do so, since she is now dead and unable to tell us the truth- actually turn the child from a mere lifeform into a human? Does her intent not to kill that child, immediately make that child a human being and others subject to criminal prosecution for harming it? Yet another mother makes a decision to kill her child and so since her intent is not to bring it to term, it becomes a mere lifeform and does not become a human? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. It seems a convenient loophole so we can prosecute the repulsive individuals who would kill a pregnant woman with everything we have. The logical conclusion to me is that if the child is considered a human in such an instance, it is a human in all instances.

 

Heck, people have been prosecuted for punching a pregnant woman and the unborn child was harmed during this assault. But if a doctor does it at the asking of the woman, and performs far more violent actions upon the fetus, then it is perfectly okay, morally and legally?

Edited February 22, 2015 by Thanatos19

[Thanatos 2,847]

I've got another food for thought question here.

 

Let's assume for a moment, that a fetus is not a human, but merely a living being.

 

Why does that give a human being the right to end their life on a whim? I'm, rightfully, not allowed to kill my roomate's dog because he howls at odd hours missing his owner. The idea doesn't cross my mind, (seriously at least. Fuck that dog.) Why? Because its morally wrong to kill a living being like a pet merely at my whimsy. I only euthanize a pet to spare them untold pain.

 

So why is it different for a fetus?

[Thanatos 2,847]

Apologies for the triple post but these are different topics I'm bringing up here.

 

Here is the the hinge on which a pro-choice argument rests and which I would argue they do not actually possess. A definition of personhood. What is a person?

 

Define what a person is in such a way that it excludes a fetus and not anything else- i.e. infants, old people, etc.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I would have such a hard time not killing a roommate's pet if said pet was obnoxious and howled at odd hours. It's not my job to put up with it. It's his/her job to train it not to do such things.

[oochymp 2,393]

How can you justify charging someone with a double homicide for murdering a newly pregnant woman, as we have done multiple times in America, and then not say that the fetus is a human being? Does the mother's intent to carry the child to term- or our assumption that she was going to do so, since she is now dead and unable to tell us the truth- actually turn the child from a mere lifeform into a human? Does her intent not to kill that child, immediately make that child a human being and others subject to criminal prosecution for harming it? Yet another mother makes a decision to kill her child and so since her intent is not to bring it to term, it becomes a mere lifeform and does not become a human? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. It seems a convenient loophole so we can prosecute the repulsive individuals who would kill a pregnant woman with everything we have. The logical conclusion to me is that if the child is considered a human in such an instance, it is a human in all instances.

 

Heck, people have been prosecuted for punching a pregnant woman and the unborn child was harmed during this assault. But if a doctor does it at the asking of the woman, and performs far more violent actions upon the fetus, then it is perfectly okay, morally and legally?

first off, I did finish law school, passed the bar exam, and I'm joining a firm next week to start doing real lawyer work

 

now that that's out of the way, a lot of those cases I believe are based on specific statutory definitions that include such injuries to a fetus in the definition of murder and I think the usual justification is to give extra deterrence against assaulting pregnant women more than to establish that the fetus is a human

[Thanatos 2,847]

Congratulations, dude! Well done.

 

As for the topic, I don't see how that justifies a double homicide charge then. It should be automatically aggravated assault or something like that. They charge people with a double murder here. Just doesn't make sense if the fetus is not a human being.

I would have such a hard time not killing a roommate's pet if said pet was obnoxious and howled at odd hours. It's not my job to put up with it. It's his/her job to train it not to do such things.

 

That's, um, kinda awful. You'd actually kill a dog because it howled sometimes? And you think you'd be justified in doing so?

[oochymp 2,393]

unfortunately the only answer I can give for that is that when a legislature decides to statutorily define something it doesn't have to make any logical sense, and my guess is that the legislators who introduced those sorts of bills would probably like to see abortions barred but could only get enough support for this type of measure, here's a good write up of various state laws on the question:

 

Fetal Homicide State Laws

[BwareDWare94 723]

Congratulations, dude! Well done.

 

As for the topic, I don't see how that justifies a double homicide charge then. It should be automatically aggravated assault or something like that. They charge people with a double murder here. Just doesn't make sense if the fetus is not a human being.

 

That's, um, kinda awful. You'd actually kill a dog because it howled sometimes? And you think you'd be justified in doing so?

 

Would I actually do it? Probably not, but if my roommate refused to train and discipline his or her pet, there'd be major consequences, including the "put real effort into fixing this or move out" ultimatum.

 

It's not my problem. It's theirs.

 

I'm a farmer AND rancher. I love animals. I spoke a little too harshly before, but if I could not sleep due to an animal howling all the time, I would likely start to either A. Train it myself or B. Threaten to take it to a shelter without my roommate's consent.

Edited February 22, 2015 by BwareDWare94

[blotsfan 2,112]

I've got another food for thought question here.

 

Let's assume for a moment, that a fetus is not a human, but merely a living being.

 

Why does that give a human being the right to end their life on a whim? I'm, rightfully, not allowed to kill my roomate's dog because he howls at odd hours missing his owner. The idea doesn't cross my mind, (seriously at least. Fuck that dog.) Why? Because its morally wrong to kill a living being like a pet merely at my whimsy. I only euthanize a pet to spare them untold pain.

 

So why is it different for a fetus?

 

You kill animals to eat them. You can't kill people to eat them. Non-people are different than people.

 

 

Apologies for the triple post but these are different topics I'm bringing up here.

 

Here is the the hinge on which a pro-choice argument rests and which I would argue they do not actually possess. A definition of personhood. What is a person?

 

Define what a person is in such a way that it excludes a fetus and not anything else- i.e. infants, old people, etc.

 

Its a person when its born. Before then, its a fetus.

[BwareDWare94 723]

 

You kill animals to eat them. You can't kill people to eat them. Non-people are different than people.

 

 

 

Its a person when its born. Before then, its a fetus.

 

Well, like Thanatos said, how can a Double Homicide occur when a pregnant woman is killed?

 

It's not as black and white as you stated it. It's horribly political. Nearly every study or poll released has stood firmly on the pro-choice or pro-life side. There's no real data from anything that had no prior bias.